See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363311874

The impact of autonomy and temporal flexibility on individuals' psychological

well-being in remote settings

Article in Sinergie Italian Journal of Management · September 2022

DOI: 10.7433/s118.2022.15

CITATIONS READS

2 418

4 authors:

Gabriele Boccoli Andrea Sestino

Politecnico di Milano Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
3 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 799 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Luca Gastaldi Mariano Corso

Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
130 PUBLICATIONS 1,193 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 2,509 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Sestino on 06 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The impact of autonomy and temporal flexibility Received
3rd December 2021

on individuals’ psychological well-being in remote Revised

17th March 2022

settings1 Accepted
21st July 2022

Gabriele Boccoli - Andrea Sestino - Luca Gastaldi

Mariano Corso

Abstract

Purpose of the paper: This empirical study investigates the relationship between
job autonomy, temporal flexibility and the psychological well-being of employees,
as represented by work engagement and job satisfaction, and mediated by work-life
balance within a forced remote working context.
Methodology: A quantitative approach was adopted. The data was gathered
through a survey administered to 1,550 workers during the lockdown and analyzed
through Structural Equation Modelling.
Findings: We show that temporal flexibility and job autonomy enhance the work-
life balance of employees and, through the mediation of this construct, positively affect
the psychological well-being of employees, measured in terms of work engagement
and job satisfaction.
Research limits: The present research presents some limitations from both
theoretical and methodological perspectives. Although temporal flexibility directly
impacts work-life balance, this relationship could also be examined through the
mediating role of job autonomy. The measure scales adopted in the scientific literature
were modified in line with the guidelines provided by the investigated organization,
thus partially changing their robustness.
Practical implications: Our research also provides useful implications for
managers who must tackle the challenges of remote working that emerged during
the pandemic and will characterize the new conception of normal after COVID-19.
Originality of the paper: This study is the first to investigate the impact of the
only factors related to flexibility that were experienced by employees during lockdown
on two components of psychological well-being, i.e. work engagement and job
satisfaction, through work-life balance.

Key words: job autonomy; temporal flexibility; work engagement; job satisfaction;
boundary theory; well-being; forced remote working

1
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Laura Lombardo for her support in
data analysis.
Declaration of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
Paragraphing: While this paper is the result of the combined reflections of the
authors, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, are written by Gabriele Boccoli, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5
are written by Andrea Sestino, while the supervision and final editing have
been performed by Luca Gastaldi and Mariano Corso
327
sinergie
italian journal of management
1. Introduction

Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 COVID-19 forced employees to stay and work at home in the attempt
to reduce social contact and contagions, thus dramatically reshaping
individuals’ lives (Wang et al., 2021), and imposing the adoption of
remote working practices (Hu, 2020; Kniffin, 2020). This scenario entailed
negative impacts on employees’ work-life balance, often generating an
intensification of work (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010) that affected their
psychological well-being (Prasada et al., 2020). Distress, depression, and
anxiety, fuelled by high levels of uncertainty and social isolation, led to a
rapid deterioration not only of working conditions (Pirzadeh and Lingard,
2021), but also of individual commitment and performance (Ozcelik and
Barsade, 2018).
More specifically, forced remote working has led individuals to
experience more integration between their work and family roles. The
transition from one social identity to another one generally requires low
contrast in roles and permeable and flexible boundaries (Ashforth et
al., 2000). Professional and family roles are usually highly differentiated
and characterized by few cross-role interruptions (Nippert-Eng, 1996).
As a consequence of the integration of these roles, employees may have
experienced work-family conflicts, resulting in the risk of no longer
being able to properly engage in their own professional roles. During the
pandemic, this situation was mainly enabled by the fact that individuals
had to perform their professional role in their own home, i.e. the physical
environment in which they usually only perform their family role.
Not all employees, however, experienced these negative issues. Several
individuals reported some benefits deriving by forced telework (Hu,
2020), e.g. highlighting the extreme reduction in commuting times, safer
working environment, and increased time for family and leisure activities
(Murmura and Bravi, 2021; Pirzadeh and Lingard, 2021). For instance, a
study conducted by Ferdous and colleagues (2021) on 293 employees of an
Australian for-profit organization demonstrated that the implementation
of flexible practices is positively associated with the well-being and
negatively associated with turnover intention of employees thanks to a
greater work-life balance.
Which factors discriminate between these two scenarios? This paper
aims to answer this question by showing that temporal flexibility and job
autonomy enhance the work-life balance of employees and, through the
mediation of this construct, positively affect their psychological well-
being, measured in terms of work engagement and job satisfaction.
We contribute to organizational behaviour literature in two main ways.
First, we highlight how flexible practices may positively influence the
psychological well-being of employees through a good balance of work
and private life within a forced remote working context. We suggest that
temporal flexibility, combined with job autonomy, may mitigate all the
issues connected to the integration of roles and the related work—family
conflicts that could arise while working at home. On one hand, we suppose
that temporal flexibility may decrease the blurring of roles generated by
working in the same space in which we live on a daily basis (Ashforth

328
et al., 2000). On the other hand, we believe that job autonomy may help Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
individuals smoothly transition from a social role to another. Secondly, Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
we demonstrate that the work-life balance generated through these forms The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
of flexibility could lead individuals to higher levels of psychological well- individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
being. Past studies argued that when individuals work from home they settings

may encounter difficulties in engaging in their professional roles as well as

being satisfied with their jobs (Rothbard et al., 2005 Ashforth et al., 2000).
Our results show that temporal flexibility and job autonomy have helped
individuals to handle their social roles, which in turn resulted in achieving
better levels of psychological well-being. Finally, we provide suggestions for
managers who intend to fosteremployees’ psychological well-being within
remote settings by exploring the hedonic and eudaimonic connotation of
working activities.
The paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we present
some fundamental concepts that were considered in our research and the
hypotheses we tested. Then, we describe the methods through which we
assessed these hypotheses. In the fifth section, the results are presented
to introduce implications for practitioners and academics. Finally, we
conclude our paper by highlighting some limitations of our work, together
with some suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Role transitions and the relevance of work-life balance

By forcing remote working, COVID-19 highlighted the need to better

understand how to reconcile professional and personal life. The pandemic
forced individuals to work from home, thus pushing them to integrate job
and family roles.
Role identities are social constructions that refer to the goals, values,
beliefs, norms and interaction styles that are connected to a specific role
played by an individual within a group and/or institution (Stryker, 1980).
In line with boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000), the integration of
job and family roles experienced by employees during the pandemic may
have generated the blurring of roles and possible work-family conflicts
(Rothbard et al., 2005). The low permeability and flexibility characterizing
job and family roles may lead individuals to encounter difficulties in
handling this situation. The transition of individuals into their professional
role within the physical environment that is designated to their family role
may have led employees to have encounter difficulties in engaging in their
professional roles (Ashforth et al., 2000). At the same time, such difficulties
may lead individuals to gain less satisfaction from their job.
In other words, forced remote working has generated a situation in
which individuals had to concurrently perform professional and family
roles, thus causing potential difficulties in balancing them.
Work-life balance, intended as the ability to balance the work and
private spheres, represents one of the main factors that influence job
satisfaction (Lookwood, 2003) and has therefore drawn great attention

