With the advancements in information and communication technology and the widespread adoption of the Internet, new working arrangements have become a popular possibility (Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015). Today’s workforce actively seeks out the opportunity to work more flexibly and the provision and the usage of FWAs are increasing rapidly (Regus, 2017). Flexible work arrangements can be defined as formal or informal arrangements, which allow employees some flexibility and choice to control and readjust their working hours and/or spatial location of work (Campbell, 2015; Ciarniene & Vienazindiene, 2018).

Today’s workforce is increasingly composed of workers who actively want more freedom of choice and seek out the opportunity to work more flexibly in terms of time and location (Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & Besen, 2012; Regus, 2017). Providing the experience choice and flexibility at work engages employees psychologically by providing elevated experiences of psychological and physiological job resources (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2012). Psychological and physiological job resources include ‘physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects that either/or (1) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (2) are functional in achieving work goals’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 296). Flexible work arrangements apply directly to both parts of the definition. It enables individuals to cope better with the competing stresses between home and work demands by improving employees’ experience of the interaction between their work and personal life (home) roles (Campbell, 2015; Weale, Wells, & Oakman, 2017). Flexible work arrangements to address the psychological and physical job resources include many different working arrangements, such as flexitime (allowing employees flexibility in working hour options) (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2017), telecommuting or teleworking (working remotely or ‘work from home’), job sharing and a variety of temporary work contract arrangements (Berkery, Morley, Tiernan, Purtill, & Parry, 2017). Two of the most popular types of FWAs for full-time employees appear to be flexitime and telecommuting (Onken-Menge et al., 2018; Peretz et al., 2018; Spreitzer et al., 2017).

Some of the biggest drivers behind the growth in FWAs include employees’ need for better work–life balance (Spreitzer et al., 2017), a drive to resolve family–work conflict (Putnam, Myers, & Gailliard, 2014) and a desire to reduce the time ‘wasted’ time in commuting (Regus, 2017). In response to these trends and needs, many employers attempt to provide employees with more freedom and flexibility, without compromising on the organisation’s interests (Regus, 2017). Especially knowledge workers are increasingly becoming able and enabled to complete work without being physically present at the office and to perform tasks from anywhere and at any time (Johns & Gratton, 2013; Lee & De Kok, 2016). The potential of the flexible workplace is now a reality, giving employers more options to consider to improve workplace practices by implementing FWAs (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013). Employers worldwide have increasingly adopted FWAs in an attempt to attract and retain talented employees and enhance their competitiveness (Peretz et al., 2018; Stavrou & Kilaniotis, 2010).

Research indicates that FWAs are popular, that is, its implementation is inexpensive and mostly yields positive benefits (Berkery et al., 2017; Regus, 2017). A range of empirical studies on FWAs attest to the positive work outcomes related to its implementation and usage. Some of these studies are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that FWAs are consistently related to a broad spectrum of positive work outcomes. Flexible work arrangements tend to be attractive from both an organisational point of view and an employee point of view. Ayman, Ashoush and Younis (2015) argue that organisations value outcomes such as reduced turnover rates, lower absenteeism, increased loyalty and productivity, and more positive work attitudes. Similarly, employees value more balance between work and family demands, lowered workload stress and improved quality of work life. Despite these positive outcomes, access to and use of FWAs vary widely within and across organisational and national contexts as explicated later (Bessa & Tomlinson, 2017).

Interestingly, not only do specific FWAs yield the results indicated in Table 1 independently or in isolation but also tend to render an even stronger result if more than one type is applied, for example, the typical combination of flexitime with telecommuting (Thompson et al., 2015), which tends to act as a single bundle (Peretz et al., 2018; Stavrou, 2005). As such, many empirical studies tend to combine different types of FWAs as a single construct (Chen & Fulmer, 2018).

