Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, Vol. 84, No. 4, 496-513 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/99/S3.00 Flexible and Compressed Workweek Schedules: A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Work-Related Criteria Boris B. Baltes Wayne State University Thomas E. Briggs, Joseph W. Huff, Julie A. Wright, and George A. Neuman Northern Illinois University Meta-analytic techniques were used to estimate the effects of flexible and compressed workweek schedules on several work-related criteria (productivity/performance, job satisfac- tion, absenteeism, and satisfaction with work schedule). In general, the effects of both schedules were positive. However, the effects of both flextime and compressed workweek schedules were different across the outcome criteria (e.g., compressed workweek schedules did not significantly affect absenteeism). Thus, the level of positive impact associated with either schedule is dependent on the outcome criterion under consideration. Further, several variables were found to be moderators of flexible work schedules. For example, highly flexible flextime programs were less effective in comparison to less flexible programs, and the positive benefits of flextime schedules were found to diminish over time. Alternative work schedules, such as flextime and com- pressed workweeks, have been adopted by an increasing number of organizations over the past several decades (Pierce & Dunham, 1992). A recent report that sur- veyed 1,035 organizations found that 66% offered flexible work schedules (up 6% from the year before) and 21% offered compressed work schedules (Hewitt Associates LLC, 1995). Much of the increased use of alternative work schedules is due to societal changes, such as increasing numbers of women in the workforce, dual-career households, and work-leisure time expectations (Hochschild, 1997; Pierce, Newstrom, Dunham, & Barber, 1989; Ronen, 1984). These changes have increased employee demands for flexibility in their work schedules so that they can better adjust to and master life outside the workplace. The positive benefits of these alternative work schedules for employees' quality of life outside of work are well documented (Lee, 1983; Meij- Boris B. Baltes, Psychology Department, Wayne State Univer- sity; Thomas E. Briggs, Joseph W. Huff, Julie A. Wright, and George A. Neuman, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University. A preliminary version of this article was presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario Canada, August, 1996. We thank Rob Altmann and Ken McGraw for their comments on a draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Boris B. Baltes, Psychology Department, 71 West Warren, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202. Electronic mail may be sent to bbaltes@sun.science.wayne.edu. man, 1992; Ronen & Primps, 1981; Stevens & Elsworth, 1979; Thierry & Meijman, 1994). However, research results regarding benefits to the employing organizations that have implemented these alternative work schedules are far more ambiguous (Pierce et al., 1989). This question is the primary focus of the present study. Organizational gains that are presumed to result from alternative work schedules are many and diverse, but they generally include increased employee job satisfaction, re- duction of overtime, decreased absenteeism, and increased productivity (deCarufel & Schaan, 1990; Pierce et al., 1989). However, although originally assumed to have pri- marily positive effects on both the employee and the orga- nization, alternative work schedules can have unintended negative effects. These negative consequences include in- creased need for managerial planning, the inability of the supervisor to be present at all times when employees are on the job, and extra implementation costs (Coltrin & Barendse, 1981). In addition, Nollen (1981) has proposed that alternative work schedules may create problems with interface and coverage with suppliers and customers, as all units are not working on the same schedule. Because organizational use of these alternative work schedules is growing, it seems imperative that researchers provide organizational leaders with the information needed to determine whether an alternative work schedule would be beneficial or detrimental. In this vein, the next section addresses several problems with the current literature that leave open the questions of if, when, and how these work- schedule interventions are effective for organizations (Dun- 496