329
sinergie
italian journal of management
from managerial research (see Sirgy and Lee, 2018). This construct has a
double definition: one in terms of enriching satisfaction and the other in
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 reducing conflicts. The first is defined as “achieving satisfying experiences in
all life domains, and to do so requires personal resources such as energy, time,
and commitment to be well distributed across domains” (Kirchmeyer, 2000,
p. 81). However, a person’s domain is composed of several spheres that
might be in conflict if they are not managed properly. As stated by Sirgy
and Lee (2018) in fact, work-life balance is “a high level of engagement in
work life as well as nonwork life with minimal conflict between social roles in
work and nonwork life” (p. 232).
Studies have demonstrated that when employees are able to reduce
conflicts in their social roles, thus showing high levels of work-life balance,
they achieve positive personal outcomes (Sirgy and Lee, 2018). Being
engaged in work life is not sufficient. There must be an equal engagement
in non-work life (Voydanoff, 2005). On the other hand, role conflict
reflects the degree to which role responsibilities in two life domains
are incompatible (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) and that resources are
used to meet the demands of one role at the expense of another (Sirgy
and Lee, 2018). Individuals with a high engagement in different life
domains experience an augmentation of power, prestige, resources, and
emotional gratification from their multiple roles (Sieber, 1974). These
roles give a sense of role privileges, overall status security, resources for
status enhancement, enrichment of the personality, and ego gratification
(Sieber, 1974). Thus, individuals that are highly engaged both in non-work
and work life can access resources that are not available to those who are
mostly focused on work life (Rozario et al. 2004). Individuals who perceive
having more control over their work, more schedule flexibility, and more
support from their employers, may exert better work-life balance (Kinman
and Jones, 2008). Several studies (e.g., Mas-Machuca et al., 2016) confirm
this consideration by demonstrating how employee work-life balance is
positively related to work engagement (Haar et al., 2014).
Based on the above, we predict that organizational factors, such as
employees’ autonomy and time flexibility, may impact work engagement
and job satisfaction. However, we also suggest that individual-related
psychological factors may influence such relationships, especially in terms
of work-life balance, in assuring a positive mental state and psychological
well-being in personal and work life. Accordingly, in the following sections,
the possible variables influencing this relationship are discussed, together
with the main hypotheses building our conceptual framework.

2.1 Flexible work arrangements and temporal flexibility

The introduction of more flexible work arrangements has become an

important managerial objective (Deery and Mahony, 1994). Recently, the
increase in flexibility at work has been one of the most interesting trends
for scientific and managerial practices, which showed that flexibility has
a positive impact on the achievement of organizational goals (e.g., as in
Beltrán-Martín et al., 2008).

330
 The concept of work flexibility, from a holistic perspective, may be Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
reconducted to the possibility of managing one’s own work in terms of space Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
and time (for a review on this, see Kumar et al. 2021). More specifically, The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
the literature refers to flexible work arrangements as the “work options that individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
permit flexibility in terms of where work is completed, often referred to as settings

telecommuting or flexplace, and/or when work is completed, often referred to

as flextime or scheduling flexibility” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 345).
One of the major benefits of flexibility is an increase inwork-life
balance, since flexible work arrangements enable employees to decide how
and where to allocate their time, attention, and energy resources, thus
reducing the strain of balancing different life roles (Allen et al., 2013).
More specifically, temporal flexibility could refer to the concept of flexible
working hours, which includes a series of sub-concepts such as schedule
flexibility, flextime, telecommuting, and shift work (Michel et al., 2011).
Flextime provides the freedom to manage working hours in relation to
employees’ personal needs (Baltes et al., 1999). Schedule flexibility, instead,
is more based on days off and working days. Among the most widespread
forms, agile work (or smart working) is a method of execution of the
employment relationship characterized by the absence of time or spatial
constraints (Raguseo et al, 2016; Neirotti et al., 2019) and an organization
of work based on phases, cycles, and objectives that are established by
means of an agreement between employees and employers (e.g. as in
Mubaroq et al., 2020); coworking is a working style that involves sharing a
work environment (e.g., an office) while maintaining independent activity
(e.g., as in Amir, 2020); and time flexibility, consisting in the possibility
of managing one’s working hours independently, allows a fairer and more
sustainable distribution of the workload and discourages obsessive work,
which is never highly productive (Bal and De Lange, 2015).
Thus, flexible working approaches may allow employees to vary the
starting and finishing time of of their work day, and choose when to do
overtime or take a day off. Both companies and employees can benefit from
this practice. Offering temporal flexibility may signal that the organization
is supportive of employees’ personal needs (Casper and Buffardi, 2004).
This opportunity may create more attractiveness and increase employees’
well-being. In fact, organizations that provide temporal flexibility are
perceived as more attractive than organizations that do not offer it (Schmoll
and Süß, 2019). Flexible working-time arrangements increase job security
and flextime policies are likely to provide employees with a greater sense
of control (Kossek et al., 2006). This may promote better work-life balance
by allowing employees to vary their schedules according to their personal
needs (Kossek et al., 2006).
Moreover, previous literature reveals the positive influence of time
flexibility on business performance (Bray et al., 2018). Time flexibility
positively influences work engagement, productivity (Baltes et al., 1999),
job satisfaction and organizational commitment by increasing the work-
life balance and helping workers feel more autonomous and valued
(MacEachen et al., 2008). Allen et al. (2013) highlighted that temporal
flexibility is most strongly related to the achievement of work-life balance
(Allen et al., 2013) by enabling employees to better manage their other

331
sinergie
italian journal of management
spheres of interest, reduce the time they spend commuting to and from the
workplace, and increase personal productivity.
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 Nevertheless, some scholars do not consider this kind of flexibility as
a direct means to achieve work-life balance, but rather a more an indirect
one. More specifically, employees’ work-live balance is achieved thanks
to the autonomy deriving from the ability to choose when to work, and
therefore does not lie in time flexibility itself (Amir, 2000; Clark, 2001;
Bohen and Viveros-Long, 1981). Most of the studies that have focused
on the relationship between temporal flexibility and work-life balance
have investigated this connection in combination with spatial flexibility
(Allen et al., 2000; Allen et al., 2013). We suppose that also during the
pandemic, when employees were forced to stay at home and experienced
only temporal flexibility, this relationship could have been valid. Thus, we
predict that:

H1. Temporal flexibility positively influences individuals’ work-life

balance in a remote working context.