However, the implementation of FWAs is not a panacea for workplace problems. Notwithstanding research largely indicating positive outcomes of FWAs, empirical results on the relationship between FWAs and well-being are somewhat inconclusive and sometimes contradicting to the benefits listed in Table 1 (Vahle-Hinz et al., 2013). For instance, it was found that teleworking can promote isolation and lack of support experienced from the organisation (Croucher & Rizov, 2014), increased stress as work and home life become inseparable (Baard & Thomas, 2010) and reduced well-being through increased workload (Onken-Menge et al., 2018; Regus, 2017; Ter Hoeven & Van Zoonen, 2015). Flexible work arrangements present coordination, control, collaboration difficulties and negative attitudes (Ayman et al., 2015). An unsupportive culture may cause stigmatisation of those who take advantage of FWAs (Den Dulk, Groeneveld, Ollier-Malaterre, & Valcour, 2013; Putnam et al., 2014), resulting in increased stress (Vahle-Hinz et al., 2013). The need to investigate the use and outcomes of FWAs further is thus evident.

Apart from a few exceptions, most research on FWAs has been conducted in Western countries (Bloom et al., 2015; Peretz et al., 2018). With the world representing a global economy, it is important to understand whether human resource practices such as FWAs render similar outcomes in different countries and contexts (Rabl et al., 2014). Indeed, several studies have shown that the use and outcomes of FWAs can differ significantly across nations (Kassinis & Stavrou, 2013; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017; Peretz et al., 2018; Stavrou, Parry, & Anderson, 2015). The few studies relating to FWAs in emerging countries (mostly Asian settings) often contradict the findings from Western and developed economies (Bloom et al., 2015; Croucher & Rizov, 2014; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017; Peretz et al., 2018; Stock, Strecker, & Bieling, 2016). Moreover, there appears not to be a predictable pattern in the outcomes of FWAs across nations and cultures, as research also found differences in the outcomes of FWAs across nations within the West (Masuda et al., 2012; Peters & Den Dulk, 2003; Stavrou & Kilaniotis, 2010), and between the West, the East and Latin America (Masuda et al., 2012; Stock et al., 2016), and also within Asia (Dizaho et al., 2017). The need to investigate the use and outcomes of FWAs in various specific countries and economies is evident.

Research on FWAs is scarce within the emerging economies of Africa. Notwithstanding, the available research found a correlation between FWAs and job performance in Kenya and Nigeria (Abba, 2018; Opuko & Munjuri, 2017). In South Africa, FWAs have been correlated with loyalty and morale (Appiah-Mfodwa, Horwitz, Kieswetter, King, & Solai, 2000), decreased stress and commuting time (Baard & Thomas, 2010) and job satisfaction and work–life balance (Grobler & De Bruyn, 2011). The availability and the use of FWAs in South Africa have been found to be particularly popular and effective in emerging multinational companies (Horwitz, 2017). Based on these (limited) results, it appears that FWAs would render positive research outcomes for South African employees, notwithstanding the potential differences in outcomes of FWAs across nations and economies that were noted previously in research.

It seems as if other contextual factors, such as the macroeconomic environment, can influence the use and outcomes of FWAs, particularly in emerging economies (Idris, 2014). In most developed economies, unemployment is low, standards of living are comparatively high and organisational work–family support is relatively common (Stock et al., 2016). This is not necessarily the case in emerging economies where unemployment rates are often high, combined with a mismatch between skills required and the generally available skill set of the working population (Ahmad, Shaw, Bown, Gardiner, & Omar, 2015; Reddy, Bhorat, Powell, Visser, & Arends, 2016). Indeed, this is the case in South Africa, where there is a ‘structural mismatch between labour demand and supply … in that the economy and labour market shows demand for high-skilled workers, but there is a surplus of low-skilled workers’ (Reddy et al., 2016, p. 9). The unemployment rate is between 25% (structured) and 35% (expanded), with 42% of the labour force having less than a grade 12 certificate and only 25% being classified as skilled workers (Reddy et al., 2016). This puts immense demands on skilled workers’ working hours and pressure on organisations to curb their turnover intentions (Ahmad et al., 2015). It is thus reasonable to argue that the skilled South African workers will value the opportunity to make use of FWAs. Indeed, Naidoo and Kasiram (2003) found that South African professionals working in the United Kingdom appreciate the higher prevalence of FWAs abroad, and find them beneficial. These factors seem to imply that the skilled South African employees are likely to appreciate FWAs as being beneficial, notwithstanding research that found negative outcomes of FWAs in some emerging economies (Chandra, 2012; Idris, 2014).

