12.9.2013

1

Telework and informal overtime at home: Following work or familyneeds? Satu Ojala

• Researcher, Soon-to-be-PhD in Social Policy• University of Tampere, Finland

• satu.ojala@uta.fi

Jouko Nätti• Professor in Social Policy

• University of Tampere, Finland

Timo Anttila• Postdoctoral Researcher

• University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Turku Work Conference, Work and Family -session 21st August 2013

Part of Project ”Spatial dispersion of paid work” (Finnish Academy 2010–2013)

• Aims to examine: (1) Concepts and prevalence of work at distributed timings and locations(2) Characteristics: nature of work, informal and unintended features(3) Consequences for employees, families and organisations

• Data:• Finnish Quality of Work Life Surveys 1984–2008, Statistics Finland• European working conditions surveys 1990–2010, Eurofound• Finnish Time Use surveys, Statistics Finland• Interviews with management and employees

• Group:• Jouko Nätti, Satu Ojala, Tiina Saari and Pasi Pyöriä

• School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Finland• Timo Anttila and Tomi Oinas

• Dpt. Of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

12.9.2013

2

In this presentation:Focus in work at home and family

Ojala, Nätti & Anttila (2014) Informal Overtime at Home instead of Telework: Increase in Negative Work-Family Interface, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (3) 2014.

Research setting of this study• Question

• How formal telework and informal overtime at home are related to positive and negative work-family interface?

• Data• 2003 and 2008 Finnish Quality of Work Life Survey data

• two time series points combined, not longitudinal• representative sample of Finnish wage earners

• N = 4,104 for 2003 and 4,392 for 2008• Important measures to analyse the nature of work at home!

• Methods• crosstables• logistic regression

12.9.2013

3

Work at home & work-family interface?• Home-based work is expected to

• enhance the work-life balance• provide greater autonomy and individual flexibility (e.g. Wilson

and Greenhill, 2004)• help reconcile incompatible time schedules (Felstead et al. 2005)

• Support for increased sense of balance in Gajendran and Harrison’s (2007) meta-analysis of 19 primary studies telework

• Also mixed findings:• work at home may negatively affect family relations (e.g. Mann

and Holdsworth, 2003) • the main motivation for work at home NOT family BUT catching

up on work (Wight and Raley 2009; Ojala 2011)

• why mixed results??

ConceptsTelework• during regular / normal (day-time) working hours• a written or an oral agreement between employer and employee on

the terms of work outside the workplace• on private premises

Informal overtime at home (Sullivan 2003; Fenner & Renn 2010; Ojala 2011; Song 2009)• during private hours• at home / other private spheres• work early mornings, evenings, nights, weekends or during holidays• the informality refers to (partly) unpaid, non-agreed and thereby

somewhat hidden nature

12.9.2013

4

Prevalence and nature of work at home(Quality of Work Life Survey 2003 & 2008, Finland)

“Do you sometimes do work connected with your main job at home?”

All “Is this work mainly:” Home-working

employees

Works occasionally or partially at home

32 “Overtime work without compensation” (informal overtime)

56

Works at home only 2 “It is agreed that some of the normal working hours are done at home (telework)

33

Does not work at home at all

66 “Both” / does not know 11

Total 100 % Total 100 %

N 8496 N 2748

Measures for work-life interface(Quality of Work Life survey 2003 & 2008, Finland)• Positive interface:

• (1) ‘I cope better with my children when I also go to work’: 1 = Totally true/True to some extent, 0 = Untrue to some extent/Totally untrue

• families with children• (2) ‘Have there been conflicts in your family about working hours, household

work and personal time?’ 1 = No, the times are adjusted peaceably/ There were conflicts before but not anymore, 0 = Conflicts arise from time to time/There are a lot of conflicts and battles about time.

• respondents having a spouse/partner

• Negative interface: • (3) 'I feel that I am neglecting home matters because of my job’

• all respondents• (4) ‘In my spouse's (partner's) opinion I work too hard’

• respondents having a spouse/partner• Both measures: 1 = Totally true/True to some extent, 0 = Untrue to some

extent/Totally untrue.

12.9.2013

5

Logisticregression models

• Demographic controls:

• Gender• Age• Educational level

• Family situation:• Spouse employed• Single parent• Age of the

youngest child• Child care

• Job characteristics:• Manager• Autonomy• Long hours • Unsocial hours • Pressure• Flexibility needed • Superior support• Work at home

• Not work at home (reference group)

• Telework at home• Informal overtime

at home

• Interface measures as dependent variables

What did we find?• Weak evidence for positive interface

• telework does not ease balancing• disputes over the allocation of time were NOT more easily solved

by couples who used homeworking options• informal overtime at home weakens it

• coping with children not reactive after controls

• Strong evidence for negative interface • Informal work at home strongly predicts feelings that issues at

home are neglected due to the demands of work• only the controls for long hours and for being a single parent are

stronger• Spouses react rather negatively to homeworkers’ long hours

• both telework and informal overtime concerned

12.9.2013

6

Discussion• Formal and informal forms of work need to be separated in the

studies, they produce different outcomes

• White-collar work not limited by time nor place <-> need for renewing the working time regulation (Supiot et al. 2001)?

• Dual-earner situation as a strengthening form of employment: EU encourages women to seek employed• two thirds of white collars work at home overtime• what about time for family?• part-time work rather than fulltime?

• Need for overtime is somewhat an individualised problem• time cultures within organisations need to be discussed• better managing of informalities

References• Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005), Changing places of work. Palgrave

Macmillan, Basingstoke.• Fenner, G. H. and Renn, R. W. (2010) ‘Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-

to-family conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations and time management’, Human Relations 63(1): 63–82.

• Gajendran, R. S. and Harrison, D. A. (2007), “The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting. Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1524-1541.

• Mann, S. and Holdsworth, L. (2003), “The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions and health”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 196-211.

• Ojala, Nätti & Anttila (2014) Informal Overtime at Home instead of Telework: Increase in Negative Work-Family Interface, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (3) 2014.

• Ojala Satu (2011) Supplemental work at home among Finnish wage earners: involuntary overtime or taking the advantage of flexibility? Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 2/2011.

• Song, Y. (2009), “Unpaid Work at Home”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 578-588.• Sullivan, C. (2003) ‘What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of teleworking

and homeworking’, New Technology, Work and Employment 18(3): 158–165.• Supiot, A. (2001), Beyond Employment. Changes in Work and the Future of Labour Law

in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford–New York.• Wight, V. R. and Raley, S. B. (2009), “When Home Becomes Work: Work and Family Time

among Workers at Home”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 93 No.1, pp. 197-202.• Wilson, M. and Greenhill, A. (2004), “Gender and teleworking identities in the risk

society: a research agenda”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol.19 No.3, pp. 207-221.