sustainabilityArticle

sustainability
Article
Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Job
Performance among Romanian Employees—
Implications for Sustainable Human
Resource Management
Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu 1,2,* , Simona-Andreea Apostu 1,3, Andreea Paul 4 and
Ionut Casuneanu 5
1 Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romana Square,
15–17 Dorobant
,i St., Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
2 Labour Market Policies Department, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection,
6–8, Povernei Street, 010643 Bucharest, Romania
3 Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy House-Bucharest, District 5, Calea 13 Septembrie, 13,
010374 Bucharest, Romania
4 Department of International Economic Relations, Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
15–17 Dorobanti St., Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
5 Department of Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15–17 Dorobanti St., Sector 1,
010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Received: 5 June 2020; Accepted: 23 July 2020; Published: 29 July 2020


Abstract: In light of future work challenges, actual human resource management (HRM) needs to
be redesigned, including long-term development, regeneration, and renewal of human resources,
passing from consuming to developing human resources by incorporating the concept of sustainability.
Thus, sustainable HRM is seen as an extension of strategic human resources, presenting a new approach
to human resource management. The labor market is constantly changing, atypical work acquiring a
significant relevance, especially in these current times of coronavirus crisis restrictions. In Romania,
promoting the law of teleworking transformed labor flexibility into a topic of interest, and became an
increasingly vital requirement for employment and a motivating factor for Romanian employees.
In such a context, this paper aims to investigate the link between employee development and worktime
and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction and job
performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the face of
“future work” challenges. Additionally, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types of
flexibility—contractual, functional, working time, and workspace flexibility—in order to highlight
the relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable
HRM in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction. In order to make this possible,
an “employee flexibility composite indicator,” which takes into account different types of flexibility,
has been developed using feedback from Romanian employees, which was gathered by a national
representative survey using multiple correspondence analysis. Furthermore, the impact of both
individual and employee flexibility on overall level of job satisfaction has been quantified using binary
logistic regression models. Within the research, there is a particular focus on the impact of new types
of workspaces (flex office, co-working, total home office, partial home office—FO, CW, HOT, HOP) on
job performance, job satisfaction, organizational performance, professional growth and development,
social and professional relationships, and personal professional performance as well as on the overall
level of work motivation. The empirical results revealed that these new types of workspaces are
highly appreciated by employees, generating a growing interest among them. Partial home working,
the mix between working from home and working in a company’s office, has been considered an
optimal solution in increasing organizational performance, social and professional relationships,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086; doi:10.3390/su12156086 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 2 of 53
learning and personal development, and the overall level of work motivation. The results of the
multiple correspondence analysis highlighted a medium level of flexibility among those Romanian
employees interviewed, with only one third of them exhibiting high levels of flexibility. The empirical
analysis of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of functional flexibility, working time,
and workspace flexibility along with the flexibility composite indicator in increasing the level of
job satisfaction in employees. Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource
management in order to include the concept of sustainability, attention needs to be on a combination
of employee development-flexible time and flexible places, leading to an increase in both employee
job satisfaction and organizational performance as important outcomes of sustainable HRM.
Keywords: sustainable human resource management; work flexibility; job satisfaction;
job performance; Romania; employee survey; composite indicator; multiple correspondence analysis;
logistic regression analysis; new types of workspaces
1. Introduction
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organisation’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable human resource management (HRM). In the face of current challenges, the concept of
HRM needs to be redefined, with sustainable HRM being a more appropriate approach to actual human
resource management. Sustainable HRM’s aims is for long-term objectives and results, with a focus on
employee and environmental care, employee participation and development, external partnership,
flexibility, compliance with labor regulations, cooperation between employees, equity, and equality,
all without affecting profitability.
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM, the two core characteristics—employee
development and a combination of flexible working time and new types of workspaces—are particularly
important in terms of their impact on the two main outcomes of sustainable HRM—job satisfaction
and job performance.
The labor market is constantly changing, and the role of the employee is incredibly important.
When employees are able to choose their preferred working hours, they tend to be more motivated
and spend a longer period of time without changing jobs. In recent years, this paradigm shift resulted
in an increase in employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules to meet employee needs,
employee participation in decision making, workspace modelling, and increasing employee creativity
and productivity. Sustainable HR practices are largely influenced by the level of job performance and
satisfaction; therefore, in-depth knowledge of these factors is essential in redefining HRM according to
current needs.
Work flexibility offers employees a balance between their professional and personal lives,
leading to job satisfaction and high performance and an overall improvement of the organization
as a whole. Work flexibility is very important, and with digital advancements and improved
technology, employees are able to continue their work anywhere they wish, provided they have an
internet connection.
Atypical job roles have become significantly more common, especially characterized today by the
restrictions caused by the coronavirus crisis. Although full-time permanent employment represents
most of today’s workforce, the increasing prevalence of non-standardized forms of employment
has brought structural change to work patterns, most likely resulting in a change to employee job
satisfaction levels, providing information that could be incredibly valuable to us.
In Romania, promoting the law of teleworking transformed labor flexibility into a topic of interest,
becoming an increasingly essential condition required for employment and a motivating factor for
Romanian employees.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 3 of 53
In such a context, this paper aims to investigate the link between employee development and
worktime and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction,
and job performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the
face of ‘future work’ challenges. Furthermore, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types
of flexible contracts, functional, working hours, and workspace flexibility in order to highlight the
relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable HRM
in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
Could different forms of work flexibility lead to an increase in job satisfaction and job performance?
