Professional Documents
Culture Documents
McGill University
SHELLEY M. MAcDERMID
Purdue University
MICHELLE L. BUCK
McGill University
This study examines variation in organizational responses to part-time work arrangements among professionals and managers. Analyses of over 350 interviews generated
three paradigms of differences in ways organizations implemented and interpreted
reduced-load work: accommodation, elaboration, and transformation. The paradigms
can be viewed as representing firms' proclivity to engage in organizationallearning by
using individual cases ofreduced-load work as opportunities for learning new ways of
working and new possibilities for core business priorities.
The growth of alternative work arrangements, including flextime, job sharing, telecommuting, and
part-time work, has been well documented (Catalyst, 1997; Epstein, Seron, Oglensky, & Saute , 1998;
Mirchandani, 1998; Scandura & Lankau, 1997). The
changing workforce is gradually pushing firms to
adapt to the family structures of their employees
and provide more options in the distribution and
scheduling of work (Galinsky & Bond, 1998). Furthermore, the productivity crisis and increased international competition have led firms to experiment with new structures and new employment
relationships and contracts in arder to cut costs and
maximize profitability (Ferber & O'Farrell , 1991).
Both workers and employers want more flexibility,
more ability to adapt to shifting external demands-family or personallife in the case of workers and competitive market pressures in the case of
organizations (Williams & MacDermid, 1994).
This article focuses on professionals and manag-
That is, we set out to discern and articulate differences across organizations in the implementation
and interpretation of reduced-load work.
Of course, research on corporate responsiveness
to change in general is not new. Two relevant
streams of literature are organizational adaptation
and strategic human resource management. Organizational adaptation theory (Child, 1972; Daft &
Weick, 1984; Hannan & Freeman, 1977) has compared the influences of raw environmental forces
and strategic choice in driving organizational response to change. Strategic human resource management (Fombrun, Tichy, & Devanna, 1984; Miles
& Snow, 1984) is a contingency framework according to which sorne organizations perform better
than others beca use of appropriate or inappropriate
alignment of human resource policies with business strategies and externa! environmental forces.
These two theoretical approaches share an assumption that corporate responsiveness to change can be
studied through examining senior management actions or adoption of official policies and the associated "fit" of those policies with business stJ;ate-gies and/or externa! environment conditions. Sorne
studies, in fact, have used these frameworks for
studying work-family policies and alternative work
arrangements (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998; Milliken, Martins, & Margan, 1998). However, official policies
and management proclamations do not necessarily
reveal much about informal, unofficial experimentation with change or actual implementation and
interpretation of formal policies and programs. For
example, several authors have made the point that
although new forms of work are clearly emerging,
both employers and employees have been slow to
fully embrace them for a number of complex reasons (Bailyn, 1994; Kossek, Barber, & Winters,
1999).
December
concept of organizational learning focuses on differences in learning styles , and it focuses not only
on top management decisions and actions, or official policies and practices, but also on the way
things are done at a grassroots level and throughout
an organizatjon. The idea is that one must look at
patterns of how individual employees and work
units "behave" and make sense of that behavior, if
one is to understand organizational responsiveness
to change. The variability in these patterns of behavior and the interactions between behavior and
organizational policies and practices, then, are key
to understanding how organizations respond to environmental change in general and, perhaps more
specifically, to alternative work arrangements exemplifying an emergent challenge to the status quo.
A number of theorists have proposed different
kinds or levels of organizationallearning that vary
in the extent to which learning remains a relatively
individual, isolated instance or crosses boundaries
and is integrated into other areas. For example,
Argyris and Schon (1978) described two different
kinds of organizational learning: (1) single-loop,
where organizations respond to problems by modifying strategies to achieve established objectives
without reexamining given structures, norms,
goals, and (2) double-loop, where organizations respond to errors or problems by reexamining the
entire context and looking for solutions beyond the
status quo. Ulrich, Von Glinow, and Jick (1993)
define.d learning organizations by their ability to
share ideas or lessons across organizational boundaries, _applying them, for example, from one division to another or from one type of job or work team
to another. Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) posited
a framework suggesting that four processes of organizationallearning can be identified at three different levels-individual, group, and organizational.
These include intuiting and interpreting at the individual level, integrating at the group level, and
institutionalizing at the organizationallevel. March
(1991) and Weick and Westley (1996) focused on
the two counterbalancing forces of exploitation and
exploration in organizationallearning. Exploitation
involves establishing routines and procedures to
in crease efficiency by reducing variety. Exploration
involves experimenting with new ideas , risk taking, and increasing variety. They noted that organizations must both establisl:. routines and accept
disruptive, nonroutine behavior in arder to continue to respond and adapt to change.
