Examining the transition to a four-day school week and ...1076/fulltext.pdf · prevent burnout, work with employees to solve work/daycare schedule conflicts and that all college stakeholders

1

EXAMINING THE TRANSITION TO A FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK AND INVESTIGATING POST-CHANGE

FACULTY/STAFF WORK-LIFE BALANCE: A COMMUNITY COLLEGE CASE STUDY

A doctoral thesis presented

by

Nelly Cardinale

to

The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

in the field of

Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts

June 2013

2

Acknowledgement Page

I would like to thank several people in my life that gave strength and support to get to the

end of this journey. First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband Michael Cardinale,

who practically took over all household duties, while I worked on coursework and on this

dissertation. We have been happily married since 1985 and he has been a great husband to me.

Thanks for believing in me and for all of your love. Thanks also to my wonderful sons, Robert

Cardinale and William Cardinale for being the best sons anyone could wish for and supporting

me throughout the process.

Next, I would like to give thanks to my advisors, Dr. Kelly Conn and Dr. Jane Lohmann,

for their guidance and suggestions throughout the dissertation process. I would have never gotten

to this point without your help. I also want to acknowledge my outside examiner, Dr. Jim Ross

for agreeing to be part of my dissertation committee. His enthusiasm, support, and excitement

concerning my chosen dissertation topic, has really meant a lot to me and has kept me on track.

I am also thanking the doctor of education faculty at Northeastern University. All of you

have given me incredibly challenging assignments that made me pull out my hair at times but

prepared me well for surviving the dissertation stage. I especially like to thank my research class

professor, Dr. Tova Sanders for encouraging me to select a more scholarly organizational change

framework. Because of her guidance, I selected the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) Causal Model of

Organizational Performance and Change framework. I then decided to modify it and merged it

successfully with a work-life balance framework. After getting approval from both framework

authors to use the merged framework, it is needless to say that I felt like a rock star for weeks.

Another professor that really made a difference was Dr. Carol Sharicz who taught a fabulous

3

“Systems Thinking” class. Carol’s class empowered me to draw the causal reinforcing loop

shown in this dissertation.

I would like to thank Dr. Joan Wilkinson-Burkhardt for picking me up at the Logan

Airport the day before my defense, treating me to a fabulous dinner/dessert at one of my favorite

Boston restaurants, taking me shopping for last minute items and dropping me off at my hotel. I

have really enjoyed being online classmates with Joan as we both worked well together during

one class as peer editors for each other. During that class, we became fast friends and got

together for the first time during her recent trip to Orlando, Fl to present at a conference. Just

know that your support and friendship has meant so much to me.

I would also like to acknowledge Stephannie Peters who is one of my doctoral

colleagues. She took a personal day off from work, drove four hours from Vermont and checked

into the same hotel where I was staying for the purpose of offering me support the night before

my defense. She also spent the next day driving me to the defense location, sharing meals with

me and making sure I took the correct train to get back to the Logan Airport. Stephanie and I

have been classmates in a few doctoral classes and I have enjoyed being in the same classes with

her. We met on Facebook, while I was applying for admission to the doctoral program and

became fast friends. On the day before the defense, we finally met in person for the first time and

I really enjoyed spending time together. I do not think that I could have survived on my own

during my defense day and I will forever be grateful for her friendship, help and support.

Moreover, I would like to acknowledge my doctoral colleagues Beth Dixon and Colleen

Fritze for taking time out of their busy work schedules to become part of the live audience during

my dissertation defense session. I recently met Beth during a Google hangout concerning the

topic of case studies; I liked her instantly and became her friend. Colleen was a classmate during

4

my very first doctoral residency class in the summer of 2010. Since then, we have both been

classmates together in a second doctoral residency class. We have become friends and she is

someone that I really admire. Just know that for me, it was very comforting for me to have both

of you in the room with me during the defense session. Thanks so much for your support and

friendship.

Last but not least, I would like to give thanks to the members of Group G, who consist of

Dr. Ellen Kennedy, Dr. Manual Ruiz and Dr. Keiko Broomhead. They were the very first group

of classmates, which I was randomly assigned to work with on a seven-week group project

during my very first doctoral class in the summer of 2010. It turns out that out of all of the Group

G members, I was the only new student to the program.

The four of us all worked in the higher education field and together we created one of the

best group projects in the class. During the seventh week of the summer term in 2010, we

finished and presented our project during the residency week. We also met in person for the first

time and really got along well. Since then we had kept in touch by phone, texting and using

Blackboard Chat and have become great friends. We also got together again in Boston during the

residency week during the summer of 2011. Well, the other three members of this group all

defended successfully during the last few weeks before I did and it has been my dream ever since

we met that the four of us graduate together someday. It certainly seems that some dreams do

come true.

5

Abstract

This single descriptive embedded case study examined the process of implementing a four-day

work/school week at a community college and investigated post-change faculty/staff work-life

balance. All of the students attending this college live at home. The change was implemented

due to state funding shortfalls, increasing college utility expenses and low employee morale.

Additionally, this study resulted in a set of guidelines that can be used by change agents of

similar colleges to implement this change. Moreover, the study describes the positive and

negative aspects associated with the shorter work/school week. On a positive note, the schedule

facilitates making personal appointments, volunteer work, improves work-life balance, provides

longer more restful weekends, increases employee morale, productivity, performance, and

reduces commuting expenses. On a negative note, the schedule requires employees to work

longer days, increases daily work-related stress, reduces weekday family time and creates

work/daycare schedule conflicts. Furthermore, the study found that faculty/staff work-life

balance improved the most for employees ages 25-44. The study recommends that college

leaders interested in implementing the same change create an alternative four-day work schedule

for essential weekend employees in order to provide them similar work-life balance benefits.

Most importantly, college leaders should work with human resources officials to create flexible

working hours and telecommuting policies to implement along with this schedule. Finally,

administrators should assure that employees do not work longer than nine hours per day to

prevent burnout, work with employees to solve work/daycare schedule conflicts and that all

college stakeholders participate in the change process.

Key words: four-day work/school week, organizational change, state funding shortfalls,

community colleges, work-life balance, flexible working hours, telecommuting

6

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement Page ................................................................................................................. 2

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 5

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................. 11

The Topic and Research Problem ............................................................................................. 11

Justification for the Research Problem and Deficiencies in the Evidence................................ 13

Significance of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 14

Purpose Statement and Research Questions ............................................................................. 16

Theoretical Frameworks: Organizational Change and Work-Life Balance.............................. 17

Relating the Discussion to Audiences....................................................................................... 29

Anticipated Study Limitations .................................................................................................. 29

Chapter 2: Literature Review........................................................................................................ 31

Four-Day Work/School Week and Work-Life Balance: An Introduction ................................ 31

Work/School Weeks: United States History ............................................................................. 32

Four-day Organizational Change Studies/Reports at the Higher Education Level................... 34

Four-day Organizational Change Studies: Non-Rural K-12 School Level............................... 37

Four-Day Organizational Change Studies: Rural K-12 School Level ...................................... 42

Introduction: Work-Life Balance Studies ................................................................................. 45

Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction........................................................................ 46

7

Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction Combined with Other Constructs.................. 48

Compressed Work Week and Absenteeism .............................................................................. 49

Flexible Schedules, Performance, Commitment, Turnover, and Family/Work Conflict.......... 50

Impact of Compressed Work Week on Lower Socio Economic Status (SES) Employees ...... 52

Summation ................................................................................................................................ 53

Chapter 3: Research Design.......................................................................................................... 55

Research Paradigms .................................................................................................................. 55

Research Design/Tradition........................................................................................................ 59

Positionality Statement.............................................................................................................. 62

Participants and Recruitment .................................................................................................... 64

Study Location and Access ....................................................................................................... 65

Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 66

Data Coding and Analysis......................................................................................................... 70

Data Storage .............................................................................................................................. 72

Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 73

Chapter 4: Findings....................................................................................................................... 74

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 74

Research Questions and Data Overview ............................................................................... 74

Examining the Change Process ............................................................................................. 76

8

The Prelaunch Phase ............................................................................................................. 78

The Launch Phase ................................................................................................................. 82

The Postlaunch Phase ............................................................................................................ 85

Sustaining the Change Phase: Addressing Problems and Increasing Momentum ................ 88

Advice for other Community College Change Leaders ........................................................ 88

The External Environment .................................................................................................... 89

Transformational Factors ...................................................................................................... 90

Transactional Factors ............................................................................................................ 93

Job Performance Levels ........................................................................................................ 95

Post-Change Work-Life Balance........................................................................................... 97

Pre-existing Surveys.............................................................................................................. 98

Work-Life Balance Survey Responses................................................................................ 101

Positive Aspects .................................................................................................................. 101

Negative Aspects ................................................................................................................. 109

Additional Findings ............................................................................................................. 112

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 116

Chapter 5: Conclusions............................................................................................................... 119

9

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 119

Study Purpose and Research Questions .............................................................................. 119

Research question 1: link to the literature review and/or framework ................................. 120

The Prelaunch Phase ........................................................................................................... 121

The Launch Phase ............................................................................................................... 122

The Postlaunch Phase .......................................................................................................... 123

Sustaining the Change Phase: Addressing Problems and Increasing Momentum .............. 124

The External Environment .................................................................................................. 125

Transformational Factors .................................................................................................... 126

Transactional Factors .......................................................................................................... 128

Performance Levels ............................................................................................................. 129

Research question 2: link to the literature review and/or framework ................................. 130

Positive Aspects: Comparing Surveys and Linking to the Literature/Framework.............. 130

Negative Aspects: Comparing Surveys and Linking to the Literature/Framework ............ 132

Additional Findings ............................................................................................................. 133

Practitioner Implications ..................................................................................................... 134

Recommendations for Further Study .................................................................................. 135

10

Limitations of the Study Findings ....................................................................................... 136

Investigator Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 137

Summary of the Study......................................................................................................... 138

References................................................................................................................................... 142

Appendix A: Interview Consent Form ....................................................................................... 151

Appendix B: Consent Form for Online Survey .......................................................................... 155

Appendix C: Interview Questions .............................................................................................. 158

Appendix D: Survey Protocol..................................................................................................... 161

Appendix E: Approval to Modify the Frameworks .................................................................... 170

Appendix F: Coded/Analyzed Interview Responses .................................................................. 176

Appendix G: Coded/Analyzed Survey Responses ..................................................................... 186

11

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Topic and Research Problem

The community college system in the United States plays a unique role in higher

education. Historically, community colleges have served many students who cannot meet

admission requirements at four-year colleges due to lack of preparation or who are seeking more

affordable tuition (Sheldon, 2003). In addition, these colleges also serve local students who

cannot travel long distances to attend college due to family and work commitments (Sheldon,

2003). Sheldon (2003) posits that the primary mission of publicly supported community colleges

is to provide open access to a higher education for anyone who has a high school diploma or has

passed a General Educational Development (GED) exam and necessary remediation in math

and/or reading.

Funding for community colleges across the United States is being cut in response to the

global economic crisis (Altundemir, 2012). State budget shortfalls often lead public community

college leaders to reduce student remediation services, cut course offerings, and raise tuition,

which together reduces access to the schools and lowers enrollment rates (Cohen & Brawer,

2008). In the United States, the worst part of the economic crisis started in December of 2007,

resulting in an increase in unemployment, corporate bankruptcy filings and home foreclosures

(Lin & Treichel, 2012). This caused state/local tax revenues to decrease and the demand for

more affordable higher education options to increase (Altundemir, 2012). The consequences of

the resulting funding shortfalls continue today.

During the 2007/2008 school year 30 out of 48 states cut funding for community college

at the midyear point (The Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, 2009). In the

2008/2009 school year, the state of Florida cut funding for community colleges more than 12%,

12

awarding colleges smaller amounts as compared to two years earlier (Florida Center for Fiscal

and Economic Policy, 2008). At the start of the 2011/2012 school year the state of New

Hampshire cut funding for community colleges by approximately 37% (The Center on Budget

and Policy Priorities, 2011).

These decreases in public funding are causing community colleges change leaders to

implement innovative reforms to reduce operating expenses. During the 2007/2008 school year

college officials at a medium sized community college located in South Florida, implemented a

unique approach to address the problem of decreased public funding. The innovation helped

college officials balance the budget, which was being challenged by rising energy bills. In

addition, it helped employees and students deal with automotive rising fuel bills, which

according to CNN Money (2007) averaged $3.07 per gallon at the time. The plan involved

transitioning from a five-day work/school week to a four-day work/school week, which was pilot

tested and then adopted permanently. A new college president along with a committee of college

change leaders implemented the organizational change. It is important to note that to protect the

identity of the college, the researcher refers to this location using the pseudonym, “Atlantic

Ocean Community College.”

Atlantic Ocean Community College is located in South Florida, consists of five

campuses, which include four physical campus locations and an online campus that offers a

limited amount of classes. The college also offers limited classes at a local community center and

was founded in 1960. The college serves approximately 25,000 students and employs roughly

1,600 people. All of the students that attend Atlantic Ocean Community College live at home

and many juggle school alongside family and careers. Full-time employment at the college

requires staff to work 36 hours and faculty to work 35 hours weekly. Therefore, the college was

13

an attractive environment for implementing this type of work/school schedule because it does not

have any resident dorms or students that need services five days per week. Moreover, the change

did not require any employees to work fixed ten-hour days in order to meet requirements for full

time status.

Justification for the Research Problem and Deficiencies in the Evidence

There is a dearth of literature regarding the use of a four-day work/school week in

community and/or two-year state supported colleges to cut costs and maintain services. As a

matter of fact, after an extensive search on Academic Search Premier, Educational Resources

Information Center and many other similar library databases, the researcher found only two

studies. The first study compared the job satisfaction levels between full-time faculty members

teaching at five community colleges with a four- or five-day a week schedules (Fearnow, 1984).

The second study describes the benefits experienced by employees of a two-year state college

who were given the choice of working flexible work hours or a four-day compressed work

schedule (Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, 2000).

In addition to those studies, the researcher only found two three-page reports that

addressed the use of the four-day work/school schedules at a community college and state

supported university. The first discusses the results after the four-day school schedule was

adopted by a two-year state college in Texas for the purposes of conserving energy and reducing

utility expenses (Walker & Timmerman, 1980). The second describes the results of an

experiment at a four-year university where staff were given the option of working a four-day

work schedule on a voluntary basis (Shay, 1974).

In contrast, there were nine studies found regarding the use of the four-day work/school

schedules at the public K-12 school level. These studies examined non-rural schools that adopted

14

a four-day work/school week at the K-12 education level as a response to state budget cuts

(Feaster, 2002; Hewitt & Denny, 2010; Leiseth, 2008; Miller-Hale, 2007; Sagness & Salzman,

1993; Wilmoth, 1995). Other investigators did similar studies at rural K-12 school districts (Bell,

2011; Richards, 1990; Roeth, 1985). The finding of these studies is discussed in Chapter Two.

None of these studies or reports has explored the change process of this transition through the

lens of an organizational change, and more importantly, the literature lacks studies that

investigate how working a four-day school week influences college faculty/staff work-life

balance.

This study examines the change process of implementing a four-day work/school week at

the higher education level. It also investigates the post-change work-life balance perceptions of

faculty/staff. The case study describes how this approach affected higher education budget

concerns and discusses the lessons learned during the transition.

Significance of the Problem

The challenge of providing a quality education at the community college is significant.

As noted earlier in this chapter, community colleges provide college access for all students that

graduated from high school or have passed a GED exam (Cohen and Brawer, 2008). In addition,

community colleges offer remediation services in math and/or reading (Cohen and Brawer,

2008). Because there is nationwide trend of reduced funding patterns for state funded community

colleges (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2011; Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic

Policy, 2008; Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, 2009), it is becoming

increasingly difficult for these higher education institutions to continue offering open admission

access and remediation services for students that do not qualify for admission to other types of

colleges and/or who are seeking more affordable tuition rates.

15

This situation presents challenges for administrators of publicly funded community

colleges who face increasing demands for admission despite the loss of state revenues. As

previously stated, Cohen and Brawer (2008) posit that state budget shortfalls often lead college

administrators to reduce remediation services, cut course offerings, and raise tuition, which

reduces access and lowers enrollment rates. Here is a causal loop depicting the problem as

posited by Cohen and Brawer (2008), which the investigator created based on the narrative in the

book.

Figure 1. Problem caused by budget shortfalls

Figure 1. The cycle of the problems caused by state budget cuts as described by Cohen and Brawer (2008). Nelly Cardinale 2013.

As shown, the cycle as posited by Cohen and Brawer (2008) does nothing to solve

revenue problems. What is needed is alternatives that help college officials offer the same

services/programs despite the loss of state funding. As previously stated, in the 2007/2008 school

year, change leaders at Atlantic Ocean Community College located in Florida responded to the

16

loss of state funding and rising energy costs by implementing a four-day school week, which

required the college to partially close on Fridays. This case study examines the process of

transitioning to a four-day school week as a more promising solution than the one illustrated

above and investigates post-change faculty/staff work-life perceptions. The study may contribute

new theoretical insights concerning the constructs of work-life balance and organizational

change.

Purpose Statement and Research Questions

The purpose of the study is to describe how the change leaders of Atlantic Ocean

Community College managed the transition to a four-day work/school week as a response to a

budgetary crisis and investigate post-change faculty/staff work-life balance. According to Yin

(2009), it is important for researchers to create boundaries for the cases that they are

investigating. As a result, the investigator is not investigating how the transition affected the

students.

The community college being studied is normally closed on weekends except for local

events and has always offered three types of class schedules. The classes either met three times

per week for 50 minutes each, one night per week for 150 minutes, or biweekly for 75 minutes.

Therefore, when the new work/school schedule was implemented, there were only two changes

that directly affected students. The first change was that classes that met three times per week

classes were converted to biweekly. The second was that the college was now partially closed on

Fridays.

According to Yin (2009), case study research questions should be based on respected

theories or theoretical frameworks. Therefore, the following research questions were created and

guided by the chosen organizational change and work-life-balance theoretical frameworks.

17

1. How did community college change leaders manage the process of converting to a

compressed work/school week in response to reduced state funding?

a. Do change leaders perceive that the change was caused by external

environmental factors?

b. Did transformational factors such as the organizational mission,

strategy, and culture change as a result of the new work/school week

implemented by college leaders?

c. How did managers change everyday transactional factors, such as

institutional policies and practices to align with the new work/school

week?

d. Did the changes in transformational/transactional factors influence job

performance levels?

2. How has the compressed work/school week influenced faculty/staff work-life

balance?

Theoretical Frameworks: Organizational Change and Work-Life Balance

According to Burke (2008), four groups of theories or models can be employed during

the organizational change process to study, describe, or guide the organizational change process.

The first group proposes different leadership strategies for introducing change. The second group

categorizes changes according to its content. Burke (2008) defines the content as the goals,

purpose, and objectives of the change. The third group consists of change-step implementation

models. The last group consists of integrative change models that posit that organizational

change can occur due to many factors both inside and/or outside the organization and that a

change in any of these factors may impact all of the others. Burke (2008) further posits that some

18

these theories/models are prescriptive, explaining how to implement change, and some are

descriptive, describing how change occurs.

The investigator considered the four groups of theories or models and chose an

integrative/descriptive style change model as a framework to study organizational change. This

section describes the four types of models and the reasons why the other three were rejected. In

addition, this section explains how the investigator modified the chosen organizational change

framework by merging it with another integrative/descriptive work-life balance framework so

that the new model can also guide the second half of this study, which investigates work-life

balance. The merger was done with the permission and approval of the authors of both

frameworks and the dissertation advisor. The official permissions emails can be viewed in

Appendix E.

One of the change theories is Chin and Benne (1969) empirical-rational strategy. The

theory asserts that if change recipients view innovation as being rational, they are more willing to

accept it. Furthermore, the theory posits that in order for this strategy to be used effectively, the

change agents must play a persuasive role in leading the change. Therefore, in order for this

change tactic to succeed, the change leader must be able to sell the reasoning behind the

proposed innovation and demonstrate that the pros outweigh the negative parts of the change

(Chin & Benne, 1969).

In addition, Chin and Benne’s (1969) theory suggests that change leaders recruit a group

of employees who have persuasive personalities to help drive the change. The change agent

should also provide the change recipients with any training and development programs that apply

to the proposed change. Even though this is a great change introduction strategy to use for

announcing a plan to convert to a compressed week, it was not chosen as a framework for this

19

study since the purpose of this study is to examine implementation of the compressed work

schedule.

Weick and Quinn’s (1999) episodic change theory can be used to examine the content

and category of an organizational change. An episodic change is planned, radical, revolutionary,

intentional, and externally driven. According to Purser and Petranker (2004), in order for an

episodic change to occur, the inertia of the status quo must be disrupted by an external episode

and replaced by a new status quo. The change process is meant to help the company reach a new

equilibrium (Weick & Quinn, 1999). This theory accurately describes the dramatic and

unexpected organizational change process of converting to a compressed four-day work/school

week. However, the theory was eliminated as a framework since the purpose of this study is to

examine the change process and not the content and category of the change.

Lewin’s (1951) 3-step change mode was tentatively considered for use as a change

implementation step-model to examine the change process in this study. According to Lewin

(1951), innovations are implemented in three phases: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. The

unfreezing phase involves disrupting the status quo. During the moving, also referred to as the

changing or transition phase, the change leaders implement the necessary changes and help the

change recipients adjust to the process of the change. During this phase, a pilot period of the

change is implemented to see if the change will work and provide change recipients any required

training to perform their job duties in a new way or explain the policies and procedures related to

the change.

For the change is to prove successful and become permanent, change recipients must

develop new attitudes and behaviors during this period. Finally, should the pilot plan of the

change prove successful, re-freezing occurs and the change then becomes the new norm for the

20

organization. If there are problems with the change, the innovation can be overhauled and the 3-

step change process repeated.

However, some scholars (Burnes, 2004; Edward and Montessori, 2011) argue that that

Lewin’s (1951) 3-step change theory is being used incorrectly by modern change leaders because

it ignores Lewin’s (1951) views regarding force field theory, which were meant to be used

together. According to Burnes (2004), the conceptual framework of Lewin’s (1951) force field

theory states that in order to disrupt the normal course of organizational processes and policies

successfully, change leaders must create a plan to make the change an attractive option and

lessen possible resistance to the change. The idea is that once the reasons for the planned change

outweigh the opposition, the equilibrium of the organization can be effectively disrupted and the

stage of unfreezing can begin (Burnes, 2004). While Lewin’s (1951) change step model would

have worked to investigate the change process, it was also eliminated as a framework for this

study because of these controversies.

Because the first research question of this study involves a main question along with four

sub questions, the researcher decided to use Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change

framework, to guide the description of the main question. According to Burke (2008) the

framework describes the process of change as being implemented in four phases. The four

phases are the prelaunch, the launch, the postlaunch and sustaining the change.

According to the Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change framework, during the

prelaunch stage, change leaders determine the need for the change, do research regarding the

proposal and clarify the vision of the change. During the launch phase, the change leaders

announce the change to the employees; take the first steps needed for implementation and deal

with employees who might oppose the change (Burke, 2008). During the postlaunch stage, the

21

change leaders continue refining the organization change, repeating the reason for the change,

levering the change effort and if appropriate, dealing with employees who resist the change

(Burke, 2008). Burke (2008) defines levering change as implementing multiple initiatives to

remind employees that the change will be permanent and is advantageous. During the sustaining

the change phase, change agents address problematic circumstances and inspire employees to

continue to adapt to the change. If necessary, change agents also modify the original change

initiative and/or appoint new leaders (Burke, 2008). It is important to note that according to the

framework, the steps described in this four phases do not always occur during the phases that

they are supposed to occur in because as Burke (2008) posits, organizational change is not a

linear process. In addition, the researcher used only parts of the framework that are applicable to

the manner in which the research question was investigated.

The researcher also considered and used the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model as a

framework to guide the discussion for research questions 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d. First and foremost,

Burke (2008) distinguishes the differences between transformational and transactional

leadership. According to Burke (2008) the transformational leader proposes and leads

organizational change that disrupts the status quo, while transactional leaders lead changes that

modify but maintain the equilibrium of the organization. Moreover, the Burke-Litwin (1992)

model posits that most transformational change is driven externally by changes in the

environment that the organization is located in. Additionally, Bowen’s (1988) model posits that

changes in some of the corporate internal factors directly influence external employee work-life

balance issues. The Burke-Litwin (1992) model also asserts that organizational leadership is a

major lever for internal transformational changes, which occurs in response to modifications in

the environment. The model defines transformational factors as the mission, strategy and culture

22

of the organization. Consequentially, changes to any of these factors require employees to adopt

new behaviors (Burke-Litwin, 1992).

In turn, organizational transformational changes can also cause innovation in daily

corporate transactional factors. The transactional factors are defined as organizational structure,

systems/policies, and employee skills/ability requirements, work unit climate and individual

needs/values and are usually led and/or implemented by organizational managers. Collectively,

modifications in transformational and/or transactional factors influence employee motivation,

which leads to changes in individual and/or organizational performance levels (Burke-Litwin,

1992).

Because the organizational change studied was implemented by new leadership, was

externally driven by state funding appropriations and energy costs and the purpose of the first

half of the research is to examine the change process, the Burke-Litwin (1992) Causal Model of

Organizational Performance and Change was chosen for this study because it has the best overall

organizational change fit.

However, a major limitation of using the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) Causal Model of

Organizational Performance and Change framework for the second part of this study is that it

does not address the idea behind work-related spillover theory, which posits that modifications to

work-related transactional factors, such as the work unit climate, also directly influences

employee work-life balance issues and vice versa. In essence, it does not address the additional

environmental variable of individual employee work-life circumstances. In order to better

understand why the Burke-Litwin (1992) model is not the best fit for investigating the second

part of the study, it is appropriate to discuss the constructs of work unit climate and work-life

balance and how work-related spillover theory relates to both of them.

23

James and Jones (1994) assert that one part of work unit climate is how employees

perceive job-related changes such as working different schedules. Additionally, the Burke-

Litwin’s (1992) model defines work unit climate as the collective perceptions of employee group

towards the work environment, other work units, their supervisors and colleagues. Bowen (1988)

posits that these perceptions influence how satisfied employees are with their jobs and how

committed they are towards the organization.

It is important to note that according to Guest (2002) the construct of work-life balance is

very abstract and therefore has no official or universal definition. For example, what people in

some societies and cultures perceive as a perfect balance of work and personal life may not be

ideal in other societal and cultural settings. Therefore, because the Burke-Litwin (1992) model

does not address the work-balance construct, the researcher examined other theoretical models

that explain how work and home life are related in order to modify Burke-Litwin’s (1992)

model.

The researcher considered using a boundary theory such as Nippert-Eng (1996),

Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate (2000), or Bowen’s (1988) Conceptual Model of Corporate/Family

Life Relationships. Nippert-Eng’s (1996) theory posits that people naturally create mental and

physical boundaries to separate family from their work lives. One example of boundary theory

can be found in the way people mentally and physically separate their keys, clothing, and

calendars and create visual images associating some of these items with home and the others

with work (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate’s (2000) boundary theory extends

the concept by addressing the different roles that people play in their home and family lives, the

types of meaning that they assign to each domain and how they transition between roles.

24

Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate’s (2000) theory also addresses the notion that boundaries become

blurred when people start working at home.

Both theories were eliminated as candidates to use for this study since they did not

address the construct of work unit climate or any of the other transformational and/or

transactional factors theorized in the Burke-Litwin (1992) model. In addition, Nippert-Eng’s

(1996) and Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate’s (2000) did not create a schema to illustrate the

concepts of these boundary theories. Moreover, both theories would have been difficult to

integrate in the illustrative schema of Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model. In contrast, Bowen’s (1988)

Conceptual Model of Corporate/Family Life Relationships does address the construct of work

unit climate, which his model refers to a as work environmental dynamics, as well as the work-

life balance construct and does have an excellent illustrative schema.

The Burke-Litwin (1992) and Bowen (1988) models have similar features. Both are

causal models that are based on the concepts of open systems theory. According to Burke (2008),

open systems theory is derived from cell biology. The open systems theory posits that

corporations are similar to human cells. Both sustain themselves by continuing to interact with

the environment in which they are located. The interaction is also a continuous cycle of events in

which any output created by organizations (such as the products or services) produces input

(such as income), which in turn allows the establishment to produce more output (Burke, 2008).

In addition, both frameworks use feedback loops to illustrate that what happens in the

external environment impacts all of internal corporate factors and vice versa. In turn, any

changes in the internal corporate factors of each model can also impact one another. Both models

also posit that factors outside the corporation are major drivers of organizational change that

impact both corporate and individual employee performance.

25

For example, in the Burke-Litwin (1992) model, the external variables include changes in

government policies, consumer perceptions, or the local economy. The model also differentiates

between two types of internal corporate factors: transformational and transactional. As

previously stated, the transformational factors refer to the corporation’s culture, mission, and

strategy and are led by organizational leaders. Transactional factors are the corporation’s

organizational structure, systems/policies, employee skills/ability requirements, work unit

climate and individual needs/values and are led by organizational managers. Moreover, the

Burke-Litwin (1992) model posits that changes in transformational factors impact the daily

transactional factors of the company. Collectively, changes in transformational and transactional

factors influence employee motivation, which leads to higher or lower job performance. Finally,

the model posits that performance/productivity levels are dependent upon employee morale

(Burke-Litwin, 1992).

On the other hand, changes in the corporate transactional factors can also influence the

transformational factors, which in turn can impact external environmental factors such as the

local economy. For example, due to poor organizational performance, the leadership of the

corporation may layoff employees. In turn this causes many local families to have less

purchasing power, which also impacts the local economy.

In Bowen’s (1988) model, the external environmental factors refer to the uniqueness of

individual employee home-life circumstances. These circumstances are described as the

employees dependent care responsibilities, healthcare needs, age, disability status, and whether

there are two wage earners at home. In addition, Bowen’s (1988) model is based on work-related

spillover theory, which posits that differences and modifications in home-life circumstances

directly influence employee work-life issues and practices and vice versa. Furthermore, Bowen’s

26

(1988) model posits that changes in some of the corporate internal factors directly influence

external employee work-life balance issues. The Burke-Litwin (1992) model refers to work-life

issues as internal corporate transactional factors. Finally, Bowen’s (1988) model posits that a

family-friendly corporate culture is one with flexible policies that facilitate employee work-life

balance.