This is the main question of our research. In attempting to answer to this question, the empirical
analysis will be structured on three levels. On the first level, we will examine the main characteristics
of both job satisfaction and work flexibility among Romanian employees, highlighting the impact
of new forms of workspace flexibility on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
First, we will investigate the key differences regarding the main forms of work flexibility
among Romanian employees, focusing particularly on contractual flexibility, working time flexibility,
functional flexibility, and workspace flexibility. Second, we will identify the main determinants of work
flexibility for Romanian employees and build a composite flexibility indicator using the results from
the multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Finally, we will investigate both the potential impact of
the composite flexibility indicator and the impact of individual flexibility forms on the overall level of
job satisfaction of Romanian employees using the binary logistic regression model, revealing its main
implications for achieving the desideratum of sustainable HRM.
This paper contributes to the sustainable HRM literature in several ways. First, it analyses the
impact of two important characteristics of sustainable HRM employee development and worktime and
workspace flexibility, grounded in an evidence-based approach on two major outcomes of sustainable
HRM (job satisfaction and job performance), contributing to the diminution of the gap in scientific
knowledge especially at a national level. Second, the paper offers a first attempt at investigating the
impact of the new forms of workspaces on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation. This is
particularly important when taking into account the restrictions regarding social distancing in the
context of the current health crisis. Third, the paper considers a multi-dimensional approach of work
flexibility from the perspective of working time and workspaces as well as employee development,
which is considered to be an important characteristic of sustainable HRM. Fourth, the paper provides,
to our knowledge, a first composite measure of work flexibility seen from different angles at an
individual level that offers a global view of the main elements of flexibility present within Romanian
organizations. Furthermore, the paper analyzes how this synthetic measure impacts employee job
satisfaction as an important outcome of sustainable HRM, thus highlighting the way in which the
HRM needs to be redesigned.
The paper is organized in the following sections. Section 1 represents the introduction,
highlighting the relevance of the topic and the main aim of our research. Section 2, the literature review
has been organized into four main sub-sections and starts with an introductory section on sustainable
HRM presenting the main conclusions from the literature regarding job satisfaction, work flexibility,
and sustainable HRM and a short presentation of the particularities of work flexibility in times of
crisis. Sections 2.2–2.4 present the most relevant conclusions from literature regarding the relationship
between work flexibility and job satisfaction, work flexibility and job performance, as well as work
flexibility and a combination of the two.
Section 3 is dedicated to the presentation of survey design, some theoretical considerations,
the methodology, and the data.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 4 of 53
Section 4 is dedicated to empirical results and it is divided into seven sub-sections. The first is
dedicated to the presentation of a profile of Romanian employees profile, while the next two present the
main characteristics of job satisfaction and work flexibility among Romanian employees. Analysis of
the impact of new forms of workspace flexibility on job satisfaction, job performance, personal time
and space management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and
professional relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
Section 4.5 presents the main differences among Romanian employees regarding different forms of
work flexibility, and Section 4.6 is dedicated exclusively to the development of a composite indicator
of Romanian employee flexibility using multiple correspondence analysis. The last sub-section tries
to respond to the following question, “Does flexible working increase job satisfaction?” to capture
the impact of both the flexibility composite indicator and the individual forms of work flexibility
on job satisfaction using the binomial logistic regression models emphasizing the main implications
for achieving sustainable HRM desideratum. The paper ends with main conclusions and policy
implications, which are considered fundamental in the process of redesigning HRM in the face of
“future work” challenges.
2. Theoretical Considerations and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Sustainable Human Resource Management Literature
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organisation’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable HRM. The employees are one of the most important stakeholders in an organization and
the organization as a whole is a stakeholder of HRM.
In a volatile labor market, it is becoming increasingly important to change the prevailing situation
where human resources are consumed rather than developed, if the focus is to increase the retention of
employees. In this endeavor, sustainable HRM has been included as a response to changes regarding
societal levels, labor market, and employment relations. Sustainable HRM represents an extension
of strategic HRM and presents a new approach to people management [1], being seen as a possible
solution to lead humanity back into HRM [2], while sustainability refers to resource regeneration,
development, and renewal. However, the difference between strategic and sustainable HRM implies
larger aims; while strategic HRM is determined by organizational performance, mainly in terms of
economic outcomes, sustainable HRM also considers social human, environmental, and financial
outcomes [1].
In terms of sustainability, it represents a survival strategy for organizations to arrange systems
where employees would have (a) the intention to work for a particular organization, (b) the capability
to perform tasks in a proper manner for business, and (c) the possibility to work toward better health,
lower stress, or a work–life balance [3].
Sustainable HRM is the result of various disciplines and research areas, focusing on corporate
sustainability and social responsibility and sustainable work systems. It respects the classic concepts and
practices regarding strategic management of human resources from the private sector [4]. Most HRM
models present the concept of work flexibility as having a direct and significant influence on the
management of people in organizations [5].
It has a wide scope, involving the creation of adequate working conditions, sustainable leadership,
cooperation and teamwork, diversity and multiculturalism, ethics and governance, value creation and
inculcation, health and safety, workforce involvement, and a sustainable environment [6]. Sustainability
can be used as a principle for HRM itself and the tasks of sustainable HRM are twofold. First, it cultivates
the conditions for personal employee sustainability and advances the ability of HRM systems to
regularly attract, regenerate and develop motivated and engaged employees by sustainably building
the HRM system itself [3].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 5 of 53
Esfahani et al. investigated the important features of a sustainable HRM in innovative organizations
to identify the relationship between psychological capital, human resource flexibility, and sustainable
HRM [7]. They examined HRM in innovative organizations that can benefit from psychological capital
and flexibility of human resources, with the results indicating that flexibility and functional optimism
of human resources significantly influenced the sustainability of human resources. Kazlauskaite and
Buciuniene [8] strongly believed that, in order to achieve and support the sustainable competitive
advantage, companies need to have unique, valuable, and inimitable employees.