2.2 Job autonomy

Individuals’ autonomy has been recognized as one of the basic human

needs and an important driver of intrinsic motivation and well-being
(Ryan and Deci, 2000). Autonomy is one of the five core job-related
characteristics, together with variety, task identity, task significance,
and feedback of work enrichment (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). Job
autonomy is characterized by two main aspects. The first concerns the level
of autonomy that workers need to control the conditions of their own work,
namely operational flexibility (Clark, 2001). This concept also includes the
autonomy to decide how work is to be carried out without unnecessary
monitoring or restrictions (Bailyn, 1997). The second one concerns the
level of autonomy that the company provides to the worker. Accordingly,
the literature (Hackman and Oldham, 1975) refers to Autonomy as “the
degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and
discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and in determining the
procedures to be used in carrying it out” (p. 162).
Job autonomy enables individuals to feel more responsible for both
achievements and failures, thus leading them to higher levels of personal
satisfaction (Gözükara and Şimsek, 2015). Task autonomy at work
and related employees’ responsibilities have been long recognized as
contributing to the improvement of the performance of both individuals
and team and employee satisfaction (Janz et al., 1997). Previous studies
have demonstrated that autonomy is able to positively influence individuals’
performance, engagement, and job satisfaction (Schwalbe, 1985).
In line with the self-determination theory, when employees have the
opportunity to experience more autonomy, they are able to satisfy one of
their most important and intrinsic psychological needs, which leads them
to feel more satisfaction, motivation and engagement in their work roles.
Different studies have demonstrated the positive impact of job autonomy
on work-life balance within a work context in which employees could

332
experience different flexible policies, including spatial and temporal Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
flexibility (Badri et al., 2020; Mas-Machuca et al., 2016). Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
In this case as well, we suppose that also during the pandemic, when The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
employees were forced to stay home, therefore experiencing only temporal individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
flexibility, job autonomy could positively influence the work-life balance. settings

Based on the above, we hypothesize that:

H2. Job autonomy positively influences individuals’ work-life balance in

a remote working context.

2.3 Psychological well-being, work engagement and job satisfaction

The topic of employee well-being is becoming increasingly relevant

in managerial studies (Grant et al., 2007; Salas Vallina and Alegre, 2018).
From a holistic perspective, we can identify three core dimensions of well-
being, i.e. physical, psychological, and social (Grant et al., 2007).
During the pandemic, most employees experienced forced remote
working, thus reporting elevated psychological distress, depression, and
anxiety, which were attributed to feelings of uncertainty about the future and
financial concerns. The psychological strains and feelings of social isolation
can lead to deteriorating working conditions (Pirzadeh and Lingard, 2021),
commitment and performance (Ozcelik and Barsade, 2018). Therefore, in
this study we decided to investigate if temporal flexibility and job autonomy
were able to mitigate these work challenges and positively influence the
psychological well-being of employees through their increase in work-life
balance within this forced remote working context.
Psychological well-being is composed by two components: hedonic and
eudaimonic (Ryan and Deci, 2001). The hedonic component concerns the
subjective experiences of pleasure, or the balance of negative and positive
feelings and thoughts. The eudaimonic component concerns the fulfilment
of human potential (Grant et al., 2007). Although many previous studies
focused mainly on one of these two components, in this study we considered
psychological well-being from both perspectives, thus investigating work
engagement from a eudaimonic viewpoint and job satisfaction from a
hedonic one (Grant et al., 2007).
The first relevant contribution on engagement is attributed to Kahn
(1990), who defined it as “the harnessing of organisation members’ selves
to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p.18).
Thus, an individual’s engagement seems to be influenced by features of the
job, the people with whom an employee interacts, and the organizational
context. Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualized work engagement as a single
separate construct, defining it as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74).
Empirical studies have demonstrated that work engagement enhances
the role performance of employees, which entails advantages for both
individuals and organizations (Ozyilmaz, 2019; Byrne et al., 2016; Bakker
et al., 2012; Rich et al. 2010). Furthermore, it has been shown that work

333
sinergie
italian journal of management
engagement also has a relevant impact on extra-role performance, such as
organizational citizenship behaviour (Rich et al. 2010; Zhong et al. 2016),
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 as well as on job satisfaction (Haynie et al., 2016).
Few studies have analyzed the relationship between work engagement
and remote working, demonstrating that the latter, which is characterized
by the use of alternative workplaces and technologies, positively impact
work engagement especially by enhancing employees’ sense of autonomy,
one of the key antecedents of engagement (Griffith et all., 2015). A study
conducted by Bal and De Lange (2015) demonstrated that the availability
and use of flexible HR practices positively impact WE and performance.
Interestingly, recent studies have also shown that emerging new ways of
working characterized by temporal and spatial flexibility may positively
influence employees’ work engagement (Gerards et al., 2018).
Job satisfaction and work engagement are strictly connected. More
specifically, job satisfaction refers to “how an individual feels about his or
her job and various aspects of it usually in the sense of how favourable, how
positive or negative, those feelings are” (Rainey, 2009, p. 298). According to
Locke (1976), it is a self-reported emotional state deriving from how the
individual’s needs are fulfilled by the work environment.
Satisfaction depends on several factors such as personality, the influence
of society, the situation in the workplace and values, which differ from one
individual to another (Locke, 1976). This means that something that may
satisfy one employee may not affect - or even dissatisfy - another. However,
Johnson (2012) points out that job characteristics are the main source of
employee satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is related to various performance indicators. Satisfied
workers come to work on time, are more productive, and live happier and
healthier lives (Vigan and Giauque, 2016). Moreover, job satisfaction has a
positive impact on work engagement. Looking closely at this interaction,
according to what was stated by Guglielmi et al. (2016), there is a mutual
influence between job satisfaction and work engagement. This not only
means that job satisfaction may be an outcome of work engagement, but
also vice versa. It is also possible that satisfied employees can identify
themselves more easily with their job and be strongly committed to
their tasks (Guglielmi et al., 2016). Job satisfaction has a positive impact
on organizational productivity by reducing absenteeism and turnover
(Spector, 1997). A satisfied person is a more successful individual who is
able to perform more efficiently, thus achieving the goals of the organization
and contributing to its effectiveness (Gorenak et al., 2020). In addition,
employees put forth more work effort, are more efficient, and go more to
the point when companies offer benefits. The most recognized benefits
consist in better opportunities for employees to participate in decisions,
greater emphasis on high level skills, more opportunities for training,
greater autonomy and a structure that provides workers with incentives,
such as performance-related payments (Appelbaum et al., 2000).
Previous studies have demonstrated how work-life balance is able to
positively impact on job satisfaction by mainly focusing their attention
on the hedonic perspective of psychological well-being (Kossek et al.,
2014). These studies were conducted within flexible workplaces in which

334
employees experienced both temporal and spatial flexibility, which was Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
mediated by the implementation of digital solutions (Kossek et al., 2014). Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Given all these considerations, we suggest that the psychological well- The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
being of employees, represented by work engagement and job satisfaction individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
in this study, may be positively predicted by better work-life balance, settings
which in turn is influenced by autonomy and temporal flexibility, the two
key elements experienced by employees during the pandemic. Thus, we
propose the following hypotheses:

H3. Work-life balance positively influences individuals’ work engagement

in a remote working context.

H4. Work-life balance positively influences individuals’ job satisfaction in

a remote working context.

2.4 Model and hypotheses

Considering the predicted hypotheses, the proposed conceptual

framework is provided in Figure 1.