Within the sociocultural context of a country, the industry sector is another contextual feature likely to affect the use and outcomes of FWAs. Peretz et al. (2018) and Stavrou (2005) argue that service-oriented and private, high-tech organisations have more flexibility than manufacturing organisations and are thus better able to accommodate FWAs. In this sector, South Africa has a particular competitive advantage in the fast-growing software development market (Maseko, 2017; Quartz Africa, 2016). However, the growth of this subsector is inhibited by a substantive lack of skills and a chronic shortage of software developers (News24Wire, 2015). Many software development firms tend to be small- and medium-size private enterprises (SMEs) (Statistics South Africa, 2017), typically lacking the resources to compete with larger firms on elaborate monetary benefits. Offering benefits such as FWAs can therefore present a differentiating advantage to employers to attract and retain employees with restricted and sought-after skills (Den Dulk et al., 2013; Ross & Ali, 2017).

Access to a fast and reliable Internet connection is a prerequisite for effective telecommuting (Regus, 2017). In many developed economies, the almost omnipresent Internet is a given, permeating most aspects of work and daily life (Regus, 2017). However, a slow or unreliable Internet connection is experienced as a major obstacle for telecommuting in many emerging economies. For instance, 92% of Brazilian workers and 33% of South African workers noted this as a major obstacle (Regus, 2017). However, even in emerging economies, the information and technology environment is suited for telecommuting, because of these workers’ relative better access to a fast and reliable Internet than workers in other industries (Ross & Ali, 2017). In some of the emerging economies where FWAs did not yield positive outcomes, it is related to the issues of trust and accountability in cultures where rigid operating hours are appreciated (Chandra, 2012; Idris, 2014). This is not the case in the software development industry where developers’ commitment and the work context promote both telecommuting and flexitime (Ross & Ali, 2017). Indeed, Nortje, Van Brakel and Rensleigh (2009) note that FWAs are popular in the South African software development sector. Because of the nature of the work context of South African software developers, it seems reasonable to expect that FWAs will be generally available to these employees and that they will make substantive use thereof.

The relationship between FWAs and employee engagement (as noted in Table 1) is of particular interest in South Africa, where employee engagement levels tend to be one of the lowest globally (Abbot, 2014). Engagement is a vital workplace variable as it is consistently confirmed to be a strong predictor of a range of positive work outcomes, such as high performance and low turnover intentions, high morale, enhanced commitment and involvement (Bailey et al., 2017), increased job satisfaction and commitment (Lockwood, 2007), and productivity (Böckerman & Ilmakunnas, 2012). Engagement is defined as ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption’ (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Vigour is described as high levels of energy, resilience, willingness to invest effort in one’s work and persistence despite difficulties (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Dedication refers to a ‘sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 295). Absorption refers to being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Job resources have been shown to be a significant antecedent of employee engagement (Bailey et al., 2017). Amongst other aspects, job resources refer to those ‘physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects that reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 296). One can argue that FWAs offer both psychological and physiological job resources. Psychologically, FWAs create an empowering sense of personal freedom and autonomy with regard to structuring one’s work and day, supported by an encouraging signal of being cared for by the organisation (Chen & Fulmer, 2018; Onken-Menge et al., 2018; Peretz et al., 2018). Physiologically, FWAs allow workers to work from anywhere, and at times which suit their schedule and physical circumstances best. With FWAs pervasive in the software development industry globally (Johns & Gratton, 2013), and correlations between FWAs with engagement performance confirmed (Bailey et al., 2017), it can be argued that South African software developers who make use of FWAs are likely to measure higher on engagement and performance outcomes than those who do not.

From the preceding discussions, four specific research hypotheses are derived:

A total of 277 responses were received, of which 260 responses could be used in the analyses. However, 22 respondents did not provide performance review ratings and were excluded from the performance-related analyses. Respondents represented 86 organisations, which were mostly SMEs (68%, n = 59), from seven of the nine South African provinces, with most respondents living in two provinces (82%, n = 210). Most of the respondents were 30–39 years old (46%, n = 119), followed by those younger than 30 years (33%, n = 84). Most respondents were male (89%, n = 230), with relatively few female respondents (11%, n = 28), and roughly 41% (n = 105) of the respondents being parents.

Firstly, the questionnaire gathered demographic data, (e.g. age, gender, the location of participants, parental status, freelancers or fulltime employees, working hours and tenure). Secondly, three key aspects were measured, namely, engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, UWES-9), self-reported performance review and perceived benefits of FWAs (Appendix 1). Employee opinions regarding self-benefit and company benefits of FWA were determined via a five-point Likert scale questionnaire (Appendix 1). Perceptions of the benefits of the two types of FWA investigated in this study, that is, flexitime and telecommuting, were measured separately. Employee perception of self-performance was also measured via a six-point Likert scale (Appendix 1). Perception of the participant’s last performance review was used as a heuristic for perceived performance.

Time at work was measured by enquiring about the typical number of hours spent in a week on work-related activities. Tenure was measured by asking respondents how many years they have been employed with their current employer. Both these questions were presented in an open-ended state to accommodate a wide range of responses.

Employee engagement was measured using the shortened version of the UWES-9 (Schaufeli, et al., 2002). The Cronbach’s alphas for the 9-item UWES-9 were consistent with the original 17-item version of the UWES, which showed high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.84, 0.89 and 0.79 for the three factors, respectively: vigour, dedication and absorption. Schaufeli et al. (2006) confirmed that UWES-9 scores have acceptable psychometric properties and that it is an acceptable instrument to measure employee engagement. The UWES-9 measures three dimensions of engagement, namely, vigour, dedication and absorption by using the same six-point Likert scale applied by Schaufeli et al. (2006).

In order to mitigate for common method variance (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016), recommendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) were applied, for example, ensuring anonymity to respondents, clearly defining constructs such as flexitime and remote working, urging honest answers and the revalidation of the UWES-9 through CFA.

The web-based survey ensured the anonymity of all participants by only providing a link to the survey, from where anonymised data were obtained on an Excel format. The survey commenced with an informed consent form, stating the rights of the participants, emphasising their voluntary participation and the right to refuse participation and to skip questions they did not feel comfortable answering. Only when participants accepted these conditions could the survey be completed. Potential participants were approached in their personal capacity and not through their respective organisations, but through the platforms and methods noted. The only organisational information collected was to ask participants to indicate their organisation’s Internet domain (e.g. mycompany.co.za). Responses to this question enabled the researchers to establish organisational size by conducting a Google search. Obtaining gatekeeper permission for participants to participate in the study was therefore not deemed to be necessary.

In order not to compromise on data validity, only cases where respondents actually made use of FWAs, both flexitime and telecommuting, were included in the analyses regarding the use of FWAs. Research instruments developed elsewhere in the world do not necessarily have the same structure when applied in an emerging economy (De Klerk, Boshoff, & Van Wyk, 2009; Van der Walt & De Klerk, 2014). The UWES-9 was thus first validated for the South African sample in this study, through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Statistical tests used to investigate relationships included independent sample t-tests and Pearson’s correlation. Two-sample hypothesis testing analyses were used to assess whether employees who made use of flexitime experienced higher performance outcomes than those who did not, and whether they believed FWAs would be beneficial for them or themselves, their companies and so forth. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of FWAs on engagement and performance.