Although these approaches to organizational
learning suggest different ways organizations adapt
to change, the distinctions made have not yet led
either to development of a theoretical continuum of
organizational learning or to research in which
2000
there is an attempt to compare organizations systematically in organizationallearning terms. However, March's (1991) articulation ofthe dynamics of
exploitation and exploration and Crossan and colleagues' positing that organizational learning involves an iterative process of moving from exploration to exploitation to exploration represent
potential foundations for identifying different
thresholds of organizationallearning. March (1991)
made it clear that organizations make trade-offs in
choosing exploration over exploitation, or vice
versa. This is because the short-term gains of exploitation are greater but can lead to stagnation; the
long-term gains of exploration are critical but riskier and more uncertain. It is not possible to maximize both. Crossan and colleagues, on the other
hand, suggested that, ideally, successful experimentation with new ideas leads to routinization or
institutionalization of the better ones and then to a
cycle of continuous exploration, even as the experimenting organization is also exploiting the fruits
of exploration. Organizational learning theory,
then, suggests that organizations respond to change
in their external environments, or challenges to the
status quo, in highly variable ways. As of yet, however, there has been little attempt to compare and
contrast this variability and thus further elaborate
this theoretical framework.
The relatively new phenomenon of reduced-load
work arrangements can be viewed as a specific
example of organizational experimentation with
new ideas. As such, it represents an opportunity for
application of organizational learning theory to a
systematic comparison of organizations' implementation and interpretation of this alternative
work arrangement. The purpose of this study was
to examine differential organizational responses to
shifting needs of employees and requests for new
ways of working, particular!y among professionals
and managers. The primary objective was to find
out how organizations are responding to employee
requests to work less and how these nonstandard
forms of work are being implemented and interpreted in specific work contexts. The agenda of the
present study was not just to learn about another
alternative work arrangement, but to focus attention on the process of incremental change in the
patterns of behavior going on in organizations in
response to changing demographic characteristics
of the workforce. In other words, our intent was to
examine organization-level variability in response
to a specific example of a challenge to the status
quo, as manifested in requests for reduced-load
work. Furthermore, the organizational responses
were to be understood in the specific contexts presented by multiple stakeholder perspectives, and
1213
the focus was not just on the present but also on the
future, the changing employment relationships and
career structures that may emerge in organizations
owing to demographic changes in the workforce.
METHODS
The target participants were recruited using personal contacts with human resources and work-life
administrators, cold calls to employers, and direct
mail solicitations to members of organizations
(such as the Association of Part-Time Professionals). For each firm in the final sample, approximately two others had been approached; the nonparticipating firms either had no employees who fit
the criteria, or they were unable or unwilling to do
the search work to determine whether they had
potential participants. Of the professionals and
managers approached, 85 percent agreed to participate.
Because we sought a heterogeneous sample, the
representation of industries and jobs was monitored throughout the recruitment process. As participants were successfully recruited in one industry or type of job, we and our research associates
pursued leads in other sectors of the economy. We
also sought to achieve a mnimum 10 percent representation of men in the sample, in view of estimates of men's participation in reduced-load work
at the professional and managerial level (Catalyst,
1997). In general, we limited ourselves to a maximum of three cases per firm in order to include the
maximum number and range of organizations in
the sample. However, in three firms four cases were
completed, because the jobs were very diverse.
The total sample consisted of 87 cases of reduced-load work in professional and managerial
jobs in 45 different firms. Because of equipment
failure or lost audiotapes in 5 cases, the final sample was 82 cases from 42 firms. All stakeholder
1214
The 42 firms employing the reduced-load professionals and managers represented a wide variety of
industries, including manufacturing, telecommunications, financia! institutions, and professional services. One-third of the firms were in Canada, and
two-thirds were in the United States. Although the
participating companies ranged in size from 170 to
240,000 employees, they were mostly quite large,
averaging over 48,000 workers. On the average,
workforces were 46.4 percent female, 15.6 percent
unionized, and 10.9 percent part-time.