One major difference between both frameworks is that Bowen’s (1988) model addresses

the external environmental factor of work-life balance and Burke-Litwin (1992) does not.

Therefore, the researcher changed the names of two constructs in the Burke-Litwin (1992)

model. The individual needs and values construct was renamed to individual work-life balance

needs and values. The organizational culture construct was renamed to organizational

culture/awareness of work-family link. In addition, the researcher borrowed the environmental

factor from Bowen’s (1988) model referred to as employee perceptions of significance, need,

corporate expectations, and beliefs and merged it into the schema of the Burke-Litwin (1992)

model and expanded the feedback loops to include the secondary external environmental. These

changes were done in order to create a more complete framework for this study. Because both

models are based on open systems theory, it was a simple process to add a second environmental

variable to the Burke-Litwin (1992) model. The constructs that both of the frameworks address,

their equivalent names, and the modifications made by the researcher to the construct names are

summarized in Table 1.

Table #1 Bowen’s (1988) and the Burke-Litwin (1992) Model Construct Equivalents The Burke-Litwin (1992) Model Bowen’s (1988) Model

Organizational Culture /Awareness of work-family link Corporate Culture

Work Unit Climate Work Environmental Dynamics

27

Structure Work Environmental Structure

Individual Work-Life Balance Needs Work/Home Outcomes ______________________________________________________________________________ Note. Created using Bowen’s (1988) and the Burke-Litwin (1992) models. The researcher modified the first and last constructs in the Burke-Litwin (1992) model. © Nelly Cardinale.

In conclusion, the chosen and modified theoretical frameworks and theories are an

excellent fit for this study. The first half of this research examines organizational change, which

was externally driven by state funding appropriations, energy prices and led by a new college

president. Therefore the Burke-Litwin (1992) Causal Model of Organizational Performance and

Change framework is apt because it posits that externally driven change impacts both

transformational and transactional factors of an organization. Furthermore, the model posits that

Leadership is a major lever for internal transformational changes, which occur in response to

modifications in the environment (Burke-Litwin, 1992).

Likewise, Bowen’s (1988) Conceptual Model of Corporate/Family Life Relationships,

which is based on work-related spillover theory as well as on the concepts of open systems

theory, provided an excellent work-life balance model. As previously stated, work-related

spillover theory posits that a modification to work environment such as the work unit climate

directly influences employee work-life balance and the organizational culture and vice versa.

Both models already addressed the constructs of organizational culture, corporate structure, and

work unit climate and are based on the concepts of open systems theory. Therefore, it was a

simple process to borrow the additional external environmental factor of individual employee

home-life circumstances, which is also referred to as the work-life balance construct from

Bowen’s (1988) model and integrate it to Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model.

In addition, the names of Burke-Litwin’s (1992) individual needs and values and

organizational culture original constructs were adapted for the purposes of creating a complete

28

framework that can be used to guide and describe both parts of the proposed research. The

schema of the combined framework, which is being used for this study, is illustrated below in

Figure 2.

Figure 2. Merged Burke-Litwin’s (1992) and Bowen’s (1988) Frameworks

Figure 2. Framework schema created by merging Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the relationship between corporate support mechanisms and the work and family lives of employees and Burke-Litwin’s (1992) causal model of organizational performance and change. The authors of both frameworks approved the modifications and the approval emails can be seen in Appendix E. Nelly Cardinale 2012.

29

Relating the Discussion to Audiences

This research is useful for community college higher education administrators who are

interested in planning and implementing a similar change in a quest to deal with budget cuts. The

research results should also interest human resource specialists who are seeking work-life

balance solutions for their company employees. It provides insight on how change leaders can

transform the work/school schedule in the least disruptive way and describe some of the pitfalls

that might occur. In addition, it may serve as an example for implementing the same kind of

change at other community colleges.

Anticipated Study Limitations

The researcher anticipates several study limitations. First and foremost, the survey used

in this study was originally created by the investigator and has not been tested and/or proven to

be a valid and reliable instrument. To improve the survey, the investigator has informally asked

members of a college professors group to pilot test the survey for readability and to validate the

construct validity of the questions. Additionally, the investigator used Bowen’s (1988)

conceptual framework as a guide to create it. As previously noted, the survey protocol can be

viewed in Appendix D.

Secondly, the investigator is concerned about getting a low survey response rate.

According to Creswell (2007), in a qualitative study, a high survey response rate is not as

important as it is in a quantitative study. Nevertheless, the study results are more likely to

become transferable to a similar community college population if the response rate is high

enough.

Lastly, the fact that the investigator has been an employee at the study location for over

23 years is bound to introduce some bias in the study results. Even though the investigator took

30

several actions to increase trustworthiness of the study, researcher bias might have been

unintentionally introduced. Unfortunately, this would limit the generalizability and

transferability of the study results to other community college populations.

31

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Four-Day Work/School Week and Work-Life Balance: An Introduction

The intent of this review is to synthesize the literature concerning the topics examined in

this study. The merged theoretical frameworks of Bowen’s (1988) work-life balance and the

Burke-Litwin (1992) organizational change model described in the first chapter served as a guide

for selecting topics.

This chapter is organized into ten parts. The first part synthesizes the literature

concerning the history and use of compressed work schedules in the United States both in

corporations and schools. It also identifies the reasons why this schedule is implemented,

describes the different ways that compressed work schedules can be organized and cites some

statistic regarding how widespread the four-day work/school week is in the United States. The

second part reviews published studies and articles concerning the use of the four-day

work/school week at the higher education and reveals a dearth in the literature concerning the

use of this schedule in the higher education arena. The third part reviews similar studies in the

non-rural K-12 school level, while the fourth parts reviews the same for rural K-12 school

districts. The fifth part introduces the types of work-life balance studies that were reviewed. The

sixth part reviews studies investigating the relationship of job satisfaction and working

compressed weeks, while the seventh part covers similar studies that also examine the same

relationships along with other job related constructs. The eighth part covers studies that examine

the relationship between working compressed weeks and employee absenteeism. The ninth part

examines how working a compressed week impacts employees of lower socioeconomic status

(SES). Finally, the last part summarizes the review.

32

Work/School Weeks: United States History

According to Bird (2010), in the late 1700s people in the United States commonly

worked fourteen to sixteen hours a day during a six-day period. In 1927, the Ford Motor

Company set a new trend by being the first company in the United States to implement a five-

day, forty-hour a week work schedule (Moores, 1990). However, Bloom and Northrop (1981)

assert that it was not until the “Fair Labor Standards Act” was passed in 1938 that companies in

the United States were obligated to adopt this work schedule. Most companies used a standard

forty-hour, 5-day a week schedule until the early 1970s (Poor, 2010).

In the meantime, some companies in the United States started experimenting with using

different varieties of compressed work schedules. According to some historical research reports

(Bird, 2010; Moores, 1990), in 1940 Mobile and Gulf Oil companies were the first two

companies to implement a four-day, forty-hour a week schedule for their truck drivers. During

the late 1970s and early 1980s, DuPont implemented thirty-six hour work week schedules that

paid employees for a full forty hours but only required employees to work 3 days a week (Smith,

2006; Autry, 1980). In addition, other companies required employees to work nine and one half

hours a day for four days (Bedeian & Coston, 1974). During the Arab oil crisis during the 1973-

74 fiscal year, Poor (2010) asserts that many other industries started implementing compressed

work schedules specifically for the purpose of saving energy costs.

Some school systems in the United States have followed the lead of industry by

implementing reduced work/school weeks in a quest to reduce energy and operating expenses.

However, Ryan (2009) posits that it was not until the energy crisis during the 1973-74 school

year that the four-day school week was implemented in many school districts in New Mexico. It

continues to gain in popularity as an alternative school schedule in the United States. Chamberlin

33

and Plucker (2003) assert that the four-day work/school schedule is implemented in several

different formats. Some schools chose a Monday through Thursday schedule while other

institutions use a Tuesday through Friday school week.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures website (2012), Donis-Keller

and Silvernail (2009), and Ryan (2009), the four-day work/school week schedule was first

implemented as early as the 1930s in the state of South Dakota and became more common

during the energy crisis of the 1970s. Additionally, these types of work/school week schedules

are frequently implemented in a quest to decrease education expenses such as cafeteria expenses,

utility bills, and lower student transportation costs (the National Conference of State Legislatures

website, 2012).

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures website (2012), the states of

Georgia, Oklahoma, and Washington recently passed legislation allowing public K-12 schools to

adopt four-day school weeks. The website also notes that during the 2011-2012 fiscal year, 120

school districts in 21 states had K-12 public schools operating under this schedule. These states

consist of Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,

South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming (the National Conference of State Legislatures

website, 2012). It is important to note that most of the school districts operating under this type

of schedule are in rural areas of South Dakota and Mississippi and that the purpose of the

conversion was to deal with state funding shortfalls (The National Conference of State

Legislatures website, 2012; Richards, 2002). Therefore, it seems as though the schedule might be

better suited for rural rather than suburban or urban school districts.

These statistics demonstrate that the four-day work/school week is a possible solution for

34

public schools K-12 school systems in order to address state budget cuts. Therefore, the

researcher examined how a publicly funded community college implemented this type of

schedule to address the same problem. The results of this research can serve as a best practice

guide for other community colleges leaders that wish to take the same actions and help fill in the

aforementioned literature gap as far as these types of solutions being implemented at the higher

education level.

Four-day Organizational Change Studies/Reports at the Higher Education Level

As stated in Chapter 1, very few studies and articles have been published concerning the

use of the four-day work/school week in the higher education field. The researcher only found

two studies. Fearnow (1984) compared the job satisfaction rates of community college faculty

teaching five classes during a period of four days to those teaching the same amount of classes

during a period of five days. Fearnow’s (1984) study did not find statistically significant

differences in job satisfaction rates between the two groups. In addition, job satisfaction rates did

not vary according to gender or age. However, job satisfaction was slightly higher for the group

that taught classes for only four days a week as compared to the second group. The study also

found that the group who worked four days a week used the day off for taking care of personal

obligations, arranging healthcare appointments or participating in recreational activities.

Washington State University’s (2000) study examined the benefits of offering employees

a choice of either working a four-day work/school week or a weekly flexible working hours

schedule at Evergreen State College, which is a two-year higher education institution located in

Olympia, Washington. The benefits included, improved services for students, higher employee

job satisfaction, productivity and morale rates, lower car maintenance bills and easier scheduling

of campus maintenance projects.

35

In addition, two three-page articles were found that briefly discussed the implementation

of a compressed four-day schedule at the community and at a four-year university. The first

journal article discusses the benefits that resulted after Navarro Community College in Texas

transitioned to a four-day work/school week for the purposes of conserving energy and reducing

utility expenses (Walker & Timmerman, 1980).

Walker and Timmerman (1980) journal article reports that employees now had more time

for personal/family responsibilities and leisure activities. In addition, most employees also had

higher post-change morale and productivity rates. Moreover, students were able to work part-

time jobs during the longer weekends and energy and school building maintenance expenses

were reduced. It is important to note that this study was done in 1980 and that because the

journal report is three pages long, there were few details discussed in the article. Furthermore,

after an extensive search on Academic Search Premier, Educational Resources Information

Center (ERIC) and many other similar library databases, it is unclear whether this college is still

operating under a compressed work schedule or whether there was a longer published article

about the results of this transition.

The second journal article describes the results of an experiment where a four-year

university in California offered staff the option of working a four-day work schedule on a

voluntary basis (Shay, 1974). The sample size of (n=184) consisted of 113 staff members

choosing to work a compressed four-day schedule and 71 staff members working the traditional

five-day work schedule (Shay, 1974). The employees were also given a choice of working

Tuesday through Friday or Monday through Thursday. Additionally, the administrators of the

offices that participated were given to option to select the schedule that worked best for their

departments.

36

The benefits for the group that chose an alternate schedule included improved

morale/attendance, higher job satisfaction, an increase in the quality/quantity of work, extended

service hours for students and reduced commuting expenses. Shay (1974) posits that at the end of

the experiment that the university was forced to adopt a 4½-day work/school week because of

the energy crisis that occurred at that time. Shay’s (1974) report about the experiment was also

three pages long. Therefore, there were very few other details described in the article and

similarly to Walker and Timmerman (1980) article, an extensive search on Academic Search

Premier, ERIC and many other similar library databases revealed that this was the only published

article about the experiment.

Table 2 Higher Education Four-Day Work/School Week Studies: Most Common Findings Findings Fearnow

(1984) Shay (1974) Walker &

Timmerman (1980) Washington State University (2002)

Productivity Rates

Increased Increased Increased

Leisure Time

Increased Increased

Job Satisfaction


Family Time

Increased Increased

Extended Student Services

Increased Increased

Employee Morale


Building/Car Maintenance Costs

Reduced Reduced

37

Four-day Organizational Change Studies: Non-Rural K-12 School Level

In contrast to the dearth of literature in the higher education arena, nine studies address

the use of this schedule at the public K-12 school level. The following researchers studied non-

rural schools that have adopted a four-day work/school week at the K-12 education level as a

response to state budget cuts: Feaster (2002), Hewitt and Denny (2010), Leiseth (2008), Miller-

Hale (2007), Sagness and Salzman (1993), and Wilmoth (1995).

The purpose of Feaster’s (2002) study was to determine the impact of the four-day

work/school week in the Custer, South Dakota, school district, which originally implemented the

change due to state budget cuts. Feaster (2002) used Likert scale surveys to investigative the

perceptions of the change from the point of view of students, parents, faculty, community

business leaders, and school staff. The 2002 study surveys were compared to similar ones done

by the school district in 1996. In addition, the researcher examined before/after school

standardized exam results to determine whether the change had an impact of student

achievement. Moreover, student attendance records were examined to see if attendance had

improved since 1996 when the new schedule started.

Feaster’s (2002) study concluded that students, faculty, parents, community business

leader all increased their approval ratings of the new work/school week since the first survey was

administered. In contrast, school staff had a lower satisfaction rate of the new schedule as

compared to the prior survey. Moreover, there was no change in standardized test scores and

student attendance improved after the change.

The goal of Hewitt and Denny’s (2010) study was to compare student standardized test

scores in Colorado school districts that operated under a four-day work/school schedule to other

Colorado school districts that did not. Hewitt and Denny’s (2010) assert that the state of

38

Colorado has sixty-two school districts operating on a four-day work/school schedule. The

results found that the test scores were higher in schools that operated under a normal five-day

schedule in eleven out of twelve test areas. However, the results were not statistically different

enough for the researchers to claim that it was the traditional five-day a week schedule that

caused the higher scores. One exception is in the area of elementary writing, in which there was

a statistically significant difference with a T score of 2.37% for students that attended traditional

5-day week schools. Like Feaster’s (2002) study, this investigation found that the compressed

work/school schedule made very little difference in student achievement levels.

Leiseth (2008) studied the impact of the change to the four-day work/school week of a K-

12 school in the Midwestern United States. By surveying parents, student, community leaders,

and teachers, the study found that all groups were satisfied with the new schedule. Moreover,

teachers reported that the students were better behaved, had improved attitudes towards school,

and that academic performance has increased. However, standardized test scores did not support

the assertion about academic performance levels.

In addition, Leiseth’s (2008) study found that the change did not lower school expenses

due to the fact that the school experienced a growth in enrollment and had to build a new wing.

Nevertheless, the interviewed stakeholders were still in favor of continuing the new school

schedule. Finally, the study found that teachers found it easy to adjust their teaching methods to

align with the new schedule.

Miller-Hale’s (2007) study examined five school districts in South Dakota to determine

the change process and the impact caused four years after the switch to the new four-day

work/school schedule. The data in this study was collected through the use of sixty semi-

39

structured interviews with parents, school superintendents, teachers, and principals of the five

school districts and by examining school documents.

The results of Miller-Hale’s (2007) study showed that the change process followed by

each school district was different. Nevertheless, the school administrators of all five districts

discussed the change process with the school board and attended organizational change meetings

throughout the process. Additionally, most of the interviewed stakeholders reported an increase

in employee morale and student attendance and achievement. In fact, when the investigator

examined school attendance records, they revealed that attendance did improve at sixty percent

of the schools that adopted the new school/work schedule.

Moreover, parents reported having more time for family activities. Most stakeholders

reported that the longer day was draining for the students and faculty, and that it was difficult to

arrange daycare on the non-school day. The majority of the administrative stakeholders stated

that dropout and graduation rates were the same after the change. However, when district

documents were examined, it revealed that dropout rate had increased in half of the school

districts involved in this study and that graduation rates had decreased in all of the school

districts. All of the school administrators believed that the schools saved money because of the

switch to the new schedule. In contrast, only fifty percent of the other interviewed stakeholders

did.

In Sagness and Salzman’s (1993) study, a K-12 suburban school district consisting of five

schools in Idaho were examined to determine the impact of the change to the four-day

school/work week. The Likert scale survey methodology was used and the study population

consisted of all parents, administrators, teachers, and staff of the school district. In addition, the

40

researchers examined school absenteeism records, financial reports, and student standardized test

score results.

The findings of Sagness and Salzman (1993) study include decreased absenteeism for

students, staff, and teachers, and savings of 1.6 percent in school expenditures as compared to

the previous year. Teachers reported that students were more engaged and better behaved during

class time and that student on-task behaviors had improved. The parents survey results were

mixed, with parents citing the same advantages that other parents cited as disadvantages. The

main disadvantage cited was that parents were not happy about having to leave their children

home alone on the non-school days. Moreover, students posited that the schedule allowed less

time for them to participate in after-school activities. After one year, the school district switched

back to a five-day work/school schedule.

Finally Wilmoth’s (1995), study examined 84 K-12 school districts in the United States

to determine how the four-day work/school week affects student achievement and investigate

other advantages and disadvantages. A Likert scale survey was sent to the school

superintendents. The results of Wilmoth (1995) study found that most respondents agreed that

the schedule is successful especially in rural school districts and that the change did reduce

school expenditures. Moreover, 67% of school districts reported an increase in student

achievement levels based on higher standardized exam scores. Moreover, most of the

stakeholders reported an increase in student and faculty morale. The main disadvantages reported

were difficulty arranging daycare on the non-school day, that is was difficult for small children

to sustain attention during the longer school day, and that children were extra tired at the end of

each school day. Nevertheless, most study respondent’s stated that there are many advantages

and few disadvantages.

41

Table 3

Summary of Non-Rural K-12 Schools Systems Study Findings

Study Data Collected Results Feaster (2002)

1. New Survey responses, 2. Prior survey responses 3. Student attendance/exam scores

1. Since 1996, same satisfaction rates for all with 4-day week except for staff 2. Seven years after change, attendance improved from 95.2 % to 98.2 % 3. No change in student achievement. 4. Easier to make personal appointments 5. Reduction in school expenses. 6. Longer more tiring days 7. Less evening hours to spend with family and do homework.

Hewitt & Denny (2010)

1. Colorado Student Assessment Program 3rd through 10th grades test scores of 37,325 students that attend either 4-day or 5-day schools.

1. Scores of students that attend the traditional 5-day schools higher but not statistically significant in 11 of 12 areas 2. In elementary writing, a statistically significant difference with a T score of 2.37 % was found for students in 5-day schools 4. Easier to make personal appointments 5. School attendance increased.

Leiseth (2008)

1. New Survey responses 2. Prior survey responses 3. Student attendance/exam records 4. Parent/Teacher Interviews

1. Since 1995, same satisfaction levels with 4-day week. 2. Teachers perceived students were better behaved, noticed improved attitudes and better academic 3. Test scores showed no achievement gains 4. Parents were happy with schedule. 5. No reduction in school expenses 6. Easier to make personal appointments 7. Childcare problems. 8. Longer weekend 9. More tiring longer days

Miller-Hale (2007)

1. Sixty interviews with school principals, superintendents, and parents about change process and advantages/disadvantages four years after change 2. Student attendance, dropout/graduation records

1. All five school district administrators consulted school boards and attended change related meetings during change process. 2. Student attendance improved in 60% of districts 3. Parents reported more family time, extra tired students and daycare difficulties on non-school days 4. Dropout rate increased in 50% of schools 5. Graduation rates decreased in all schools 6. Higher staff/student morale.

42

7. Reduction in school expenses. 8. More family time. 9. Easier to schedule appointment 10.Longer more tiring days

Sagness & Salzman (1993)

1. Survey Responses 2. Student exams scores and attendance records for students/staff 3. School financial records

1. Parents/students not happy with schedule. 2.Teachers perceived improved student engagement/behavior 3. Increased attendance for all. 4. No statistically significant achievement gains 5. School savings total 1.6% one year after change

Wilmoth (1995)

1. Survey responses of school superintendents from 84 school districts

1. 59% changed schedules due to state budget cuts 2. 67% of school districts reported improved student achievement rates based on standard test scores 3. 77% reported savings on school expenditures 4. Parents reported difficult finding daycare on non-school day and extra tired students. 5. Increased faculty/staff morale in most of the districts 6. Easier to make personal appointments 7. More family time 8. Longer more restful weekend/more leisure time. 9. Reduced School maintenance

© Nelly Cardinale Four-Day Organizational Change Studies: Rural K-12 School Level

Another set of researchers (Bell, 2011; Richards, 1990; Roeth, 1985) did similar studies

in rural school districts. Bell (2011) studied how the four-day work/school week impacted a rural

school district in Georgia that consisted of six schools. The aim of Bell’s (2011) study was to

assess the post-change job satisfaction levels of teachers and school administrators and to

investigate whether the new work/school schedule was correlated with change in attendance rates

of student, faculty, and administrators.

Bell (2011) states that the job satisfaction measurement tool used in this study was

Lester’s (1984) Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). The instrument is five-point

Likert scale survey tool that measures nine work-related constructs: supervision, colleagues,

43

working conditions, pay, responsibility, work itself, advancement, security, and recognition.

The results of Bell’s (2011) study show that the teachers had positive post-change job

satisfaction rates in all areas with the exception of job security. Likewise, the school

administrators also have positive post-change job satisfaction rates with the exception of the

areas of job security and responsibilities. In addition, pre- and post-change attendance records

showed that post-change attendance rates for school administrators, students, and teachers were

higher (Bell, 2011).

Richards (1990) study compared nine school districts in New Mexico that operated under

a four-day work/school week with nine other school districts in the same state that operated

under a five-day work/school week. The purpose of the study was to determine whether

teacher/student satisfaction was correlated to student achievement under either of the two groups

of schools.

Richards’s (1990) study used a teacher satisfaction survey tool that measured teachers’

job satisfaction and a student satisfaction survey tool that measured students’ satisfaction with

their school environments. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

created both survey tools. Standardized exam results were used to measure student achievement

attending all school districts.

The results of Richards’s (1990) study showed that student achievement was statistically

significantly higher in the school districts that operated under a four-day school/work week for

eight years in a row. In addition, there were no statistically significant correlations between

student/administrator satisfaction levels and standardized exam scores. However when

student/administrator satisfaction scores were paired with standardized exam scores, the

researcher was able to predict whether the student attended a school operating under a four-day

44

or five-day school schedule 66% of the time.

In Roeth’s (1985) study, questionnaires were sent to school officials at sixty-two schools

in eight states to determine how a four-day work/school week was implemented and the

advantages and disadvantages that resulted from the change. Roeth’s (1985) study revealed that

the state of Colorado had the most schools operating under a four-day work/school week. The

most frequent non-school days chosen were Monday and Friday. Schools that transitioned to the

new schedule because of energy concerns chose Mondays and schools that transitioned to

facilitate extracurricular activities chose Fridays. All school days were extended so that students

did not lose any instructional time.

Furthermore, most schools were able to save money on food, transportation, custodial

services, and utilities. Ninety-seven percent of school superintendents stated that the change did

not affect student achievement. Additionally, the study found that both student and faculty

attendance and morale were increased. The main disadvantages were that the longer day was

extra tiring for younger children and that most students were unsupervised by parents on the non-

school days.

Table 4

K-12 Four-Day Work/School Week Studies Rural Schools Summary Study Data Collected Results Bell (2011)

1. Survey responses, 2. Administrator, student and teacher attendance rates

1. Teachers had positive post-change job satisfaction except for security. 2. Administrators had positive post-change job satisfaction except for security and responsibilities 3. Higher Post-change attendance for teacher, students and administrators. 4. Easier to make personal appointments

Richards (1990)

1. Survey Results 2. Student Standardized exam scores

1.No statistically significant correlations between student/administrator satisfaction levels and standardized exam scores

45

2. For the last 8 years, achievement was higher in 4-day week schools as compared to 5-day a week schools

Roeth (1985)

1. Survey responses

1.The most frequent non-school days chosen was either Monday or Friday. 2. Schools that transitioned to the new schedule because of energy concerns chose Mondays and schools that transitioned to facilitate extra curricular activities chose Fridays. 3. All school days were extended so that students did not lose any instructional time. 4. Most schools were able to save money on cafeteria food, transportation expenses, custodial services and utility costs. 5.Ninety-seven percent of school superintendents stated that the change did not change student achievement. 6. Increased student/faculty attendance and morale. 7. The main disadvantages were that the longer day was extra tiring for younger children and that most students were unsupervised by parents on the non-school days. 8. Increased family and community service/activity time.

© Nelly Cardinale

Introduction: Work-Life Balance Studies

Many researchers have investigated the consequences of working a compressed week.

The purpose of some studies was to determine the relationships between job satisfaction and

working a compressed week (Goodale & Aagaard, 1975; Hodge & Tellier, 1974; Latack &

Foster, 1985). Other research studies have focused on investigating the relationships between

working a compressed week and job satisfaction along with two or more job related variables

(Bilal, Rehman & Raza, 2010; Ivancevich, 1974).

Other investigators examined the relationship between working a compressed week and

employee absenteeism (Cunningham, 1982; Venne, 1997). Three other studies examined how

46

working alternative schedules or using other family-friendly work schedules, such as flexible

working hours options and telecommuting, impact individual or organizational performance,

commitment, and family/work conflicts even if employees use these benefits (Chow & Keng-

Howe, 2006; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman, 2001; Sands & Harper, 2007). Finally, some

authors have noted that working compressed weeks complicates the work-life balance needs of

lower socioeconomic status (SES) employees (Lung, 2010; Travis, 2010).

The studies concerning the impact work-life benefits are included because full-time staff

members at the proposed study location are allowed to select their daily work schedules to

satisfy a minimum of 35 hours per week. This option is very similar to the flexible working

hours benefits offered by some corporations. In addition, the faculty members at the study

location are only required to be on campus fifteen hours to teach and five hours to advise

students and can telecommute the rest of the 35 hours. This is similar to the telecommuting

benefits offered by many companies. The studies about the impact of working a compressed

week on lower SES employees are included as a related topic that other researchers can study in

the future.

Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction

Goodale and Aagaard (1975) surveyed 474 employees who had been working four days a

week for 6 months to a year to assess the job satisfaction levels. The survey asked employees to

compare feelings and behaviors both before and after the change. The study concluded that the

70% of respondents were pleased about the new schedule, with younger employees having the

highest and older employees having the lowest post-change satisfaction levels. In addition, an

analysis of company data before and after the change revealed that working overtime was

reduced by ten percent and that changes in post-change productivity levels were inconclusive

47

(Goodale & Aagaard, 1975).

In a similar study, Hodge and Tellier (1974) surveyed the employees of twelve

companies operating under a compressed four-day week to assess post-change job satisfaction

levels. The selected companies implemented the change from a year up to three years before.

The results showed that employees who worked a four-day week had significantly higher job

satisfaction levels and that the difference was not related to either the location of the company or

the demographic characteristics of the employee (Hodge & Tellier, 1974).

Latack and Foster (1985) also investigated post-change job satisfaction levels at one

company eighteen months after a compressed work schedule was implemented. The

investigators used random sampling of employees working a shorter week and another group of

employees working five days per week. The study concluded that both set of employees had the

same levels of job satisfaction. However, company personnel records showed that the

employees who worked a compressed week worked less overtime and used fewer sick days

(Latack & Foster, 1985).

Table 5 Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction Study Data Collected Results Goodale & Aagaard (1975)

1. Survey responses, 2. Company Overtime records 3. Company productivity records

1. 70% of employees were satisfied with schedule, with younger employees showing more satisfaction than older staff 2. Overtime use was reduced by 10% 3. Productivity gains due to the shorter week were inconclusive 4.Worst part was longer more tiring days. 5. Younger people favor the 4-four-day week 6. Better work-life balance

Hodge & Tellier (1974)

1. Survey results

1. Employees from 12 companies that worked a four-day week have significantly higher job satisfaction levels after the change and that the difference was not

48

related to either the location of the company nor the demographic characteristics of each one. 2. Best part was more leisure time due to longer weekend 3. Worst part were longer more tiring days.

Latack & Foster (1985)

1. Survey responses 2. Human Resources Records

1. Both sets of employees that worked either 4-day or 5-day weeks had the same levels of job satisfaction. 2. Employees who worked a compressed week worked less overtime and used less sick days 3. Reduced absenteeism

Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction Combined with Other Constructs

Bilal, Rehman, and Raza (2010) surveyed thirty employees working in the banking

industry of Pakistan to investigate how working a compressed week impacts employee work-life

balance, turnover/retentions rates, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Another part

of the study examined whether employees frequently took advantage of the company’s flextime

benefits. The main findings of the study were that compressed work schedules reduce turnover

rates and work related stress and promote organizational commitment, employee retention, job

satisfaction, and improved work-life balance. Additionally, the study found that employees

usually did not take advantage of the company’s flextime benefits.

Ivancevich (1974) selected random samples of employees working a four-day and five-

day weeks at the same company but at different geographical locations to design his

investigation. The study examined and compared the anxiety-stress levels and job

satisfaction/performance levels of both groups during a period of 13 months using a Likert scale

questionnaire and human resource office records. The results showed that the group working the

shorter week was more satisfied and less stressed and had higher job performance levels

(Ivancevich, 1974).

49

Table 6 Compressed Work Weeks and Job Satisfaction Combined with Other Constructs Study Data Collected Results Bilal, Rehman & Raza (2010)

1.Survey responses, 2. Interviews

1. Compressed work schedules reduce turnover rates, work related stress and promote organizational commitment, employee retention, job satisfaction and improved work-life balance. 2. Employees rarely used the company’s flextime benefits.

Ivancevich (1974)

1. Survey responses 2. Human resources records

1. The results showed that the group working the shorter week, were more satisfied, less stressed and had higher job performance levels

Compressed Work Week and Absenteeism

Cunningham (1982) and Venne (1997) examined the relationship between employee

absenteeism and working a compressed week. Cunningham’s (1982) study was conducted at two

different police departments that employed some officers who worked compressed shifts and

others who worked five days. The study found that absentee rates were thirty three percent

higher in the employee group who worked eight-hour days, five-days a week.