A relevant contribution to the literature concerns the proposal made by Stankeviciute and
Savaneviciene [1] identifying 11 characteristics of sustainable HRM—long-term orientation, care of
employees, care of the environment, profitability, employee participation and social dialogue,
employee development, external partnership, flexibility, compliance beyond labor regulations,
employee cooperation, fairness, and equality. From all these characteristics, employee development
and flexibility affect overall level of job satisfaction, which is the subject matter of our research.
In designing sustainable HRM, Cohen et al. [9] mentioned three characteristics—equity, well-being,
and employee development—and the study is particularly relevant for our research in terms of the
last factor.
Zaugg [10] have taken into account the following characteristics of sustainable HRM: flexibility,
employee participation, value orientation, strategy orientation, competency and knowledge orientation,
stakeholder orientation, and building mutually trustful employee–employer relationships. Park [11]
associated six themes with sustainable HRM—a diverse workforce, employees’ development, flexibility,
volunteer work, employees’ health, and green HRM.
A model of sustainable HRM and organizational performance was proposed by Nyameh [12],
highlighting the role of training, rewards, and participation on sustainable HRM outcomes, such as
employee satisfaction, employee motivation, and employee retention or loyalty.
Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcien ˙ e [ ˙ 1] argued that sustainable HRM reduces the negative impact
of HRM on employees and contributing to employee wellbeing by decreasing work-related stress,
work-family conflict, and burnout.
HRM practices lead to attracting, motivating, and retaining employees to ensure the survival of
the organization [13]. This practice considers that human capital plays a significant role in achieving
the organization’s goals [14], being positively correlated with the employee engagement if used
properly [15]. HRM practices are influenced by organizational performance and improve employee
well-being through job satisfaction and organizational commitment [16]. Other HRM practices such
as training and development and performance assessment encourage the employees to work better,
thus increasing the organizational performance [17]. Training gives employees the opportunity to
obtain knowledge and skills that can help them achieve their responsibilities adequately, resulting in
improved performance [18]. The characteristics of sustainable HRM affect employee satisfaction;
therefore, to ensure sustainability and increase the efficiency of the organization, it is necessary to meet
the needs of employees who benefit from good working conditions [1].
Figure 1 highlights the most relevant studies focusing on work flexibility, job satisfaction and job
performance, and also studies at the intersection of these three relevant topics. Table 1 presents an
overview of the most relevant studies regarding work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance
at a national level.
In order to increase business efficiency, competitiveness, success, and to ensure sustainability,
it is commonly agreed that the focus needs to also be on satisfying the needs of employees by
providing them with good working conditions [19–21]. Additionally, Al Mamun et al. [22], Cantele and
Zardini [23], Delmas and Pekovic [24], Pintão et al. [25], and Dongho [26] reinforced the core importance
of employee satisfaction and the fact that their productivity crucially impacts the company’s success or
failure. An increase in the overall level of employee satisfaction also increases the level of retention.
Work environment and working conditions are very important in this context. The ideal situation is for
employees to be satisfied with their conditions and work environment [27–29]. The importance of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 6 of 53
work environment in terms of enhancing satisfaction and motivation of employees, while increasing
corporate sustainability performance, has been highlighted by Chang et al. [30], Chatterjee et al. [31],
Gianni et al. [32], Roxas et al. [33], and Chandrasekar [34].
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 56
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of theoretical considerations between work flexibility, job
satisfaction, and job performance.
In order to increase business efficiency, competitiveness, success, and to ensure sustainability, it
is commonly agreed that the focus needs to also be on satisfying the needs of employees by providing
them with good working conditions [19–21]. Additionally, Al Mamun et al. [22], Cantele and Zardini
[23], Delmas and Pekovic [24], Pintão et al. [25], and Dongho [26] reinforced the core importance of
employee satisfaction and the fact that their productivity crucially impacts the company’s success or
failure. An increase in the overall level of employee satisfaction also increases the level of retention.
Work environment and working conditions are very important in this context. The ideal situation is
for employees to be satisfied with their conditions and work environment [27–29]. The importance of
work environment in terms of enhancing satisfaction and motivation of employees, while increasing
corporate sustainability performance, has been highlighted by Chang et al. [30], Chatterjee et al. [31],
Gianni et al. [32], Roxas et al. [33], and Chandrasekar [34].
Strenitzerová and Achimsky [6] offer a new perspective of the achievement of employee satisfaction
and loyalty as part of sustainable human resource management, revealing that higher financial rewards
lead to the greatest satisfaction, while the employees’ age, job position, and length of employment strongly
impact employee loyalty. The results present a particular interest for our research, since employee
satisfaction is seen as a key challenge for sustainable human resource management.
Giovanis [35] explored the relationship between job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and two
types of flexible employment arrangements—teleworking and flexible timing—revealing a positive
causal effect from these employment arrangements on job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Also,
our research treats the relationship between different forms of work flexibility and job satisfaction
among Romanian employees.
Analyzing different forms of employment and their relationship with employee loyalty, KotRadojewska and Timenko [36] provided evidence that the employees with an indefinite duration
employment contract exhibited a higher level of loyalty compared to those with a fixed-term
employment contract. This relevant finding will also be included in our research, but with an impact
on job satisfaction.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of theoretical considerations between work flexibility,
job satisfaction, and job performance.
Strenitzerová and Achimsky [6] offer a new perspective of the achievement of employee satisfaction
and loyalty as part of sustainable human resource management, revealing that higher financial
rewards lead to the greatest satisfaction, while the employees’ age, job position, and length of
employment strongly impact employee loyalty. The results present a particular interest for our research,
since employee satisfaction is seen as a key challenge for sustainable human resource management.