Fig. 1: The proposed conceptual framework

Work
Temporal H1 engagemen
H4
Flexibility t

Work-Life
Balance

Job Job
Autonomy H2 H3 Satisfaction

Source: our elaboration

3. Methodology

3.1 Research setting, participants, and procedure

The research model was tested using data gathered through a survey
that was administrated during October 2020 among the “Vigili del
fuoco” (from now on referred to as “VVF”), the Italian institution for
fire-fighting and rescuing that implemented remote working practices
during the COVID-19 pandemic. We focused on this research setting by
acknowledging how, during the time of pandemic healthcare, security and
safety operators were most affected by psychological damage due to the
stressful situation (Babore et al., 2020).

335
sinergie
italian journal of management
VVF is a public administration that directly depends on the Ministry
of the Interior. The institution is composed by eight central directorates,
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 eighteen regional offices and one hundred provincial commands, with
around eight hundred stations throughout the country.
The questionnaire was distributed through an e-mail in which the aim
of the research was explained while ensuring employees of the anonymity
of the gathered data. This choice was made to protect participant
anonymity and reduce evaluation apprehension. The questionnaire was
articulated in two parts: the first consisted in questions on demographics
(e.g., age, gender, units, etc.) and on whether or not they had experienced
remote working. The second part consisted in questionson the investigated
constructs, i.e. temporal flexibility, job autonomy, work-life balance, work
engagement and job satisfaction.
The questionnaire required approximately 10 minutes to be completed.
We gathered a total of 1,550 answers out of 8,325 employees who were
involved in the study, thus showing an interesting response rate (19%) and
representativeness of the entire population in terms of age and gender.
Of course, we only considered the workers who had experienced remote
working. The final sample was composed by 793 women (51%) and
757 men (49%), where 49% of the participants were between 50 and 59
years of age. Of this final sample, 1,206 workers (78%) belonged to the
management/ logistic unit whereas the remaining 344 workers (22%)
belonged to the IT unit.

3.2 Measures and scales

Temporal flexibility was measured by means of two items which had

been adapted from the work culture scale developed by Campbell Clark
(2001). Such sample items included the following: “I am able to arrive
and depart from work when I want to”. The participants could answer the
items using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). All items were summed to form one index of temporal
flexibility, showing good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73).
Job autonomy was measured through three items that had been adapted
from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Such sample items included the
following: “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence
and freedom in how I carry out the work”. The participants could answer
the items using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). All items were summed to form one index of job
autonomy, showing acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =
0.69).
Work-life balance was measured using three items that had been
adapted from Duraipandian (2014). Such sample items included the
following: “I am successful in managing my home and work demands”. The
participants could answer the items using a five-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items were summed to
form one index of work-life balance, showing good internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.83). Work Engagement was measured by means of
three items that had been adapted from the Utrecht Work Engagement

336
scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2017). Such sample Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
items included the following: “At my work, I feel I am bursting with energy”. Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Participants could answer the items using a five-point Likert scale, ranging The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items were summed to individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
form one index of work engagement, showing good internal consistency settings

(Cronbach's alpha = 0.74).

Job satisfaction was measured by using four items that had been adapted
from the MOAQ scale developed by Camman et al. (1979). Such sample
items included the following: “The work I do on my job is meaningful to
me”. Participants could answer the items using a five-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items were
summed to form one index of job satisfaction, showing good internal
consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78).
In line with previous literature (Breevaart et al., 2014), socio-
demographic variables such as gender and age were included as control
variables. Data goodness was tested through the goodness-for-fit-test.

3.3 Statistical analysis

First, descriptive statistics were used to show a general overview

of the considered constructs through the means, standard deviations,
correlations, and frequencies of the analyzed variables.
Second, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to test the
hypotheses and the relationships among the various constructs. All analyses
were performed in Stata 14. Additionally, Comparative Fix Index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990), the Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and
the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990)
were reported to test the model fit. Moreover, the SEM model was chosen
in the attempt to test a model that is suitable for studying the relationships
between the observed variables and the latent variables (which are
constructs that are not observed but derived from the combination of the
observed variables, as specified by Babin et al., 2008). .
The CFI is considered the best approximation of the population value
for a single model, with values that are greater than or equal to 0.90, which
is considered indicative of a good fit (Medsker et al., 1994). The SRMR is
a standardized summary of the average covariance residuals. A favorable
value is less than 0.10 (Kline, 1998). The RMSEA is a measure of the average
standardized residual per degree of freedom. A favorable value is less than
or equal to 0.08, and values less than or equal to 0.10 are considered “fair”
(Browne and Cudeck, 1989).

4. Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations of

the studied variables. The results indicate that demographic variables (age
and gender) are not significantly correlated with the variables investigated

337
sinergie
italian journal of management
in the study. Temporal flexibility is positively related to job autonomy,
work-life balance and work engagement. Results show that job autonomy
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 is positively related to temporal flexibility, work-life balance, work
engagement and job satisfaction. Moreover, in considering the work-life
balance, results show that it is positively correlated to work engagement
and job satisfaction. Furthermore, results show that higher levels of work
engagement coincide with higher levels of job satisfaction.
Tab. 1: Means, standard deviations, inter-correlations and internal consistencies*

Mean SD TF JA WLB WE JS Gender Age

Temporal 3,96 1,07 (.73)*
flexibility
Job 3,93 0,78 0.5565** (.69) *
autonomy
Work-life 3,96 0,93 0.3391** 0.4280** (.83) *
balance
Work 3,86 0,81 0.2186** 0.3926** 0.2576** (.74) *
engagement
Job 4,14 0,78 0.1966** 0.3362** 0.2407** 0.7029** (.78) *
satisfaction
Gender 1,51 0,50 -0.0319 -0.0196 0.0282 0.0065 0.0122
Age 3,32 0,86 -0.0266 0.0171 0.0299 -0.0273 -0.0408 -0.0787**

Note. ** = Significant at p < 0.05

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We considered five nested models with various numbers of factors.

In particular, we considered: (a) a single factor model that incorporates
all five constructs; (b) a two-factor model combining temporal flexibility
and job autonomy (factor 1), work-life balance, work engagement and
job satisfaction (factor 2); (c) a three-factor model combining temporal
flexibility and job autonomy (factor 1), work-life balance (factor 2) and
work engagement and job satisfaction (factor 3); (d) a four-factor model
that combines temporal flexibility and job autonomy and, lastly, (e) a
model that considers each construct as a separate factor.
The fit indexes of the models are presented in Table 2 and confirm that
the five factors model is the one with the best good fit (for all indexes).
Thus, it is the best approach as concerns the measurement part of our
model. The factor loadings of all items were significant at p < 0.01.

