Work changes and employee perceptions of co-worker flexible work policy use: a moderated mediation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present research aims to understand how and why flexible work arrangement (FWA) policy use by co-workers affects policy non-users by investigating perceived changes to work, fairness and organizational identification as factors that shape policy non-users’ job satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach A survey was distributed to 300 Canadian respondents solicited from an online panel owned by Qualtrics Inc. Hypotheses were developed and tested using a moderating mediation model. SPSS Macro Process (Hayes) was used to test the hypotheses. Findings This survey found that perceiving negative changes to work stemming from co-worker FWA use corresponded to policy non-user job satisfaction, fairness dimensions mediated this effect and organizational identification moderated the relationship driven by interactional fairness. Policy non-users who care most about organizations seem to be most vulnerable to the negative consequences associated with co-worker FWA policy use. Originality/value FWA use has been linked to many positive outcomes for policy users. However, the workplace adjustments that occur to accommodate policy use by co-workers could also have implications for policy non-users. This study explores the effects of FWA policy use by co-workers on policy non-users job satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".