Flexibility and the work-nonwork boundary

Subproject 1: Daily needs-supply fit of temporal and spatial flexibility: A diary study on employee recovery and well-being. Flexible working arrangements (FWAs), including control over working hours and work location, are central to contemporary work contexts (Eurofound & ILO, 2017; Wang et al., 2021). Although FWAs are intended to foster well-being, work engagement, and work–life balance (Allen et al., 2013; Joyce et al., 2010; Kossek & Michel, 2011), their mere availability does not guarantee beneficial outcomes (Hornung et al., 2008). Research suggests that the effects of FWA on employee well-being and recovery depend on the fit between employees’ flexibility needs and the flexibility supplied by the work environment (Gabriel et al., 2015). Furthermore, need-supply fit is not static but may fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, reflecting within-person variability in both needs and supply (Wang et al., 2021). Building on this dynamic perspective, we assume that flexibility needs and supplies are likewise subject to day level fluctuations. This study draws on Person-Environment Fit theory (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and the needs-supply fit framework (Edwards, 1991) to conceptualize FWAs as resources whose effectiveness depends on alignment with employee needs. Based on Person-Environment Fit theory (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), we expect day-specific need-supply fit of temporal and spatial flexibility to be positively associated with work engagement and psychological detachment and negatively associated with exhaustion, whereas misfit in the form of undersupply of flexibility is expected to be negatively associated with work engagement and psychological detachment and positively associated with exhaustion. To capture the dynamic, intraindividual nature of flexibility needs, supplies, and their (mis)fit, we adopt a daily diary design. We will use polynomial regression and response surface analysis to model needs-supply (mis)fit. Subproject 2: Daily preference–enactment fit of work–nonwork segmentation: A diary study on recovery. This study examines the daily (mis)fit between individuals’ desire to separate work from private life, referred to as segmentation preference, and their actual behavior regarding separation or integration, referred to as segmentation enactment. The central aim is to examine how the interplay between segmentation preference and segmentation enactment relates to evening recovery, with a specific focus on psychological detachment. Specifically, we examine how day-specific fit or misfit between a person’s preferred degree of work–nonwork segmentation and their actual segmentation enactment relates to the level of psychological detachment, and whether the direction of this fit or misfit is relevant for this relationship. Accordingly, the following research question will be investigated: How does a (mis)fit between a person’s segmentation preference and their actual segmentation enactment relate to recovery, and does the direction of this (mis)fit matter? With regard to recovery, we focus on evening psychological detachment from work, defined as the ability to mentally disengage from work during nonwork time, which facilitates recovery from work-related demands (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Although psychological detachment is the primary outcome of interest, we acknowledge substantial conceptual overlap between segmentation enactment and psychological detachment from work. Moreover, in light of subproject 1, there is overlap in the outcome variable psychological detachment. Therefore, we additionally assess relaxation, another important recovery experience (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), and may substitute psychological detachment with relaxation in the analysis. Subproject 3: The role of anticipation for daily recovery. In preparation for a larger research project on the role of anticipation in work-stress recovery, subproject 3 aims to exploratively assess different forms of anticipatory cognitions at the end of the workday, focusing on thoughts and expectations regarding the upcoming evening. The study examines how these anticipatory cognitions relate to daily recovery experiences and well-being outcomes, including psychological detachment, relaxation, sleep quality, exhaustion, state of being recovered, and affect. At this stage, the analyses are purely exploratory and serve to map relevant anticipatory constructs and their associations with recovery-related outcomes. References Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12012 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283-357). Wiley. Eurofound & ILO. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union and the International Labour Office. https://doi.org/10.2806/372726 Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., Chandler, M. M., Moran, C. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), 683–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12042 Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.655 Joyce, K., Pabayo, R., Critchley, J. A., & Bambra, C. (2010). Flexible working conditions and their effects on employee health and wellbeing. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008009 Kossek, E. E., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Flexible work schedules. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 535–572). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-017 Kristof Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta analysis of person–environment fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204 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: An International Review, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290