Tab. 2: Results of the confirmatory factor analysis

Model CFI TLI RAMSEA SRMR χ2 df Difference

1 factor 0.527 0.447 0.196 0.143 6278 91 —
2 factors 0.592 0.524 0.182 0.164 5361 103 916.998*
3 factors 0.919 0.904 0.082 0.68 1143 101 4218.295*
4 factors 0.909 0.890 0.087 0.119 1269 99 -125.683*
5 factors 0.965 0.952 0.058 0.54 504 88 764.572*

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation; SRMR= Standardised Root Mean Squared Residual; Difference =
difference in chi-square between the consecutive models; * = Significant at p < 0.01

338
4.3 Path analysis Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Figure 2 shows the structural model of the relationship among the The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
various constructs. The hypothesized model showed a good fit to the data individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
(χ2(109) = 533.216, CFI = 0.967, SRMR = 0.043 and RMSEA = 0.050). settings

Fig. 2: SEM results of the hypothesized conceptual model

Age Gender

0.02
(0.029)

0.10* 0.02
(0.047) (0.032)

0.04 - 0.06** 0.01

(0.032) (0.029) (0.028)

Temporal 0.14*** 0.58***

(0.044) (0.029) Work engagement
Flexibility

Work-Life
Balance - 0.10***
(0.028)

0.80*** 0.48***
Job Autonomy Job Satisfaction
(0.049) (0.028)

“In remote settings”

Notes: Standardised coefficients are reported, with standard errors in the parentheses. * p <
0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

The results indicate that temporal flexibility is significantly and

positively related to work-life balance (β = 0.14, p < 0.01). Furthermore,
the model indicates that job autonomy significantly and positively affects
work-life balance (β = 0.80, p < 0.01). Moreover, work-life balance
significantly and positively impacts work engagement (β = 0.58, p < 0.01)
and job satisfaction (β = 0.48, p < 0.01). As for the control variables, age
slightly and negatively impacts work engagement (β = - 0.06, p < 0.05) and
negatively impacts job satisfaction (β = - 0.10, p < 0.01), thus having an
insignificant impact on work-life balance (β = 0.04).
Finally, gender has an insignificant impact respectively on work-life
balance, work engagement, and job satisfaction (β = 0.02, β = 0.02, β =
0.01).
Table 3 shows that the indirect effects of temporal flexibility and job
autonomy on work engagement and job satisfaction through work-life
balance are significant. These results suggest that work-life balance partially
mediated the relationships between temporal flexibility, job autonomy,
work engagement and job satisfaction.

339
sinergie Tab. 3: Significance testing of indirect effect. Sobel Test
italian journal of management Indirect effect St. Er. z-value p-value Conf. interval
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022
TF → WLB → WE 0.032* 0.011 3.066 0.002 0.012 – 0.053
TF → WLB → JS 0.060* 0.019 3.093 0.002 0.022 – 0.098
JA → WLB → WE 0.252* 0.029 8.767 0.000 0.196 – 0.311
JA → WLB → JS 0.471* 0.050 9.479 0.000 0.374 – 0.572

Note. St. Er = Standard error; Conf. Interval = Confidence interval * = Significant at p < 0.01

5. General discussion

This paper deepens knowledge on the effects of some worker-related

variables on work-life balance. By considering remote working habits, we
shed light on possible variables influencing individuals’ work-life balance.
More specifically, we investigated the role of temporal flexibility and job
autonomy in influencing individuals’ work-life balance, together with
the effects of job satisfaction and work engagement. We thus contribute
to improve knowledge on organizational behaviour, work psychology
research and management literature in several ways.
Firstly, our study not only confirmed that job autonomy positively
affects individuals’ work-life balance (as demonstrated by Hackman and
Oldham, 2005), but also that this relationship holds true even in a forced
remote working context. Despite the fact that forced remote working might
generate several issues in handling employees’ private and job lives, job
autonomy has led employees to perceive a better balance between the two
domains. In line with boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000), we suppose
that job autonomy may have helped individuals transition from a family
to a professional role, thus mitigating possible interferences deriving from
the integration of both social roles.
Second, this research highlights the positive impact of temporal
flexibility on the work-life balance. Although some authors have
demonstrated the indirect influence of temporal flexibility in the past
(Bohen and Viveros-Long’s, 1981; Campbell Clark, 2001), our results
highlighted its direct impact on work life balance. As discussed in the
introduction, the pandemic imposed the adoption of remote working
practices (Hu, 2020; Kniffin, 2020) and forced employees to work at home,
thus compelling them to completely re-configure their lives (Wanget
al., 2021). Individuals that had not experienced such remote working
practices before that period may especially suffer boundary management
related to private and job roles. We believe that temporal flexibility may
have mitigated the role-blurring that was generated by working in the
physical environment in which individuals usually only perform their
family role. In other words, if spatial flexibility leads employees to manage
their boundary roles, temporal flexibility may help them create routines
and moments in which they transition from a social to another role.
Third, while previous studies have demonstrated that the work-life
balance may positively influence job satisfaction (Haar et al., 2014; Carlson
et al., 2009) by mainly focusing their attention on the hedonic perspective
of psychological well-being, this study showed that the work-life balance
340
can positively also affect employees’ engagement, thus producing an impact Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
from an eudemonic perspective (Grant et al., 2007). Our study investigated Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
the psychological well-being of employees as a multidimensional concept The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
composed by two dimensions represented by work engagement and job individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
satisfaction. By means of these two dimensions, we studied the effects of settings
the identified variables through two different perspectives (eudaimonic
and hedonic), thus offering a more omni-comprehensive vision on
psychological well-being.
Our findings are in line with theory of self-determination (Ryan and
Deci, 2000) and jobdemands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Through job autonomy, individuals may satisfy their psychological needs
of autonomy and competence which, in turn, produce positive effects on
work engagement and satisfaction. Furthermore, temporal flexibility can
be considered a resource that is provided by the organization to mitigate
physical and psychological costs related to forced remote working. This
positive impact could be explained by considering that flexibility usually
permits employees to satisfy their basic psychological need of autonomy
(Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Summarising, although the pandemic produced negative impacts on
employees’ work-life balance by generating an intensification of work,
stress, depression, and anxiety (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Prasada et
al., 2020; Pirzadeh and Lingard, 2021), our research has demonstrated
that temporal flexibility and autonomy can help individuals manage their
professional and private lives in order to react positively to the related
distresses.
Finally, our results also highlighted that age slightly and negatively
impacts both work engagement and job satisfaction. These findings are
interesting if we consider the forced remote working that was experienced
during the pandemic. It is possible to hypothesize that older generations
are less familiar with flexible practices and inclined to separate their private
and work lives (Guido et al., 2021). Our research also provides useful
implications for managers in suggesting new organizational strategies
and recommending how to deal with the remote working challenges that
emerged during the pandemic that will characterize the new normal after
COVID-19 (Wang et al., 2021). Managers should encourage time-based
flexible work arrangements, granting autonomy and empowering to attain
accountability over results, as specified by research on smart working
(Raguseo et al., 2016; Neirotti et al., 20219, Langé and Gastaldi, 2020).
If, on the one hand, managers should continue to protect the psycho-
physical and social health of their workers, on the other hand, they are
called to proactively participate in the integrated management of business
risk, and to feel more empowered in their activities. This decision-making
autonomy may impact not only employees’ psychological well-being but
also enable them to perceive greater and empowering responsibility from
the company. In this sense, greater temporal flexibility and autonomy
increase their psychological well-being, also based on a renewed balance
between personal and working life that is capable of positively impacting
companies’ performance by virtue of greater job satisfaction and
empowerment.

