The implementation gap

The implementation gap is generally defined as a discrepancy between the availability and actual use of flexible work arrangements (Allen et al., 2013). The distinction between availability and use is important for at least two reasons. First, despite the fact that the presence of flexible working is associated with more positive attitudes at work (Grover & Crooker, 1995), it is the actual use of these policies that can help employees to manage their work and personal life goals successfully (Allen et al., 2013). Second, the theoretical reasons explaining the positive outcomes associated with flexible working availability and use are different (Allen & Shockley, 2009). The presence of positive effects of flexible working on individual outcomes — which also depend upon the form of flexibility chosen (if to satisfy organizational needs vs. personal needs) (Bourdeau et al., 2019) — are mostly explained by the norms of reciprocation and social exchange mechanisms (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). That is, employees appreciate the availability of flexible working and, in return, tend to reciprocate the presence of such arrangements with more positive attitudes and behaviours at work. In contrast, the benefits associated with the use of flexible working can be explained by control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) and conservation of resource theory (Hobfoil, 1989). Using the flexible working policies available at work can provide employees with more resources and control over their work and family demands, which can facilitate the management of their work and non-work roles according to their preferences and needs.

The implementation gap is common in several organizations, wherein those employees who have access to flexible work options (typically those with higher level skills and qualifications) are also those who use these policies less often due to the presence of a stigma associated with such arrangements. Williams et al. (2016) argue that one of the reasons for this stigma is the persistence of a traditional corporate culture built on the “work devotion” (Blair-Loy, 2003) or “ideal worker” schema (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015). This schema is based on the idea that the ideal worker is a man (or, in rare cases, a single work-centric woman) who is available to work 24/7, who has a stay-at-home partner, and who is ready to sacrifice the family when needed. As a consequence, any behaviour that deviates from this image, like the decision to make use of flexible working arrangements (when not driven by organizational motives), is perceived to signal a low commitment to the job.

Role congruity theory elucidates the reason for this negative association (Eagly & Karau, 2002). This theory suggests that employees can be considered less suitable for high responsibility positions when they display behaviours and/or attitudes that are incongruent with general expectations about the behaviours that a manager should have. Using flexible working to accommodate personal needs and aspirations (especially enabling policies that give employees more personal discretion over when and where to work) can convey the sense that a person has more communal (i.e., caring, compassionate, sensitive) rather than agentic (i.e., assertive, competitive, determined, and aggressive) traits (Hideg et al., 2018). Since the predominant stereotypes about managers describe them as agentic and not communal, it is possible that flexible employees may be regarded as less appropriate for managerial roles (Rudman & Mescher, 2013). That is a possibility that employees in promising jobs usually consider, given that those who use flexible working have been shown to suffer wage penalties (Leslie et al., 2012), experience lower performance evaluations (Wharton et al., 2008), and receive fewer promotions (Lyness & Judiesch, 2008).

Work intensification

Kossek and Thompson (2016) maintain that the implementation gap also exists when there is a contradiction between the goals and outcomes that organizations hope to achieve in theory with the adoption of flexible work and the benefits actually experienced by employees. In this respect, it is not rare to observe that, although flexible working can increase individuals’ performance responsiveness to work (Turel et al., 2011), it does not necessarily result in better work-life balance (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018). An explanation for this paradox concerns the negative effects of flexible working on work intensification.

Work intensification refers to the effort that employees put into their jobs during the time they are working (Burchell, 2002). In a recent report on European countries, Chung (2019) has shown that, on average, there is a significant increase in working hours for employees using flexible work. In particular, longitudinal data collected in Germany (2003—2011) revealed that employees with flexible schedules worked longer hours in comparison with those having a fixed schedule. Such increased work hours are not without consequences for employees’ health, as demonstrated by prior research (e.g., Kattenbach et al., 2010) highlighting that flexibility can be associated with greater exhaustion and stress.

There is much debate about the causes of increasing work intensification for flexible employees (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Flexible working is likely to blur the boundary between work and home life (Fonner & Stache, 2012), making it difficult for teleworkers to navigate the micro transitions between

Flexible working and skill-biased inequality 151 work and family roles and potentially creating more challenges rather than reducing them. Another reason for the greater work intensification associated with flexible work relates to the “autonomy paradox’’ experienced by flexible employees (Mazmanian et al., 2013). On the one hand, flexibility gives employees greater discretion over when to work and how to organize the working day, as well as more control in the simultaneous management of both work and family activities. On the other hand, working remotely can lead employees to work longer hours due to the use of information and communication technologies that make people constantly connected to their work (Morandin et al., 2018), the removal of workplace distractions (i.e., social interactions), and the saving of commuting time that results in more hours to devote to work. In addition to depending upon the availability of enabling technologies that allow flexible employees to work anywhere and at any time, work intensification can also derive from the need for flexible employees to convey a more positive image and disprove some negative stereotypes associated with flexibility. For example, telecommuters might work longer hours and be more responsive to any work-related messages than traditional employees, so as to prove to their supervisor they are working even more and harder than usual. Finally, flexible employees tend to be driven to work harder and with more intensity due to a sense of moral obligation to reciprocate the favourable working conditions provided by the employer (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010).

An example of higher work intensification associated with flexible working is the case of the recently introduced “discretionary time off’ policy, aimed at giving employees greater discretion over their vacation time. This policy — adopted by several corporations, including Virgin, General Electric, Linkedln, and Netflix — provides employees with the freedom to choose how many days off to take without being required to justify their decision (upon the timely delivery of their expected results). While this policy can generate significant benefits for employees and employers, it is also susceptible to abuse; as a result, some companies, like the Chicago Tribune, have decided to discontinue it. Interestingly, and in support of our claim, this abuse came not in the form of employees taking too many days off; rather, many so-called "happy workaholic” employees (Friedman & Lobel, 2003) were taking fewer days off than required, resulting in a significant increase in work intensification and fatigue.