In contrast, over a two-year period Venne’s (1997) study compared prison guards who

worked a compressed week at the same institution to others that worked a regular five-day, forty-

hour week. The study found that absentee rates were higher in the employee group that worked a

compressed week. However, Venne’s (1997) study concluded that the rate was not statistically

significant, and therefore suggests that the study be replicated in other areas in order to obtain

more conclusive results.

50

Table 7 Compressed Work Weeks and Absenteeism Study Data Collected Results Cunningham (1982)

Human resource attendance records before/after the change

Absenteeism was reduced by 33 % for the employee group that worked a compressed week 2. More leisure time due to longer weekend

Venne (1977)

Human resource attendance records before/after the change

No statistically significant difference concerning absenteeism was found between employees that worked a 4-day and 5-day week.

Flexible Schedules, Performance, Commitment, Turnover, and Family/Work Conflict

Researchers Chow and Keng-Howe (2006) surveyed a random sample of one hundred

forty seven staff members from two hotels and a department store. All companies offered their

employees flextime benefits. Flextime benefits allow employees to select the works that they

prefer to work each week. The purpose was to investigate if these employees perceived that

flextime benefits were correlated to higher job performance and organizational commitment

levels.

Chow and Keng-Howe’s (2006) study hypothesized that employees with family

responsibilities would report higher job performance levels because of the flextime benefits

offered at work. The study concluded that higher organizational commitment and productivity

levels were related to the flextime benefits. In addition, Chow and Keng-Howe’s (2006) found

that employees with families agreed that flextime benefits facilitated better work-life balance and

increased job performance.

Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, and Weitzman’s (2001) study found that employees who perceived

that they were working a flexible hours work schedule, regardless of whether they worked from

51

home one day a work or worked one less day a week, had much lower levels of work/family

balance issues.

Sands and Harper (2007) approached their work-life balance study differently from the

rest of the investigators. These researchers surveyed and/or interviewed human resources

personnel from eleven companies out of the thirty winners of the October 2004 edition of “The

Business Review’s Great Places to Work” list in New York (Sands & Harper, 2007). The study

focused of four specific work-life balance benefits—telecommuting, flextime, job sharing, and

compressed workweeks—and how these related to organizational performance.

Sands and Harper (2007) state that evaluating two variables assesses organizational

performance. One is return of assets (ROA) and the other is return on equity (ROE), which both

measure the amount of earnings made by investments and equity owned by the company. Sands

and Harper’s (2007) study found that companies that operated under a compressed work

schedule did not have higher organizational performance rates. Also, the higher organizational

performance levels of companies were partially related to the telecommuting benefits offered to

employees. The study site administrators had no data to determine whether offering job sharing

and flextime benefits were related to higher or lower levels of organizational performance.

However, the study did find that companies that offered telecommuting benefits had significantly

lower employee turnover rates.

Table 8 Impact of Flexible Schedule Benefits on Organizational Performance, Commitment, Turnover and Family/Work Conflicts Study Data Collected Results

52

Chow & Keng-Howe (2006)

Survey Responses.

1. Employees believed that higher organizational commitment and productivity levels were related to the flextime benefits offered by employers. 2. Employees with families perceived that flextime benefits facilitated work-life balance issues and increased job performance levels.

Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman (2001)

Survey Responses

1. Employees who perceived that they were working a flexible hours work schedule regardless of whether they worked from home one day a work or worked one less day a week, had much lower levels of work/family balance issues 2. Less stress due to lower commuting obligations 3. Flexible work hours eliminates need for after school care

Sands & Harper (2007)

1. Survey responses 2. Interview human resources staff

1. Companies that operated under a compressed work schedule did not have higher organizational performance rates. 2. Higher organizational performance levels of companies were partially related to the telecommuting benefits offered to employees. 3. Telecommuting benefits were to related lower turnover rates.

Impact of Compressed Work Week on Lower Socio Economic Status (SES) Employees

Travis’s (2010) article asserts that employees who have serious family problems and/or

lower incomes are least likely to benefit from a compressed work schedule. For example,

employees who are the sole caretakers of aging parents would not benefit from leaving their

parents home alone for a longer period each day (Travis, 2010). Lung’s (2010) article confirms

the assertion about employees with lower incomes by stating that they face unique problems that

society may not recognize and that these negatively affect them when companies choose to

switch to four-day work schedules. For example, Lung (2010) explains that when employers

change to a four-day work schedule, part-time janitorial employees who are usually paid an

hourly wage typically work fewer hours each week. Similarly, in the case of a four-day

work/school week, hourly school bus drivers and cafeteria staff lose one day’s wages per week

(Travis, 2010). In addition, the authors of both articles asserted that lower income single mothers

did not benefit from working a compressed week (Travis, 2010; Lung, 2010).

53

Table 9 Impact of Compressed Work Weeks on Lower SES Employees Article Assertions Travis (2010)

1. Employees who have serious family problems to begin and/or lower incomes are least likely to benefit from a compressed work schedule 2. Lower income single mothers did not benefit from working a compressed week

Lung (2011)

1. Employees with lower incomes face unique problems that society may not recognize and that these negatively affect them when companies choose to switch over to four-day work weeks 2. Lower income single mothers did not benefit from working a compressed week

Summation

In summary, the first four-day work/school week was implemented in the state of South

Dakota in 1930 as a way to reduce expenses and energy costs. The National Conference of State

Legislature’s website reports that during the 2001-2012 school year, 120 school districts in 21

states operated on a four-day work/school week in order to deal with rising fuel costs and state

budget cuts. Therefore, it seems like this is an option that some schools continue to choose.

A review of the literature concerning the history of the compressed work/school week

revealed a gap in studies of higher education. In fact, only two studies (Fearnow, 1984;

Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, 2000) and two three-page

research reports (Walker & Timmerman, 1980; Shay, 1974) were located that addressed the use

of the four-day work/school week in higher education.

In contrast, six studies (Feaster, 2002; Hewitt & Denny, 2010; Leiseth, 2008; Miller-

Hale, 2007; Sagness & Salzman, 1993; Wilmoth, 1995) addressed the use of the four-day

work/school week at non-rural K-12 school districts. Three other three studies (Bell, 2011;

Richards, 1990; Roeth, 1985) conducted similar research in rural K-12 school districts.

This review also covered studies that address the construct of work-life balance. The

54

purpose of some studies was to determine the relationships between job satisfaction and working

a compressed week (Goodale & Aagaard, 1975; Hodge & Tellier, 1974; Latack & Foster, 1985).

Other research studies focused on investigating the relationships between working a compressed

week and job satisfaction along with two or more job related variables (Bilal, Rehman & Raza,

2010; Ivancevich, 1974).

Additionally, some researchers have investigated the relationship between working a

compressed week and employee absenteeism (Cunningham, 1982; Venne, 1997). Two other

studies examined how alternative schedules and other family-friendly work schedules, such as

flexible working hours and telecommuting, impact individual and organizational performance,

commitment, family/work conflicts, and turnover rates even if employees don’t use these

benefits (Chow & Keng-Howe, 2006; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman, 2001; Sands &Harper,

2007). Finally, some authors have noted that working compressed weeks complicates the work-

life balance needs of lower SES employees (Lung, 2010; Travis, 2010).

55

Chapter 3: Research Design

This chapter describes the research design that was used for this study. First and

foremost, the selected study paradigm, design, and tradition is linked to the research questions.

The chapter also describes the study participants and how were recruited, the process of

obtaining access to the study location, discusses the investigator’s positionality, the data

collection techniques used, and storage and analysis procedures. Finally, it describes what

methods were used to increase the trustworthiness of the study.

Research Paradigms

As previously stated, the research questions for this study are:


compressed work/school week in response to reduced state funding?




strategy, and culture change as a result of the change implemented by

college leaders?

c. How did managers change everyday transactional factors such as


week?


performance levels?

2. How has the compressed work/school week influenced faculty/staff work-life

balance?

56

According to Ponterotto (2005), there are four different types of research paradigms.

These are known as positivism, post-positivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical-

ideological theory. A paradigm of inquiry is defined as “belief system, world view, or

framework that guides research in a field” (Willis, 2007, p. 8).

In the positivist style paradigm, reality is viewed as natural, simple to understand and as

the “true state of affairs” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 119). According to Butin (2010), the aim of

this research is to explain, this type of research answers why questions and requires a hypothesis

that guides the research. According to Ponterotto (2005), the method of study in this paradigm is

quantitative, meaning that it is based on the scientific method and requires the use of random

sampling. Moreover, Ryan (2006) posits that in this paradigm, experiments are essential for

understanding reality and testing the hypothesis. Since this research study is qualitative in nature,

this paradigm was not chosen.

The postpositivism research paradigm has some features in common with positivism.

Both aim to discover the truth about reality, use random sampling, employ experimental

methods, and use statistical methods to test proposed hypothesis (Ponterotto, 2005). However,

while investigators using the positivism paradigm assert that quantitative research methods are

the only way to find out what is real, postpositivism posits that the results of such studies only

represent the reality that the investigator perceives as being real (Ryan, 2006). In other words,

the conclusions reached in any study can be influenced by the investigator’s positionality, such

as the perspectives, culture, norms, customs, social standing, race, gender and background of the

investigator (Briscoe, 2005; Calton Parsons, 2008; Fennell & Arnot, 2008).

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), in the positivism paradigm research results are

considered new facts or laws, while in the postpositivism paradigm results are considered

57

probable new facts or laws. Butin (2010) asserts that a postpositivism paradigm is best used to

explain why something may be true. In addition, investigators who use this research paradigm

understand that there is no universal view of reality (Ryan, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005). Similar to

the positivism paradigm, the postpositivism paradigm was not chosen because it should only be

use for quantitative research.

Guba and Lincoln (1994) posit that in the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, reality is

created and interpreted through conversations and interactions between the researcher and the

population being studied. According to Butin (2010), the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm

is the conceptual framework behind studies that explore, describe, review, or evaluate a

phenomenon, answer how and what questions, and tell a story. The method of study in this

paradigm is qualitative and the investigator may choose to create a tentative hypothesis that may

change as new information is discovered in the study (Butin, 2010; Ponterotto, 2005).

The goal of the critical-ideological theory paradigm is to analyze societal structures and

use dialog to transform ignorant ideas about them (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research

paradigm seeks to provide restitution for past injustices and emancipation for historically

oppressed society members (Zanetti, 2004; Ponterotto, 2005). The outcome of a study based on

this paradigm is to attack the status quo (Butin, 2010; Ponterotto, 2005). Guba and Lincoln

(1994) posit that the methodology in this paradigm involves direct conversations between the

researcher and the population being studied and is mostly qualitative.

Even though both the constructivist-interpretivist and critical-ideological paradigms are

both qualitative in nature, the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm fits the study topic best. In

applying this conceptual framework to the research problem, it is used to tell the story of how the

four-day work/school week was implemented and describe how the change has influenced the

58

work-life balance of faculty/staff. The transformative process is viewed and explained through

the lens of an organizational change framework, which can be used to implement this change in

other contexts.

In summary, the positivism and postpositivism paradigms both require that investigators

use the quantitative research methodology in which a hypothesis is declared, random population

samples are selected, an experiment is set up to test the hypothesis, and the results of the study

are presented using inferential statistics. According to Creswell (2010), these research methods

focus on generalizing the research results to the rest of the population. However, two major

differences exist between the two. The positivism paradigm presents the research results as

proven facts while the postpositivism paradigm presents them as facts that were probably proven.

The second difference is the postpositivism paradigm may also use some qualitative research

methods to research the problem.

In contrast, the constructivism-interpretivism and critical-ideological theory paradigms

do not require experimentation to test hypothesis, random samples, or the use of inferential

statistics to present research results. A study using these paradigms can be purely qualitative in

nature. The main research approach of a qualitative study is to explore phenomena associated

with a population, using dialog as a research tool (Creswell, 2010; Butin, 2010). In addition,

theories related to the subject being studied can be used to analyze and present the research

results of a qualitative study (Creswell, 2010; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005). In

both paradigms, the investigator mostly uses dialogue as a research tool but can also use some

quantitative methods to investigate the research problem (Butin, 2010; Creswell, 2010).

There are two major differences between the constructivism-interpretivism and critical-

ideological theory paradigms. The constructivism-interpretivism paradigm can be used to

59

explore, describe, review, or evaluate a phenomenon, answer how and what questions and tell a

story (Butin, 2010). In contrast, the intent of the critical-ideological theory paradigm is to

analyze societal structures and attack the status quo. It seeks to provide restitution for past

injustices and emancipation for historically oppressed society members (Butin, 2010; Guba &

Lincoln, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005; Zanetti, 2004). In essence, the constructivist-interpretivist

paradigm was chosen for this study because it seems to be the best fit for the questions that this

study investigates.

Research Design/Tradition

According to Creswell (2012) there are three main study designs: qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods. According to Merriam (2001) qualitative style studies allow

investigators to explain natural social phenomenon without disrupting the status quo of its

environment. Merriam (2001) also posits that in all qualitative studies, the investigator collects

codes and interprets the study results. Furthermore, qualitative style studies allow researchers to

collect data that is rich in content and reach highly descriptive conclusions (Merriam, 2001).

Because the qualitative study design has been chosen to investigate the research topic, this

section focuses on the five traditional ways in which this style is employed. It also describes and

explains which qualitative study tradition was chosen for this study.

According to Creswell (2007) there are five reasons researchers should chose a

qualitative study design. The first reason is when a researcher wishes to investigate a single

problem, case, or issue comprehensively. Creswell (2007) posits that the research tradition that

matches this type of investigation is the case study. Moreover, Yin (2009) states that case studies

can be designed as holistic or embedded. In a holistic design, the investigator examines all areas

of the case. In contrast, in the embedded design at least two case-related constructs are chosen as

60

research topics.

The second reason is when investigators wish to understand the unique experiences of

study participants by having them narrate their personal stories. This is the narrative study

research tradition (Creswell, 2007). The third reason is when researchers wish to create a theory

or theoretical model about a topic based on interviews with twenty to sixty study participants

who lived through a unique experience or trauma. This research tradition is described as a

grounded theory study (Creswell, 2007). The fourth reason is when investigators wish to learn

more about a certain group and their culture. Creswell (2007) asserts that this research tradition

is known as an ethnographic study. Finally, the last reason is when researchers wish to learn

about a unique lived experience shared by a group of study participants. According to Creswell

(2007), the study tradition that matches this type of research is described as a phenomenological

investigation.

The common variable among these five research traditions and qualitative styles is that

they all require direct inquiry and contact with the study participants and that the answers to

these research investigations cannot be discovered through statistical analysis (Creswell, 2007).

Because the purpose of this research is to examine and describe the process of transitioning to a

compressed work schedule and to investigate post-change work-life balance perceptions, the

embedded case study tradition was chosen for this study. However, the key scholars in the field

of the case study tradition Yin (2009) and Stake (1995) both assert that there are three types of

case study designs and have different perspectives about their descriptions.

Yin (2009) posits that one type of case study is explanatory in nature and is used to pre-

examine a topic in order to create a theoretical framework before conducting the actual case

study. A pilot study is an example. According to Yin (2009) the second type is descriptive in

61

nature and it is used to describe natural phenomena or intervention through the use of a known

descriptive theoretical framework (Yin, 2009). In addition, Yin (2009) asserts that the descriptive

case study is ideal for examining an organizational process.

Stecher and Borko (2002) posit that when researchers employ surveys during case

studies, the results are far more descriptive than only using qualitative data methodologies. Yin

(2009) states that a survey can be used in embedded style case studies that usually examine at

least two different constructs of a single case. Finally, Yin (2009) describes the third type as

exploratory in nature, and it is used to explore an issue through the use of a knowledge-driven, a

problem solving or a social-interaction theoretical framework.

In contrast, Stake (1995) posits that the first type of case study is intrinsic and is used to

examine one specific person, place, process, or situation. The second type is instrumental and is

used to examine a person, place, process, or situation that needs to be studied and understood

before the selected case study topic can be conducted. This is similar to Yin’s (2009) explanatory

case study definition. The last type is the multiple or collective, which is used to study multiple

instances of people, processes, places, or situations.

In addition to the descriptions of the case study traditions and the uses, scholars assert

that there are other reasons the case study tradition should be used. Yin (2009) and Butin (2012)

state that the case study tradition should be used to answer “how” or “why” research questions.

Stake (1995) asserts that the tradition is a good choice for exploring single or multiple systems,

organizations, individuals, or a single person.

In essence, because the proposed research examines both the constructs of organizational

change and work-life balance, the researcher chose a single embedded case study design that is

descriptive in nature (Yin, 2009). Additionally, a survey containing both open-ended and close-

62

ended questions, as recommended by Stecher and Borko (2002) and Yin (2009), was used to

support the description of the findings in this case study. Furthermore, this type of case study is

also an excellent fit for use along with constructivist-interpretivist paradigm of inquiry since the

proposed research questions are all “how” questions (Yin, 2009; Butin, 2012).

Positionality Statement

Positionality is the concept that the conclusions reached by many researchers can

be influenced by his/her perspectives, culture, norms, customs, social standing, occupation, race,

gender and background (Briscoe, 2005; Calton Parsons, 2008; Fennell & Arnot, 2008). For

example, researchers that are too passionate about or have a personal reason for investigating a

topic may avoid reporting negative research results. Another example is that if the researcher

practices a different culture from a group being studied, the results are likely to be reported from

the point of the view of the culture practiced by the investigator (Creswell, 2012). Researchers

must be cautious to keep these biases from interfering with their judgment when interpreting,

reporting, and reaching conclusions in their studies. Researchers should try to analyze the results

from as many different points of view as possible.

During this study, the investigator collected data at the place where she has worked for

the past 23 years. Atlantic Ocean Community College is composed of five campuses and was

founded in 1960. The student population is approximately 25,000 and the college employs

roughly 1,600 people. All students that attend Atlantic Ocean Community College live at home

and many juggle school alongside family and careers. Creswell, as cited in Butin (2010), refers

to this type of research as “backyard research.” Butin (2010) asserts that in this situation,

relationships between the researcher and the study participants of the location being studied

could cause a potential conflict of interest.

63

During the time that the organization change was being implemented, the investigator

made many informal observations and had personal conversations about how this change

affected staff/faculty on one of the four campuses. The observations and conversations indicated

that many were happy teaching/working under the new schedule and that most felt that the new

schedule had a positive influence on their work-life balance.

However, the observations cannot be generalized to the faculty/staff of any of the other

campuses or even to other areas of the same campus. The researcher realizes that faculty/staff

working at the other campuses had unique experiences adjusting to the organization change.

Therefore, the research findings should not be analyzed based only on the reactions of

staff/faculty from just one campus or even from the positionality of the investigator’s limited

informal observations and/or personal conversations.

Yin (2009) and Creswell (2007) posit that investigators should discuss research findings

with peers that are not part of the study sample and inquire whether the findings sound logical or

if they can be improved in any way. This process provides additional perspectives and help

investigators make research conclusions more objective and remove personal bias. The

researcher used this technique to make sure that the research report is as accurate and unbiased as

possible. As Machi and McEvoy (2009) assert, "a biased researcher can only produce biased

findings" (p. 19).

From the moment the change was announced, the investigator was a proponent of the

new work/school schedule. The change meant that she would no longer be required to teach on

Fridays. Furthermore, since the researcher didn’t have children enrolled in daycare programs,

the organization change did not complicate her family life. In essence, because of her

positionality, she envisioned the change in a positive light. However, this was not the case for

64

some of the other faculty/staff working at Atlantic Ocean Community College.

For example, based on the informal observations and personal conversations of the

investigator, it appeared that some employees had a difficult time making daycare arrangements

to accommodate the new schedule. Briscoe (2005) and Fennell and Arnot (2008) assert that even

though investigators may not be struggling with organizational change in the same way that

others are, it is appropriate for them to voice the concerns of those who are. These considerations

must be included as part of the findings and conclusions. Therefore in this study, the researcher

has reduced the possibility of biased research results by discussing the study outcomes with at

least two faculty peers who are not part of the study sample, asking them to offer possible

alternative explanations for the study results, as posited by Yin (2009).

Participants and Recruitment

Due to the fact that the investigator works at the study location selected for this research,

she is knowledgeable about the specific college change leaders whom managed the change

process being studied. In essence, purposeful sampling as described by Creswell (2012) was

used to select the former college president, the faculty union president, the director of the human

resource department, the former director of public affairs as interviewees and all of the

faculty/staff members were selected to answer the survey.

One limitation of selecting all of the faculty/staff for this research study is that some of

the current faculty/staff were not working at the college when it operated under the former 5-day

work/school week. Therefore, the responses of these employees may not be as valid as the

responses of participants that worked under both schedules. In essence, the demographics section

of the survey included a question to identify these participants. This situation limited the ability

65

for the researcher to generalize the life/balance findings to other study populations. This issue is

discussed further in the limitations section of Chapter 5.

Study Location and Access

The study site for this investigation is a medium sized community college located in

South Florida. As previously stated, the community college consists of four campuses, and the

majority of students who attend are commuters. Therefore the college does not have any resident

dorms. Atlantic Ocean Community College employs approximately 1,600 people and serves

around 25,000 students per year. Access to the study location was granted because the researcher

has been an instructor at this institution for the last 23 years.

It is important to note that Creswell (2007) and Butin (2011) posit that doing research at

one’s place of employment can cause a power imbalance and a potential conflict of interest

between the study participants and investigator. It can also lead to bias in reporting research

findings. Therefore, researchers in this situation should employ as many validation strategies as

possible to increase the trustworthiness of the study results (Creswell, 2007). These validation

methods are discussed in the last section of this chapter.

Obtaining an informed consent form is vital when researching with live subjects. It is also

required and mandated by IRB offices located at many higher education institutions (Butin,

2010; Creswell, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012). Consequently, all

study participants were asked to sign an IRB interview or online survey consent form. Moreover,

all IRB consent forms included an option for the study participants to opt out of the study at any

time, as well as a statement that all information collected is confidential and that the investigator

did not intend to inflict any harm (Butin, 2010; Creswell, 2007, Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel,

Wallen & Hyun, 2012). Similarly, the online survey contained an informed consent form that

66

contains the same language as shown in the template supplied by the Northeastern University

IRB website. The interview informed consent form is shown in Appendix A. The on-line survey

informed consent form is shown in Appendix B. Furthermore, after having the study approved by

Northeastern University, the investigator also applied for IRB approval at the study location. The

application was approved in one day and the approval email was sent to the Northeastern

University IRB office.

Creswell (2012) posits that it is important to keep study participants names confidential

and give alias. Therefore, the researcher did not use the real names of the participants and the

actual name of the college was not revealed in any of the published research results. Instead, all

publications used pseudonyms. Participants’ identities were coded to protect confidentiality, IRB

documents containing the name of the study location were de-identified by removing all

potentially identifiable information, including the names of people and places.

Data Collection

According to (Yin, 2009), case study research strategies include interviews, direct and

participant observations, examining institutional documents, physical artifacts, and archival

records. Additionally, some scholars posit that qualitative researchers should constantly engage

in creating and writing reflective and/or analytical memos and field notes during the data

collection stage, which facilitates the data analysis process (Lincoln & Guba, 1994; Saldaña,

2009). In the embedded case study style, a survey can also be used (Yin, 2009).

In this case study, three of the main change leaders of the study location were interviewed

using a semi-structured interview. By interviewing three change leaders, the investigator

intended to discover different points of view about how college leaders managed the change

process, in order to more accurately describe it. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), semi-

67

structured interviews require the investigator to list questions concerning the topic and allow the

investigator to ask additional probing question for clarification. Consequently, the investigator

created an interview protocol, which is shown in Appendix C.

The interview protocol consists of the questions that were asked during the semi-

structured interview. The interviews lasted approximately 60-minutes, and the interviewees were

able to select where he/she preferred to be interviewed. Each interview was digitally recorded

and professionally transcribed by ‘Fox Transcribe’, which is a confidential transcription service.

Their website is located here: http://www.rev.com. The researcher also recorded voice memos

reflecting on the main ideas of each interview using a cell phone. According to Rubin and Rubin

(2012), transcribing should be completed immediately after the interview and involves typing

everything on the digital audio word for word. It usually takes three to four hours to transcribe a

one-hour interview (Creswell, 2012).

In addition, the interview protocol contained other questions that were sent by email to

different college administrative offices in order to allow them time to gather college archival

records, which assisted in answering the research questions. A copy of the interview protocol

was sent to the main change leaders of the study location before the semi-structured interviews

occurred. The interview instrument was pre-approved by the IRB board of the research location

as well as the IRB office where the investigator is a doctoral student before any data was

collected. The following tables detail how the interview questions are aligned to the constructs of

organizational change and/or work-life balance and the study research questions.

68

Table 10 Semi-Structured Interview Questions Aligned to the Study Research Questions Question Theoretical Constructs Research Questions 1-3 None (warm up questions) None 1 2-8 9-10

Organizational Change 1a Organizational Change 1 Organizational Change 1

Note. Sub-research question numbers 1a, 1b 1c and 1d are pre-aligned to Burke-Litwin (1992) model. © Nelly Cardinale Table 11 Emailed Interview Questions Aligned to the Study Research Questions Question Theoretical Constructs Research Questions 1-2 Organizational Change 1 3 4 5 6

Organizational Change 1 Organizational Change 1c Organizational Change 1b Organizational Change 1

The faculty and staff were able to respond anonymously to an online questionnaire

designed for the purpose of investigating post-change faculty/staff work-life balance perceptions.

The investigator considered using some of the surveys used in the work-life balance literature

reviewed in Chapter 2; however, none of them were a good fit for the proposed study. Therefore,

the investigator created a survey for the second part of the proposed study using the work-related

spillover theory constructs of Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model and some of the constructs of

the Burke-Litwin (1992) model. The questionnaire contains both open-ended and close-ended

questions and can be seen in Appendix D. It was converted to a digital format using the Survey

Monkey online platform.

It is important to note that even though the survey contained some close-ended questions,

which are usually used in quantitative studies, the responses to these questions were not used to

test any hypotheses. Instead both the open-ended and close-ended responses were used to

69

discover additional insights about the constructs of work-life balance and organizational change.

Moreover, the close-ended responses were illustrated using descriptive statistics. The following

table shows how each of the survey questions aligns with the work-related spillover theory

constructs of Bowen’s (1988) model, some of the transformational/transactional organizational

change constructs of the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model, as well as the study research questions.

Table 12 Survey Question Alignment Question # Type of question Theoretical Construct Research question

01-07 Closed-Ended & One Open-Ended Work-life Balance Needs (Parents) 2 08-13 Closed-Ended & One Open-Ended Work-life Balance Needs (Others) 2 14-22 Closed-Ended & One Open-Ended Work to Home Outcomes 1d & 2 23-32 Open-Ended Work to Home Outcomes 1d & 2 & Organizational Change 1b & 1c 33-42 Demographics None None Note. Table was created using Bowen’s (1988) and the Burke-Litwin (1992) models and the survey questions were created by the researcher. © Nelly Cardinale

As shown in Table 12, the survey protocol contains a demographic information section.

During the course of this case study, the investigator noticed that many survey respondents

accidently answered the first section of the survey. The questions in the first section of the

survey were only supposed to answered by employees with dependent children under the age of

18 living at home. Therefore, the investigator was able to use that demographic question to

determine the actual sample size for those questions. This facilitated the reporting of more

accurate results for those questions. In addition, the investigator used the age group demographic

question to determine, which age group benefited most from working a four-day, work/school

week.

The survey instrument is shown in Appendix D, and the online informed consent is

shown in Appendix B. Many scholars state that researcher created surveys should be validated

70

for construct accuracy before being used for the purposes of improving and making them into

reliable instruments (Butin, 2010; Creswell, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun,

2012). The researcher did this by informally pilot testing the survey with some of the members

of a Twitter group list of close to two hundred college professors from around the world. The list

of the members is located here, https://twitter.com/nycrican2/college-professors/members.

The researcher collected organizational change related press releases, email and board of

trustees meeting minutes to determine the role board members played in the change process.

Throughout this part of the collection process, the researcher immediately created voice-recorded

memos concerning initial impressions of the data whenever possible, which the researcher

listened to on the way to work as much as possible. Saldaña (2009) posits that memos can help

keep initial thoughts about the data fresh in the researcher’s mind and assist in the coding

process. In addition, human resource records was used by college officials to reveal post-change

employee absenteeism/turnover rates and if the number of post-change job applications are

different. Moreover, college-administered faculty/staff pre-change survey results were compared

to the post-change survey administered during this study. Finally, informal observations gained

as a study location employee are reported.

Data Coding and Analysis

Saldaña (2009) posits that there is no universal way to code qualitative data. After

examining many coding methods described in his book, the researcher chose the Descriptive

Coding technique to code all of the qualitative data as a first round coding technique. According

the Saldaña (2009), this coding method uses short one or two-word phases to describe main

ideas. Because this study is a descriptive case study, the Descriptive Coding method seemed like

a good fit. Additionally, the researcher chose Structural Coding as a second round coding

71

method. This technique requires investigators to assign a phase to each response, which

describes how it answers the study research questions (Saldaña, 2009). In essence, the

investigator used the constructs of the selected merged theoretical frameworks along with the

study research questions as a guide as a guide for assigning the phases.

Yin (2009) suggests that researchers select a general analytical strategy to illustrate case

study findings. The researcher used the constructs described in the selected merged theoretical

frameworks, shown in Appendix D and explained in Chapter One, as a general analytical

approach for analyzing the data. According to Yin (2009) this strategy is referred to as “relying

on theoretical propositions.” The following table summarizes the coding and analysis techniques

used in this case study.

Table 13 Summary of data coding and analysis Data Coding Analysis Interview Responses

Descriptive and Structural Coding (Saldaña, 2009)

Relying on theoretical propositions (Yin, 2009) and Tables

Study Survey


Relying on theoretical propositions (Yin, 2009) and Excel Spreadsheets/Graphs and Tables

Pre-existing Institutional Surveys


Relying on theoretical propositions (Yin, 2009) and Tables

72

Data Storage

It is important to note that the investigator performed the research at her place of

employment. Therefore, to prevent theft by people that can possibly identify the voice of

interview study participants, the recorded audio data was not stored on computers and/or locked

cabinets located at the study location (Butin, 2010). In order to ensure the confidentiality of all

research data, it was stored in four different locations, de-identified and only the study

investigator had access to the data.