341
sinergie
italian journal of management
Our study is not devoid of limitations. First, while the direct and
separate investigation of temporal flexibility and job autonomy could
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 represent a strong point, the relationship between temporal flexibility and
work-life balance could also be examined through the mediating role of
job autonomy. Future studies could investigate the threefold impact of
temporal, spatial flexibility and job autonomy on the psychological well-
being of employees in a hybrid working context in which employees can
truly have the freedom to choose when, where, and how work. From a
methodological viewpoint, the used items have been modified and
reviewed to ensure they were in line with the guidelines provided by the
investigated organization. This process could have partially changed the
robustness of some of the measure scales that were adopted from the
scientific literature.
Further studies could demonstrate the impact of remote working
practices on life satisfaction (Pavot and Diener, 2008) which, from a holistic
perspective, is referred to individuals’ satisfaction toward their life, and not
just the balance between work and leisure time. In addition, by considering
workers internal “consumers” of firms (Arnett et al., 2002), future studies
could investigate important individual-related characteristics, such as
their search for status (Eastman et al., 1999).

References

ALLEN T.D., HERST D.E., BRUCK C.S., SUTTON M. (2000), “Consequences

associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future
research”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 278-
281.
ALLEN T.D., JOHNSON R.C., KIBURZ K.M., SHOCKLEY K.M. (2013), “Work-
family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility”,
Personnel Psychology, vol. 66, n. 2, pp. 345-376.
AMIR M.T. (2020), “How coworking space impacts innovation: A literature
review”, Digital Economy for Customer Benefit and Business Fairness, vol.
126, pp. 126-130.
APPELBAUM E., BAILEY T., BERG P., KALLEBERG A.L. (2000), Manufacturing
Advantage: WhyHigh Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell
University Press, New York.
APPELBAUM E. (2015), High-performance work practices and sustainable economic
growth, EPRN.
APPELBAUM E., BAILEY T., BERG P., KALLEBERG A. (2005), Organizations and
the intersection of work and family: A comparative perspective, The Oxford
handbook of work and organization, pp. 121-131.
ARNETT D.B., LAVERIE D.A., MCLANE C. (2002), “Using job satisfaction
and pride as internal-marketing tools”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, vol. 43, n. 2, pp. 87-96.
ASHFORTH B.E., KREINER G.E., FUGATE M. (2000), “All in a Day’s Work:
Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions”, The Academy of Management
Review, vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 472-491.

342
ATTRIDGE M. (2009), “Measuring and managing employee work engagement: Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
A review of the research and business literature”, Journal of Workplace Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Behavioral Health, vol. 24 n. 4, pp. 383-398. The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
BABIN B.J., HAIR J.F., BOLES J.S. (2008), “Publishing research in marketing individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
journals using structural equation modeling”, Journal of Marketing Theory settings
and Practice, vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 279-286.
BABORE A., LOMBARDI L., VICECONTI M.L., PIGNATARO S., MARINO
V., CRUDELE M., TRUMELLO C. (2020), “Psychological effects of the
COVID-2019 pandemic: Perceived stress and coping strategies among
healthcare professionals”, Psychiatry Research, vol. 293, p. 113366.
BADRI S.K.Z., PANATIK S.A. (2020), “The roles of job autonomy and self-efficacy
to improve academics’ work-life balance”, Asian Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 25, n. 2, pp. 85-108.
BAILYN L. (1997), “The impact of corporate culture on work-family integration”,
In Parasuraman S., Greenhaus J.H. (Eds.), Integrating work and family:
Challenges and choices for a changing world, Westport, CT: Quorum Books,
pp. 209-219
BAKKER A.B. (2015), “Top-down and bottom-up interventions to increase work
engagement”, APA Handbook of Career Intervention, vol. 2, pp. 427-438.
BAKKER A.B., DEMEROUTI E., LIEKE L. (2012), “Work engagement,
performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, vol. 80, n. 2, pp. 555-564.
BAKKER A.B., DEMEROUTI E., SCHAUFELI W.B. (2005), “The crossover of
burnout and work engagement among working couples”, Human Relations,
vol. 58, n. 5, pp. 661-689.
BAL P.M., DE LANGE A.H. (2015), “From flexibility human resource management
to employee engagement and perceived job performance across the
lifespan: A multisample study”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 88 n. 1, pp. 126-154.
BANU A., DURAIPANDIAN K. (2014), “Development of an instrument to
measure work life balance of it professionals in Chennai”, International
Journal of Management, vol. 5 n. 11, pp. 21- 33.
BALTES B.B., BRIGGS T.E., HUFF J.W., WRIGHT J.A., NEUMAN G.A. (1999),
“Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their
effects on work-related criteria”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84, n.
4, pp. 496.
BELTRÁN-MARTÍN I., ROCA-PUIG V., ESCRIG-TENA A., BOU-LLUSAR J.C.
(2008), “Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high
performance work systems and performance”, Journal of Management, vol.
34, n. 5, pp. 1009-1044.
BENTLER P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological
Bulletin, vol. 107, pp. 238.
BOHEN H.H., VIVEROS-LONG A. (1981), Balancing jobs and family life: Do
flexible schedules help?, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
BORST R.T., KRUYEN P.M., LAKO C.J. (2019), “Exploring the job demands-
resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a
psychological perspective”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol.
39, n. 3, pp. 372-397.

343
sinergie
italian journal of management
BRAY J.W., HINDE J.M., KAISER D.J., MILLS M.J., KARUNTZOS G.T.,
GENADEK K.R., HURTADO D.A. (2018), “Effects of a flexibility/support
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 intervention on work performance: Evidence from the work, family, and
health network”, American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 32, n. 4, pp.
963-970.
BREEVAART K., BAKKER A.B., DEMEROUTI E. (2014), “Daily self-management
and employee work engagement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 84, n.
1, pp. 31-38.
BROWNE M.W., CUDECK R. (1989), “Single sample cross-validation indices for
covariance structures”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 24, pp. 445-455.
BYRNE Z.S., PETERS J.M., WESTON J.W. (2016), “The struggle with employee
engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 101, n. 9, pp. 1201.
CAMMANN C., FICHMAN M., JENKINS D., KLESH J. (1979), The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire, Unpublished manuscript,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
CAMPBELL CLARK S. (2001), “Work Cultures and Work/Family Balance”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, vol. 58, pp. 348-365
CARLSON D., GRZYWACZ J., ZIVNUSKA S. (2009), “Is work-family balance
more than conflict and enrichment?”, Human Relations, vol. 62, pp. 1459-
1486.
CASPER W.J., BUFFARDI L.C. (2004), “Work-Life Benefits and Job Pursuit
Intentions: The Role of Anticipated Organizational Support”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, n. 65, pp. 391-410.
CHRISTIAN M.S., GARZA A.S., SLAUGHTER J.E. (2011), “Work engagement:
A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual
performance”, Personnel Psychology, vol. 64, n. 1, pp. 89-136.
CLARK S.C. (2001), “Work cultures and work/family balance”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, vol. 58, n. 3, pp. 348-365.
DECI E.L., RYAN R.M. (2008), “Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of
human motivation, development, and health”, Canadian Psychology/
Psychologie canadienne, vol. 49, pp. 182-185.
DEERY S.J., MAHONY A. (1994), “Temporal flexibility: Management strategies
and employee preferences in the retail industry”, Journal of Industrial
Relations, vol. 36, n. 3, pp. 332-352.
DEMEROUTI E., BAKKER A.B., NACHREINER F., SCHAUFELI W.B. (2001),
“The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 86, n. 3, pp. 499-512.
EASTMAN J.K., GOLDSMITH R.E., FLYNN L.R. (1999), “Status consumption
in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 7, n. 3, pp. 41-52.
FERDOUS T., ALI M., FRENCH E. (2021), “Use of flexible work practices and
employee outcomes: The role of work-life balance and employee age”,
Journal of Management and Organization, pp. 1-21.
GERARDS R., DE GRIP A., BAUDEWIJNS C. (2018), “Do new ways of working
increase work engagement?”, Personnel Review, vol. 47, n. 2, pp. 517-534.
GONZÁLEZ-ROMÁ V., SCHAUFELI W.B., BAKKER A.B., LLORET S. (2006),
“Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 68, n. 1, pp. 165-174.