TABLE 1
Demographic Information, Individual Sample 8
Characteristic
Mean
Range
Age
Salaryb
Spouse/partner salary
Number of years on
reduced load
Percent load reduction
Current hours per week
Previous hours per week
Years of experience
Age of youngest child
Age of oldest child
38.8
$79,441
$92,785
4.2
26-53
$19,950-$140,000
0-$320,000
0.25-15.00
72%
31.9
50
13.7
4.7
7.9
40-90%
20-55
35-80
2.5-35.0
0.1-15.0
1-27
December
TABLE 2
Characteristics of the Other Stakeholders Intervieweda
,.
Characteristic
Senior
Managers
Coworkers
Human Resources
Representa ti ves
Spouses/
Partners
Nurnber interviewed
Mean ageb
Mean work hoursc
87
45.2
55.3
81
40.7
51.0
63
43.6
51.5
77
39.9
47.6
a For the first three types of other stakeholders (senior managers, coworkers, and human resources representatives), the percentages of
men were 70.3 , 54.3, and 23.1, respectively.
b For the four stakeholder types, n's were 81, 80, 26, and 75, respectively, owing to missing data.
e For the four stakeholder types, n's were 76, 68, 23, and 77, respectively, owing to missing data.
2000
1215
1216
December
existence of formal work-life programs could typically be resolved by consulting the interviews of
human resources representatives or senior managers, who often described or produced documentation of specific policies. Here is an example of a
firm profile:
ABC Co.
TABLE 3
Predominant Themes at the Organizational Level of Analysis
Rationale for Employer
Response
Long-standing commitment to
support and development of
employees
Recruitment and retention
Business needs and strategic
direction of firm
Diversity goals
Productivity gains expected
Facilitating Factors
Hindering Factors
Organizational Outcomes
2000
1217
TABLE 4
Accommodation
Negotiation context
Responsibility
Employer rationale
Employer posture
Financia! benefits
Increased productivity
Avoid loss of valued individual
Acquiesce and contain
Elaboration
Guided by policy and culture
Policies and programs plus target
individual
Retention
Helps firm meet diversity goals
Getting on work-life bandwagon
Institutionalize and manage
Transformation
Guided by individual
situation and culture
Shared by target individual and
senior manager
Business needs
Organizational adaptation
Recruitrnent and retention
Experiment and learn
December
2000
1219
1220
December
TABLE 5
Net Benefits of Individual Cases by Paradigma
Beneficiary of
Reduced Load
Accommodation
Elaboration
Transformation
pb
Organization
Mean
Range
3.9
-1 to +6
3.5
-5 to +6
3.7
-2 to +6
0.21
n.s.
Family
Mean
Range
2.9
- 4 to +6
3.2
-5 to +6
4.4
Oto 6
2.90
.10
Individual
Mean
Range
2.0
- 4 to +6
2.4
-5 to +6
3.4
Oto 6
2.20
.12
TABLE 6
Cross-Tabulation of Organizational Paradigm
and Global Success
Global Success Group
Organizational
Paradigm
Accommodation
Elaboration
Transformation
9
9
7
19
29
DISCUSSION
Three paradigms, accommodation, elaboration,
and transformation, were developed to represent
organizational differences in the implementation
and interpretation of reduced-load work arrangements. The emergent paradigms and the content of
the firm-level dimensions underlying them also
suggest that the way organizations respond to employee requests for reduced-load work is representative of more general organization-level variability
in responses to change in the external environment
or challenges to the status qua. More specifically,
the emergent paradigms can be viewed as representing firms' proclivity to engage in organizational
learning and to use individual cases of reducedload work as a means of experimentation. Research
on organizationallearning has stressed the need for
greater understanding of how organizations respond to the ongoing tension between continuity
and change and between the motives of exploitation of routines and exploration of disruptive, nonroutine behavior (Crossan et al. 1999; March, 1991;
Weick & Westley, 1996). In this light, the three
organizati anal paradigms of reduced -load work can
be viewed as representing firms arrayed along a
continuum between exploitation and exploration.
The paradigms illustrate ways that organizations
2000
may differ in their attempts to cope with and respond to these competing motives, as manifested in
responses to requests for reduced-load work.