Following Rubin and Rubin’s (2012) suggestions, one of the locations was by a password

protected personal home computer belonging to the investigator. Another storage location was

two personal flash drives that were kept in a metal case under lock and key in the investigator’s

home. In addition, the audio digital recordings were stored online using a password protected

Google Docs account.

To comply with the IRB rules of the college, which the student investigator attends, all

hard copies of the interview and soft copies of the survey consent forms will be kept for three

years after the completion of the study. The interview consent forms have been stored in a locked

file cabinet located in the investigator’s home and soft copies of the survey consent forms are

being kept in a password protected computer and on several secure online web locations.

Three years after completion of the study, hard copies of the informed consent forms will

be shredded and scanned digital copies will be deleted from all locations. Interview transcripts

have been de-identified and will be stored indefinitely at the student investigators home if case

they are needed later. All other data such as digital audio recordings, college documents, master

list of participants will be kept for one year after the completion of the study and then deleted

and/or shredded.

73

Trustworthiness

The investigator used four techniques to increase the trustworthiness of the study results.

One strategy involved sending the interview transcripts back to the interviewees to verify

accuracy. According to Creswell (2012), this technique is referred to as “member checking.” It

is important to note that because the organizational change being examined took place during the

2007-2008 academic school year, it is likely that interviewees have forgotten details about the

change process (Yin, 2009). Consequently, the responses to the interview questions regarding

how change leaders managed the transition to the new work/school schedule may not be as

accurate. Therefore, the investigator used the process of “triangulation” to increase the

trustworthiness of the study (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2009). To employ this technique, the

researcher used other sources of data such as change-related college email, press releases and

meeting minutes to triangulate the interview responses and some of the open-ended survey

answers. However, in order to protect the identity of the study location, these data sources are

not being cited in the reference section.

The third technique involved asking the main change leaders of the study location to

approve the investigator’s interpretation of the research results before the thesis was officially

defended. According to Johnson (1997), this method is called “participant feedback.” As

previously mentioned, the investigator used a method known as “peer review” to increase the

trustworthiness of the research conclusions (Johnson, 1997). This involved discussing

conclusions with peers who are not part of the study sample and asking them to suggest

alternative conclusions. This method assisted in removing any researcher related bias that may

have slanted the study results (Johnson, 1997; Yin, 2009).

74

Chapter 4: Findings

Introduction

As stated in Chapter 1, the purpose of the study is to describe how the change leaders at

Atlantic Ocean Community College managed the transition to a four-day work/school week as a

response to a budgetary crisis and investigate post-change faculty/staff work-life balance. When

appropriate, the constructs of the merged theoretical framework were used as a guide to present

the findings. This chapter is divided into six parts, as described in the next paragraph.

The first part presents the study research questions and describes the data collected for

this study. The second part reveals the findings pertaining to the first research question. The

third part compares and contrasts the responses to two current survey questions to an institutional

survey administered in 2007. It also compares the percentages of survey respondents who wanted

to continue the four-day school/work week in 2008 with the results found in the current study.

The fourth part of this chapter describes the current survey results guided by themes that appear

in the responses to one or more current survey questions as well as the 2007 institutional survey.

It is divided into two sections: The first section examines the positive aspects of the compressed

school/work week’s influence on faculty/staff work-life balance; and the second section focuses

on the negative ones. Each theme is supported by all of the survey questions that the theme

appears in and by faculty/staff quotes. The fifth part discusses additional findings. The last part

summarizes the results.

Research Questions and Data Overview

The research questions in this study are:


compressed school/work week in response to reduced state funding?

75




strategy, and culture change as a result of the new work/school week

implemented by college leaders?

c. How did managers change everyday transactional factors, such as


week?


performance levels?

2. How has the compressed school/work week influenced faculty/staff work-life

balance?

A variety of tools were used to investigate these questions. First, the investigator

designed a protocol for the purpose of interviewing the main change leaders at the study location.

The interview questions are in Appendix B. The interviews were digitally recorded,

professionally transcribed, and coded/analyzed by the researcher. The coded/analyzed interview

responses are in Appendix F.

Next, the researcher created an online survey to investigate the second research question.

As described in Chapter 3, the survey was informally pilot-tested by a professor’s social

networking group that the investigator is a member of. The coded/analyzed responses to the final

survey are in Appendix F. All current faculty/staff members employed at the study location were

invited to participate in the survey anonymously. Of the approximately 1,601 potential survey

participants, only 228 responded to the survey representing a response rate of 14.24%. It is

76

important to note that all faculty/staff members had access to office computers and were allowed

to respond to the survey during work hours if they wished to do so. Therefore, it seems like many

did not wish to respond to it.

In addition, one of the interviewees provided the investigator with the results of two

institutional surveys answered by the faculty/staff at the same college in 2007 and in 2008. In the

fifth part of this chapter, the responses to these institutional surveys are compared and contrasted

to some of the responses in the current study survey. The first goal of this analysis was to

determine if the percentage of survey respondents who wanted to continue the same school/work

week in 2008 changed in the intervening years. The second goal was to determine whether the

most frequently reported positive and negatives aspects of working this type of schedule are

similar to those reported in previous years.

Other data collection methods included emailing questions to college administrators and

asking to them to examine college documents in order to provide answers. The study also relied

on the investigator’s informal observations as an employee at the study locations as well as

numerous personal communications with study location stakeholders. In addition, the researcher

recorded reflexive voice memos during the investigations and wrote field notes throughout the

data collection process.

Examining the Change Process

As noted above the first research question states: How did community college change

leaders manage the process of converting to a compressed school/work week in response to

reduced state funding? In order to examine the change process, the investigator designed a semi-

structured interview protocol and used it to interview the three main change leaders at the study

location. Two interviewees were male and the third was female. Two were former college

77

administrators at the study location during the organizational change and the third is a current

faculty member. The interview questions and the resulting coding and analysis are in Appendix

F. The interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. To increase the

trustworthiness of this study, copies of the transcriptions were sent to the interviewees for the

purpose of member checking.

As noted in Chapter 1, to guide the description of the change process findings, the

investigator used parts of Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change framework. It is

important to note that according to Burke (2008), the process of organizational change is

complex and usually does not occur in a linear fashion. Therefore, the reasons for using Burke’s

(2008) organizational phase framework to answer question number one is twofold. The first

reason is to examine and discuss the different parts of the change process using the different

phases as heading titles. The second reason is to provide prescriptive organizational change steps

that other college administrators can use as starting points to replicate the same work/school

schedule at other community colleges. It is important to note that according to Burke’s (2008)

organizational change phase framework, the steps described in each of the four phases do not

always occur during the phases where they are listed. Moreover, the researcher did not list of all

the steps suggested for each phase. Instead, only the steps used by the Atlantic Ocean

Community College administrators were used.

In essence, the interview data, field notes, the investigator’s informal observations as an

employee, and personal communications with college administrative stakeholders were used

along with the framework to write the following descriptive narrative describing the change

process.

78

The Prelaunch Phase

During the spring semester of 2007, two of the interviewees were traveling back to the

study location after attending a conference. One was a newly appointed interim college president

and the second a public affairs administrator. They were discussing some of the problems faced

by college officials at the study site and brainstorming possible solutions.

One of the problems was low morale among college employees. According to one of the

interviewees, a third college administrator had recently examined human resource records and

found that the employee turnover rate was 27% across the board; however, among college

student advisors, the turnover rate was 40% yearly. These presented a dire problem for the

students since they were consulting inexperienced college advisors every year and, as a result,

may be misadvised.

The second problem they discussed was difficulty in trying to pay the increasing utility

expenses at the college. As one interviewee posited, “it is very tough to try to have to keep

spending more money on energy when you’re in an energy crisis as we were then, when it’s not

budgeted and when you have few alternatives other than to raise tuition.” Another interviewee

mentioned, “the problems that existed in terms of the energy costs that were predicted to increase

by at least $500,000 the next year going up and up.” Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 1,

many public community college budgets are being compromised by yearly state funding cuts.

Moreover, based on the informal observations of the investigator as a college employee, this was

a dire problem at the study location.

The solution they proposed to solve both problems was changing the college schedule to

a four-day work/school week. The administrators decided that one of then needed to research this

type of schedule. They agreed that the public affairs administrator would be the main change

79

agent and handle the research. Therefore, this study finds that the main reasons the four-day

work/school week was implemented were to address the problems of low employee morale and

increasing utility costs, which were exacerbated due to projected state funding shortfalls.

In the meantime, the change leaders continued to brainstorm how to implement the four-

day work/school week. According to the interview participants, the leaders decided that Friday

would be the best day to partially close the college, because Friday was the least disruptive day

to do so. At that time, the only classes that met on Friday were 50-minute classes that also met

on Monday and Wednesdays. These classes were changed to meet twice a week for 75 minutes

per day. In addition, very few college activities were scheduled on Friday.

The change leaders asked student government officials for help in making this decision.

The organization’s officers were asked to survey students in order to find out whether they came

to campus on Fridays and for what reasons. The inquiry found that few came to campus on

Fridays. Therefore, this study finds that Friday was selected to partially close the college because

few activities were scheduled on that day and a survey confirmed that students rarely came to

campus on Fridays.

The lead administrator started researching how to implement a four-day work/school

schedule. The research showed that very few organizations had implemented this type of

schedule and that most that did had reverted back to a regular five-day work week. There was

even a local government agency near the study location that converted to this type of schedule

and quickly changed back. After interviewing human resources officials from the organizations

that made the switch then reverted, the administrator found that there were two main reasons

why the endeavor failed. The first was because employees became burnt out working ten-hour

days. The second was that parents of toddlers had a difficult time finding daycare establishments

80

that were open late enough to accommodate this type of schedule. As a result, another finding of

this study is a ten-hour, four-day work schedule is likely to fail.

During the next step of the change process, change leaders brainstormed how they would

avoid the obstacles faced by the other organizations. The change leaders examined college

employee work schedules to figure out how to avoid scheduling ten-hour workdays. They

decided that by reducing the lunch hour to one-half hour and eliminating the college policy that

allowed employees to exercise 30-minutes three times per week on company time, the college

could reduce the full time schedule to 36 hours weekly or nine hours per day. They also agreed

to assign campus provosts, division heads and department chairs the task of troubleshooting

individual childcare/work schedule conflicts when necessary.

The two leaders then set up a meeting to discuss the proposed change with other college

administrators at the study location. The meeting was very productive; however, the initial plan

to close the entire college on Fridays changed. The group decided to keep the library, call center,

help desk, learning/language labs, daycare center, and security office open on Friday mornings.

As a team, the college change leaders also considered challenges that might occur during

the transition. One of the change leaders feared there would not be sufficient data to present to

the board of trustees in order to request permission to implement the change. This problem did

not occur during the change process. Another leader expressed that community leaders would

perceive the proposed change as an excuse for instituting a longer weekend. This also did not

occur. Still another interviewee was concerned that community leaders would perceive that

student services would be short-changed. It is important to note that this perception did occur

during the launch phase and was resolved successfully.

81

By the middle of June 2007, college change leaders had worked out the plan to

implement the new work/school week. They had collected human resource records showing

current turnover rates at the college, investigated reasons why the four-day schedule at other

organizations had failed, and adapted the plan around some probable challenges. The change

leaders also discovered that administrators of other community colleges located in the same state

usually implemented this type of schedule during the summer term. They presented all of the

data to the college board of trustees of June 18, 2007 to justify the need for the change and

requested that the board grant approval to try a six-week pilot of the schedule.

College officials posited that the new schedule would help reduce commuting expenses

for college employees/students, save energy, reduce college utility expenses, and raise employee

morale. One board of trustee member opposed the change idea immediately. The member

explained that the firm that he previously worked for had implemented a four-day work schedule

and it failed. Nevertheless, the majority of board members voted in favor of approving the

proposal. The board also requested a follow-up report after the pilot was completed.

To find out even more about this stage, after the interviews with the change agents, the

investigator asked two of the interviewees via email: “Were there any organizational change

theories or books used to guide the change implementation? If so, which? Were consultants

used?” The third interviewee was not asked since this person joined the change initiative after

the pilot was started. The reply stated that no consultants or books were used. However, one

interviewee perceived that the new college president was willing to take an enormous risk

because he believed it was the right thing to do. Therefore, another finding is that college leaders

did not use any change theories, consultants or books to guide the change process.

82

The Launch Phase

The change leaders returned to the college and quickly announced the proposed change to

the employees. Based on the some of the interviewee responses and the investigator’s informal

observations as an employee at the study location, the majority of employees were elated to hear

the news. Here are examples showing how the interviewees responded when asked, how do you

think employee initially reacted to the proposed change? One of the interviewees stated,.”.. it

was one of the most explosive, positive responses in the history of Atlantic Ocean Community

College according to everybody I talked to and based on my experience there as well.” Another

interviewee responded, “As we told staff members that we’re considering it, they endorsed it

strongly because this gave them that precious Friday to themselves, people were running in and

saying you’ve give me my life back.” Here is what another interviewee stated, “Cartwheels were

first… the staff leadership applauded it.”

In contrast, the interviewees stated that some of the faculty members who teach classes in

the healthcare fields worried about the impact that the schedule would have on their students,

because students majoring in this field usually did hospital rotations during the week and came to

campus on Fridays for individual faculty advisement and to take exams. Moreover, a few faculty

members expressed concerns that negative public perceptions of teachers receiving a full salary

for working nine months per year with summers off would get worse. Furthermore, a few college

administrators felt that the change was extreme. In essence, according to the interviewees the

study finds that while there was some resistance to the implementation of the four-day

work/school schedule, most college employees reacted favorably to the proposed change.

Additionally, the reaction from the local and national media members was very positive.

News reporters praised the actions of college administrators as an excellent way to save money,

83

energy, and help employees/students curtail commuting expenses; the plan became a national

news story. The media sources are not cited in the references section of this case study in order

to protect the identity of the study location. Nevertheless, the interviewees made the following

comments about the media coverage “…the local media portrayed the change as a rather bold

move and an interesting solution to an energy-related problem that we were facing.” Another

interviewee asserted, “It became a national media story, and all of a sudden, CNN was covering

it very positively, came to campus and spoke to students.” Based on these interviewee

responses, the study finds that local and national media viewed the implementation of the four-

day work/school week in a favorable light.

College change leaders anticipated and/or encountered pitfalls during this phase of the

change process. The analysis of the interview data identified four major ones: The first pitfall

was that community leaders were concerned that the new schedule would make it difficult for

student to obtain college services when needed. To address these reservations, college officials

decided to survey the students the launch phase of six weeks. According to one interviewee,

survey results indicated that 2/3 of the respondents felt that access to student services offices had

improved since the schedule began because the offices were now open longer during the first

four days of the week. In addition, the same percentage of students said that the new school

schedule had been a positive experience for them. As a result, another finding of this research is

that community leaders were concerned that the new schedule shortchanged student services.

The second pitfall was not notifying the faculty union before the first school/work

schedule pilot was implemented. The union president had been on leave from the college for the

summer. Even though college emails were sent to all college employees, the faculty union

official was visiting a remote area in Europe, which had limited Internet connectivity, so the

84

union president did not receive the messages. The president was shocked to hear the news upon

returning to the college later that same summer during the launch phase. Therefore, this study

finds that change leaders overlooked collaborating with faculty union leaders during the early

stages of the change process.

The third pitfall was failing to notify the leaders of nearby community college about the

organizational change. During the launch phase, several administrators from nearby community

colleges contacted Atlantic Ocean Community College change leaders to express disappointment

about not being notified about the change initiative. They expressed that the organizational

change was something they would have been interested in pursuing had they known about it.

One college president even expressed resentment over not being notified. Consequently, another

finding of this research is that neighboring community college officials expressed resentment

and/or disappointment about not being notified about and/or invited to engage in implementing

the same organizational change.

The last pitfall was that some college employees had difficulty locating a daycare facility

that had compatible schedules with the new work/school week. This is the same problem that

was reported to the public affairs administrator by the organizations that implemented a similar

work schedule and failed. One of the interviewees reported that campus provosts, division heads

and department chairs worked with these employees and were able to solve these problems. In

contrast, current survey results show that some employees still continue to have this type of

problem. This is discussed later on in this chapter. Another finding is that some employees had

difficulty finding daycare establishments that had compatible schedules with the new

work/school week.

A pilot of the new four-day work/school week was implemented by college officials at the

85

start of the first summer term in 2007. One week after the pilot four-day week started, the

employees of the college were surveyed. The survey inquiry presented on July 2, 2007 was:

“Please email me your input about the advantages and/or disadvantages of the four-day

workweek from your perspective.” The results of this survey are revealed and compared to two

similar open-ended survey questions at the end of this chapter.

The Postlaunch Phase

During the following school year, the college implemented several more pilots of the

four-day work/school schedule, administered several surveys and issued a press release

describing the benefits gained by the change. The table shown below summarizes the timeline

for the different pilot periods and answers the proposed email question shown in the header of

the table.

To make the timeline more complete, the investigator also added the time period during

which college change leaders started brainstorming the change idea, the date that they presented

the information to the board of trustees, the dates that college press releases were issued and the

dates that the faculty/staff were surveyed. It is important to note that according to the informal

observations of the investigator as a student location employee, interviewee responses and field

notes, college change leaders and the student government officers also surveyed students

concerning the proposed change; however, the chronological information is not included in the

timeline since the boundaries of this study excluded the students.

86

Table 14 Responses for Emailed Question 2 and Change Process Timeline Were any pilot tests done before the change was permanent? If so, can you remember the approximate dates that they were implemented? How long did each one last? When did the change finally become permanent? Yes, the dates and events were: (One of the interviewees used college documents to provide this answer and the second interviewee also mentioned these events.) Time Period

Event

2007 Spring Term Two college change leaders start brainstorming ideas about how to address the institutional problems of low employee morale, high turnover rates, and increasing utilities expenses that are challenging the institutional budget. The budget is a grave concern since the college depends on state funding, which have consistently declined during the previous few years. The leaders decide to consider a compressed work/school schedule as a possible solution and start to research the issue.

2007 Summer Term On June 18, 2007, college change leaders present the idea and research related for the proposed work/school week to the board of trustees and request approval for implementing the schedule as a six-week pilot. After initial resistance by one board member, the board members decide to approve the request.

2007 Summer Term

2007 Summer Term

On June 19, 2007, college leaders write a press release announcing the change to the new work/school week. On June 25, 2007, the first four-day work/school week starts on a six-week pilot basis. Summer day classes meet each day, Monday through Thursday, and night classes meet on Tuesday/Thursday or Monday/Wednesday. The library, call center, help desk, learning/language lab, day care, and security staff work a regular 4½-day schedule. Note: The on-campus daycare center is only available at one campus only.

2007 Summer Term On July 2, 2007, college change leaders survey the faculty/staff to receive feedback about the advantages and disadvantages of the new work/school week.

87

2007 Fall Term The college schedule reverts back to a 4½-day schedule for faculty and a 5-day schedule for staff, because the college class schedules had not been changed yet to accommodate a 4-day class schedule.

2008 Spring Term Second pilot starts with a four-day work/school week for all faculty/students. The library, call center, help desk, learning/language lab, childcare workers, and security staff work a regular 4½-day schedule. Librarians, who are classified as faculty by the college’s human resource office, are exempt from the new schedule and also work a 4½-day schedule.

2008 Summer Term Third four-day a week pilot starts for most faculty/students. The third pilot period ends in early August. The library, call center, help desk, learning/language lab, childcare workers and security staff work a regular 4½-day schedule. Librarians, who are classified as faculty by the college’s human resource office, are exempt from the new schedule and also work a 4½-day schedule.

2008 Fall Term

2008 Fall Term

On August 4, 2008, college change leaders survey the faculty/staff again to find out their opinions as to whether the college should implement the schedule on a year-round basis. Out of the total of 123 respondents, 88.6% were in favor of continuing the new schedule. On August 10, 2008, college leaders issue a second press release announcing all of the saving and advantages gained from transitioning the a four-day work/school week.

2008/2009 School Year

Permanent four-day a week schedule starts for most employees/students with three modifications:

1. Faculty work five-days only for the first week of the semester to assist with the drop/add process. 2. The library, call center, help desk, learning/language lab, childcare workers and security staff work a regular 4½-day schedule. Librarians, who are classified as faculty by the college’s human resource office, are exempt from the new schedule and also work a 4½-day schedule. 3. Other staff members work 4½-days for the first three weeks of the semester and then return to a four-day work schedule for the rest of the semester.

88

As shown in the timeline, another finding is that after the schedule was pilot tested for

one year, 88.6% of the survey respondents were in favor of continuing the four-day work/school

week. In addition, change leaders leveraged the change process by implementing post-launch

pilot periods, making multiple changes to the original plan and continuing to survey the

stakeholders.

Sustaining the Change Phase: Addressing Problems and Increasing Momentum

According to informal observations made by the investigator during her role as an

employee, during this phase national news media channels and newspapers reporters continued

to contact college change leaders for interviews and publish stories about the progress of the

four-day work/school week. A national news channel even came out to the campus to create a

video to post on their website along with a story about the new schedule. According to

interviewee respondents, college leaders continued working with individual employees whom

were experiencing daycare/work schedule conflicts. In addition, the study survey reveals that

sometime after first year of the schedule implementation, some department supervisors initiated

informal flexible working hours options for staff. Moreover, based on the informal observations

of the investigator as an employee, the faculty union negotiated telecommuting privileges for the

college professors.

Advice for other Community College Change Leaders

The interviewees also shared that if they had to start over, they would change two aspects

of the change process. The first aspect was inviting faculty union leaders to be part of the change

process before the launch phase. As previously stated, the faculty union president was eventually

invited to be part of the process after the first pilot started. The second part was communicating

with administrators of neighboring community colleges to notify them of the change initiative

89

and suggesting that the same work/school schedule might work for their institution. As

described in the launch phase, several administrators from nearby community colleges felt

slighted about not be asked to join the change initiative.

The interviewees also noted that college administrators should acknowledge that modern

online communication technologies allow faculty to communicate with students from anywhere.

Therefore this type of schedule does not reduce faculty’s availability to students. In addition, that

adopting a similar schedule should save energy, decrease college utility expenses, raise employee

morale and help other college officials deal with yearly state funding reductions.

Additionally, college administrators had four guidelines for other officials wishing to

implement the same work/school schedule. The first guideline is that they should not be scared to

think like entrepreneurs and take risks. The second guideline is that change agents should create

a task force to handle the change process. The third is that they should collaborate with all

institutional stakeholders during the change process, allowing everyone to share in the

governance of the college. Lastly, they should adopt and replicate the same work/school week.

The External Environment

As noted above, the first sub question states: Do change leaders perceive that the change

was caused by external environmental factors? The interviews revealed that changes in the

external environment played a major role in the organizational change to the four-day

work/school week. As one interviewee asserted: “…energy costs were skyrocketing and we

were looking at ways of keeping our budget balanced…it is very tough to try to have to keep

spending more money on energy when you’re in an energy crisis as we were then.” Another

interviewee exclaimed, “At that time the cost of energy, gasoline was sky rocketing… we really

needed to do something about this because of the projections for the budget … we’re looking at

90

… spending a half a million dollars just in the next year … in energy costs.” Finally, the last

interviewee mentioned that the shorter work schedule seemed to be implemented due to “…an

incentive from the local power company to try to save electricity.” Therefore, this study also

finds that college administrators perceived that the change was caused by external environmental

factors.

Transformational Factors

As noted above, the second sub question 1b states: Did transformational factors such as

the organizational mission, strategy, and culture change as a result of the new work/school week

implemented by college leaders? In order to investigate the first part of this question, the

researcher emailed the question to several college officials. According to the responses and

informal observations of the investigator as a study location employee, the study finds that the

change did not impact the mission, and strategy in any way.

To investigate whether the culture of the college had changed, the researcher created two

open-ended questions in the online survey. The following table illustrates the first question and

lists the most common themes reported by the participants.

Table 15

Common Themes found in Open-ended Survey question #31 31. Do you think that the college culture has changed in any way since the change? If so, explain how and in what ways. N=160 (Nine participants were not here before the change so they could not respond, 37 participants were not sure whether the culture changed and were also eliminated from the sample responses.) n=114 Reported Themes

Number of Participants

Increased Employee Morale/Productivity

47

No (Respondents did not give reasons)

36

91

Students Enjoy Class Schedule

7

Increased Employee Disconnect 6

Increased Employee Entitlement Sense 6

Better Work-Life Balance 4

Allows Friday Meetings 3

Lowers Productivity 2

Increases Student Activities 2

The following are some noteworthy quotes in response to the question noted in Table 15

above. One of the survey participants noted that “Yes, the culture has changed. The campuses

seem more like an institution of higher learning and less like an informal short-program trade

school…it is more tightly focused with more student involvement in college activities.” Another

participant responded, “Yes, it feels much more progressive … more dependent on technology,

as many do work from home on that 5th day.” A third survey participant wrote, “Yes, I believe

the college culture has improved because employees can spend more time with their families.”

Lastly, another stated, “Yes…the campus seems more lively and busy.”

Another survey response that helps to answer question 1b about organizational culture is

shown in the table below.

92

Table 16 Responses to Open-Ended Survey Question 28 28. Do you think that there was a change in employee morale since the four-day work/school week started? If so, please explain. N=187 (21 answers were not included in the amounts below since the employees only worked at the study location after the change.) Therefore, the sample size was reduced to N=166 Number of Participants Percentage of Participants Yes (noticed an increase) 122 73.05% No

16 9.58%

Not Sure/Mixed Opinions 28 16.76%

Totals: 167 100%

Here are some noteworthy open-ended survey responses to question 28 shown in Table 16

above. One of the survey respondents noted, “Yes, people were very down about not having a

pay raise for several years. The four-day work schedule was like getting a pay raise …at this

point if it was taken away, people would feel as though they were being punished.” Additionally,

another participant wrote, “Yes, everyone seems more upbeat and willing to work 4 long days vs.

5 regular days. Also, there are fewer "personal days" taken for doctor's appointments, etc.

because these may now be done on Friday.” A third respondent mentioned, “I believe morale has

increased. Why wouldn't it with Thursday being the new Friday?” Moreover, based on the

informal observations of the investigator as an employee at the study location, Thursdays are

now referred as “Thridays.” Based on these responses, another finding is that the new schedule

seems to have impacted the organizational culture of the college but for reasons other than these

survey responses. This finding is further discussed and debated in Chapter 5.

93

Transactional Factors

As noted above, the third sub question states: How did managers change everyday

transactional factors such as institutional policies and practices to align with the new

work/school week? To investigate this inquiry, the researcher emailed the question shown in the

table below to a college administrative office and asked officials to use college documents for

the purpose of answering the question. Parts of the answers in the table were also mentioned by

two of the interviewees. The table below illustrates the answer.

Table 17

Responses to Emailed Question 4

Emailed question 4. How were college policies such as faculty union contracts and faculty/staff and class schedules changed to align with the new work/school schedule? Policy Change Faculty Work/School Schedules: (Negotiated by Collective Bargaining)

1. 2007/2008 contract: a. If asked, all faculty members must attend in-services and/or meetings scheduled on Fridays. b. Faculty can teach summer terms on a voluntary basis for an extra stipend. c. Faculty must work a half-day on Friday during the first week of every semester to assist in the student drop-add process. d. Librarians whom are also classified as faculty by the human resource office were not transitioned over to the new work schedule and therefore must work one half-day in the library on Fridays during the entire semester. 2. Current 2012/2013 Full-time Faculty contract: a. Faculty members teach Monday through Thursday for a minimum of 15 hours per week. b. Faculty must work a half-day on Friday during the first week of

94

every semester to assist in the student drop-add process. c. Faculty must be on campus 5 hours weekly for student advisement. d. Faculty can work the extra 15 required hours per week from any location.

e. Librarians, who are also classified as faculty, must work one half-day in the library on Fridays during the entire semester.

Student Class Schedules

Friday morning, three-day a week 50-minute classes were eliminated and converted to two-day a week 75-minutes classes.

Staff Schedules 1. All staff schedules were changed to require a minimum of 36 hours a week to meet full-time hourly requirements. The lunch schedule was reduced by one half hour and the exercise benefit as describe below was eliminated in order to reduce the normal 40 hours to 36 hours weekly. 2. Most staff members work 36 hours per week on a Monday through Thursday basis with the exception of the library, learning/language lab, security, childcare, and help desk personnel, who work on a Monday through Friday basis. 3. In addition, all staff must also work a half-day on Friday during the first three weeks of each semester.

Exercise Benefit Policy

In the past, this policy allowed employees to exercise one-half hour during the workday three days per week on paid time. However, it was eliminated so that along with the reduced lunch hour, employees can work a condensed Monday through Thursday, 9-hour day and still receive full-time pay—thus avoiding the need for 10-hour workdays.

In order to investigate how the new work/school schedule influenced other transactional

factors, the investigator emailed the question shown in Table #18 below to an administrative

office at the study location and asked college officials to use organizational documents to

provide an answer. The data was collected by examining college financial and human resources

records and was published in a press release on August 10,, 2008. To protect the study location’s

identity, the press release is not being cited. It is important to note, that college officials had not

95

collected more current data, but indicated that the percentages seemed to be the same today.

Additionally, two of the interviewees also provided the same information during the interviews.

Table 18

How the transition alleviated the problem.

Emailed question 3. Has the change affected the number of job application it receives, college expenses, employee commuting expenses, and sick day use and/or turnover rates? After the first year, the new work/school resulted in utilities savings of $270,000 as compared to the prior school year. The exact percentage is shown below. In addition, the table shows unexpected benefits, which resulted from the implementation of the new schedule. Turnover Reduction 44% Decrease Sick Hours Used

50% Decrease

Energy Expenses

10% Decrease

Employment Applications Received

51% Increase

Employee/Student Commuting Expenses

20% decrease

Based on the information in these two tables, many of the colleges’ transactional factors were

changed as a result of implementing the four-day work/school week.

Job Performance Levels

As noted earlier, the fourth sub question was, “Did the changes in

transformational/transactional factors influence job performance?” To investigate this research

question, the investigator designed four survey questions. These topics were noted in closed-

ended survey question number 20 and in open-ended survey questions numbers 23, 24, and 29.

96

Table 19

Answers to Closed-Ended Survey Question 20

N=220. Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my: Question Percentage/Totals Increased Decreased Made no difference # Of

Participants

20. Job Performance

42.2% 1.0% 56.8% 220

Regarding open-ended survey question #23, which solicits employee opinions as to

whether the college should continue operating under a four-day work/school schedule, here are

some examples quotes regarding how the employees responded. One survey responded stated,

“Yes, I have plenty of time Monday through Thursday to complete my work and feel very

productive in my home life as well.” Another employee noted, “Yes, I think I am more

productive when I am here based on having an additional day off.” A third participant responded,

“Sure, productivity is the key to any business.”

Regarding open-ended survey question #24, which asked faculty/staff to name the best

parts of working a four-day work/school week as they relate their own circumstances, here are

two sample responses. One employee asserted, “I believe most of us are more productive in a

four-day work week.” Another participant stated, “I get a lot more done at work.”

Concerning open-ended survey question #29, which asked faculty/staff whether their job

performance levels had changed since the implementation of the new work schedule, this is a

sample of the responses. One of the survey respondents exclaimed, “Job performance levels

have increased due to less stress.” Another participant remarked, “I think my performance levels

97

have changed because I now only have four days to get done what I used to in five. I am more

organized and stay on tasks so as not to get behind.” Another survey participant mentioned, “I

now perform at a more efficient rate.”

Some survey respondents mentioned the construct of motivation to describe how their job

performance had changed. One of them stated, “If nothing else, one has more motivation to

work for an employer who provides a flexible schedule.” Another participant noted that he/she

was “very motivated as a result of higher job satisfaction.” A third survey responded said, “I am

more energized and motivated during the four day work week.” A fourth respondent exclaimed,

“…there is more motivation… to get done what needs to be done.” A fifth survey participant

said, “Knowing that my weekly time commitment to being here is condensed into 4 days instead

of 5 is very motivating.”

Post-Change Work-Life Balance

The second part of this study focused on the following research question: How has the

compressed work/school week influenced faculty/staff work-life balance? To investigate this

question, the researcher created a survey consisting of forty-two questions and asked all study

location faculty/staff members to answer the questions anonymously. Most of the questions were

closed-ended; thirteen questions were open-ended. The demographic section also consisted of

thirteen questions. The responses to the closed-ended questions are presented using Excel charts

and APA style summary tables. The open-ended questions were coded/analyzed by the

researcher and presented according to the main themes found using one or more tables. The

responses to all survey questions, including the demographics section, can be viewed in

Appendix G. In addition, as noted in the introduction, the researcher coded/analyzed a pre-

existing institutional survey consisting of an emailed two-part question and compared the

98

responses to two open-ended questions in the current survey.

Pre-existing Surveys

As previously noted, in the summer of 2007 change leaders at the study location surveyed

the faculty/staff using email inquiring about the schedule’s advantages and disadvantages. The

current survey contained two open-ended questions asking the participants to describe the best

and worst parts of working under the new schedule. Therefore, the researcher compared and

contrasted the responses to the institutional survey with the responses to the study survey in

order to examine longitudinal faculty/staff perceptions. The first table shows the common

positive aspects of working under a compressed work/school week. The second table shows the

common negatives aspects of working under this type of work schedule.

Table 20 Common Advantages and Best Parts found in 2007 and 2013 surveys 2007 Pilot Summer Institutional Survey Question

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to invite you to send me your input about the advantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 2013 Current Study Survey Question 24. What is the best part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and

your circumstances? N= 194 Common Advantages/Best Parts

2007 # of Participants N= 176

2013 # of Participants N=194

Facilitates Making Appointments

18.8%

35.56%

Improved Work-Life Balance

16.47% 21.13%

Longer Weekend/Rest time

31.25%

20.61%

Increased Productivity/Performance

3.97%

4.63%

99

Reduced Commuting Expenses 13.06%

4.12%

Facilitates Volunteer Work

1.70%

3.60%

Table 21 Common Disadvantages and Worst Parts found in 2007 and 2013 surveys 2007 Pilot Summer Institutional Survey Question

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to invite you to send me your input about the disadvantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 2013 Current Study Survey Question 25. What is the worst part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and

your circumstances? N= 189

Common Disadvantages/Worst Parts


2013 # of Participants

N=189 No Worst Parts/Disadvantages

8.52%

50%

Longer Days

1.70%

24.33%

Daycare Schedule Conflict

3.4% 1.58%

Less Weekday Family Time

1.13% 1.06%

After an analysis of the 2007 institutional survey and the current study survey, the results

showed that many of the positive and negative aspects of work-life balance influenced by the

shorter week remain the same as those reported in the 2007 institutional survey. It is also

important to note that even though the four-day work/school week has been in effect since the

2008/2009 school year, the current percentage of survey respondents wishing to continue the

same schedule is very similar to what it was one year after the schedule was first implemented.

100

The following section shows how the 2008 institutional survey responses compare to the current

open-ended survey question 23.

Table 22

August 2008 Institutional Survey Responses

Please email me your advice about whether the college should adopt a four-day workweek on a year-round basis. Position Total Responses Percentage

For 111

88.6 %

Unclear 8

6.5%

Against 4

4.9 %

Totals 123

100%

Table 23

Response to current open-ended survey questions 23.

23. In your opinion, should your employer continue to operate under a four-day work/school schedule? Why or why not? N=195

Responses

Number of Participants Percentage of Participants

Yes

170 87.17%

No

8 4.10%


Totals: 195 100%

101

Work-Life Balance Survey Responses

Positive Aspects

The positive aspects shown in Table #20 above are presented according to the order in

which they appear in the current 2013 survey. The analysis provides example quotes from both

the current survey and the 2007 institutional survey. When appropriate, the results of the some of

current survey closed-ended questions are used to support the findings.

The most frequent positive response given by the participants was that the new schedule

facilitated making personal appointments. The most common example was making doctors’

appointments on Fridays. Caretakers of both minor children and elderly parents reported that not

having to work on Fridays really helped them balance their jobs alongside family

responsibilities. These sentiments are shown below in response to closed-ended survey questions

5 and 10; and opened-ended questions 13, 24, and 26; and the 2007 institutional survey.

Concerning the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked employees the advantages of the

four-day workweek, the positive aspect of the shorter week facilitating the process of scheduling

personal appointment was mentioned. Here are some sample quotes provided by survey

participants in the 2007 institutional survey. One of the survey respondents stated “I, for one, am

very appreciative for the extra time off since my elderly Mother just moved in with us. I have her

(many) doctors’ appointments all scheduled for Fridays.” An additional participant noted, “I am

a single parent with three children who takes care of an elderly grandfather. Now that I have

Fridays off, I can make necessary appointments for doctor’s, schools, etc. without having to

sacrifice time lost at work.”

102

The following two tables illustrate the responses to close-ended survey questions #5 and

#10, which also addresses the positive aspect regarding how the shorter work schedule facilitates

the making of personal appointments.

Table 24

Response to Close-Ended Survey Question 5

This question was meant to be answered only by employees which had dependent children under 18 years of age After filtering the responses according to the demographic variable of, “households with dependent children under 18 years old” and noticing that four survey participants did not answer the demographic question, the sample size was reduced to N=57. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier

Made it more Difficult

Made no difference

# Of Participants

5. Schedule children’s healthcare appointments

87.71%

0.0%

12.28%

57

Table 25

Response to Closed-Ended Survey Question 10

N=226. Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey platform. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier Made it More Difficult

Made no difference

# Of Participants

10. Schedule personal healthcare appointments.

86.6% 3.0%

10.4%

226

This study also examined responses to open-ended questions 13, 24, and 26 in the current

survey to examine how the shorter work week facilitates the process of scheduling personal

103

appointments. Among the responses to open-ended question #13, which asked whether working

a four-day work/school schedule had influenced any other individual work-life balance needs,

this positive aspect was also mentioned. One participant responded that the new schedule

improved, “…not just scheduling medical appointments, but car, errands, dental, household

repairs, deliveries, etc.”

Concerning question #26, which asked respondents to describe the best part of working a

four-day work/school week as they relate to their own circumstances, here are some

representative quotes from the respondents. One respondent mentioned that the best part was,

“…being able to schedule personal appointments on Friday and not take time off work.” A second

participant stated, “The extra day off during the weekday allows me to try and schedule doctor

appointments, driver license, registration appointments that otherwise would take me away from a

workday.” A third employee noted, “I can schedule appointments without missing work and,

therefore, creating hardships on my co-workers.”

Regarding question #27, which asked respondents with live-in parents how the shorter

work schedule affected their caretaker role, these are sample quotes, which mention the positive

aspect regarding appointments. One participant stated, the four-day work week allows me to

attend my mother's doctor appointments, and to take a more active role in her health care.” A

second respondent noted, “I was a caretaker with this schedule for a few months. I was able to

schedule my mother’s appointments on Fridays during the summer when not teaching. So much

less stressful.” A third participant affirmed, “It helps me because I can also schedule their

doctors’ appointments on Friday.”

This study also finds that the four-day work/school week appears to facilitate employee

work-life balance. This aspect was mentioned in closed-ended survey 21, in open-ended survey

104

questions numbers 23 and 24, and in the 2007 institutional survey. Here is a sample of what the

respondents reported concerning work-life balance.


four-day workweek, the topic of work-life balance was also mentioned. One survey respondent

said, “I hope that we can keep this schedule permanently as it enables me to spend more time

with my children.” A second participant declared, “It gives me time to catch up on things on

Friday if need be or to have an extra day to do things for myself or with family.” A third

respondent stated, “I love it because it allows time to handle personal matters and to saves me

from using my lunch hour to do this.” The following table shows how the respondents answered

close-ended survey question #21, which refers to work-life balance.

Table 26

Responses to Close-Ended Survey Question 21

N=219. Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey Platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my: Question Percentage/Totals Increased Decreased Made no difference # Of

Participants

21. Work Life Balance

79.2% 4.6% 16.2% 219

This study also examined responses to open-ended questions 23 and 24 to address the

work-life balance positive aspect. Here are some representative samples quotes. Regarding

survey question #23, which asked employees whether their employer should continue to operate

under a four-day work/school schedule and to explain why, here are some sample quotes

mentioning work-life balance. One employee declared, “Yes, it is easier to be able to spend time

with my family.” A second employee stated, “Yes, it allows me to have more quality time with

105

my spouse. Weekends are no longer spent doing household chores. I can have my grandchildren

over a weekend and have Sunday for church and relaxation.” Another employee noted that,

“Absolutely! I feel like a better, more dedicated employee because I don't feel spread too thin at

home.” A fourth employee said, “Yes, I feel more motivated at work and has a positive influence

at home.”

Some of the employees that answered open-ended #24, which asked faculty/staff to

describe the best part of working a four-day work/school week as it relates to them, also

mentioned work-life balance issues. Here are some sample employee quotes. One survey

participant stated, “I enjoy having Friday off when my kids are in school. I can get a lot

accomplished therefore allowing my weekends to be open for fun with my family.” A second

employee declared, “I am able to spend more time with my kids and get some time for myself.”

A third one said, “…provides the ability to do necessary weekday tasks related to my home life

that I cannot do while working.”

The survey results also showed that the study participants really appreciated having a

longer weekend to look forward to and more time to rest at home. This was noted in the

responses to the 2007 institutional survey and in the current survey as responses to open-ended

questions 7, 13, 22, and 24.

Regarding the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked employees what the advantages of

the four-day workweek were, here are some representative quotes concerning the positive aspect

of longer weekends. One respondent stated, “Long weekends mean less stress and more energy.”

A second participant stated, “Working four days a week really helps our office to get more

accomplished and reduces a lot of stress during our three day weekends.”

106

Among the responses to open-ended survey question #7, which asked if there were other

issues related to parenting and working the shorter schedule that were not addressed, the topic of

more restful weekends was also mentioned. One employee noted, “I can have a day for myself to

relax without children being around.”

Regarding open-ended question #22, which asked if employees had any other post-

change beliefs or perceptions, study participant also mentioned the positive aspect of more

restful weekends. Here are sample representative quotes regarding this topic. One employee

declared, “The extended weekend allows me to attend to my personal issues and relax and be

well rested for the upcoming work week.” A second employee noted, “I haven’t even added in

the benefit of getting an extra hour or two of much needed rest.”

Concerning open-ended question #23, which asked for employee for opinions as to

whether their employer should continue to operate under the shorter schedule, the topic of longer

more restful weekend was also mentioned. One employee stated, “Yes, it should continue, and

as an employee, of course, I enjoy a longer weekend.”

The positive aspect of more restful weekend was also mentioned in the responses to

open-ended question #24, which asked employees to state the best parts of working a shorter

work schedule. One employee declared, “It allows me the morning to relax without children or

husband at home, allows to do things I like to do.” Another employee noted, “It allows me an

opportunity to relax more in my personal life because I look forward to the shorter work weeks.”

A third employee stated, “I can get a lot done Monday through Thursday as well as get to relax at

home.”

As stated in the job performance section of this chapter, 42% of current survey

respondents reported that the change to the new schedule resulted in increased employee job

107

performance levels. During the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked for employee opinion

regarding the advantages of the four-day workweek, the constructs of higher

performance/productivity were mentioned. One employee noted, “Longer days make it easier for

me to finish up the last project of the day, so I leave fewer strings dangling.” A second employee

stated, “I feel I am more productive Monday - Thursday because I know I am going to have a

three-day weekend.” Another employee stated, “I actually find that I am more productive in 4

longer days than in 5 shorter days.” Lastly, another participant declared, “… everyone seems to

be working harder and more efficiently because they know that they have a longer weekend to

recharge their batteries.”

Many study participants stated the new work/school schedule had a significant effect on

reducing commuting expenses. As noted in the section comparing the 2007 institutional survey

to the current survey, this sentiment was described in both surveys. In the current survey, it was

mentioned in response to closed-ended question 14 and open-ended questions 22 and 24.

Regarding the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked employees what the advantages of

the four-day workweek were, here are some representative quotes concerning the positive aspect

of reducing commuting expenses. One employee stated, “It was especially nice because my

husband also works at Atlantic Ocean Community College so we …saved gas as we live in

Evansville… which is a 30 miles round trip.” Another employee stated, “I calculate that over this

six week trial period I will save about $50, in gas alone, not having the drive to and from the

office on Friday.” A third employee noted, “Having Fridays off allows me …to save money on

gas since I commute from Potterville.” The following table illustrates the responses to closed-

ended survey question #14, which addresses communing expenses.

Table 27

108

Results of Closed-ended Survey Question 14

Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey Platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my: Question Percentage/Totals Increased Decreased Made no difference # Of Participants

14. Commuting Expenses 3.0% 81.0%

16.0%

222

Among the responses to question #22, which asked employees to describe any other post-

change job-related beliefs and perceptions, the study participants also mentioned commuting

expenses in their responses. One employee stated, “With gas going up in cost every day, the

savings are substantial.” The positive aspect of reduced commuting expenses was also mentioned

in the responses to open-ended question #24, which asked employees to state the best parts of

working a shorter work schedule. One employee noted, “I commute 30 miles to campus - huge

difference between 4 days and 5 days.” Another employee stated, “I live in Lemon County so not

having to drive that extra day is really nice for me.” A third participant said, “I have to commute,

so the gas savings is significant.” A fourth respondent asserted, “I have a very long commute so

this saves energy which is good for the country.”

Lastly, another finding was the new work/school schedule facilitated employees’ ability

to engage in community service activities. This situation was mentioned in the 2007 institutional

survey and among the answers to open-ended questions #7 and #13.


four-day workweek, here are some quotes regarding the positive aspect of facilitating volunteer

opportunities. One employee stated, “Employees can become more active volunteers in other

community and civil organizations.” Another employee noted, “I am very involved in several

109

community activities that include my church, and teaching adults … having Fridays off …

allows me to expend more time in these activities that mean a lot to me.”


issues related to parenting that the survey did not cover, the positive aspect of facilitating

volunteer opportunities was also mentioned. One employee noted, “The schedule made it easier

to spend time in my children's classrooms and remain more active in their education.” Another

employee stated, “I am able to volunteer at my children's school more frequently.” A third

employee said, “As a benefit of a 4-day week, I am able to volunteer as a chaperone during my

children’s school field trips.”

Regarding open-ended question #13, which asked whether working a four-day

work/school schedule had influenced any other individual work-life balance needs, the positive

aspect of the shorter week facilitating volunteer work was also mentioned in the responses. One

employee stated, “I am able to volunteer to teach art to homeschooled students on Fridays- it

gives me a great balance of working in something I have a passion for!” Another employee

noted, “I can volunteer on Fridays with seniors teaching them computer programs.” A third

employee affirmed, “I have more time to volunteer at the animal shelter.”

Negative Aspects

The negative aspects shown in Table 21 above are presented according to the order in

which they appear in the current 2013 survey. The analysis provides examples quotes from both

the current survey and the 2007 institutional survey. When appropriate, the results of the some of

current survey closed-ended questions are used to support the quotes.

The most reported negative aspect is that working longer workdays increases exhaustion

and limits evening family time. This aspect was also mentioned in the institutional 2007 survey

110

as one of the disadvantages of working a four-day school/work week. The assertion that the

longer day increases exhaustion conflicts with the results of closed-ended survey question

number 17 and is discussed in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, the quotes supporting the assertions that

longer days cause exhaustion and limits evening family time are shown below.

Among the answers to the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked employees the

disadvantages of the four-day workweek, these assertions were mentioned. On employee stated,

“It is difficult getting off at 6:30pm (with one hour for lunch each day) to drive home, cook

dinner and clean. By then it is 9:00pm and I haven’t even “pet the cat” at this point!” A second

employee noted, “It is hard being a mom of 2 small kids that go to bed early. And working until

7:30 pm allows not much time if it all to see them.” A third employee affirmed, “There have

been a few grumbles regarding child care, lack of time to … spend with kids during the week.”

The following table illustrates the responses to close-ended question #17.

Table 28


N=224. Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey Platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Increased Decreased Made no difference

# Of Participants

17. Work-relate Fatigue Level 16.9% 49.8%

33.3%

224

Among the answers to question #25, which asked employees to state the worst parts

working a four-day work/school week, the negative aspect of the shorter work schedule requiring

employees to work longer extra-tiring days and causing reduced evening family time were also

mentioned. One employee noted, “During peak registration the exhaustion level is very high with

111

the long workdays.” Another employee stated, “Longer days can be tiring.” A third employee

asserted, “Sometimes 9 hour workdays are just too long.” A fourth respondent stated, “The days

are a bit longer but so worth it.” A fifth employee mentioned that a negative aspect was “Not

getting to spend enough time with my child after I get off.” Finally, a sixth participant stated, “I

miss some of the grandson’s activities, which are held right after school i.e. sports.”

Lastly, another negative aspect associated with the four-day work/school schedule is

daycare/work schedule conflicts. This problem was noted in the 2007 institutional survey, in

closed-ended survey question 3 and in open-ended survey questions 7 and 25. It is important to

note that according to the sample response to closed-ended survey question 3, locating before

and after school care for elementary school children did not seem to present any hardships. It

seems as though locating daycare for non-school age children is the real problem. The results

concerning daycare schedule conflicts are shown below.

Among the answers to the 2007 Institutional Survey, which asked employees the

disadvantages of the four-day workweek, the negative aspect of work/daycare schedule conflicts

was mentioned. One employee noted, “Some of our staff/faculty members who have children

have childcare problems with the long hours on the 4-day week.” A second employee stated, “I

do want to note that I feel the college has been very thoughtful regarding those who have

children by providing various work timeframes to select from.” The following table illustrates

the responses to close-ended question #3.

Table 29


N=116. This question was meant to be answered only by employees which had dependent children under 18 years of age After filtering the responses according to the demographic variable of, “households with dependent children under 18 years old” and noticing that four survey participants did not answer the demographic question, the sample size was reduced to

112

N=57. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

3. Arrange before/after school daycare.

33.33% 8.77%

57.89%

57


issues related to parenting that the survey omitted, the negative aspect of work/daycare schedule

conflicts was also mentioned. One employee asserted, “Many childcare centers close at 6:00 pm,

so it is sometimes difficult to work until 5:30 and make it to aftercare before closing.” A second

employee noted, “The 9 hour days … make it difficult to coordinate drop off and pick up of my

child who is in child care here at my place of employment. The hours that the college is open do

not work with my work schedule.” A third employee said, “The only issue I currently have is

trying to pick up my child before the daycare closes.”

Among the answers to open-ended question #25, which asked employees to state the

worst parts working a four-day work/school week, the negative aspect of work/daycare conflicts

was also mentioned. One employee stated, “I wish I was off earlier in the day so I could pick my

son up from childcare. It is only open until 5:30pm, which is the time I get off.” A second

employee noted, “The worst part about working a 4-day work week is having to rush from work

at 5:30 pm to make it to the after-school care program that closes at 6:00pm.” A third employee

remarked, “The long work hours and conflict with my daughter's child care hours.”

Additional Findings

Another negative aspect of working a four-day work/school week that was only

mentioned in the current survey is that each workday feels rushed and therefore employees

113

experience additional daily stress. Here are some quotes from survey participants describing this

negative aspect as responses to open-ended question #25, which asked employees to state the

worst parts working the shorter work schedule. One employee asserted, “Stress is up because

Monday-Thursday are always a race.” A second employee stated, “I always, always feel rushed,

rushed, rushed to get all we need to do … in just four days” A third employee mentioned that the

worst part of shorter schedule was, “Having to combine 5 days of work into 4 days.” A fourth

employee affirmed that a negative aspect was that, “Work has to be crammed into 4 days instead

of 5.” A fifth participate noted that having “Less time to do the same amount of work make the

days seem more jammed full.” Finally, another employee stated that the shorter work schedule

“Puts too much pressure and hours into 4 days.” In essence, another finding is that working a

four-day work/school week causes employees to feel like the must work faster each workday and

increases daily stress.

Coding and analyzing both interview and survey data revealed that not all employees at

the study location were selected to participate in the new work/school schedule. According to

field notes, the investigator’s informal observations as a study location employee and personal

communications with college stakeholders, this has caused a morale problem in these

departments. A few survey respondents also noted this problem. As noted in the organizational

change timeline, library, call center, help desk, learning/language lab, daycare workers, and

security staff are still required to work a regular 4½-day schedule.

The responses to survey question #30, which asked college staff and library faculty

whether their departments offered flexible work hour schedules, revealed that while some of the

administrators in these divisions do offer employees this option, other leaders have done nothing.

The responses to question #30 also indicated that there are two main intervention initiatives

114

being taken by department supervisors to address the morale problem. Additionally, the

respondents made some comments and suggested some solutions.

The first intervention initiative noted is, “We alternate our Fridays so that we also enjoy

the benefit of the four-day work week.” The second intervention initiative mentioned was, “We

stagger times and days so that each person has a 4 day week Mon-– Thursday or Tuesday –

Friday.”

Additionally, the employees made a few comments and offered more suggestions to

address the morale problems in these departments. One employee commented, “My department

was one of only a few that remained on the five-day schedule after the rest of the school went to

four-day schedules. … we were not included. We felt as though we were invisible. Many were

disgruntled until we were included.” Another employee stated, “Morale within the Learning Lab

is not at the level of our cohorts.”

The study participants also have some suggestions for dealing with the morale problem.

One employee suggested, “I would work with the child care center employees (who were unable

to participate this year) to create schedules so that while the centers would remain open five

days, the staff would stagger their schedules to participate as well.” Another employee

suggested, “I would reiterate the importance of having all departments be included in the 4 day

week if any school is considering making a change to this schedule.”

After analyzing the closed-ended survey questions once again and presenting them by age

groups, the investigator found that with the exception of closed-ended survey questions 3 and 4,

the 35 – 44 age group benefited most from the transition to four-day work/school week. In

questions 3 and 4, it was both the 25 – 34 and 35 – 44 age groups who benefited the most.

Therefore, it seems that at the study location, post-change faculty/staff work-life balance

115

improved the most for the employees in the 25 – 44 age group. Here are the closed-ended survey

results presented by age in table format. It is important to note that only the results for the open-

ended questions are not included in this analysis. Additionally, the entire cross table query

analysis according to age is available in Appendix G in the last part.

Table 30

Most Common Positive Responses to Closed-Ended Survey Questions 1-6, 8-12 according to age group. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to:

Question/Sample Size Age Group

Response # Of Percentage/ Participants

1. attend parent/teacher conferences. N=57

35 – 44 Made it Easier 83.33% (15)

2. take my children to after school activities. N=57

35 – 44 Made it Easier 77.78% (14)

3. arrange before/after school daycare. N=57

25 – 34 35 – 44

Made it Easier

54.55% (6) 42.44% (8)

4. plan summer vacations with my children. N=57

25 – 34 35 – 44

Made it Easier

90.91% (10) 66.67% (12)

5. schedule healthcare appointments for my children. N=57

35 – 44

Made it Easier

94.94% (17)

6. help my children with their schoolwork. N=57 .

35 – 44

Made it Easier

61.11% (11)

8. plan vacations and long weekends.N=226

35 – 44

Made it Easier

96.20% (25)

9. have a social life. N=226

35 – 44

Made it Easier

84.6% (22)

10. schedule personal healthcare appointments. N=226

35 – 44

Made it Easier

96.2% (25)

11. comply with household chores and

35 – 44

Made it Easier

92.3% (24)

116

responsibilities. N=226

12. schedule time for my personal interests. N=226

35 – 44

Made it Easier

92.3% (24)

Table 31

Most Common Positive Responses to Closed-Ended Survey Questions 14-21according to age group.

N=226. Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey platform. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my: Question Age group Response # Of Percentage/

Participants

14. weekly commuting expenses. N=222

35 – 44 Decreased 88.5% (23)

15. job satisfaction level. N=223 35 – 44 Increased 84.6% (22)

16. level of commitment towards my employer. N=224

35 – 44 Increased 73.1% (19)

17. work-related fatigue levels. N=224

35 – 44 Decreased 61.5% (16)

18. desire to continue working here. N=223

35 – 44 Increased 92.3% (24)

19. attendance patterns at work. N=220

35 – 44 Increased 53.8% (14)

20. job performance levels. N=220

35 – 44 Increased 65.4% (17)

21. ability to balance my work/home life. N=219

35 – 44 Increased 92.0% (23)

Summary

This section is presented in table format and describes the major findings in each part of the

117

chapter. The titles of each table are self-explanatory.

Table 32 Summary of the Change Process Findings The Change Process: 1. The main reasons that the four-day work/school week was implemented was to address the problems of low employee morale and increasing utility costs, which were exacerbated due to projected state funding shortfalls. 2. Friday was selected to partially close the college because few activities were scheduled on that day and because a survey confirmed that students rarely came to campus on Fridays. 3. A four-day work/school week based on four ten-hour days is likely to fail. 4. To reduce the work schedule to 36 hours per week, the lunch hour was reduced to ½ hour and the policy allowing employees to exercise ½ hour 3 times a week on company time was eliminated. 5. The library, the call center, the help desk, the learning/language labs, the campus daycare center and security office and the library open on Friday morning. 6. While there was initial employee resistance to the change, most employees reacted favorably. 7. After the schedule was pilot tested for one year, 88.6% of the employees were in favor of continuing the four-day work/school week. 8. College leaders did not use any change theories, consultants, or books to guide the change process. 9. Members of the national and local news media lauded the college for implementing the change.

Table 33

Summary of the Pitfalls of the Change Process

The Pitfalls are: 1. Community leaders were concerned that student services would be shortchanged. 2. Nearby community college administrators felt resentment because they were not being invited to implement the compressed work/school week jointly.

118

3. Change leaders overlooked collaborating with faculty union leaders during the early stages of the change process. 4. Some employees had difficulty finding daycare establishments, which had compatible schedules with the new work/school week. Table 34

Advice for Other Administrators Considering Implementing the Schedule

The Suggestions: 1. Adopt and replicate the same schedule. 2. Think like entrepreneurs and take risks. 3. Collaborate with all stakeholders. 4. Create a change taskforce.

119

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings and when appropriate, the constructs and propositions

of the theoretical framework and the studies reviewed in Chapter 2 are mentioned to support the

results. In addition, the investigator provides recommendations related to some of the findings. It

is divided into the following parts. The first part restates the purpose of the study and the

research questions. The second part discusses the findings pertaining to the change process and

the sub research questions. The third part discusses the findings regarding post-change

faculty/staff work life balance. The fourth part discusses the significance of the findings for other

education practitioners. The fifth part provides ideas for additional studies. The sixth part

discusses the limitations of the study. The seventh part details an action plan that the investigator

will pursue at the study location. The last part summarizes the study.

Study Purpose and Research Questions

As previously stated, the purpose of the study is to describe how the change leaders of

Atlantic Ocean Community College managed the transition to a four-day work/school week as a

response to a budgetary crisis and investigate post-change faculty/staff work-life balance.

The research questions in this study are:

1. How did community college change leaders manage the process of

converting to a compressed work/school week in response to reduced state

funding?

a. Do change leaders perceive that the change was caused by

external environmental factors?


120

strategy, and culture change as a result of the new work/school

week implemented by college leaders?

c. How did managers change everyday transactional factors such as

institutional policies and practices to align with the new

work/school week?

d. Did the changes in transformational/transactional factors

influence job performance levels?

2. How has the compressed work/school week influenced faculty/staff work-

life balance?

Research question 1: link to the literature review and/or framework

The first research question of this descriptive single embedded case study starts out by

examining the change process of transitioning to a four-day work/school week. One of the

reasons for the case study was to provide community college change leaders with a possible

solution for addressing the educational problem of practice concerning dwindling state funding

for community colleges. Other goals of the research are to fill a gap in the literature regarding

this topic at the higher education level and to describe how the four-day work/school week

influences faculty/staff work-life balance.

As noted in Chapter 4, it is important to reiterate again that college leaders at Atlantic

Ocean Community College did not specifically use any change theories and/or books to

implement the new work/school week. Additionally, that according to Burke (2008) the process

of organizational change is complex and usually does not occur in a linear fashion. Therefore,

the reasons for using Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change and leader’s role

framework to answer question number one is twofold. The first reason is to examine and discuss

121

the different parts of the change process using the different phases as heading titles. The second

reason is to provide prescriptive organizational changes steps that other college administrators

can use as starting points to replicate the same work/school schedule at other community

colleges.

It is important to note that according to Burke’s (2008) organizational change phase

framework, the steps described in each of the four phases do not always occur during the phases

where they are listed. Moreover, the researcher did not list of all the steps suggested for each

phase. Instead, only the steps used by the Atlantic Ocean Community College administrators

were discussed.

The Prelaunch Phase

According to Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change and leader’s role

framework, during the prelaunch phase change leaders determine the need for the change and do

research to find out external environment factors might have triggered the need for it. It is

important to note that the external environmental variable is discussed again later using the lens

of the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) framework in order to discuss the findings to research question 1a.

Moreover, during the prelaunch phase, leaders clarify the need and vision for the change.

In this case study, the change agents determined that the reason for the change was twofold. The

first reason was to address low employee morale, which resulted in high employee turnover

rates. The second reason was that the global oil crisis at the time resulted in higher utility bills

that were challenging the college budget. The change leaders also contacted local human

resource officials from other corporations that had implemented a four-day work schedule and

failed to learn the reasons for the failure. They discovered that the change initiative failed at

other industries was because working ten hour per day without any flexibility caused employees

122

to experience burnout. The second reason was because employees with small children experience

daycare/work schedule conflicts.

Additionally, change agents also met with and/or surveyed other college stakeholders to

clarify the vision for the change. As a team, the college change leaders also considered

challenges that might occur during the transition. One of the change leaders feared not having

sufficient data to present to the board of trustees in order to request permission to implement the

change. This problem did not occur during the change process. Another leader expressed that

community leaders would perceive the proposed change as an excuse for instituting a longer

weekend. This also did not occur. Still another interviewee was concerned that community

leaders would perceive that student services would be short-changed. It is important to note that

this perception did occur during the change process and was resolved successfully. Therefore, it

seems like most of the actions taken by the change leaders supports the theoretical propositions

of the pre-launch phase of the framework.

The Launch Phase

According to Burke’s (2008) framework, during the launch phase the change leaders

announce the change to the recipients, take the first steps needed for implementation and deal

with employees, which might oppose the change. In this case study, the change agents

announced the change to the recipients using official college email and implemented a six-week

pilot of the new four-day work/school week. Moreover, they also issued a press release

announcing the planned schedule change to the local media. Individual department heads and

administrators also assisted employees who had childcare/work schedule conflicts. In addition,

the leaders addressed concerns from employees that were resisting the new school/work

schedule. After the first pilot period was over, college stakeholders were surveyed regarding the

123

positive and negatives aspects of working the new schedule. Therefore, in this case study, it

appears like the theoretical propositions of the launch phase were supported.

The Postlaunch Phase

During the postlaunch phase, the change leaders continue refining the organization

change, repeating the reason for the change, levering the change effort, and if appropriate,

dealing with employees who resist the change (Burke, 2008). Burke (2008) defines levering

change as implementing multiple actions to remind employees that the change will be permanent

and is advantageous. In this case study, change agents made modifications to the original

schedule by requiring staff to return to the five day work/school week during the first three

weeks of every semester. They also required faculty members to work five days per week only

during the first week of every semester to facilitate the drop/add process. In addition, several

more pilot periods of the new work schedule were implemented to test the change modifications.

As noted in Chapter 4, the study location was successful with the implementation of the

four-day work schedule because the lunch period was reduced to thirty minutes per day and the

employee benefit of being able to exercise, while at work for thirty minutes three times per week

was eliminated. This meant that employees only had to work nine hours per day for four days to

meet full time hourly requirements. Moreover, according to personal communications with study

location human resource stakeholders, employees hardly took advantage of the exercise benefit.

After the first year, change agents leveraged the change by surveying faculty/staff

members to inquire whether they wished to continue working the new schedule. The results

showed that 88% percent of survey respondents wished to continue working under the new

schedule. Another levering technique was issuing a second press release describing the money

that the college officials saved as a result of the reduced utility bills and the positive benefits

124

gained such as reduced turnover rates, increased job apps and reduced absenteeism. In light of

these actions, it seems that the theoretical propositions of the postlaunch phase were supported.

Sustaining the Change Phase: Addressing Problems and Increasing Momentum

During the sustaining the change phase, change leaders continue dealing with

problematic circumstances caused by the organizational change and building change related

momentum (Burke, 2008). If necessary, change agents also modify the original change

initiative, appoint new leaders and launch new initiatives (Burke, 2008). According to the

Burke’s (2008) model, an example of increasing change related momentum is creating policies to

reward employees that are applying the concepts related to the change in exemplary ways.

According to field notes, the investigator’s informal observations as a study location

employee and personal communications, during this phase Atlantic Ocean Community College

administrators continued to help employees whom were experiencing daycare/work schedule

conflicts and faculty union leaders negotiated telecommuting benefits for the college professors.

Moreover, the study survey revealed that some department supervisors initiated informal flexible

working hours options for staff.

In this case study, change leaders did not have to build momentum in any way. It was the

national news media that built the reward system for the employees. As noted in Chapter 4, many

national news agencies applauded the actions of the college as far as implementing the new four-

day work/school week. The change agents received many requests for interviews and the college

change leaders received lots of public attention. According to the informal observations of the

investigator as an employee, most college employees enjoyed participating in an initiative that

was becoming a national news story. As previously noted, a major news channel even came to

the study location to interview the new college president and the video was posted online.

125

According to the actions described, the theoretical proposition of continuing to deal with

problematic circumstances and launching new initiatives was supported by the actions of the

change agents and department supervisors. The second theoretical proposition of creating

momentum was unexpectedly created by the national news media.

The External Environment

As previously noted, Atlantic Ocean Community College is a public higher education

institution that depends on state funds. Therefore, the study began with the assumption that the

organizational change to a four-day work/school week was implemented solely as a response to

projected state funding shortfalls. Nevertheless, the change did help college officials’ deal with

the funding reduction. According to one of the interviewees, a college press release stated that in

the first year of the four-day work/school week, the utilities savings as compared to the prior

year was $270,000.

While the pattern of annual projected budget cuts was related to the reasons for the

implementation, the study found that two factors caused college administrators to implement the

innovation. One of the factors was low morale among the community college’s employee, which

resulted in a pervasive turnover rate. The second factor was that the institutional budget was

being challenged by extra energy expenses caused by the global oil crisis during that time period.

According to Burke-Litwin’s (1992) Causal Model of Organizational Performance and

Change framework most change is externally driven by modifications in the external

environment where the institution is located and is led by organizational leaders as a response to

them. In this case study, it is apparent that college leaders perceived that the change was caused

by external environmental factors of the global oil crisis, which were exacerbated due to

projected state budgets cuts. Therefore, this finding seems to support the external environment

126

proposition of the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model. Additionally, the external environmental

finding confirms the results of three studies reviewed in Chapter 2 (Roeth, 1985; Shay, 1974;

Walker & Timmerman, 1980). In all three cases, it was the environmental variables of state

budget cuts and rising utility expenses, which motivated school administrators to implement a

four-day work/school week.

Transformational Factors

Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model also differentiates between two types of internal corporate

factors: transformational and transactional. As previously stated in Chapter 1, the

transformational factors refer to the culture, mission and strategy of the institution. According to

Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model, organizational culture is defined as the shared values, customs and

written/unwritten rules that determine employee behavior. These factors are classified as

transformational because any modifications to them disrupt the status quo of the entire

organization and require employees to adopt new behaviors (Burke-Litwin, 1992). Moreover,

Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model posits that organizational leaders usually implement

transformational changes as a response to modifications in the external environment. As noted in

the external environment section of the chapter, the study found that college leaders implemented

the change as a response to increasing utility expenses, which were exacerbated by reduced state

funding shortfalls, so it seems that this proposition is supported.

It is important to note that the additional finding section in Chapter 4, current survey

respondents mentioned that another negative aspect of working a four-day work/school week is

that employees perceive that they must work faster each day and therefore experience additional

daily stress. Therefore, in support of the theoretical proposition that transformational change

requires employee to adopt new behaviors, it seems likely that in this case study, the new

127

behavior was improved time management. It is also very likely that this negative finding was not

reported during the 2007 institutional survey because it was administered six weeks after the

pilot of the new work/school week started and the time period of the pilot occurred during the

summer term when the college usually serves fewer students.

While the study found that the transition to the four-day work/school week did not

influence the mission, or strategy of the study location, it appears that there was a change in the

organizational culture of the college. Bowen’s (1988) model defines a family-friendly corporate

culture as one with flexible policies that facilitate employee work-life balance. As revealed in the

sustaining the change section of this chapter, some of the department supervisors at the study

location are informally allowing staff to create their own flexible weekly schedules, while others

are not. This is furthered discussed in the recommendation section of this chapter.

Additionally, as shown in Table #26 in Chapter 4, close to eighty percent out of the 220

participants who responded a close-ended survey question perceived that the new four-day

work/school week increased their ability to balance their home/work lives. The improved work-

life balance finding is supported by two studies examining the work-life balance outcomes of

working compressed work schedules (Bilal, Rehman & Raza, 2010; Chow & Keng-Howe,

2006).

Applying Bowen (1988) model, it appears as though the college culture changed because

work schedules were modified to improve the work-life balance needs of the employees. The

finding that a new college leader led and initiated the change at Atlantic Ocean Community

College supports the proposition that leadership is a major lever for internal transformational

changes, which occur in response to modifications in the environment (Burke-Litwin, 1992). In

addition, it appears that the finding of a more family-friendly organizational culture is supported

128

by the theoretical propositions of Bowen’s (1988) model.

Transactional Factors

The Burke-Litwin (1992) model also posits that changes in transformational factors

impact the daily transactional factors of the company. Transactional factors are the corporations’

organizational structure, systems/policies, employee skills/ability requirements, work unit

climate and individual needs/values. Moreover, the model posits that managers usually

implement changes to transactional factors in response to a transformational change (Burke-

Litwin, 1992). In addition, Bowen (1988) posits that changes in some of the corporate internal

factors directly influence external employee work-life balance issues.

In this case study, the implementation of the new four-day work/school week caused

changes to some of the everyday transactional factors. For example, the lunch hour was reduced

to thirty minutes, the wellness benefit of exercising while on the job was eliminated and college

utility expenses were reduced. As previously stated, the faculty union negotiated telecommuting

benefits for faculty and some of the department supervisors informally offered flexible working

hours options for staff. Unexpectedly, the daily internal factors of employee

absenteeism/turnover rates were reduced and the number of job applications that the college

usually receives increased 51% as compared to the prior year. In essence, it appears that the

transition to the four-day work/school week, improved faculty/staff work-life balance needs,

which in turn reduced turnover and absenteeism rates in a positive manner. Therefore, the

finding of reduced absenteeism and turnover rates seems to support Bowen’s (1988) theoretical

proposition that changes in some of the corporate internal factors directly influence external

employee work-life balance issues. Additionally, the finding regarding the policy changes

supports Burke-Litwin’s (1992) proposition that changes in transformational factors impact the

129

daily transactional factors of the company. Finally, the findings that union officials negotiated

telecommuting benefits for faculty members and that department supervisors informally

implemented flexible working hours options, supports the proposition that managers usually

implement transactional modifications as a response to transformational changes.

Performance Levels

Collectively, changes in transformational and transactional factors influence employee

motivation, which leads to a change in individual and organizational performance levels (Burke-

Litwin, 1992). Additionally, performance/productivity levels are dependent upon employee

morale (Burke-Litwin, 1992). Furthermore, the manner in which organizations meet employee

individual needs influences motivations levels (Burke-Litwin, 1992).

As shown in table #16 in Chapter 4, 73% out of 166 current respondents that answered

open-ended survey question #28 reported that employee morale had increased. Moreover, as

shown in table #19 in chapter 4, 42% out of 220 current respondents that answered close-ended

survey question #20 reported that their job performance levels had increased. Furthermore, as

shown in table #15 in chapter 4, the majority of study respondents that answered open-ended

question #31, mentioned that increased employee morale was the most noticeable change in the

college culture. Additionally, as shown in Table #20 in Chapter 4, study participants also noted

that increased job performance/productivity levels were one of the positive aspects of the four-

day work/school week both in the current and 2007 institutional survey. It therefore seems like

these findings regarding higher morale and increased performance/productivity is supported by

all three of the propositions in the Burke-Litwin’s (1992) model.

The higher morale finding is supported by five other studies, which also examined the

change process of converting to a four-day work/school week (Roeth, 1985; Shay, 1974; Walker

130

& Timmerman, 1980; Washington State University, 2002; Wilmoth, 1985). In addition, the

finding of higher performance levels is supported by four similar studies (Ivancevich, 1974;

Shay, 1974; Walker & Timmerman, 1980; Washington State University, 2002).

Research question 2: link to the literature review and/or framework

The second part of the study investigated how the new school/work week influenced

faculty/staff work-life balance. The second research question is: “How has the compressed

school/work week influenced faculty/staff work-life balance?” The results were reported based

on the common positive and negative aspects reported by survey respondents both in the 2007

institutional survey and in the current study survey. The rest of the positive and negatives aspects

can be viewed in Appendix G.

Positive Aspects: Comparing Surveys and Linking to the Literature/Framework

The common positive aspects of the compressed work/school week reported by the study

participants both during the 2007 and current survey were that the shorter work schedule

facilitates making personal appointments, volunteer work, improves work-life balance, provides

a longer more restful weekend, increases productivity/performance and reduces commuting

expenses. While the positive aspects were the same in both surveys, the percentages of

respondents whom cited each aspect differed. The positive aspects and percentage differences

are illustrated in Table #20 in Chapter 4.

With the exception of the positive aspects of a longer more restful weekend and reduced

commuting expenses, the percentage of survey participants that mentioned the other four positive

aspects increased. The mention of the personal appointment positive aspect increased from

18.8% to 35.56% in the current survey. The number of participants mentioning the work-life

benefit increased from 16.4% to 21.13% in the current survey. The percentage of respondents

131

mentioning the productivity/performance benefit increased from 3.97% to 4.63% in the current

survey. Finally, the percentage of respondents mentioning that the schedule facilitates volunteer

work increased from 1.70% to 3.60% in the current survey. The researcher asserts that the reason

for the increased mention of these four factors seems to be because employees have had a longer

period of time to realize these benefits. Moreover, the new behavior of improved time

management described in the transformational section of this chapter supports the reasoning

behind the increased mention of better performance/productivity mention.

In contrast, the percentage of respondents mentioning the benefit of a longer more restful

weekend decreased from 31.25% to 20.61% in the current survey. Similarly, the percentage of

respondents mentioning the benefit of lower commuting expenses decreased from 13.06% to

4.12% in the current survey. The investigator asserts that the reasons for the decreased mention

of these two benefits is because gas prices have stabilized since the 2007 oil crisis and perhaps

the employees have gotten used to the longer more restful weekend as being the new normal.

All of the most common positive findings were supported by one or more studies

reviewed in Chapter 2. The finding regarding reduced employee absenteeism is supported by the

results of six studies in which school administrators implemented a four-day work/school week

(Bell, 2011; Cunningham, 1982; Feaster, 2002; Latack & Foster, 1985; Miller-Hale, 2007;

Sagness & Salzman, 1993). The finding concerning reduced utility bills is supported by four

studies in which school administrators instituted a four-day week (Roeth, 1985; Walker &

Timmerman, 1980; Washington State University, 2002; Wilmoth, 1985). Moreover, a lower

turnover rate was reported in one study that investigated whether compressed work schedules

influenced turnover rates (Bilal, Rehman & Raza, 2010) and another that investigated whether

the telecommuting benefits reduce employee turnover rates (Sands & Harper, 2007).

132

Six studies support the finding concerning appointments (Bell, 2011; Feaster, 2002;

Hewitt & Denny, 2010; Leiseth, 2008; Miller-Hale, 2007; Wilmoth, 1995). Four other studies

support the reduced commuting expense findings (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman, 2001;

Sands & Harper, 2007; Shay, 1974; Washington State University, 2002). A longer more leisurely

and restful weekend was supported by five studies (Cunningham, 1982; Hodge & Tellier, 1974;

Shay, 1974; Walker & Timmerman, 1980; Wilmoth, 1985). The finding that the shorter schedule

facilitates volunteer work was supported by one study (Roeth, 1985). In all of the studies cited,

study participants worked either a four-day work/school week or a compressed four-day work

schedule at a corporation.

Negative Aspects: Comparing Surveys and Linking to the Literature/Framework

The most common negative aspects of the compressed work/school week reported by the

study sample both in 2007 and in the current survey are longer more tiring days, reduced

weekday family times, work/daycare schedule conflicts. Additionally, several respondents

asserted that there were no negative aspects associated with the change. While the negative

aspects were the same in both surveys, the percentages of respondents whom cited each aspect

differed. The negative aspects and percentage differences are illustrated in Table #21 in Chapter

4.

The percentage of respondents mentioning the problem of working longer extra tiring

workdays increased from 1.70% to 24.33% in the current survey. Similarly, the percentage of

respondents mentioning that there were no negative aspects increased from 8.52% to 50% in the

current survey. The researcher asserts that the reason for the increase in mention of the longer

more tiring day negative aspect may be because the first survey was conducted during the

summer term when the work load is less intensive due to lower student enrollment. On the other

133

hand, the increase in the mention that the schedule has no negative aspects seems to be because

employees who have been working this schedule since it began have learned to adjust to the

initial perceived negatives aspects and now embrace the new schedule as they did their prior one.

Again, it appears as though this schedule is now the new normal at Atlantic Ocean Community

College.

In contrast, there has been a reduction in the mention of two negative aspects. The

percentage of respondents mentioning the negative aspect of daycare/work schedule conflicts,

decreased from 3.40% to 1.58% in the current survey. Moreover, the percentage of respondents

mentioning the negative aspect of less weekday family time decreased from 1.13% to 1.06% in

the current survey. The researcher asserts that the reason for the reduction of the mention of

daycare/work schedule conflicts may be because the daycare age children of the employees

originally affected no longer need daycare. Furthermore, the reduction in the mention of less

weekday family time may be because the families have adjusted to this situation as being the

new normal.

The finding concerning the negative aspect of working longer more tiring days was

supported by six studies reviewed in Chapter 2 (Feaster 2002; Goodale & Aagaard, 1975; Hodge

& Tellier, 1974; Leiseth, 2008; Miller-Hale, 2007; Roeth, 1985). The finding regarding the

aspect of work/daycare schedule conflicts was supported by three studies (Leiseth, 2008; Miller-

Hale, 2007; Wilmoth, 1985). Finally, the finding pertaining to the aspect of reduced weekday

family time was supported by one study (Feaster 2002).

Additional Findings

The study also found three additional findings. The first additional finding is that another

negative aspect is that employees perceive that they must work faster each day and therefore

134

experience additional daily stress. This negative aspect was already discussed in the

transformational section of this chapter. The second finding is that there is a morale problem

among essential weekend employees that are excluded from the transition to the shorter

work/school week. This is discussed in the recommendations section. The third finding is that

survey respondents who were in the 25 through 44 age group report higher satisfaction with the

shorter work/school week schedule as compared to participants in other age groups and was

supported by one study (Goodale & Aagaard).

Practitioner Implications

The following recommendations are made for community college change agents wishing

to implement the same organizational change and are based on the findings, analysis of the data,

the literature review, the discussion and the conclusions.

1. Use Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change and leader’s role framework, as a

stepping-stone to implement the same organizational change.

2. Change agents who implement the same change should find a way to include every

employee. For example, essential staff that needs to work on the days when the institution

is partially closed should be allowed to take another day off during the week. In addition,

as long as there is mutual consent between co-workers and supervisors, staff members

should be allowed to trade schedules with other employees who have the same positions

and that work in the same departments. This helps to avoid the low morale problem that

still exists in certain department at the current study location.

3. Change leaders that are considering implementing this change should work with

employees that have daycare age children to adjust their schedules somehow so

daycare/work schedule conflicts will be avoided. Perhaps, college administrators can

135

work with human resources to add an optional telecommuting benefit for employees who

select it. This way, employees can use the benefit to do some of their work at home to

satisfy full time hour requirements and still leave work earlier to meet daycare schedule

hours. One of the studies reviewed in Chapter 2 supports this recommendation (Sands &

Harper, 2007).

4. As the interview respondents suggested, change leaders should:

a. Not reinvent the wheel. Adopt our schedule model or use a similar one.

b. Think like an entrepreneur; take risks.

c. Collaborate with all stakeholders, making them a part of the change process.

d. Create a change taskforce.

5. Contact leaders of nearby community college asking them to join the change initiative. 6. Make sure to work with faculty/staff unions if applicable during the entire change process. 7. Never schedule employees to work ten-hour workdays, as the change initiative is likely

to fail.

Recommendations for Further Study

1. There should be a study, which compares the work-life balance perceptions of

students attending a community college operating under a four-day school week with

other students attending a community college operating under a five-day school schedule.

2. There should be a study, which compares the job satisfaction levels of employees

working at a community college operating under a four-day school week with employees

working at a community college operating under a five-day school schedule.

3. There should be a study, which compares the employee commitment levels of

faculty/staff working at a community college operating under a four-day school week

136

with employee commitment levels of faculty/staff working at a community college

operating under a five-day school schedule.

Limitations of the Study Findings

The findings of this case study have the following limitations:

1. The implementation of the four-day work/school week at the higher education level is

only recommended for community colleges that are publicly funded and that serve

commuter type students. The schedule is not appropriate for community colleges that

have student dormitories.

2. The findings concerning the percentages of reduced turnover rates, employee

absenteeism and utilities expenses were based on figures obtained one year after the

implementation of the new schedule. College officials at the study location did not have

more current percentage rates. Therefore, the percentages may be different if the same

statistics were calculated using more current data.

3. The reported change process stages and work-life balance results may be different if

this study is replicated at another community college operating under a four-day

work/school week.

4. One limitation of selecting all of the faculty/staff for this research study is that some of

the current faculty/staff were not working at the college when it operated under the

former 5-day work/school week. Therefore, the responses of these employees may not be

as valid as the responses of participants that worked under both schedules. Fortunately,

the researcher created a demographics question to filter out the responses from employees

who were employed at the location both before and after the change. Nevertheless, the

adjustment limits the ability for the researcher to generalize the life/balance findings to

137

other community college populations.

5. Another limitation is that out of 1,600 potential survey participants, approximately

13% of the sample answered the survey. Therefore, the voice of the other participants

was not heard. This factor limits the transferability of the study results to other

community college populations.

6. The survey used in the study was originally created by the researcher and therefore has

not been proven to be a reliable and valid instrument. Even though the investigator used

Bowen’s (1988) work-life conceptual framework as a guide to create it and pilot tested it

with members of a college professor’s group to improve the design and help validate the

constructs, these is still room for improvement. For example, the first part of the survey

which is designed to be answered only by employees who have dependents less that 18

year old living at home, should be moved to the part before the demographics section.

This technique will help curtail the number of survey respondents that accidently

answered the first section in error. Fortunately, the investigator created a demographic

question designed to filter answers from respondents that accidently answered this part of

the survey and therefore, the finding shown pertaining to these questions are accurate.

7. Finally, since the investigator has worked at the study location for 23 years, there is a

possibility that investigator bias may have accidently been included in the study results.

Even though the investigator took the steps described in the trustworthiness section of

Chapter 3, there is a still a possibility of unintentional bias. This is another factor that

limits the transferability of the study results to other community college populations.

Investigator Action Plan

As a result of the findings in the study, the investigator will take the following actions:

138

1. The investigator will request a meeting with both study location college change leaders

and the head of the faculty union to brief them regarding:

a. The morale problem occurring among the faculty/staff members that were

excluded from participating in the four-day work/school schedule.

b. The problem regarding conflicting work/daycare schedules.

2. During these meetings, the investigator will make the following suggestions, which

may alleviate the morale and work/daycare schedule conflict problems:

a. College change leaders should work with the human resources department to

develop official flexible work hour schedules and/or telecommuting options for

all staff and alternative four-day schedules options for essential weekend staff.

b. Faculty union leaders should develop a plan to allow all college librarians who

are classified as faculty at the study location to have alternative four-day

school/work schedules.

3. Disseminate the findings of the research by sending manuscripts to practitioner type

journals such as, Community College Week and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

4. Start sending proposals to present the findings at major education conferences such as

the annual Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education

conference and the League for Innovation in the Community College.

Summary of the Study

This single descriptive embedded case study examined the process of implementing a

four-day work/school week at the community college level and investigated faculty/staff post-

change work-life balance. The purpose was to describe a solution that administrators working at

publicly funded community colleges can implement to deal with the national problem of

139

dwindling state funding. The change process, which is the subject in the first research question,

was reported in narrative format and the analysis/discussion were guided by the theoretical

propositions of Burke’s (2008) phases of organizational change and leader’s role framework.

The four phases are the prelaunch, the launch, the postlaunch and the sustaining the change

phase.

In this study, Burke’s (2008) change phase framework was used to provide a set of

prescriptive steps that other community college change agents could use to begin the

implementation of a four-day work/school week. As previously noted, Burke (2008) posits that

the process of organization change is not linear and therefore the activities described in each of

the phases may overlap and/or occur in other phases. Nevertheless, the steps do provide a

starting point for change implementation of any kind.

The theoretical propositions of Burke-Litwin’s (1992) causal model of organizational

performance and change were used as a guide to create the four sub-research questions.

Additionally, the theoretical propositions of Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the

relationship between corporate support mechanisms and the work/family lives of employees, was

used to aid the discussion as to whether the new four-day work/school week changed the

transformational factor of organizational culture.

The Burke-Litwin’s (1992) causal model describes two types of organizational factors,

transformational and transactional. Transformational factors are defined as the institutional

mission, strategy, and culture and corporate leaders lead any changes related to these factors

(Burke, 2008). In contrast, transactional factors relate to the structure, procedures, policies and

practices of the institution and corporate managers lead any changes related to these factors

(Burke, 2008). The theoretical propositions of the Burke-Litwin (1992) assert that changes in the

140

external environment are major drivers of transformational changes. Another proposition is that

corporate leadership is a major lever for internal transformational changes, which occur in

response to modifications in the environment (Burke-Litwin, 1992). In turn, the transformations

cause changes in the transactional factors, which collectively cause employee motivation to

change and eventually lead to a change in individual/organizational performance.

Therefore, this case study found that college leaders implemented the change as a

response to the external environment factors relating to the national oil crisis and yearly state

funding reductions. Another factor, which led college administrators to implement the new

work/school schedule, was low employee morale coupled with pervasive turnover rates.

Additionally, during the analysis/discussion of the second and third sub-research question, this

study found that the new work/school schedule seems to have changed the organization culture

of the study location. This conclusion was reached because during the new schedule

implementation, changes were made to transactional factors that help facilitate work-life balance.

For example, the study found that faculty members only had to be physically on campus for 20

hours per week and could telecommute from anywhere to fulfill the rest of the 35 required

weekly hours. The case study also revealed that some staff members were given the privilege of

scheduling flexible daily work hours. Consequently, Bowen’s (1988) theoretical proposition,

which defines a family-friendly corporate culture as one, which incorporates flexible policies

that facilitate employee work-life balance, was used to support this assertion.

The theoretical propositions of Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the relationship

between corporate support mechanisms and the work/family lives of employees, was also used as

a guide to create the work-life balance study survey. The responses to the study survey were

compared to the responses of a 2007 open-ended question institutional survey and the

141

investigator created a list of common positive and negative aspects. As previously stated, the

positive aspects were that the shorter work schedule facilitates making personal appointments,

volunteer work, improves work-life balance, provides a longer more restful weekend, increases

productivity/performance and reduces commuting expenses. Moreover, the most common

negative findings were that this type of schedule required employees to work longer extra tiring

days, reduced weekday family time and created work/daycare schedule conflicts.

The investigator examined the study survey responses a second time and found three

additional findings. The first was that another negative aspect of working a four-day school/work

week is that employees felt the need to work faster and experienced extra daily stress. As noted

previously, this aspect was not mentioned in the 2007 institutional survey. Perhaps it was not

mentioned because the pilot occurred during the summer term when the college serves a reduced

number of students.

The second finding is that there is a morale problem among employees that work for

departments that are excluded from participating in the shorter work/school week. The third

finding is that survey respondents who were in the 25 through 44 age group experienced higher

satisfaction with the shorter work/school week schedule as compared to participants in other age

groups. As previously noted, most of the survey findings were also supported by studies

reviewed in Chapter 2.

142

References

Altundemir, M. E. (2012). The impact of the financial crisis of American public universities.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 194-198.

Autry, J. A. (1980). Private industry and the family. Educational Horizons, 59(1), 71–72.

Bedeian, A. G., & Coston, R. C. (1974). Managerial perspectives of the shorter work week in

Georgia manufacturing firms. Atlantic Economic Journal, 2(1), 62–69.

Bell, J. (2011). Can the 4-day school week work: An analysis of the impact of the 4-day

school week on a rural Georgia school district (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No. 3460624)

Bilal, M., Rehman, M. Z., & Raza, I. (2010). Impact of family friendly policies on employees'

job satisfaction and turnover intention: A study on work-life balance at workplace.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(7), 378–395.

Bird, R. C. (2010). The four-day work week: Old lessons, new questions. Connecticut Law

Review, 42(4), 1058–1080.

Bloom, G. F., & Northrop, H. R. (1981). Economics of labor relations. Homewood, IL: Richard

D. Irwin Press.

Bowen, G. L. (1988). Corporate supports for the family lives of employees: A conceptual model

for program planning and evaluation. Family Relations, 37(2), 183–188.

Briscoe, F. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and

intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38(1) 23–41

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and

change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.

Burke, W. W.(2008). Organizational change, theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

143

Publications.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of

Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: elements

of the sociology of corporate life. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Carlton Parsons, E. C. (2008). Positionality of African Americans and a theoretical

accommodation of it: Rethinking science education research. Science Education, 92(6),

1127–1144.

Chamberlin, M., & Plucker, J. (2003). The four-day school week (Policy Brief). Retrieved from

the Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) website:

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V1N2_Four_Day_School_Week.pdf

Chow, I. H., & Keng-Howe, I. C. (2006). The effect of alternative work schedules on employee

performance. International Journal of Employment Studies, 14(1), 105–130.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass.

Colligan, M. J., & Tepas, D. L. (1986). The stress of hours of work. American Industrial

Hygiene Association Journal, 47(5), 686–695.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Education research, planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

144

Cunningham, B. J. (1982). Compressed shift schedules: Altering the relationship between work

and non-work. Public Administration Review, 42(5), 438–447.

Edward, P. & Montessori, N. M. (2011, July). Critical return to Lewin: Discourse and

identification in a participative action research project. Paper presented at the seventh

International Critical Management Studies (CMS) Conference, Naples, IT. Retrieved

from

http://www.organizzazione.unina.it/cms7/proceedings/proceedings_stream_18/Edward_a

nd_Montessori.pdf

Fearnow, C. D. (1984). A comparative analysis of a four and five-day workweek among

community college faculty with respect to job satisfaction (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No.

303319869)

Feaster, R. A. (2002). The effects of the four-day workweek in Custer, South Dakota (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No.

3055138)

Fennell, S. & Arnot, M. (2008). Decentring hegemonic gender theory: The implications for

educational research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,

38(5), 525–538.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in

education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Publishing.

Gas prices hit record high. (2007, May). CNN Money. Retrieved from

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/06/news/economy/gasoline/

Goodale, J. G., & Aagaard, A. K. (1975). Factors relating to varying reactions to the 4-day work

145

week. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 33–38.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.

Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).


Guest, D. G. (2002). Perspectives of the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information,

41(2) 255–279.

Hacker, A., & Dreifus, C. (2010). Higher education? How colleges are wasting our money and

failing our kids- and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Times Books.

Hall, J., Walsh, M., Stonecipher, A., & Woodall, K. (2008). Florida's escalating fiscal crisis:

The problem (FCFEP Research Report). Retrieved from the Florida Center for Fiscal and

Economic Policy website:

http://www.fcfep.org/attachments/021_FiscalCrisis_112808.pdf

Hewitt, P. M., & Denny, G. S. (2010, August). The four-day school week: Impact on student

academic performance. Paper presented at the National Council of Professors of

Educational Administration Annual Summer Conference, Washington, DC.

Hill, J. E., Hawkins, A., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The

positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family

Relations, 50(1), 49–58.

Hodge, B. J., & Tellier, R. D. (1975). Employee reactions to the four-day week. California

Management Review, 18(1), 25–30.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1974). Effects of the shorter workweek on selected satisfaction and

performance measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(6), 717–721.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1994). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research.

146

Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096–1112.

Johnson, B. R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education,

118(3), 282–292.

Keeton, K., Fenner, D. E., Johnson, T. R., & Hayward R. A. (2007). Predictors of physician

career satisfaction, work-life balance, and burnout. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 109(4),

949–955.

Latack, J. C., & Foster, L. W. (1985). Implementation of compressed work schedules:

participation and job redesign as critical factors for employee acceptance. Personnel

Psychology, 38(1), 75–92.

Leiseth, B, J. (2008). A case study of the four-day school week: an alternative schedule for

public schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis

database. (UMI No. 3320532)

Lester, P.E. (1984). Teacher job satisfaction questionnaire. In P. Lester and L. Bishop (Eds.),

Handbook of tests and measurement in education and the social sciences (pp.147–150).

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Lin, J.Y., & Treichel, V. (2012). The unexpected global financial crisis: Researching its main

cause (Policy Research Working Paper No. 5937). Retrieved from World Bank website:

http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/01/09/000158349_20120

109085942/Rendered/PDF/WPS5937.pdf

Lung, S. (2010). The four-day work week: But what about Ms. Coke, Ms. Upton, and Ms.

Blankenkenship? Connecticut Law Review, 42(4), 1119–1137.

147

Machi, L.A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2009). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010). Flexible work arrangements, job

satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment.

Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61–81.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller-Hale, R. R. (2007). A case study of the four-day school week in five South Dakota pre-

kindergarten-12 public schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No. 3269556)

Moores, J. E. (1990). A meta-analysis of the effects of compressed work weeks. Applied Human

Resource Management Research, 1(1), 8–14.

National Conference Of State Legislatures (2012). School calendar, four-day school week

overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-calendar-four-

day-school-week-overview.aspx

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer in research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–

136.

Poor, R. (2010). How and why flexible work weeks came about. Connecticut Law Review,

42(4), 1047–1057.

Richard, A. (2002). Rural schools see dividends in four-day week. Education Week, 22(4), 6–7.

Richards, R. L. (1990). A comparative study using selected characteristics of four-day week

schools and five-day week schools in rural New Mexico (Doctoral dissertation).

148

Retrieved from http://thinktech.lib.ttu.edu/ttu-

ir/bitstream/handle/2346/8544/31295006305709.pdf?sequence=1

Roeth, J. E. (1985). Implementing the four-day school week into the elementary and secondary

public schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis

database. (UMI No. 8606835)

Rubin, H. I., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. In M. Antonesa, H. Fallon, A. B.

Ryan, A. Ryan, T. Walsh, & L. Bory, Researching and writing your thesis: a guide for

postgraduate students (pp. 12–28). Maynooth, IE: Mace Publishing.

Ryan, M. (2009). Four-day school week (Research Report). Retrieved from the Education

Commission of the States website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/82/94/8294.pdf

Sagness, R. L., & Salzman, S. A. (1993, October). Evaluation of the four-day school week in

Idaho suburban schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain

Educational Research Association Conference, Jackson, WY.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Sands, J., & Harper, T. (2007). Family-friendly benefits and organizational performance.

Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(1), 107–126.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education

and social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shay, C. B. (1974). An experiment with the four-day work week. College Management Journal,

9(7), 15, 33.

149

Sheldon, Q. C. (2003). The impact of financial crises on access and support services in

community colleges. Community College Review, 31(2), 73–90.

Skinner, N. (2005). Organizational Change. In N. Skinner, A.M. Roche, J. O'Connor, Y. Pollard,

& C. Todd (Eds.), Workforce development TIPS (Theory Into Practice Strategies): A

resource kit for the alcohol and other drugs field. Retrieved from the National Centre for

Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University website:

http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/index.php/download_file/-/view/61

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stecher, B. & Borko, H. (2002). Integrating findings from surveys and case studies: Examples

from a study of standards-based educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5),

547–569.

Travis, M. A. (2010). What a difference a day makes, or does it? Work/Family balance and the

four-day work week. Connecticut Law Review, 42(4), 1223–1266.

Venne, R. A. (1997). The impact of compressed work week on absenteeism: The case of Ontario

prison guards on a twelve-hour shift. Industrial Relations, 52(2), 382–400.

Walker, K., & Timmerman, L. (1980). A 4-day work week that works. Community and Junior

College Journal, 50(6), 26–29.

Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program and Commuter Challenge

(2000). Case study: Evergreen State College, retrieved from

Http://www.commuterchallenge.org/cc/csevergreen.html

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 50(1), 361–386.

150

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches.


Wilmoth, S. E. (1995). The four-day school week and how it affects student achievement

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database

(UMI No. 9536045)

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Yin, R.K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zanetti, L. A. (2004). Repositioning the ethical imperative: Critical theory, recht, and tempered

radicals in public service. American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), 134–150.

151

Appendix A: Interview Consent Form

Northeastern University, Doctor of Education Program

Principal Investigator: Kelly Conn, PhD, (857) 205-9585

Student Investigator: Nelly Cardinale, Doctoral Student, (321) 537-3139

Title of Project: Examining the transition to a four-day school week and investigating post-

change faculty/staff work-life balance: A community college case study

Dear Participant:

You are invited to take part in a research study. This form informs you about the study, but the

researcher will explain it to you first. You may ask the researcher any questions that you have.

When you are ready to make a decision, you may tell the researcher if you wish to participate or

not. You do not have to participate if you do not want to. If you decide to participate, the

researcher will ask you to sign this statement and will give you a copy to keep.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study?

You have been selected to speak with us today because you have been identified as someone

who has a great deal to share about the experience of leading the change of transitioning to the

four-day work/school week at the community college level.

Why is this research study being done?

My research thesis titled, “Examining the transition to a four-day school week and investigating

post-change faculty/staff work-life balance: A community college case study” focuses on

organizational change with a particular interest in understanding how the change process works

at the community college level. Through this study, we hope to gain more insight into how to

implement a compressed work/school week successfully. This study will allow us to identify

152

ways in which this type of change process can be implemented successfully and learn what some

of the pitfalls of the process are.

What will I be asked to do?

With your consent, the researcher will interview you. The interview will be held in a quiet

meeting room, recorded, and transcribed for analysis. The interview will last approximately an

hour long and be comprised of 13 questions. The questions will also be sent to you in advance.

As part of qualitative research, you will be asked to approve particular aspects of the

interpretation of data to establish trustworthiness. In addition, other questions will be emailed to

you in order to allow you time to gather college documents that may help answer the questions.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take?

Your interview will be held at the location of your choice. Each interview will last approximately

60 minutes. Upon transcribing the data, you will be asked to clarify any data in the transcription.

This process will only take 15 minutes of your time.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me?

There are no known risks associated with the procedures of this study. It is not possible to

identify all potential risks in research procedures; however the researcher has taken reasonable

safeguards to minimize any known and potential, but unknown, risks.

Will I benefit by being in this research?

There are no direct benefits to the study participants. However, the overall potential benefit from

conducting this study is so that other community colleges will be able to transition to a four-day

school/work week to help solve the problem of dwindling state budget cuts. The findings from

153

this research can serve as a best practice model for implementing this transition and other college

officials will become aware of the pitfalls that they may face during the conversion process.

Who will see the information about me?

Your part in this study will be confidential, to the extent allowed by law. If the researcher feels

you are a threat to yourself or others, legally the researcher must report the information to

appropriate authorities. All interview participants will be given a pseudonym and the location

where the interview occurred will not be identified. Only the researchers of this study and a

confidential transcription service will see information about you. Data will be transcribed by,

“Fox Transcribe.” Their website is located here: Http://www.rev.com . This form will be

maintained in a locked drawer for three years after completion of the study. All other data will be

destroyed within one year of the completion of the study. Your information will be combined

with information from other people taking part in the study to establish themes. In rare instances,

authorized people may request to see the research information from this study. This is done to

ensure that the research has been conducted properly. The researcher would only permit people

who are authorized by organizations such as the Northeastern University Institutional Review

Board to see the information.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research?

No special arrangements will be made for treatment solely because of your participation in this

research.

Can I stop participation in this study?

Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you decide to participate in the study, you

may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time without penalty.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems?

154

You can contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Kelly Conn, at [email protected] or call her at

(857) 205-9585. You may also contact the Student Investigator, Nelly Cardinale, at

[email protected] or call her at (321) 537-3139.

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant?

If you have any inquiries about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina,

Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 960 Renaissance Park, Northeastern University,

Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617-373-4588, Email: [email protected] . You may call anonymously if

you wish.

Will I be paid for my participation?

You will not be paid for your interview.

Will it cost me anything to participate?

There are no monetary costs for you to participate in this study, but there is a small time

commitment to participate in the interview.

Is there anything else I need to know?

You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study,

I agree to take part in this research.

___________________________________ ____________________ Signature of person agreeing to take part Date ____________________________________ Printed name of person above ___________________________________ ____________________ Signature of person who explained the study Date to the participant above and obtained consent Nelly Cardinale Printed name of person

155

Appendix B: Consent Form for Online Survey






This survey consent form is located here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PX8ZS6S

Dear Participant: You are invited to participate in a web-based online survey because you are a faculty/staff

member who works at a college, which operates under a weekly four-day schedule. This survey

is part of a research study that investigates how this type of schedule influences employee work-

life balance. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

If time is an issue, you can complete some parts of this survey and finish it later. Just save your

answers by clicking on the NEXT button at the bottom of the page and then quit the survey by

clicking the EXIT button at the top of the next page. To finish filling out the same survey later,

you need to log in from the same computer that you did the first time and make sure that that

your browser allows cookies from this website.

You must be at least 18 years old to take this survey. The decision to participate in this research

project is voluntary. You do not have to participate and you can refuse to answer any question.

Even if you begin the web-based online survey, you can stop at any time. There are no

foreseeable risks or discomforts to you for taking part in this study.

There are no direct benefits to you from participating in this study. However, your responses will

156

help us learn about the work-life balance perceptions of college faculty/staff who work a four-

day school week.

Your part in this study is anonymous to the researcher(s). However, because of the nature of

web-based surveys, it is possible that respondents could be identified by the IP address or other

electronic record associated with the response. Neither the researcher nor anyone involved with

this survey will be capturing those data. Any reports or publications based on this research will

use only group data and will not identify you or any individual as being affiliated with this

project.

If you have any questions regarding electronic privacy, please feel free to contact Mark Nardone,

NU’s Director of Information Security via phone at 617.373.7901, or via email at

[email protected] .

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact me at 321.537.3139, or via

email at [email protected] as I am the person mainly responsible for the research data

collection. You can also contact the principal investigator Kelly Conn, PhD, at 857.205.9585, or

via email at [email protected] .

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Nan C.

Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 960 Renaissance Park, Northeastern

University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588 or via email at [email protected] . You may call

anonymously if you wish.

157

By clicking on the survey NEXT button below you are indication that you consent to participate

in this study. Please print out a copy of this consent from for your records.

Thanks you for your time. Nelly Cardinale, Doctoral (Ed.D) Candidate, Northeastern University

158

Appendix C: Interview Questions






Interviewees:

In order to obtain different perspectives about how the change process was managed the

investigator plans to recruit the four change leaders for interviews using a face-to-face semi-

structured style.

Introduction/Warm-up Questions

1. What was your job position here when the change was introduced?

2. What colleges did you attend and what kind of degrees do you have?

3. Can you tell me about the history of your career in the higher education field?

Main questions: These questions will be asked in a semi-structured face-to-face recorded

interview.

1. What do you think caused college leaders to implement the four-day work/school week?

2. What do you think was the rational for selecting Friday to partially close the college as

compared to another day of the week?

3. Please describe how you think that employees initially reacted to the proposed change?

4. Did you think that there was any resistance towards the change? If so, please elaborate.

5. What do you think were some pitfalls encountered during the change process?

159

6. Please describe any challenges that you imagined would have been related to the change

proposal. Did these occur as you expected?

7. If you had to start the change process all over again, is there anything that you would do

differently?

8. From the perspective on your job position, what is the main advice that you would give

other community college leaders interested in implementing the same change?

9. Is there anything else you would like to share?

Closing: We are pretty much at the end of the interview, but before I finish, I have one last

question for you.

10. Can I email you other follow-up questions?

Thank you so much for taking the time to speak candidly with me about your thoughts and

experiences. Once I have finished my interviews, I will contact you so you may review a draft of

my findings and give any recommendations for improvement.

Note:

The state of Florida where the study site is located has an open records law. This means that an

agency or institution funded by public dollars must disclose all internal records to the members

of the public at any time except those protected by federal laws such as FERPA or HIPPA. The

proposed study location is a publicly funded higher learning institution. Nevertheless, any

college identifying information will be blacked out from the college documents.

Emailed Interview Questions:

The following six questions were sent to various study location administrative offices by email in

order to allow time for college officials to locate college documents, which contain the answers.

160

1. Did college administration survey employees concerning the change? If so, what were the

results? Are there college archival records of the surveys that I can have to analyze and present

as part of my study findings?

2. Were any pilot tests done before the change was permanent? If so, can you remember the

approximate dates that they were implemented. How long did each one last? When did the

change finally become permanent? If there are written documents, can I obtain them?

3. Has the change affected the number of job application it receives, college expenses, employee

commuting expenses, and sick day use and/or turnover rates? Are there any college documents

that contain these statistics?

4. How were college policies such as faculty union contracts and faculty/staff and class

schedules changed to align with the new work/school schedule?

5. Did the change affect long-term strategic plans for the college and in what ways?

6. Were there any organizational change theories or books used to guide the change

implementation? If so, which? Were consultants used?

161

Appendix D: Survey Protocol






Note: This survey is located here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PX8ZS6S

Section 1: Survey Questions

Part 1: INDIVIDUAL WORK-LIFE BALANCE NEEDS FOR EMPLOYEES WITH MINOR CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME (Please select the best answer, other employees should continue with part 2.)

The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to:

1. _____ attend parent/teacher conferences.

a. made it easier

b. made it more difficult

c. made no difference

2. _____ take my children to after school activities.

a. made it easier



3. ____ arrange before/after school daycare.

a. made it easier

162



4. ____ plan summer vacations with my children.

a. made it easier



5. ____ schedule healthcare appointments for my children.

a. made it easier



6. ____ help my children with their schoolwork.

a. made it easier



7. Are there any other issues related to parenting and working a four-day work/school schedule not addressed in this section? If so, please explain.

Part 2: Individual Work-Life Balance Needs (Please select the best answer.)

The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to:

8. _____ plan vacations and long weekends.

a. made it easier


163


9 _____ have a social life.

a. made it easier



10. ______ schedule personal healthcare appointments.

a. made it easier



11. _____ comply with household chores and responsibilities.

a. made it easier



12. _____ schedule time for my personal interests.

a. made it easier



13. Has working a four-day work/school schedule influenced any other individual work-life balance needs? If so, please explain.

Part 3: INDIVIDUAL POST-CHANGE WORK-LIFE BALANCE BELIEFS/PERCEPTIONS (Please select the best answer.)

The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my:

164

14. _____ weekly commuting expenses.

a. increased

b. decreased


15. _____ job satisfaction level.

a. increased

b. decreased


16. _____ level of commitment towards my employer.

a. increased

b. decreased


17. _____work-related fatigue levels.

a. increased

b. decreased


18. _____ desire to continue working here..

a. increased

b. decreased


19. _____attendance patterns at work.

a. increased

b. decreased

165


20. _____job performance levels.

a. increased

b. decreased


21. _____ability to balance my work/home life.

a. increased

b. decreased


22. Do you have any other post-change job-related beliefs and perceptions? If so, please explain.

Part 4: OTHER POST-CHANGE WORK-LIFE BALANCE BELIEFS/PERCEPTIONS: Please type in an answer: 23. In your opinion, should your employer continue to operate under a four-day work/school schedule? Why or why not? 24. What is the best part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? 25. What is the worst part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? 26. Do you have a live-in parent or parents? If so, how did working a four-day work/school week affect your ability to play the role of caretaker?

166

27. Were you a member of a carpool before the change to the four-day work/school week? If so, how was the carpool affected? 28. Do you think that there was a change in employee morale since the four-day work/school week started? If so, please explain. 29. If your job performance levels are different since the change, please explain how and in what ways. 30. If you are classified as college staff or library faculty, are you allowed flexibility in the hours that you work each day? How many hours do you work per week and how are your daily work hours scheduled? 31. Do you think that the college culture has changed in any way since the change? If so, explain how and in what ways.

32. Are there any other issues pertaining to the four-day work/school week that this survey has not addressed?

Section 2: Demographics: (Please select all that apply.) 33 Job Role:

____ Full Time Faculty

____ Part Time Faculty

____ Full Time Staff

____ Part Time Staff

____ Administrator

34. What campus and/or center do you work at? (In order to maintain college campus name confidentiality during the reporting of the results, the campuses have been coded: C, M, P, and T, V or K according to the first letter of the campus and/or center name. (Please select all that apply.) _____ C

167

_____ M

_____ T

_____ P

_____ V

____ K

35 Gender: _____ Male

_____ Female

36 Marital Status:

_____ Single/ Never Married

_____ Married

_____ Divorced

_____ Widowed

_____ A Member of an Unmarried Couple

37 Race/Ethnicity: (Select the best answer) _____ American Indian or Alaska Native

_____ Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

_____ Asian or Asian American

_____ Black or African American

_____ Hispanic or Latino

_____ Non-Hispanic White

Other, type in an answer:

38 Education Completed: (Please select one answer.) _____ Some Technical/High

168

_____ Technical/High Diploma or GED

_____ Some College

_____ 2-Year Degree

_____ 4-Year Degree

_____ Master’s Level College Degree

_____ Doctorate or other Terminal Degree

39 Household Type: (Please select the best answer). _____ Single Adult/Adults

_____ Single Parent

_____ Non-Married Couple

_____ Two Non-Married Parents

_____ Two Married Parents

_____ Multi Generational Family

Other, please type in an answer:

40 Household Members: (Please select all that apply.) _____ Dependent Children under 18 years of age

_____ Dependent Children over 18 years of age

_____ Dependent Parent or Grandparent

_____ Retired Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend

_____ Working Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend

_____ Non-working Spouse, Boyfriend, or Girlfriend

_____ Disabled Household Member

_____ Only Me

169

Other, please type in an answer:

41 Select your age group:

_______ 18-24

________25-34

________35-44

________45-54

________55-64

________65+

42. How many years have you worked here?

_______ Less than 1

________1-2

________3-4

________5-6

________7-8

________9-10

________11+

170

Appendix E: Approval to Modify the Frameworks

The researcher merged the following frameworks in order to get a better fit for the thesis titled: “ Examining the transition to a four-day school week and investigating post-change faculty/staff work-life balance: A community college case study”

The first framework is the Burke-Litwin (1992) causal model of organizational performance and change.

Figure E1: Burke-Litwin (1992) causal model of organizational performance and change.

Figure E1: Burke-Litwin (1992) causal model of organizational performance and change.

The second framework is Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the relationship between corporate support mechanisms and the work and family lives of employees.

171

Figure E2: Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the relationship between corporate support mechanisms and the work and family lives of employees.

Figure E2: Bowen’s (1988) conceptual model of the relationship between corporate support mechanisms and the work and family lives of employees. The researcher merged them this way and in addition modified the names of some constructs:

172

Figure E3: Merged Burke-Litwin/Bowen Frameworks

Figure E3: Merged Burke-Litwin/Bowen Frameworks

To add validity to the framework, the authors of both frameworks were contacted so they could

approve the modifications made and give feedback as to whether the merged framework had any

merit. The following email was sent to them by the researcher and the principal investigator, Dr.

173

Kelly Conn was CCed.

Sept. 27th, 2012

Good Afternoon Dr. Bowen and Dr. Burke:

I am a doctoral student at Northeastern University as well as a faculty member at Atlantic Ocean

Community College. The thesis topic that I have proposed to my university is titled,

“Examining the change process of transitioning to a four-day work/school week and

investigating post-change faculty/staff work-life balance perceptions: A community college

descriptive case study”

Since I could not find a framework that addressed both parts of my study, which will be

qualitative, I merged and modified both of your frameworks into one for the purpose of my

study. I understand that most work-life balance studies are mostly quantitative, however I

already found a perfect qualitative style survey to use for my study.

So, can both of you take a moment to read the three-page description of what I did with

your frameworks as well as examine the schema of the new merged framework and let me know

whether I am on the right track?

I thought that both of you might appreciate knowing my intentions ahead of time since it

involves both of your theoretical models. I have attached my description, which also contains

the schema for the merged model and the main articles that describes both of your frameworks.

I have copied Dr. Kelly Conn on this email who is my doctoral thesis advisor from Northeastern

University. I would appreciate any feedback. If you have any questions, you can reach me at

321-433-5681.

Thanks in advance,

Nelly Cardinale

174

Associate Professor, Computer Science

Ed.D student Northeastern University

Atlantic Ocean Community College

M Campus 07-344

This is the response from the author of the first framework:

Sept. 28th, 2012

Dear Ms Cardinale,

Your schema looks fine. In fact, if I were to select a "box" in the Burke-Litwin model to

modify so that your work-life balance construct could best be represented, it would be the one

you chose - the needs and values dimension. Thus, I think the premises of the B-L model will not

be compromised.

With very best wishes for an outstanding dissertation.

W. Warner Burke, PhD

Edward Lee Thorndike Professor of Psychology and Education

Chair, Department of Organization and Leadership

Coordinator, Graduate Programs in Social-Organizational Psychology

220 Zankel Hall

Box 24 Teachers College, Columbia University

525 West 120th Street

New York, NY 10027

(212) 678-3831

Here is the response from the second author:

175

Sept. 28th, 2012

Dear Nelly,

I appreciated receiving an overview of your thesis topic, and I am very pleased that you

found my earlier work informative in developing an integrative framework for your study. Your

integration of the two theoretical perspectives appears sounds. I have continued to be interested

in the concept of organizational climate, although my work has moved from the corporate sector

to the public schools (see attached empirical article about schools as learning organizations). My

current work also focuses on families in the context of communities (see attached galley of a

chapter for the Handbook of Marriage and the Family). In particular, I think that you will find

the concept of "social organization" helpful.

I would be very interested in receiving a final copy of your dissertation, and I am happy

to discuss your project with you, if this would be helpful at some point. I think that qualitative

research is needed to better understand the nuances of work-life balance.

Again, thanks for sharing your thesis proposal with me. The greatest comment that you

can pay to an academician is to find his/her work informative and provocative.

All my best for continued success, Gary

Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW

Kenan Distinguished Professor

School of Social Work

UNC-Chapel Hill

325 Pittsboro Street

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550

(919) 962-6542 [email protected]

176

Appendix F: Coded/Analyzed Interview Responses

Table F1 Coded Interview Responses for Question #1

1. What do you think caused college leaders to implement the four-day work/school week? Reported Themes


Save Money/Energy

3

Balance College Budget

2

Raise Employee Morale

1

One participant expressed that during that time, college employees were resigning in high

numbers and employee morale was very low. Therefore, one of the reasons for the change

implementation was to raise employee morale. As shown, another reason was to save energy, to

curtail utilities expenses in order balance the institutional budget, which was being challenged by

yearly dwindling state funding.

Table F2 Coded Interview Responses for Question #2

2. What do you think was the rational for selecting Friday to partially close the college as compared to another day of the week? Reported Themes


Lower Friday Facility Use

2

Response to Survey

2

177

Least Disruptive Day 1

One of the participants expressed that a survey done by the college student government

association revealed that students were not usually coming to campus on Fridays.

Table F3 Coded Interview Responses for Question #3 3. Please describe how you think that employees initially reacted to the proposed change? Reported Themes


Increased Employee Morale

2

All Embraced Change

2

Allied-Health Faculty Rejection

1

Allied Healthcare faculty members teach students who do hospital rotation work during

the week and come to campus on Fridays for individual faculty advisement and/or to take exams.

Therefore, they initially expressed resistance towards the change.

Table F4 Coded Interview Responses for Question #4 4. Did you think that there was any resistance towards the change? If so, please elaborate. Reported Themes


Positive Media Response

2

Initial Trustee Board Member Resistance

2

Faculty Feared Negative community Response

1

178

Allied-Health Faculty Resistance

1

Initial College Administrator Resistance

1

One trustee member was opposed because his last employer implemented the same

change and failed. Some faculty members feared that negative perceptions of teachers receiving

a full salary for working nine months per year with summers off would get worse. Otherwise,

most other employees embraced the change. The media praised the actions of college

administrators as an excellent way to save money, energy and help employees as well as students

curtail commuting expenses. A few college administrators felt that the change was extreme.

Table F5 Coded Interview Responses for Question #5 5. What do you think were some pitfalls encountered during the change process? Reported Themes


Community Perceived Schedule Failure

2

Community Perceived Reduced Services

2

Work/Day-Care Hour’s Conflict

1

Perceived Construction Grant Denial

1

To better serve the students under the new schedule and improve community perceptions

about the new schedule, college change leaders decided to keep the library, call-center, daycare

workers, help-desk and language/learning labs open on Fridays. College leaders who are

considering implementing this change should work with employees who have child care needs

that conflict with new schedule. There was community skepticism that the new schedule would

179

work because in the recent past, a local city government office tried a similar schedule and it

failed

Table F6 Coded Interview Responses for Question #6 6. Please describe any challenges that you imagined would have been related to the change proposal. Did these occur as you expected? Reported Themes


Community Perceived Schedule Failure

2

Community Perceived Reduced Services

2

Friday Meeting Elimination

1

Feared Inaccurate Change Perceptions

1

Feared Insufficient Support Data

1

The first two themes are discussed above. College leaders decided to open parts of the

college to faculty on Fridays if needed for meetings or in-services. The last two imagined

challenges did not occur. College change leaders were prepared and articulated the organization

change accurately and had enough data to support the reasons for implementing the new

work/school schedule.

Table F7 Coded Interview Responses for Question #7 7. If you had to start the change process all over again, is there anything that you would do differently? Reported Themes


Contact similar colleges about change idea

1

180

Contact on-leave employees about change

1

Nothing

1

College leadership members from nearby community college contacted our

administrators and expressed disappointment at being left out of the change idea. Several full-

time faculty/staff that were off during the summer were not aware of the new schedule.

Table F8 Coded Interview Responses for Question #8 8. From the perspective on your job position, what is the main advice that you would give other community college leaders interested in implementing the same change? Reported Themes


Adopt and Replicate our Schedule Model

1

Think like Entrepreneur/Take Risks

1

Collaborate with all Stakeholders

1

Create a Change Taskforce 1

The interviewees were all college administrators and of faculty/administrator at the time

of the change. This advice is for administrators of similar two-year commuter-student colleges

that are interested in implementing a four-day work/school week.

Table F9 Coded Interview Responses for Question #9 9. Is there anything else you would like to share? Reported Themes


Use Shared Governance Change Approach

1

181

Technology Allows Faculty to work 24/7

1

Recommend Schedule for Saving Money/Energy

1

College administrators wishing to emulate the schedule should implement a shared

governance approach so everyone can participate in the change process. It is important to note

that even though faculty are only on campus four days a week, they actually work whenever

necessary from home. Administrators of all community and public two-year commuter-student

colleges should consider adopting the same schedule in order to deal with constant state budget

shortfalls, save money and conserve energy.

Emailed Questions:

As noted in Chapter 3 and the interview protocol, additional questions were supposed to

be sent to various college administrative offices to get the answers and/or supporting college

documents to support the answers. In reality, the three college administrators who participated in

the semi-structured interview process revealed the answers to the first four questions of the

planned emailed questions during the process of answering other questions. Therefore, the

information in the next four tables are based on the informal observations of the investigator who

has been employed at the study location for 20+ years, college documents, which the participant

used for verification purposes and the participants interview responses.

Table F10 Interview Responses for Planned Emailed Question #1 1.Did college administration survey employees concerning the change? If so, what were the results? Are there college archival records of the surveys that I can have to analyze and present as part of my study findings? Yes and the dates and inquires were: Survey Date Survey Inquiry

182

07-02-2007 Please email me your input about the advantages and/or disadvantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective.

08-04-2008 Please email me your advice about whether the college should adopt a four-day workweek on a year-round basis.

Table F11 August 2008 Employee Institutional Survey Responses

2008 Institutional Survey Question: Please email me your advice about whether the college should adopt a four-day workweek on a year-round basis. Position Total Responses Percentage

For 111 88.6 %

Unclear 8 6.5%

Against 4 4.9 %

Totals 123 100%

These are the results of the August 2008 survey, which was done one year after the

work/school week study pilot ended. It is important to note that the results of the survey

completed on 07-02-2007 was done one week after the new schedule pilot study ended and will

be compared and contrasted to the current study in last part of this chapter. Coincidently, both

surveys ask very similar questions with the exception that in the current survey, the inquiry

question is divided into two parts.

183

Table F12 Interview Responses for Emailed Question # 2 2. Were any pilot tests done before the change was permanent? If so, can you remember the approximate dates that they were implemented. How long did each one last? When did the change finally become permanent? If there are written documents, can I obtain them? Yes, the dates and events were: Dates Event

2007 Summer Term Four-day a week pilot starts for all employees/students

2007 Fall Semester Four and one half day pilot begins for staff, faculty/students continue with four-day work/school week. The college is open half a day on Fridays.

2008 Spring Semester Pilot continues with four-day week for all employees/students.

2008 Summer Term Second four-day a week pilot starts for all employees/students.

2008/2009 School Year Permanent four-day a week schedule starts for all employees/students with the 3 modifications: 1. Faculty only work five days the first week to assist with the drop/add process. 2. Most other employees work a five-day week for the first three weeks and then return to a four-day work schedule for the rest of the semester. 3. The library, learning and language lab staff will work four and one-half days all year long because these facilities will be open on Friday mornings.

Table F13 How the transition helped alleviate the problem 3. Has the change affected college expenses, employee commuting expenses, sick day use, turnover rates and/or changed the number of job apps that the college usually receives? Are there any college financial statistics can I can obtain to analyze and present as part of my study findings?

184

The changes were: Items

Changes that occurred during the 2007/2008 school year as compared to the 2006/2007 school year

Energy Expenses 10% Decrease

Turnover Reduction 44% Decrease

Sick Hours Used 50% Decrease

Employment Applications Received 51% Increase

Employee/Student Commuting Expenses 20% Reduction

Table F14 Responses to Emailed Question 4

4. How were college policies such as faculty union contracts and faculty/staff and class schedules changed to align with the new work/school schedule? Policy Change Faculty Work/School Schedules: (Negotiated by Collective Bargaining)

1. 2007/2008 contract: a. If asked, all faculty members must attend in-services and/or meetings scheduled on Fridays. b. Faculty can teach summer terms on a voluntary basis for an extra stipend. c. Faculty must work a half-day on Friday during the first week of every semester to assist in the student drop-add process. d. Librarians whom are also classified as faculty by the human resource office were not transitioned over to the new work schedule and therefore must work one half-day in the library on Fridays during the entire semester. 2. Current 2012/2013 Full-time Faculty contract:

185

a. Faculty members teach Monday through Thursday for a minimum of 15 hours per week. b. Faculty must work a half-day on Friday during the first week of every semester to assist in the student drop-add process. c. Faculty must be on campus 5 hours weekly for student advisement. d. Faculty can work the extra 15 required hours per week from any location. e. Librarians, who are also classified as faculty, must work one half-day in the library on Fridays during the entire semester.

Student Class Schedules

Friday morning, three-day a week 50-minute classes were eliminated and converted to two-day a week 75-minutes classes.

Staff Schedules

1. All staff schedules were changed to require a minimum of 36 hours a week to meet full-time hourly requirements. The lunch schedule was reduced by one half hour and the exercise benefit as describe below was eliminated in order to reduce the normal 40 hours to 36 hours weekly. 2. Most staff members work 36 hours per week on a Monday through Thursday basis with the exception of the library, learning/language lab, security, childcare, and help desk personnel, who work on a Monday through Friday basis. 3. In addition, all staff must also work a half-day on Friday during the first three weeks of each semester.

Exercise Benefit Policy

In the past, this policy allowed employees to exercise one-half hour during the workday three days per week on paid time. However, it was eliminated so that along with the reduced lunch hour, employees can work a condensed Monday through Thursday 9-hour day and still receive full-time pay—thus avoiding the need for working 10 hours per day..

Answers to other emailed questions:

5 Did the change affect long-term strategic plans for the college and in what ways? No.

6. Were there any organizational change theories or books used to guide the change

implementation? If so, which? Were consultants used? No.

186

Appendix G: Coded/Analyzed Survey Responses

Section 1: Coded and analyzed open-ended and close-ended responses

Part 1: INDIVIDUAL WORK-LIFE BALANCE NEEDS FOR EMPLOYEES WITH MINOR

CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME (Please select the best answer, other employees should

continue with part 2.) The following tables illustrate the responses to the closed-ended survey

questions one through six, which were supposed to be answered by employees with minor

children living at home. According to Survey Monkey, the initial number of respondents was

anywhere from 116 to 118 employees for each question. However, after filtering the data by the

demographic variable of households with dependent children under 18 years old, which is part of

the demographic survey question #40, the true sample size was 57 and therefore the results are

shown according to question 40.

PAGE 2: Part 1: INDIVIDUAL WORK-LIFE BALANCE NEEDS FOR EMPLOYEES WITH MINOR CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME Table G1 Response to Closed-Ended Survey Question 1

This question was meant to be answered only by employees which had dependent children under 18 years of age After filtering the responses according to the demographic variable of, “households with dependent children under 18 years old” the sample size was reduced to N=57. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

1. Attend parent/teacher conferences

70.17% 3.50%

26.31%

57

187

Table G2


This question was meant to be answered only by employees which had dependent children under 18 years of age After filtering the responses according to the demographic variable of, “households with dependent children under 18 years old” the sample size was reduced to N=57. 2. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

2. take my children to after school activities

66.66%

5.26%

28.07%

57

Table G3 Response to Closed-Ended Survey Question 3 This question was meant to be answered only by employees which had dependent children under 18 years of age After filtering the responses according to the demographic variable of, “households with dependent children under 18 years old” the sample size was reduced to N=57. The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Question Percentage/Totals

Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

3. arrange before/after school daycare

33.33%

8.77%

57.89%

57

188


Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

4. plan summer vacations with my children

54.38%

0.0%

45.61%

57


Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

5. schedule healthcare appointments for my children

87.71%

0.0%

12.28%

57


189

Made it Easier


Made no difference

# Of Participants

6. help my children with their schoolwork.

45.61%

8.77%

45.61%

57

As shown below, the seventh survey question was open-ended. This question was only

supposed to be answered by employees with minor children living at home. However, fifteen

respondents wrote that they did not know the answer since they did not have any children living

at home. Moreover, sixteen other respondents answered ‘no’ and offered no explanation.

Therefore, the responses of these participants were eliminated and the reported fifty-one

participants by the Survey Monkey platform were reduced to twenty.

Table G7 Common Themes found in Open-ended Survey question #7

7. Are there any other issues related to parenting and working a four-day work/school schedule not addressed in this section? If so, please explain. Note: Some respondents reported more than one theme. N=20 (Three other themes were eliminated but these were not related to parenting and were only reported by one person.) Reported Themes


Daycare/Work Time Conflict

4

Facilitates Volunteering

4

Facilitates Housework 2

Facilitates Time with Children 2

Hinders Time with Children 2

As shown in the table above, another finding is that among the study sample of 24, four

employees had a problem finding suitable daycare facilities whose operating hours were

compatible with a four-day work/school week. Additionally, another four employees were able

to volunteer at their children’s school on Fridays. Furthermore, as far as the new schedule

190

facilitating spending time with children, the results were mixed, two employees agree and two

disagreed. Finally, two employees felt that the schedule facilitated housework.

Part 2: Individual Work-Life Balance Needs (Please select the best answer.)

Figure G1

Excel Graph showing answers to close-ended questions 8-12

The EXCEL graph below illustrates the results of the close-ended survey questions

number 8 through 12. The sample size was anywhere from 224 to 226 for each question.

Figure G1 Excel Graph showing answers to close-ended questions 8-12

Table G8

Findings to close-ended question 8-12

Findings in Survey Questions 8 through 12 Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey Platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my ability to: Item Percentage/Totals

191

Made it Easier

Made it More Difficult

Made no difference

# of Participants

8. Plan vacations and long weekends.

87.1% 0.0%

12.9%

226

9. Have a social life. 73.6% 1.5%

24.9%

226

10. Schedule personal healthcare appointments..

86.6% 3.0%

10.4%

226

11. Comply with household chores and responsibilities.

82.1%

3.5%

14.4%

226

12. Schedule time for my personal interests.

81.6%

3.0%

15..4%

226

As shown in the table below, survey question #13 was open-ended. The sample size for

this question was 75. The table below shows the common themes found in the answers to the

question and the number of respondents that mentioned each theme. Only themes, which were

mentioned by two or more respondents, were included.


13. Has working a four-day work/school schedule influenced any other individual work-life balance needs? If so, please explain Note: Some respondents reported more than one theme. N=75

Reported Themes


Provides Catch Up Day

11

Facilitates Family Time

9

Facilitates Continuing Education

7

Facilitates Elderly Dependent Care 5

Improves Mental Health 4

192

Facilitates Volunteering 3

Facilitates Working Second Job 3

Facilitates Exercise 2

Hinders Exercise 2

Facilitates Church Activities 2

Reduced Commuting Expenses 2

Medical Providers Closed on Fridays 2

Increased Productivity 2

Exempt Library Employees 2

As shown in the table above, the top answers to this question is that the new schedule

provides an extra day to catch up both on personal/work duties and seems to facilitate family

time, continuing education and taking care of elderly dependents. Additional themes concerning

the care of elderly parents will be examined in survey question #26. In addition, four participants

reported that the schedule improves employee mental health, three participants reported being

able to work a second job and three others mentioned that the new schedule allowed to do

volunteer work in the community.

Part 3: INDIVIDUAL POST-CHANGE WORK-LIFE BALANCE BELIEFS/PERCEPTIONS

(Please select the best answer.)

The following EXCEL graph illustrates the responses to the closed-ended survey

questions 14 through 21. The sample size varied from 220 to 224 participants per question. The

individual percentage amounts are being reported directly from the Survey Monkey online

platform.

193

Figure G2

Responses to close-ended questions 14-21

Figure G2: Responses to close-ended questions 14-21

Table G10

Summary of responses to close-ended questions 14-21

Findings in Survey Questions 14 through 21 Percentages are reported directly from the Monkey Survey Platform The four-day work/school schedule has influenced my: Item Percentage/Totals

Increased

Decreased

Made no difference

# of Participants

14. Commuting Expenses .3.0% 81.0%

16..0%

222

194

15. Job Satisfaction Level 76.6% 3.0% 20.4% 223

16. Employer Commitment Level

61.7% 2.0% 36.3% 224

17. Work-related Fatigue Level

16.9%

49.8%

33.3%

224

18. Desire to Continue to Work Here

73.6%

1.5%

24.9%

223

19.Work Attendance Patterns 41.7% 0.0% 58.3% 220

20. Job Performance Levels 42.2% 1.0% 56.8% 220

21. Work Life Balance

79.2% 4.6% 16.2% 219

As shown in the table below, survey question #22 was open-ended. The sample size for

this question was 36. The table below shows the common themes found in the answers to the

question and the number of respondents that mentioned each theme. Only themes, which were

mentioned by two or more respondents, were included. Eight respondents answered the question

‘no’, therefore these answers were excluded and the sample size was reduced to 27.


22. Do you have any other post-change job-related beliefs and perceptions? If so, please explain. Note: Some respondents reported more than one theme. Original sample size was N=36. However, 8 participants answered the question negatively so the sample was reduced to N=27

Reported Themes


Great Employee Benefit

4

Increases Stress

3


Decreases Job Performance 2

Facilitates Continuing Education 2

195

As shown in the table above, another finding is that among the study sample of 27, four

employees consider the new work/school week to be a great benefit. Additionally, another three

employees reported the new schedule increases stress. Finally, three employees reported the new

week reduced commuting expenses for them.

Part 4: OTHER POST-CHANGE WORK-LIFE BALANCE BELIEFS/PERCEPTIONS: Please type in an answer: Table G12 Answers to Open-ended Survey question #23

23. In your opinion, should your employer continue to operate under a four-day work/school schedule? Why or why not? N=195

Responses


Yes

170 87.17%

No

8 4.10%


Totals: 195 100%


23. In your opinion, should your employer continue to operate under a four-day work/school schedule? Why or why not? N=195 (Many Participants gave more than one reason.)

Reported Themes


Improved Work/Life Balance

115

Increased Productivity 89 Saves Energy/Lowers Utility Expenses 25

Increased Morale 16

196

Best Human Resource Benefit 14

Don’t Remove New Normal 13

Longer Weekend/Rest Time 11

Reduced Commuting Expense 7

Uninterrupted Grading Time 3


24. What is the best part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? N= 194

Reported Themes



69


41


Increased Productivity

9

Flexible Friday Options 12


Facilitates Volunteer Work 7

Nothing 7


25. What is the worst part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? N= 189

Reported Themes


None

96

197

Longer Days

46

Rushed Work/School Week 18

Work to Home Spillover 7

Shorter Lunch Break 6

Childcare Schedule Conflict 3

Reverting to 5-day Schedule During Semester Start 2

Unexpected Friday Meetings 2

Decreased Weekday Family Time 2


26. Do you have a live-in parent or parents? If so, how did working a four-day work/school week affect your ability to play the role of caretaker? N=176 After eliminating 144 respondents who answered ‘no’ the sample was reduced to N=32

Reported Themes


Made Role Easier

17


10

Easier Care for Non-Live in Parents 4

Eliminated Friday Adult Daycare Expense 2


27. Were you a member of a carpool before the change to the four-day work/school week? If so, how was the carpool affected? N= 180 After eliminating 177 participants who responded negatively, the sample was reduced to N=3 Reported Themes No Effect, All Work at Same Location

Number of Participants 3

198

Table G18 Answers to Open-ended Survey question #28

28. Do you think that there was a change in employee morale since the four-day work/school week started? If so, please explain. N=187 (21 answers were not included in the amounts below since the employees only worked at the study location after the change.) Therefore, the sample was reduced to N=166. Responses


Yes (It improved)

128 77.10%

No

17 10.24%


Totals: 166 100%


28. Do you think that there was a change in employee morale since the four-day work/school week started? If so, please explain. The answers of 4 participants were classified as “Not Sure” because the response was “Yes” without an explanation. N=187 (19 answers were not included in the amounts below since the employees only worked at the study location after the change.) Therefore, the sample was reduced to N=168. Reported Themes


Increased Morale

126

Increased Attendance 2


199

29. If your job performance levels are different since the change, please explain how and in what ways. N=156 The answer ‘no difference’ was provided by 91 participants so the sample was reduced to n=65 Reported Themes


Improved Time Management

40

Improved Attitude/Motivation

12

More Rested/Energetic 5

Reduced Productivity 4

Decreased Burnout/Stress 2


30. If you are classified as college staff or library faculty, are you allowed flexibility in the hours that you work each day? How many hours do you work per week and how are your daily work hours scheduled? N=153. The answer from 47 participants was N/A. The answers from 6 others were from regular (not library faculty) so they were also not counted. Therefore the sample was reduced to N=100 Reported Themes

Library Faculty/Staff

Regular College Staff

Have Flexible Hours

4 42

Non Flexible Work Hours

0 54

Table G22 Common Work Schedules found in Open-ended Survey question #30

30. If you are classified as college staff or library faculty, are you allowed flexibility in the hours that you work each day? How many hours do you work per week and how are your daily work hours scheduled? N=153. The answer from 47 participants was N/A. The answers from 6 others were from regular (not library faculty) so they were also not counted. Therefore the sample was reduced to N=100 Type of Participant

Common Weekly Flexible Work Schedules Weekly Hours Worked

Library Faculty (Work 5 Mon - Wed 35

200

days)

8:30 - 4:30 9:00 - 5:00 Thurs 9:30 - 4:30 12:00 - 8:00 Fri 9:00 - 12:00 9:00 – 1:00

Library Staff (Work 5 Days)

Mon – Thurs 8:00 – 8:00 (Work is flexible between these hrs) Fri 9:00 – 1:00 Mid/Final Exam Weeks: Saturday 8:00 – 5 :00 We alternate working Fridays to enjoy four-day schedule (Reported from the T and C campuses.)

36

Other Staff (Work 4 days)

Mon - Thurs 7:00 - 4:30 7:00 - 5:30 7:30 - 5:00 8:00 - 5:30 8:00 - 6:30 9:30 - 7:00

36

Librarians at the study location are classified as faculty. Therefore, the faculty union negotiates

their contracts and they work one hour less per week as compared to staff.


31. Do you think that the college culture has changed in any way since the change? If so, explain how and in what ways. N=160 (Nine participants were not here before the change so they could not respond, 37 participants were not sure whether the culture changed and were also eliminated from the sample responses.) N=114

201

Reported Themes

Number of Participants Increased Productivity Increased Morale No (with no reasons provided) Students Enjoy Class Schedule Increased Employee Disconnect Increased Employee Entitlement Sense Improved Work/Life Balance Friday Meetings Decreased Productivity Increased Student Activities

25

22 7 6 6 4 3 2 2 2


32. Are there any other issues pertaining to the four-day work/school week that this survey has not addressed? N= 133 Reported Themes


No 91 Saves Energy/Money

6

Faculty Work 24/7 5

Great Human Resource Benefit 3


Include Everyone Newer Schedule 2

202

Section 2: Demographics: (Please select all that apply.) Table G25 Q33. Job Role: Please select all that apply. Answered: 207 Skipped: 21

Job Role: # Of Respondents Percentage Administrator 17 8.21% Full-Time Faculty 77 37.20% Part-Time Faculty 16 7.73% Full-Time Staff 100 48.31% Part-Time Staff 5 2.42% Total Respondents/Percentages 207 100%

Table G26 Q34. Initial of College Campus: Please select all that apply. Answered: 206 Skipped: 22

Initial of College Campus/Center # Of Respondents Percentage C 89 43.20% M 73 35.44% T 26 12.62% P 35 16.99% V 17 8.25% K 3 1.46% Total Respondents/Percentages 206 100%

Table G27 Q35. Gender. Answered: 203 Skipped: 25

Gender # Of Respondents Percentage Male 59 29.06% Female 144 70.94% Total Respondents/Percentages 203 100%

203

Table G28 Q36 Marital Status: Please select the best option that describes you. Answered: 207 Skipped: 21 Marital Status # Of Respondents Percentage Single/ Never Married 24 11.59% Married 137 66.18% Divorced 31 14.98% Widowed 6 2.90% A Member of an Unmarried Couple 9 4.35% Total Respondents/Percentages 207 100%

Table G29 Q37 Race/Ethnicity: Select the best answer or type in an answer. Answered: 190 Skipped: 38 Race/Ethnicity # Of Respondents Percentage American Indian or Alaska Native 4 2.11% Asian or Asian American 3 1.58% Black or African American 7 3.68% Hispanic or Latino 9 4.74% Non-Hispanic White 167 87.89% Total Respondents/Percentages 190 100%

Table G30 Q38 Education Completed: Please select one answer. Answered: 208 Skipped: 20 Education Completed # Of Respondents Percentage Technical/High Diploma or GED 6 2.88% Some College 10 4.81% 2-Year Degree 31 14.90% 4-Year Degree 42 20.19% Master’s Degree 87 41.83% Doctorate or other Terminal Degree 32 15.38% Total Respondents/Percentages 208 100%

204

Table G31 Q39 Household Type: Please select the best answer. Answered: 182 Skipped: 46 Household Type # Of Respondents Percentage Single Adult/Adults 41 22.53% Single Parent 12 6.59% Non-Married Couple 10 5.49% Two Non-Married Parents 1 0.55% Two Married Parents 96 52.75% Multi-Generational Family 22 12.09% Total Respondents/Percentages 182 100%

Table G32 Q40 Household Members: Please select all that apply.. Answered: 198 Skipped: 30 Household Members # Of Respondents Percentage Dependent Children under 18 years of age 62 31.31% Dependent Children over 18 years of age 49 24.75% Dependent Parent or Grandparent 13 6.57% Retired Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend 23 11.62% Working Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend 96 39.90% Non-working Spouse, Boyfriend, or Girlfriend 9 4.55% Disabled Household Member 10 5.05% Only Me 29 14.65% Total Respondents/Percentages 198 100%

Table G33 Q41 Select your age group: Answered: 204 Skipped: 24 Age Group # Of Respondents Percentage 18 – 24 3 1.47% 25 – 34 25 12.25% 35 – 44 26 12.75% 45 – 54 68 33.33% 55 – 64 66 32.35%

205

Age Group # Of Respondents Percentage 65+ 16 7.84% Total Respondents/Percentages 204 100% Table G34 Q42 Select how many years you have worked here: Answered: 208 Skipped: 20 Years Employed at Study Location # Of Respondents Percentage < 1 11 5.29% 1 – 2 21 10.10% 3 – 4 29 13.94% 5 – 6 23 11.06% 7 – 8 21 10.10% 9 – 10 14 6.73% 11+ 89 42.79% Total Respondents/Percentages 208 100% Pre-existing Employee Survey

One of the interviewees provided the investigator with copies of two employee surveys

done at the study location during the summer of 2007 to access how employees felt about the

shorter work schedule. The employees answered the first one, a week after the four-day schedule

pilot started and the second at the end of the twelve-week pilot. The first survey contains two

identical questions that the current study survey contains. Therefore, the researcher compares and

contrasts the responses to the current study survey in order to examine longitudinal faculty/staff

perceptions.

Table G35 Common Themes found in study location 2007 email survey

7/2/2007 Pilot Summer Workweek Program

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to

206

invite you to send me your input about the advantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 Reported Themes



55


32


29

Increased Morale

26

Saves Energy and Utility Expenses

25

Reduced Commuting Expenses

23

Improved Time Management 8


7

Facilitates Volunteer Work 3 Table G36 Common Themes found in Open-ended Survey question #24

24. What is the best part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? N= 194

Reported Themes



69


41



9

Flexible Friday Options 12


207

Facilitates Volunteer Work 7

Nothing 7

Table G37 Common Advantages and Best Parts found in 2007 and 2013 surveys

2007 Pilot Summer Institutional Survey Question

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to invite you to send me your input about the advantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 2013 Current Study Survey Question 24. What is the best part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and

your circumstances? N= 194 Common Advantages/Best Parts

2007 # of Participants N= 176



18.8%

35.56%


16.47% 21.13%


31.25%

20.61%

Increased Productivity/Performance

3.97%

4.63%

Reduced Commuting Expenses 13.06%

4.12%

Facilitates Volunteer Work 1.70%

3.60%

Table G38 Common Themes found in study location 2007 email survey

7/2/2007 Pilot Summer Workweek Program

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to invite you to send me your input about the disadvantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 Reported Themes


None 15

208

Childcare Schedule Conflict

6

Buildings Too Hot Mondays 2

Longer Days 2



25. What is the worst part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and your circumstances? N= 189

Reported Themes


None

96

Longer Days

46

Rushed Work/School Week 18

Work to Home Spillover 7


Childcare Schedule Conflict 3

Reverting to 5-day Schedule During Semester Start 2

Friday Meetings 2


Table G40 Common Disadvantages and Worst Parts found in 2007 and 2013 surveys

209

2007 Pilot Summer Institutional Survey Question

Having just completed the first week of the Pilot Summer Workweek program, I would like to invite you to send me your input about the disadvantages of the four-day workweek from your perspective. N=176 2013 Current Study Survey Question 25. What is the worst part of working a four-day work/school week as they relate to you and

your circumstances? N= 189 Common Disadvantages/Worst Parts



No Worst Parts/Disadvantages

8.52%

50%

Longer Days

1.70%

24.33%

Daycare Schedule Conflict

3.4% 1.58%

Less Weekday Family Time

1.13% 1.06%

The following tables show cross tab query analysis showing the short work schedule benefits employee in the 25 – 44 age group.

Table G41

Response to Closed-Ended Question 1

1. attend parent/teacher conferences. N=57 Select your age group:

25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals

made it easier 81.82% (9)

83.33% (15)

54.17% (13)

100% (3)

0% (0)

70.17% (40)

made it more difficult

9.09% (1)

0.0% (0)

4.17% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

3.50% (2)

made no difference 9.09% (1)

16.67% (3)

41.67% (10)

0% (0)

100% (1)

26.31% (15)

Table G42 Response to Closed-Ended Question 2

210

2. take my children to after school activities. N=57 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


77.78% (14)

54.17% (13)

100% (3)

100% (1)

66.66% (38)


9.09% (1)

0% (0)

8.33% (2)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

5.26% (3)


22.22% (4)

37.50% (9)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

28.07% (16)

Table G43


3. arrange before/after school daycare. N=57 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


42.44% (8)

20.83% (5)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

33.33% (19)


18.18% (2)

0.0% (0)

8.33% (2)

33.33% (1)

0.0% (0)

8.77% (5)


55.56% (10)

70.83% (17)

66.67% (2)

100% (1)

57.89% (33)

Table G44


4. plan summer vacations with my children. N=57 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


66.67% (12)

25% (6)

100% (3)

0.0% (0)

54.38% (31)


0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)


33.33% (6)

75% (18)

0.0% (0)

100% (1)

45.61% (26)

Table G45


211

5. schedule healthcare appointments for my children. N=57 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


94.94% (17)

91.67% (22)

100% (3)

0.0% (0)

87.71% (50)


0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)


5.56% (1)

8.33% (2)

0.0% (0)

100% (1)

12.28% (7)

Table G46


6. help my children with their schoolwork. N=57 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


61.11% (11)

37.50% (9)

33.3% (1)

0.0% (0)

45.61% (26)


9.09% (1)

5.56% (1)

12.50% (3)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

8.77% (5)


33.33% (6)

50% (12)

66.7% (2)

100% (1)

45.61% (26)

Table G47


8. plan vacations and long weekends. N=226 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


96.2% (25)

83.8% (57)

89.4% (59)

62.5% (10)

87.1% (175)


0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)


3.8% (1)

16.2% (11)

10.6% (7)

37.5% (6)

12.9% (26)

Table G48


212

9. have a social life. N=226 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


84.6% (22)

75.0% (51)

75.8% (50)

50.0% (8)

73.6% (148)


0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

1.5% (1)

3.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

1.5% (3)


15.4% (4)

23.5% (16)

21.2% (14)

50.0% (8)

24.9% (50)

Table G49


10. schedule personal healthcare appointments. N=226 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


96.2% (25)

88.2% (60)

90.9% (60)

62.5% (10)

86.6% (174)


8.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

2.9% (2)

3.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

3.0% (6)


3.8% (1)

8.8% (6)

6.1% (4)

37.5% (6)

10.4% (21)

Table G50


11. comply with household chores and responsibilities. N=226 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


92.3% (24)

79.4% (54)

86.4% (57)

62.5% (10)

82.1% (165)


12.0% (3)

0.0% (0)

2.9% (2)

3.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

3.5% (7)


7.7% (2)

17.6% (12)

10.6% (7)

37.5% (6)

14.4% (29)

Table G51


213

12. schedule time for my personal interests. N=226 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


92.3% (24)

75.0% (51)

84.8% (56)

62.5% (10)

81.6% (164)


4.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

4.4% (3)

3.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

3.0% (6)


7.7% (2)

20.6% (14)

12.1% (8)

37.5% (6)

15.4% (31)

Table G52


14. weekly commuting expenses. N=222 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals

Increased 8.0% (2)

3.8% (1)

1.5% (1)

3.1% (2)

0.0% (0)

3.0% (6)

Decreased 84.0% (21)

88.5% (23)

79.4% (54)

83.1% (54)

62.5% (10)

81.0% (162)

made no difference

8.0% (2)

7.7% (2)

19.1% (13)

13.8% (9)

37.5% (6)

16.0% (32)

Table G53


15. job satisfaction level. N=223 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals

Increased 80.0% (20)

84.6% (22)

73.5% (50)

81.8% (54)

50.0% (8)

76.6% (154)

Decreased 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

4.4% (3)

3.0% (2)

6.3% (1)

3.0% (6)

made no difference

20.0% (5)

15.4% (4)

22.1% (15)

15.2% (10)

43.8% (7)

20.4% (41)

Table G54


214

16. level of commitment towards my employer. N=224 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


73.1% (19)

61.8% (42)

62.1% (41)

31.3% (5)

61.7% (124)

Decreased 4.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

2.9% (2)

0.0% (0)

6.3% (1)

2.0% (4)

made no difference

28.0% (7)

26.9% (7)

35.3% (24)

37.9% (25)

62.5% (10)

36.3% (73)

Table G55


17. work-related fatigue levels. N=224 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals

Increased 8.0% (2)

11.5% (3)

25.0% (17)

18.2% (12)

0.0% (0)

16.9% (34)

Decreased 60.0% (15)

61.5% (16)

47.1% (32)

43.9% (29)

50.0% (8)

49.8% (100)

made no difference

32.0% (8)

26.9% (7)

27.9% (19)

37.9% (25)

50.0% (8)

33.3% (67)

Table G56


18. desire to continue working here. N=223 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


92.3% (24)

69.1% (47)

74.2% (49)

56.3% (9)

73.6% (148)

Decreased 4.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

1.5% (1)

1.5% (1)

0.0% (0)

1.5% (3)

made no difference

20.0% (5)

7.7% (2)

29.4% (20)

24.2% (16)

43.8% (7)

24.9% (50)

Table G57

215


19. attendance patterns at work. . N=220 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


53.8% (14)

38.2% (26)

43.8% (28)

12.5% (2)

41.7% (83)

Decreased 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

made no difference

48.0% (12)

46.2% (12)

61.8% (42)

56.3% (36)

87.5% (14)

58.3% (116)

Table G58


20. job performance levels. . N=220 Select your age group: 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


65.4% (17)

32.8% (22)

46.2% (30)

25.0% (4)

42.2% (84)

Decreased 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

1.5% (1)

1.5% (1)

0.0% (0)

1.0% (2)

made no difference

56.0% (14)

34.6% (9)

65.7% (44)

52.3% (34)

75.0% (12)

56.8% (113)

Table G59

Response to Closed-Ended Question 21 21. ability to balance my work/home life. . N=219 Select your age group:

25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65+ Response Totals


92.0% (23)

78.5% (51)

80.3% (53)

56.3% (9)

79.2% (156)

Decreased 4.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

7.7% (5)

4.5% (3)

0.0% (0)

4.6% (9)

made no difference

16.0% (4)

8.0% (2)

13.8% (9)

15.2% (10)

43.8% (7)

16.2% (32)

Documents

Examining the transition to a four-day school week and ...1076/fulltext.pdf · prevent burnout, work with employees to solve work/daycare schedule conflicts and that all college stakeholders