344
GORENAK M., EDELHEIM J.R., BRUMEN B. (2020), “The influence of Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
organizational values on job satisfaction of employees”, Human Systems Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Management, vol. 39, n. 3, pp. 329-343. The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
GÖZÜKARA İ., ŞIMŞEK O.F. (2015), “Role of Leadership in Employees’ individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
Work Engagement: Organizational Identification and Job Autonomy”, settings
International Journal of Biometrics, vol. 11, n. 72.
GRANT A.M., CHRISTIANSON M.K., PRICE R.H. (2007), “Happiness, health,
or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, n. 21, pp. 51-63
GREENHAUS J.H., BEUTELL N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and
family roles”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, pp. 76-88.
GRIFFITH T.L., NORDBÄCK E., SAWYER J.E., RICE R.E. (2015), “Back to Basics:
Facilitating Engagement in Modern Work Environments”, 2015 48th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1829-1838
GUIDO G., UGOLINI M.M., SESTINO A. (2022), “Active ageing of elderly
consumers: insights and opportunities for future business strategies!”, SN
Business and Economics, vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 1-24.
GUGLIELMI D., AVANZI L., CHIESA R., MARIANI M.G., BRUNI I., DEPOLO
M. (2016), “Positive aging in demanding workplaces: The gain cycle
between job satisfaction and work engagement”, Frontiers in Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 1224.
HAAR J.M., RUSSO M., SUÑE A., OLLIER-MALATERRE A. (2014), “Outcomes
of work-life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health:
A study across seven cultures”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 85, n. 3,
pp. 361-373.
HACKMAN J.R., OLDHAM G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic
survey”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, n. 2, pp. 159.
HACKMAN J.R., OLDHAM G.R. (2005), How job characteristics theory happened,
The Oxford handbook of management theory: The Process of Theory
Development, pp. 151-170.
HAYNIE J.J., MOSSHOLDER K.W., HARRIS S.G. (2016), “Justice and job
engagement: The role of senior management trust”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, vol. 37, pp. 889- 910.
HILL E.J., FERRIS M., MÄRTINSON V. (2003), “Does it matter where you work? A
comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and
home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, vol. 63, n. 2, pp. 220-241.
HU R. (2020), “COVID-19, smart work, and collaborative space: A crisis-
opportunity perspective”, Journal of Urban Management, vol. 9, n. 3, pp.
276-280.
JANZ B.D., COLQUITT J.A., NOE R.A. (1997), “Knowledge worker team
effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development,
and contextual support variables”, Personnel Psychology, vol. 50, n.4, pp.
877-904.
JOHNSON R.R. (2012), “Police Officer Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional
Analysis”, Police Quarterly, n. 15, pp. 157-176.
KELLIHER C., ANDERSON D. (2010), “Doing more with less? Flexible working
practices and the intensification of work”, Human Relations, vol. 63, n. 1,
pp. 83-106.

345
sinergie
italian journal of management
KIRCHMEYER C. (2000), “Work-life initiatives: Greed or benevolence regarding
workers’ time?”, In Cooper C.L., Rousseau D.M. (Eds.), Trends in
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Time in organizational behavior (pp. 79-93),
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
KINMAN G., JONES F. (2008), “A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life
balance, and well-being in UK academics”, Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, vol. 17, n. 1-2, pp. 41-60.
KLINE R.B. (1998), “Software review: Software programs for structural equation
modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL”, J. Psychoeduc. Assess., n. 16, pp. 343-
364.
KNIFFIN K.M., NARAYANAN J., ANSEEL F., ANTONAKIS J., ASHFORD S.P.,
BAKKER A.B., VUGT M.V. (2021), “COVID-19 and the workplace:
Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action”, American
Psychologist, vol. 76, n. 1, pp. 63.
KNIGHT C., PATTERSON M., DAWSON J., BROWN J. (2017), “Building and
sustaining work engagement-a participatory action intervention to
increase work engagement in nursing staff ”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, vol. 26, n. 5, pp. 634-649.
KOSSEK E.E., LAUTSCH B.A., EATON S.C. (2006), “Telecommuting, control, and
boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control,
and work-family effectiveness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 68, n.
2, pp. 347-367.
KOSSEK E.E., VALCOUR M., LIRIO P. (2014), Organizational strategies for
promoting work-life balance and well-being, Work and Well-being, pp. 295-
318.
KUMAR S., SARKAR S., CHAHAR B. (2021), “A systematic review of work-life
integration and role of flexible work arrangements”, International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, in press.
LANGÉ V., GASTALDI L. (2020), “Coping Italian Emergency COVID-19 Through
Smart Working: From Necessity to Opportunity”, Journal of Mediterranean
Knowledge, vol. 5, n. 1, pp. 163-171.
LOCKE E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, pp. 1297-1349.
LOCKWOOD N.R. (2003), Work/life balance. Challenges and Solutions, SHRM
Research, USA, pp. 2-10.
MACEACHEN E., POLZER J., CLARKE J. (2008), “You are free to set your own
hours: Governing worker productivity and health through flexibility and
resilience”, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 66, n. 5, pp. 1019-1033.
MAS-MACHUCA M., BERBEGAL-MIRABENT J., ALEGRE I. (2016), “Work-life
balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 586-602.
MASUDA A.D., HOLTSCHLAG C., NICKLIN J.M. (2017), “Why the availability
of telecommuting matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement
via goal pursuit”, Career Development International, vol. 22, n. 2, pp. 200-
219.
MEDSKER G.J., WILLIAMS L.J., HOLAHAN P.J. (1994), “A review of current
practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and
human resources management research”, Journal of Management, vol. 20,
n. 2, pp. 439-464.