The accommodation firms' method of implementing and interpreting reduced-load work arrangements demonstrates high exploitation; the intent is to increase efficiencies and productivity and
continue established routines. Individual cases of
alternative work arrangements are treated as exceptions and as minar anomalies that can be dismissed
or, indeed, accommodated. The fact that requests
for reduced-load arrangements in these firms were
granted, rather than denied, provides evidence of
learning: the organizations recognized the value of
responding to changing needs and creating innovative work arrangements in arder to keep valued
employees. However, the approach of accommodation firms was generally to exploit this learning in
the individual instance, without transferring the
experience and tacit knowledge to other employees
or work groups. In fact , sorne of these firms worked
actively to make sure that reduced-load work arrangements remained secret, in fear that if news of
them spread, the logistics of managing exceptions
to the rule would become overwhelming. They responded to change but did not generate further
learning or change. In terms of the Crossan et al.
(1999) levels of organizational learning, the focus
in accommodation firms is at the individuallevel,
with individual work arrangements approved without intention or effort to make a "feed-forward"
shift (Crossan et al., 1999: 523-524) from learning
at an individual level toward integrating the pattern throughout work groups or institutionalizing it
at the level of the organization.
On the other end of this continuum of organizationallearning, transformation firms demonstrate a
high level of the exploration aspect of learning,
with reduced-load work requests greeted with
openness and as an opportunity for experimentation, even though such requests represent disruptive, nonroutine behavior and challenge the status
quo. Alternative work arrangements fit in with a
culture that already welcomes change and learning.
The continua! fine-tuning of reduced-load arrangements observed in firms following this paradigm is
consistent with organizationallearning characteristics of continuous updating and "intentional imbalance" (Weick & Westley, 1996: 443). Each experiment is a development toward possible new
experiments which generales continua! exploration
for adaptive and innovative processes.
In between the poles of accommodation and
transformation, elaboration firms try to balance the
exploration and exploitation aspects of organizationallearning by: (1) formally and officially allow-
1221
1222
December
body of work suggests a converging pattern of organizationallearning responses, ranging from reactions to individual situations to integration of
changes into a more systemic view of organizational adaptation.
In their examination of organizational policies
and programs related to managing diversity,
Thomas and Ely (1996: 85) proposed that approaches to dealing with greater diversity can be
captured by three distinct organizational paradigms: discrimination and fairness, access and legitimation, and learning and effectiveness. The discrimination and fairness approach focuses on the
assimilation of a demographically representative
workforce, with each individual being treated the
same. The intent is to maintain control and reduce
ambiguity stemming from differences, with
progress measured in terms of recruitment and retention, rather than in terms of effectiveness of
work. The access and legitimation approach heralds acceptance and celebration of differences, primarily because it makes business sense. Thus, decisions about diversity are made in response to
current externa} market conditions. Demographically different employees tend to be matched with
"their own kind" in important organizational constituencies , such as client groups. In this paradigm,
an organization embraces diversity but forgoes the
opportunity to learn from the different perspectives
of employees. In contrast, companies in the learning and effectiveness category focus on integration
of differences among employees and on actually
learning from them. This approach implies that
diverse employees affect the main work of an organization by introducing new ideas, expanding notions of what issues are relevant, and framing issues in new, creative ways.
Following somewhat similar lines , Rapoport and
Bailyn (1996) investigated variation among several
corporations' responses to the work and family
concerns of employees, and they distinguished between an individualistic and a more collective, integrated approach. The individualistic approach
involves addressing employee problems through
specific flexible work policies and individual
accommodations made possible through supportive managers. The collective approach uses workfamily issues "as a catalyst for creative, core innovations in work practices" (Rapoport & Bailyn,
1996: 19). Rapoport and Bailyn concluded that
when firms can link improving the way work gets
done, which is good for the business, with creating
more options for employees' pursuit of fulfilling
personal and work lives, then both parties benefit.
Similarly, Friedman, Christensen, and DeGroot's
(1998) discussion of management's responses to
2000
1223
tent with Thomas and Ely's learning and effectiveness paradigm, with the collective approach of
Rapoport and Bailyn, and with Friedman and colleagues' leveraged approach. Companies following
all these patterns make individual cases opportunities to reexamine core assumptions and fundamental ways of doing work. In institutionalizing
sorne learning, yet focusing on continual experimentation, these approaches are consistent with
Crossan and colleagues' proposition that organizations attain maximum learning by engaging in a
continuous cycle of feed-forward and feedback
processes, thus maintaining an ongoing creative
tension between exploitation and exploration, between continuity and change. Continual experimentation is fueled by the underlying belief that
the management of diversity or of alternative work
arrangements can shed light on more general processes involving creativity, strategic growth, adaptation to markets, and so forth. For example,
Thomas and Ely suggested that demographically
diverse employees "bring different, important, and
competitively relevant knowledge and perspectives
about how to actually do work- how to design
processes , reach goals, frame tasks, create effective
teams, communicate ideas, and lead" (1996: 80).
