Spoiled for Choice? When Work Flexibility Improves or Impairs Work-Life Outcomes

Flexible work arrangements (FWAs), which offer employees discretion over where and/or when they complete tasks, have become a pervasive work-life benefit designed to reduce conflict and enhance balance. Despite their ubiquity, empirical evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. The implicit assumption in the extant research is that individuals are rational and uniformly motivated to optimally leverage this discretion. Drawing from dual-process models of decision making, we challenge this assumption by developing and testing a theoretical model that demonstrates when and why FWAs can both improve and impair work-life balance. Utilizing panel data collected over 3 waves (N = 213), we demonstrate that planning is a key mediating mechanism that allows individuals to capitalize on the discretion afforded by flexibility to facilitate work-life balance. In line with a dual-process perspective, however, flexibility actually reduced planning and work-life balance among individuals with predictable schedules. These effects were mitigated among individuals with a high future temporal focus, who possess a dispositional tendency to plan. Overall, a dual-process perspective offers a useful lens to understand how individuals manage, and occasionally mismanage, the expanded choices offered by flexibility. Theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed.