Help or hindrance? Day-level relationships between flextime use, work-nonwork boundaries, and affective well-being.

Flexible working time arrangements are becoming increasingly popular around the globe, but do they actually benefit employees? To address this question, we take a differentiated look at employees' day-specific use of flextime and its effect on the intersection of work and nonwork life. Specifically, we examined whether links between day-specific flextime use and affective well-being at work and at home can be explained by level of goal completion and the subjective boundaries around one's work and private life domains (i.e., the strength of work-nonwork boundaries). During 2 consecutive workweeks, 150 bank employees from various functions (Study 1) and a heterogeneous sample of 608 employees (Study 2) reported their day-specific use of flextime, boundary strength at work and home, and affective well-being in the evening and the next day. Multilevel structural equation modeling of 2,223 (Study 1) and 3,164 (Study 2) observations revealed that flextime use was associated with stronger boundaries at home in both studies and stronger boundaries at work in Study 2. Stronger boundaries were, in turn, positively associated with affective well-being, both in the same evening and the next day. Study 2 further revealed that day-specific nonwork goal completion mediated the positive association between daily flextime use and boundary strength at work. However, whereas occasional flextime use had unequivocal positive consequences, chronic flextime use undermined the completion of work goals. Overall, findings suggest that flextime use benefits employees when used in moderation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Emotional exhaustion and cognitive performance in apparently healthy teachers: a longitudinal multi-source study.

We investigate how emotional exhaustion (EE), the core component of burnout, relates to cognitive performance, job performance and health. Cognitive performance was assessed by self-rated cognitive stress symptoms, self-rated and peer-rated cognitive impairments in everyday tasks and a neuropsychological test of learning and memory (LGT-3); job performance and physical health were gauged by self-reports. Cross-sectional linear regression analyses in a sample of 100 teachers confirm that EE is negatively related to cognitive performance as assessed by self-rating and peer-rating as well as neuropsychological testing (all p < .05). Longitudinal linear regression analyses confirm similar trends (p < .10) for self-rated and peer-rated cognitive performance. Executive control deficits might explain impaired cognitive performance in EE. In longitudinal analyses, EE also significantly predicts physical health. Contrary to our expectations, EE does not affect job performance. When reversed causation is tested, none of the outcome variables at Time 1 predict EE at Time 2. This speaks against cognitive dysfunctioning serving as a vulnerability factor for exhaustion. In sum, results underpin the negative consequences of EE for cognitive performance and health, which are relevant for individuals and organizations alike. In this way, findings might contribute to the understanding of the burnout syndrome.