In an example of ongoing exploration, one of the
transformation firms in the present study was considering a proposal that all promotions above a
certain level become negotiated deals rather than
rigid offers with standard parameters, partly because different candidates for managerial positions
had priorities that differed widely, depending on
their family situations and financial needs and desires. For example, during certain points in their
lives, sorne managers want to limit travel or avoid
work involving time-sensitive deadlines. One executive suggested that firms should have a normal
distribution of kinds of jobs, differentiated in terms
of "necessary pain," or intrusiveness into personal
life, so that individuals could find or create what
suited them at different life stages. He suggested
that his employer was learning about the workplace
and workforce of future generations of men and
women, single and married, through the process of
negotiating reduced-load work now, mostly with
female professionals trying to juggle career and
family. In other words, the current situation of requests for reduced-load work was being used as an
opportunity to learn and to plan for a possible
future scenario of more idiosyncratic and customized job negotiations, and the implications that will
follow for employment relations.
The emergent paradigms of accornmodation,
elaboration, and transformation are consistent with
categories identified in other recent research
1224
December
There was anecdotal evidence of this in several companies, but no systematic analysis was possible, as we
did not have the necessary data.
2000
Concluding Thoughts
In future research, investigators can further examine whether reduced-load work can be used as
an opportunity for organizational experimentation
and learning, as well as an opportunity for individual employees to pursue balance between their
work lives and personal lives. However, it is also
important to note that the accommodation, elaboration, and transformation paradigms we identify
here are not intended to represent a continuum of
more desirable and less desirable contexts for alternative work arrangements. On the contrary, we developed these paradigms to capture the contrasts in
implementation and interpretation we observed
and assumed that all three have advantages and
disadvantages. Indeed, each paradigm is a way of
dealing with the inherent trade-offs between
exploitation and exploration, between arder and
disorder, and between short-term priorities and
long-term challenges and, most generally, each represents a response to changing environments.
Therefore, all offer opportunities for more critica!
examination of changing career structures, of links
between specific job design decisions and strategic
objectives, and of possible, innovative responses.
The development of these organizational paradigms and the converging pattern of links between
human resource issues and a continuum of organizationallearning responses provide material for future investigations of the evolution of professional
and managerial careers in organizations.
1225
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. , & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizationallearning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bailyn, L. 1994. Breaking the mold. New York: Free
Press.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 2000. Balancing act: How to
capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business Review, 78(3): 73-80.
Catalyst. 1997. A new approach to flexibility: Managing the workltime equation. New York: Catalyst.
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment
and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1-22.
Clark, V. S. 1998. Making sense of part-time professional work arrangements. Doctoral dissertation,
the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White , R. E. 1999. An
organizational learning framework: From intuition
to institutionalization. Academy of Management
Review, 24: 522-537.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of
organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of
Management Review, 9: 284-295.
Davenport, T. H., & Pearlson, K. 1998. Two cheers for the
virtual office. Sloan Management Review, 39(4):
51-65.
.1
- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1226
work arrangements in law, medicine, and accounting. Technical report, McGill University, Montreal.
Levy, E. S., Flynn, P. M., & Kellogg, D. M. 1997. Customized work arrangements in the accounting profession: An uncertain future . Technical report, Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation, New York.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry: 158-183.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper/Collins.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 7187.
Ulrich, D., Von Glinow, M. A., & Jick, T. 1993. Highimpact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 12(2): 52-66.
Milliken, D. J., Martins, L. L., & Margan, H. 1998. Explaining organizational responsiveness to work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as
issue interpreters. Academy of Management ]ournal, 41: 580-592.
December
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mary Dean Lee is an associate professor in the Faculty of
Management at McGill University. She received her
Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Yale University.
Her research interests include organizational learning,
the changing nature of work, managerial careers, and
work and family.
Shelley M. MacDermid is an associate professor of child
development and family studies and the director of the
Center for Families at Purdue University. She holds a
Ph.D. in human development and family studies from the
Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on
the links between work conditions and family life , with
special attention to organizational size and to work as a
context for adult development.
Michelle L. Buck is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at McGill University. She received her
Ph.D. in social psychology from Princeton University.
Her research interests include aspects of conflict management and negotiation, organizational learning, and
alternative work arrangements that are related to individual, group, or organizational transformation.