346
MICHEL J.S., KOTRBA L.M., MITCHELSON J.K., CLARK M.A., BALTES B.B. Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
(2011), “Antecedents of work-family conflict: A meta‐analytic review”, Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 32, n. 5, pp. 689-725. The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
MORGESON F.P., HUMPHREY S.E. (2006), “The Work Design Questionnaire individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
(WDQ): Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for settings
Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
vol. 91, n. 6, pp. 1321-1339.
MUBAROQ S.R., ABDULLAH A.G., SETIAWAN A.G.U.S. (2020), “The evolution
of smart working and sustainability in socio-technical perspective: a
scientometrics technology analysis”, Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 1868-1882.
MURMURA F., BRAVI L. (2021), Digitization and Sustainability: Smart Working as
an ICT Tool to Improve the Sustainable Performance of Companies During
the Covid-19 Pandemic, Digital Transformation in Industry, Springer,
Cham, pp. 97-108.
MUTHÉN L.K., MUTHÉN B.O. (1998-2015) Mplus user’s guide (7th ed), Muthén
& Muthén, Los Angeles.
NEIROTTI P., RAGUSEO E., GASTALDI L. (2019), “Designing Flexible Work
Practices for Job Satisfaction: The Relation Between Job Characteristics
and Work Disaggregation in Different Types of Work Arrangements”, New
Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 116-138.
NIPPERT-ENG C.E. (1996), Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through
everyday life, University of Chicago Press., Chicago.
OZCELIK H., BARSADE S. (2018), “No Employee an Island: Workplace Loneliness
and Job Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 61.
OZYILMAZ A. (2020), “Hope and human capital enhance job engagement to
improve workplace outcomes”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 93, n. 1, pp. 187-214.
PAVOT W., DIENER E. (2008), “The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging
construct of life satisfaction”, Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 3, n. 2, pp.
137-152.
PIRZADEH P., LINGARD H. (2021), “Working from Home during the COVID-19
Pandemic: Health and Well-Being of Project-Based Construction Workers”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 147, n. 6.
PODSAKOFF P.M., MACKENZIE S.B., LEE J.Y., PODSAKOFF N.P. (2003),
“Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.
88, n. 5, pp. 879.
PRASADA K.D.V., VAIDYA R.W., MANGIPUDIC M.R. (2020), “Effect of
occupational stress and remote working on psychological well-being of
employees: an empirical analysis during covid-19 pandemic concerning
information technology industry in Hyderabad”, Indian Journal of
Commerce and Management Studies, vol. 11, pp. 1-13.
RAGUSEO E., GASTALDI L., NEIROTTI P. (2016), “Smart Work: Supporting
Employees’ Flexibility through ICT, HR practices and office layout”,
Evidence-based HRM, vol. 4, n. 3, pp. 240-256.
RAINEY H.G. (2009), Understanding and managing public organizations, San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons

347
sinergie
italian journal of management
RANI U., FURRER M. (2021), “Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible
work in developing countries: Algorithmic management of work and
Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2022 workers”, Competition and Change, vol. 25, n. 2, pp. 212-236.
RAU B.L., HYLAND M.A.M. (2002), “Role conflict and flexible work arrangements:
The effects on applicant attraction”, Personnel Psychology, vol. 55, n. 1, pp.
111-136.
RICH B.L., LEPINE J.A., CRAWFORD E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: Antecedents
and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53,
n. 3, pp. 617-635.
ROTHBARD N.P., PHILLIPS K.W., DUMAS T.L. (2005), “Managing Multiple
Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals’ Desires for Segmentation”,
Organization Science, vol. 16, n. 3, pp. 243-258.
ROZARIO P.A., HOWELL N.M., HINTERLONG J.E. (2004), “Role enhancement
or role strain: examining the impact of multiple roles on family caregivers”,
Research on Aging, vol. 26, pp. 413-428.
RYAN R.M., DECI E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American
Psychologist, vol. 55, n. 1, pp. 68-78.
RYAN R.M., DECI E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: A review
of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being”, Annual Review of
Psychology, vol. 52, n.1, pp. 141-166.
SALAS-VALLINA A., VIDAL J. (2018), “Happiness at work: Developing a shorter
measure”, Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 27, pp. 1-21.
SCHAUFELI W.B., SALANOVA M., GONZÁLEZ-ROMÁ V., BAKKER A.B.
(2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample
confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, vol.
3, n. 1, pp. 71-92.
SCHAUFELI W.B., SHIMAZU A., HAKANEN J., SALANOVA M., DE WITTE H.
(2017), “An ultra-short measure for work engagement”, European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, vol. 35, pp. 1-15.
SCHWALBE M.L. (1985), “Autonomy in work and self‐esteem”, Sociological
Quarterly, vol. 26, n. 4, pp. 519-535.
SCHMOLL R., SÜß S. (2019), “Working Anywhere, Anytime: An Experimental
Investigation of Workplace Flexibility’s Influence on Organizational
Attraction”, Management Revue, vol. 30, n. 10.
SIEBER S.D. (1974), “Toward a theory of role accumulation”, American Sociological
Review, vol. 39, n. 4, pp. 567-578.
SIMPSON M.R. (2009), “Engagement at work: A review of the literature”,
International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 46, n. 7, pp. 1012-1024.
SIRGY M.J., LEE D.J. (2018), “Work-life balance: An integrative review”, Applied
Research in Quality of Life, vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 229-254.
SPECTOR P.E. (1997), Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences (Vol. 3), Sage.
STEIGER J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval
estimation approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 25, n. 2, pp.
173-180.
STRYKER S. (1980), Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version, Menlo
Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

348
 VIGAN F.A., GIAUQUE D. (2018), “Job satisfaction in African public Gabriele Boccoli
Andrea Sestino
administrations: a systematic review”, International Review of Administrative Luca Gastaldi
Mariano Corso
Sciences, vol. 84, n. 3, pp. 596-610. The impact of autonomy
and temporal flexibility on
VOYDANOFF P. (2005), “Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit individuals’ psychological
well-being in remote
and balance: A demands and resources approach”, Journal of Marriage and settings
Family, vol. 67, n. 4, pp. 822-836.
WANG B., LIU Y., QIAN J., PARKER S.K. (2021), “Achieving effective remote
working during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A work design perspective”,
Applied Psychology, vol. 70, n. 1, pp. 16-59.
WRIGHT T.A., CROPANZANO R. (2000), “Psychological well-being and job
satisfaction as predictors of job performance”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, vol. 5, n. 1, pp. 84.
ZHONG L., WAYNE S.J., LIDEN R.C. (2016), “Job engagement, perceived
organizational support, high‐performance human resource practices,
and cultural value orientations: A cross‐level investigation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 37, n. 6, pp. 823-844.

Academic or professional position and contacts

Gabriele Boccoli
Ph.D. Candidate in Management Engineering
Polytechnic University of Milan - Italy
E-mail: [email protected]

Andrea Sestino
Ph.D. Candidate in Business Management and Marketing
University of Bari Aldo Moro - Italy
E-mail: [email protected]

Luca Gastaldi
Associate Professor of Management
Polytechnic University of Milan - Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Mariano Corso
Full Professor of Management
Polytechnic University of Milan - Italy
E-mail: [email protected]

sinergie
italian journal of management

ISSN print 0393-5108

ISSN online 2785-549X
DOI 10.7433/s118.2022.15
pp. 327-349

349

View publication stats