Giovanis [35] explored the relationship between job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and two types
of flexible employment arrangements—teleworking and flexible timing—revealing a positive causal
effect from these employment arrangements on job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Also, our research
treats the relationship between different forms of work flexibility and job satisfaction among
Romanian employees.
Analyzing different forms of employment and their relationship with employee loyalty,
Kot-Radojewska and Timenko [36] provided evidence that the employees with an indefinite duration
employment contract exhibited a higher level of loyalty compared to those with a fixed-term
employment contract. This relevant finding will also be included in our research, but with an
impact on job satisfaction.
Although there is an extensive body of literature written of job satisfaction, Gazioglu and
Tansel [37] provide an interesting analysis of the determinants of job satisfaction in Britain considering
the following four different measures of job satisfaction: satisfaction with their influence over the
job, satisfaction with the amount of pay received, satisfaction with the sense of achievement gained,
and satisfaction with the level of respect given from supervisors. Among the interesting results
obtained, and taking into account the aim of our research, they found that long working hours
reduce satisfaction, while those employees who had job training were more satisfied than those
who had no training opportunities. These results are even more relevant from the perspective of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 7 of 53
working time and functional flexibility and led us to research how these characteristics affect Romanian
employee satisfaction.
Flexibility is an important characteristic of sustainable HRM [1,11] that primarily reflects the needs
of employees. Sustainability in the field of human resources and its benefits imply a broader approach
to labor regulations, as compliance with institutional requirements does not lead to sustainability [38].
It represents the capability of organizations to confront the dynamics and uncertainty of their
environments, rapidly changing their organizational routines or resource bases.
Work flexibility and its implementation have occupied an important place in the last few decades
in industrial sociology and human resource management, becoming a popular term in many fields and
directions of research, presented as a necessity in the contemporary workplace [39]. Since organizational
environments have become more complex and dynamic, companies increasingly use HRM practices
that enhance their flexibility, such as contingent work, part-time or temporary work, and flexible
contract work [40].
From the perspective of employees’ initiatives regarding the work they performed or the way
they are employed, Reilly [41] proposed five types of work flexibility—functional, numerical, temporal,
local, and financial. An alternative classification of work flexibility arrangements have been proposed
by the International Classification for Standards, according to which there are two types of work
flexibility—on the one hand, there is a quantitative flexibility (involving changes regarding the number
of employees and working hours), and on the other hand, there is a qualitative flexibility (involving
the content of competence and quality of work) [42].
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM pointed out by Stankeviciute and
Savaneviciene [1], two core characteristics are of particular interest for our research—employee
development and a mix of flexible working time, and new types of workspaces to increase job
satisfaction leading to sustainable HRM. Casuneanu identified the following four different forms
of work flexibility: working time flexibility, contractual flexibility, functional flexibility (vocational
training), and wage flexibility [43].
In light of sustainability, functional flexibility achieved through employee development is even
more important from the perspective of acquiring of skills and developing capacities that employees
will need in the future. Thus, the development of employees needs to take into account the investment
in future skills, and the employees’ need to be regarded as two facets: the main asset as well as an
agent of change [1]. Hirsig et al. [44] argue that, “it becomes more and more important to invest in
continuous training and education for the workforce rather than in infrastructure and equipment.”
Hirsig et al. [44] and Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcie [ ˙ 1] highlighted the importance of investment
in training and education for human resources, creating a win–win situation both for employees (future
employability and career opportunities) and for employer (profitability and success).
The presence of sustainability in HRM can be revealed through employee development through
on the job training, which can be seen as a cost-saving approach, leading in turn to higher job
motivation [45] as well as through mentoring and sharing the knowledge with new employees [46],
sending the message that through training and development, the company is interested in their long
term retention. Employee development can be seen also as a mechanism for helping individuals in
achieving their own self-development and self-enrichment goals or as learning opportunities seen as a
“sustainable” investment in personnel [46,47]. In conclusion, employees’ development is regarded
as an important element of sustainable HRM and represents an important aspect of our research,
aiming to examine its relationship with job satisfaction.
Flexibility represents another important characteristic of sustainable HRM, mainly being reflected
in terms of employee needs. Furthermore, we refer to different types of work flexibility, from contractual
flexibility or flexible employment to working time arrangements and new workspaces.
Among these forms of work flexibility, the relatively short-term perspective of contractual
flexibility based on different types of employment contracts (part-time work or fixed-term employment)
makes it difficult to support in some ways the idea of sustainability, which implies a long-run approach.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 8 of 53
According to Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcien ˙ e [ ˙ 1], the only way in which this contractual flexibility
could lead to sustainability is if it helps the labor market integrate particular groups (students or
persons with disabilities). Although flexible employment does not support the idea of sustainability
within HRM, the increasing incidence of non-standardized forms of employment are creating structural
changes regarding work patterns in Romania, leading us to include it in the analysis with the aim of
revealing its impact on the overall level of job satisfaction.
On the other hand, flexible working time and workspaces support the sustainability in the HRM,
not only from the perspective of the environmental benefits, due to working from home and thus less
use of company cars and less need for large company buildings [48], but also from the perspective of
the employees’ heightened satisfaction, freedom, and control, it being acknowledged that a mix of
flexible working time and new types of workspaces increases job satisfaction, leading to sustainable
HRM [1]. From this precise point of view, it very important to identify the forms of work flexibility
that exhibited a positive impact on employee job satisfaction and job performance.
If a company intends to adopt a sustainable HRM, their focus needs to be on their employees’
development, advancing them in sustainability by assigning task forces, in-depth training, flexible
workhours, and a workspace with beneficial environmental impacts.
Work Flexibility in Times of Crisis
Before the coronavirus crisis, employees were already demanding a new focus on life. Workplaces
faced constant change prior to the pandemic, and there will be more to come. In her article published
on Gallup website [49], Mullen O’Keefe argued that, “Flexibility will look different in each workplace
because culture is as unique to an organization as DNA is to a person.”
Certain jobs require employees to be physically present. Thus, this particularly situation which
we are facing, offers the opportunity of revisiting the company policies in order to better incorporate
flexibility overall. There is a debate how the labor market will look after the pandemic, and an
answer needs to be given of whether employees will continue working from home when public health
restrictions are no longer necessary.
According to Mullen O’Keefe, in addition to the “when,” managers should consider if the “where”
for workers can change too [49]. Full-time remote work is not the only solution. According to
Cheremond [50], the main findings of the recent Gartner poll revealed that one of the future work
trends post pandemic refers to the increase of remote working, stipulating that 48% of employees most
likely will decide to work remotely at least part of the time after COVID-19 compared with only 30% of
them before the pandemic; flexible working will be a new normal after the virus.
The measures of social and physical distance aimed at stopping the transmission of COVID-19 and
preventing the emergence of new ones imposed physical distance between people (at least one meter)
and reduced contact with contaminated surfaces, encouraging and supporting a virtual connection
within families and communities. Regarding the development of professional activities, work flexibility
was introduced, such as teleworking, distance learning, reduction and avoidance of congestion, and the
closure of non-essential facilities and services [51].
The coronavirus pandemic resulted in the largest number of employees worldwide being forced to
work remotely, with working at home becoming the new normal [52]. The impact of COVID-19 on the
labor market differs considerably between countries. Employees in Germany have a well-established
short-term work schedule and are unlikely to be affected by the crisis. Within countries, impacts are
uneven and exacerbate existing inequalities. Workers in alternative employment arrangements and
occupations, characterized by a small part of the tasks performed from home, have experienced reduced
hours, job losses, and declining earnings [53]. Working from home can be useful for people working in
IT or other industries, but there are employees for whom working from home is not possible, even in
a crisis. The health crisis has affected training efforts; therefore, retraining has become a challenge.
All these consequences could have been minimized if they had been planned well in advance or if
employees had been familiar with such strategies [54].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 9 of 53
All measures taken during the coronavirus crisis will have short-term and long-term effects on
people’s lives, especially on working life, given the changes regarding work arrangements (short-term
work, flexible location, and time). The relationships between work and career of people working in
flexible roles could be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, generating an examination of the effects
on the work and career of those people, so that the pandemic can contribute to the flexible working
offset [55]. The importance of employee satisfaction during the crisis, referring to the coronavirus
crisis, was analyzed by Shan and Thang. The results indicated that companies with higher employee
satisfaction are more resistant to negative shocks across the market during the COVID-19 outbreak [56].
Akkermans et al. identified the Covid-19 pandemic as a career shock, which will have a major
impact on people’s work and careers. The impact of the crisis will depend on contextual and individual
factors and will affect people differently depending on their stage of career and life. Although the
pandemic represents a negative career shock, it can have long-term positive implications, the short-term
consequences are different from the long-term ones [57].
Before the coronavirus crisis, the business world was already opening up to the idea of remote
work. A survey conducted by LinkedIn at the end of 2019, indicated that home working is an
attractive concept for both employers and employees, with benefits such as better work–life balance,
increased productivity, and lower costs for buildings and infrastructure. This idea was strengthened
during the pandemic, as it was observed that flexibility in work is a viable solution, with some
managers claiming that it increased employee productivity, which could lead to a reassessment of how
people will work after the pandemic [58].
Megan Brenan [59] has already indicated a change—“three out of five US workers who did
their homework during the coronavirus pandemic would prefer to continue working as far away as
possible,” and 41% said they would prefer to return to their work or office to work after the crisis.
These changes will result in a work reorganization, as long as flexibility does not change performance
targets. Flexibility at work must be “business as usual” and not just something to resort to in times
of crisis.
As the pandemic resets major work trends, HR leaders need to rethink workforce and
employee-related strategies. Among these trends, one already marked shifts, others have new
impacts, referring to an increase the remote work, contingent worker expansion, a separation of critical
skills and roles, the (de)humanization of employees, and a transition from designing for efficiency to
designing for resilience.
2.2. Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction Literature
Job Satisfaction is an essential criterion that cannot be overestimated, representing a combination
of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that determine an employee’s
satisfaction with their job [48], emotional stability, and conscientiousness [60].
Regarding the employee role at work, satisfaction can be defined as emotional orientations on the
part of employees toward the work roles they perform [47], greatly influencing employee motivation,
which influences productivity and, therefore, organization performance as a whole [61].
Many studies have highlighted the fact that employee motivation influences job satisfaction,
while the level of motivation has an impact on productivity and therefore on company performance.
The employees’ perceptions of the nature of their work have a considerable impact on job satisfaction
level, with financial compensation having a significant impact on overall employee satisfaction [47].
Other studies have analyzed job performance, satisfaction and the intention of resigning, the result of
which indicates that low-performing employees leave their jobs for various reasons [62].
The factors that significantly influence job satisfaction and career advancement are age,
work seniority, gender, education, position in the organization [63–65], employee abilities, and country
of residence [42]. Other determinants of job satisfaction are communication and the nature of work [66],
as well as the national culture, which moderates the relationship between leadership behavior and job
satisfaction [67] and generates an increase in satisfaction [68].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 10 of 53
At a national level, employee job satisfaction has been the subject of many empirical studies,
analyzing factors influencing employee satisfaction [69] and testing empirically motivation theories [70].
Key factors enhancing overall levels of job satisfaction are communication and nature of work [71],
the economic status provided by a particular job [69], emotional stability [60], financial incentives [72],
and the combination between extrinsic factors (bonuses and monetary benefits) and intrinsic factors
(professional fulfilment and good relationships) [73].
Origo and Pagani [42] and Possenriede and Plantenga [74] analyzed the relationship between work
flexibility and job satisfaction revealing that temporary and local work flexibility requires employees’
control over their professional life, improving the link between paid work and private life, and leading
to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction. Flexible work leads to greater job satisfaction and
low level of burnout and stress [75], with benefits to employee health and well-being [76] correlating
with a good work–family relationship and high job satisfaction [77]. The results of these studies are of
particular importance, since the relationship between work flexibility and job satisfaction is the subject
matter of our research.
The main factors that influence job satisfaction and flexibility in different Romanian companies
were investigated by Că¸suneanu et al. [78], revealing that a flexible schedule is essential in improving
work motivation, with employees of small companies assigning a higher level of importance to remote
work or teleworking. Romanian employees expect to be rewarded for personal characteristics and
work behavior with non-financial rewards, appreciation, and recognition being equally important
as any financial rewards [71]. Other studies have indicated that rewards positively influence job
satisfaction [79].
Based on previous theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses are created to stipulate
how the main four types of flexibility (contractual, functional, working time, and workspace) will
highlight the relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as part of sustainable HRM
in increasing the overall level of job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). On average, there is a moderate level of work flexibility among Romanian employees.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Different types of work flexibility lead to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction,
contributing to the achievement of sustainable HRM.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). The employee flexibility composite indicator leads to an increase in overall level of job
satisfaction, contributing to the achievement of sustainable HRM.
2.3. Work Flexibility and Job Performance Literature
Job performance is a central element within industrial and organizational psychology,
reflecting scalable actions, behaviors, and outcomes that employees engage with, or contribute to,
within organizations [80], and being defined by how employee behaviors contribute to organizational
goals [81]. Job performance is influenced by individual characteristics (experience and ability),
outcomes (e.g., feedback and job security), work environment [82], and education [83]. The general
individual determinants for job performance are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and
skills, and motivation [84].
In accordance to our objectives, it is worth to mention the findings of Waldman and Spangler [85],
who developed an integrated model of job performance, influenced by individual characteristics
(experience, ability), outcomes (feedback, job security), but also by work environment.
In Romania, several intrinsic factors contribute to increased job performance, resulting in employees
feeling appreciated and consequently pursuing the organization’s objectives, leading to an increase in job
involvement, a decrease in absenteeism, and a boost in self-confidence [86] leading to fewer fluctuations
regarding the job [85]. Additionally, factors such as self-determination [87], job tability, authority,
responsibility and autonomy at work, workplace comfort, advancement prospects, benefits packages,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 11 of 53
professional development, job attractiveness, remuneration [85], effective communication between
management and employees, early distribution of tasks, a feeling of recognition, and an attractive
salary [88] are also important in increasing employee performance.
Work adjustment theory states that work flexibility leads to higher employee involvement and an
increased level of job performance. If Bal and DeLane [89] proved that the relationship between work
flexibility and job performance was mediated by employee commitment, it was also demonstrated that
time flexibility significantly impacted labor productivity [90,91].
Significant results proving that work flexibility leads to performance has been provided by
Beltrán-Martín et al. [92], Lepak et al. [93], Martinez-Sanchey et al. [90], Bran and Udrea [91] and
Valverde et al. [94].
Research has also proven that investments in human capital also increase labor productivity,
as well as employee stability in the labor market, employability, and adaptability to new global labor
conditions, including job performance [95,96].
Today, flexibility in the workplace is an increasing need in companies in order to recruit the best
staff and to increase productivity among employees. Labor market flexibility is important as it is a
positive quality that is highly valued by both jobseekers and employers.
Based on previous theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses have been created in order
to stipulate how the new forms of workspace flexibility lead to an increase in job performance, a better
management of personal time and space, a higher level of comfort, improved personal and professional
relationships, a higher level of learning and professional development, and increased work motivation:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Total home office (HOT), as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level of job
performance, a better management of personal time and space, and a higher level of comfort.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Partial home office (HOP), as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level
of organizational performance, improved work motivation, improved personal and professional relationships,
and higher level of learning and professional development.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Co-working (CW), as new type of working, is associated with improved personal and
professional relationships and higher levels of learning and professional development.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Flex office [FO], as new type of working, is associated with improved personal and
professional relationships.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). Partial home office (HOP) is associated with an improved level of work motivation.
2.4. Theoretical Considerations on the Relationship between Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction,
and Job Performance
Flexible work practices are designed to meet the needs of employers, thus improving the work–life
balance of employees in a manner consistent with the needs of the company and conducing to job
satisfaction and job performance. For both companies and the labor market in general, work flexibility
is seen as the key to success, influencing working conditions, productivity, profitability, and overall
performance. Economists argue that work flexibility has relevant effects on workers’ well-being and
job satisfaction [3,95].
Carvalho and Cabral-Cardoso revealed that numerical and functional flexibility can be achieved
simultaneously and interdependently by implementing a unique HRM system based on workforce
commitment [97]. Businesses with flexible operations often have several forms of flexible working
models that reflect an innovation in human resource management [98].
Analyzing the influence of sustainable human resource management (HRM) practices on workplace
performance, Manzoor et al. demonstrated that HRM practices, such as employee selection, participation,
and empowerment significantly and positively influenced employee work performance [95].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 12 of 53
National empirical evidence on work flexibility has been demonstrated by the studies of
Casuneanu [96], Lefter et al. [99], Dima et al. [100], Lefter and Casuneanu [101], and Lefter et al. [102],
and Casuneanu et al. [78].
In summary, the core idea of all empirical studies regarding work flexibility characteristics of
Romanian employees refers to teamwork and usage of information technology as primordial elements
of flexibility, while the most important forms of flexibility in the opinion of Romanian employees are
team autonomy and working time flexibility. Therefore, the importance of work flexibility is once
again highlighted, and the motivation of our research could also be explained from this perspective.
Although there are several other studies examining the relationship between work flexibility and
job satisfaction, and studies examining the relationship between work flexibility and job performance,
there are relatively few studies analyzing the relationship between work flexibility and both job
performance and satisfaction simultaneously.
Significant results of the impact of work flexibility on job satisfaction and job performance have
been provided by Orpen [103], Solanki [104], Al Omar et al. [105], Govender et al. [106], Lefter et al. [101],
Casuneanu [96], and Burtăverde [107]. In his study, Orpen [103] validated only the relationship between
work flexibility and job satisfaction and invalidated the relationship between work flexibility and
job performance.
The link between flexible work arrangements, satisfaction, and performance was investigated by
Govender et al. [106]. The results indicated that most employees are satisfied with their actual work
arrangements and work flexibility which could contribute to their decision to remain with their current
employer. Job performance and work flexibility have a strong positive correlation and flexible work
arrangements improve employee retention and job satisfaction, increasing productivity.
The link between work flexibility, job satisfaction and job performance in Romania was analyzed by
Lefter et al. [99] using survey data based on a sample of 220 employees; the empirical results highlighting
that work flexibility (flexible schedule, teleworking, or reduced working time) significantly influences
job satisfaction and job performance. In addition, flexible work has been found to significantly influence
employee well-being, personal and professional performance, and the overall level of motivation.
Casuneanu [96] pointed out the importance of flexible hours, among other motivational factors,
in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
In this context of work flexibility and job satisfaction, and respectively, work flexibility and job
performance, it is also worth analyzing potential links between job satisfaction and job performance
within the literature. The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been studied
throughout the history of industrial and organizational psychology, with many researchers considering
a causal relationship between satisfaction and performance [108].
Satisfied employees are found to perform better and contribute to the organization success [109].
The positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been provided by the
studies of Christen et al. [110], Katzell et al. [111], O’Leary et al. [112], Norris and Niebuhr [113],
Petty et al. [114], and Neagu [115].
Pavalache-Ilie [80] studied the relationship between “good soldier syndrome” and job satisfaction
by researching two independent studies (public and private) conducted in Romania. The results
indicated that job satisfaction is associated with performance behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship,
self-efficacy, hospitality, and seniority within the organization), with the involvement in public
organizations being more intense than in private ones.
In the context of today’s economy, when professionals can choose from a wide range of offers
available on the labor market, employers must reinvent themselves and begin to offer potential
employee’s alternative benefits other than simply financial ones. Most of the time, the flexibility of the
organization can determine, not only the employee’s longevity but, more importantly, their motivation
to work hard and to be productive. Employer flexibility benefits not only the employees but also the
organization that offers it. Rigidity removes talent, and in a free, growing market, potential employees
have the opportunity to explore their options before they choose a position.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 13 of 53
Table 1. An overview of the most relevant studies on work flexibility job satisfaction and job performance at a national level.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility
Lefter, Davidescu, and
Casuneanu (2017) [99] Sample of 100 employees
Principal
Components
Analysis
Most respondents consider teamwork and the use of information
technology to be key elements of work flexibility.
Dima, T, uclea, Vrânceanu,
and T
, igu [100] Sample of 1180 employees
Model based on
structural
equations
At an individual level, telework could establish a greater work-life
balance, and at a social level, it could generate lasting effects for
long-term labor management.
Lefter and Că¸suneanu
(2018) [101] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire The main forms of flexibility at work in Romanian companies are represented by teamwork, computer use, and telework.
Casuneanu, Lefter, and
Davidescu (2019) [78] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
Measures to be taken to improve employee motivation are flexible
program in case of big companies, while the small companies
employees consider the ability to work from home (remote work) or
near to the house (teleworking) to be important.
Lefter, Casuneanu, and
Enache (2018) [102] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
The main elements of flexibility (teamwork and usage of information
technology) are very important for Romanian employees-autonomy of
work teams and working time flexibility.
Job
satisfaction
Pook, Fustos, and Marian
(2003) [65]
Sample of 932 employees from
Hungary, Poland and Romania Questionnaire Degree of functioning, gender and position significantly influence job satisfaction and advancement.
Analoui (2000) [74] 23 Romanian organizations Questionnaire and
sample interviews
Recognition and appreciation, salary and remuneration, promotion
status and professional satisfaction are key factors among Romanian
managers.
Săveanu and Săveanu
(2011) [69] Sample of 1489 subjects European Values Survey 2008 Work is very important for Romanians, and the main factor that influences job satisfaction is the economic situation.
Matei and Abrudan
(2016) [68]
100 online recruitment
companies Questionnaire
Intrinsic factors have generated an increase regarding the level of
satisfaction, proving that the theory is not adequate to the Romanian
cultural context.
Burlacu and Birsan
(2016) [116] Sample of 500 subjects Questionnaire
Almost half of the interviewees consider that the salary is not sufficient
to cover the monthly expenses, the salaries cannot be considered
satisfactory nor can they ensure a proper quality of life.
Tampu (2016) [72] Sample of 629 employees Questionnaire Main motivational factors are focusing on extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation, attitude at work, job satisfaction, rewards, and incentives.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 14 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Job
satisfaction
Matei and Fataciune
(2016) [66]
Sample of 120 employees from
public and private sector
Job satisfaction
survey
Communication and the nature of work are determinants of job
satisfaction work, highlighting a higher satisfaction for private
employees.
Cristescu, Stănilă, and
Andreica (2013) [73]
Sample of 355 employees from
public sector Questionnaire
A combination of external advantages (bonuses and non-monetary
benefits) and intrinsic factors (satisfaction and professional fulfilment,
good relations with the local community) increase the professional
motivation of civil servants.
Job
performance
Mihalcea (2013) [85] Sample Questionnaire
Leaders who registered task orientation, dominance, ambition,
independence, and self-confidence generate a low level of satisfaction
among their employees, being identified by moderate correlation, and
managers who generated professional satisfaction were characterized
by sensitivity to other people’s problems, the need for affiliation and
support, less assertive and reduced control over the work of
subordinates.
Ölçer and Florescu
(2015) [87] Sample Questionnaire
Competence, self-determination and impact have positively influenced
the work performance of employees. Job satisfaction led to job
performance, and job satisfaction partially mediated the relationships
between competence and performance at work.
Bercu and Onofrei
(2017) [86] Sample Questionnaire
The results revealed that intrinsic factors are a priority, employees who
feel valued will pursue the organization’s goals, work involvement will
increase, absenteeism will be reduced and there will be less fluctuations
in the workplace. The main motivation of civil servants leading to job
performance is job stability, followed by authority, responsibility and
autonomy at work, comfort, prospect of advancement, benefits
package, professional development, job attractiveness, and
remuneration.
Tampu and Cochina
(2015) [88]
Sample of 629 employees from
multinationals in Bucharest Questionnaire
Communication between the management team and employees, early
distribution of tasks, recognition or an attractive salary are relevant in
increasing employee performance.
Suciu, Mortan, and Lazăr
(2013) [70]
Sample of civil servants in the
North-West Region Questionnaire The results highlighted a direct link between job performance and expectation, influencing their motivation to work.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 15 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility
and job
satisfaction
Că¸suneanu, Lefter, and
Davidescu (2019) [78] Sample Questionnaire
The empirical results revealed that the employees of small companies
are the most satisfied with their current job and the salary received, and
the least satisfied are the employees of medium or large companies.
Buzea (2014) [79] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that Romanian employees expect to be rewarded
for personal characteristics, followed by work behavior. Non-financial
rewards, appreciation, and recognition are just as important as the
financial reward.
Tănăsescu and Leon
(2019) [117] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that rewards positively influence job satisfaction,
while the relationships between job satisfaction and job performance,
and between rewards and job performance are not significant.
Flexibility
and job
performance
Wallace (2003) [118]
Sample in eight countries (UK,
Netherlands, Sweden, Czechia,
Hungary, Slovenia, Romania,
and Bulgaria)
The results identified high flexibility for highly educated people and
low flexibility for people with low education, low incomes, and often
with young workers and those in rural areas.
Bran and Udrea (2016) [91] Sample Questionnaire
The results identified that increasing work flexibility significantly
improved job performance, motivation leading to performance, and in
conjunction with flexibility lead to superior performance.
Serban (2012) [119] Sample Questionnaire
Labor market flexibility has a beneficial impact on labor productivity.
Investments in human capital increase labor productivity, employee
stability in the labor market, employability and adaptability to new
global labor conditions, including job performance.
Job
satisfaction
and job
performance
Neagu (2010) [115] Sample Questionnaire
The results concluded that job satisfaction is positively correlated with
communication and motivation, and inversely correlated with
organizational commitment.
Pavalache-Ilie (2013) [80] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that job satisfaction is associated with performance
behaviors (organizational citizenship, self-efficacy, hospitality, and
seniority within the organization), and the involvement in public
organizations being more intense than in private ones.
Ionescu and Horga
(2013) [120]
Sample of employees in tourism
sector Questionnaire
The results highlighted the importance of job satisfaction and effective
communication within companies, leading to higher financial
performance.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 16 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility, job
satisfaction
and job
performance
Lefter, Davidescu, and
Casuneanu (2017) [99] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
Empirical results identified that work flexibility (flexible working
hours, teleworking or reduced working hours) significantly influenced
job satisfaction and job performance. In addition, flexible work has
significantly influenced well-being, personal and professional
performance, and motivation.
Burtăverde (2015) [107] Sample of 144 employees Questionnaire
The results indicated life satisfaction in general is directly correlated
with honesty and health, and between emotional factor and job
satisfaction the link is reversed. A positive relationship was
determined between conscientiousness, job satisfaction, satisfaction
with life and health, and between openness and satisfaction with life.
Casuneanu (2011) [96] Sample of 402 employees
CATI system
(telephone-assisted
telephone
interview).
Employees are looking for jobs that provide them with stability and
security.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 17 of 53
3. Data and Methods
In order to investigate the relationship between work flexibility as part of sustainable HRM and
job satisfaction and job performance as sustainable HRM outcomes among Romanian employees,
the research aims to respond to the following specific questions:
What kind of work flexibility elements are present in Romanian organizations? To what extent
are different forms of work flexibility present within Romanian organizations? Is HOT, as a new
type of working, related to a higher level of job performance and comfort and better management of
personal time and space? Is HOP, as a new type of working, related to a higher level of organizational
performance, higher work motivation, higher personal, professional relationships, and higher level of
learning and professional development? Is CW, as a new type of working, related to higher personal,
professional relationships and higher level of learning and professional development? Is FO, as a new
type of working, associated with higher personal, professional relationships? Is HOP related to a
higher level of work motivation? Overall, is there an average medium level of work flexibility among
Romanian employees? What is the level of work flexibility registered by most employees? How many
employees have a high level of work flexibility?
Do different forms of work flexibility increase the overall level of job satisfaction? Does an employee
flexibility composite index lead to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction, contributing to the
achievement of sustainable HRM?
In order to assess this, a quantitative sociological survey was conducted based on a structured
questionnaire among adults aged 15–64 who, at the time of the survey, were employees. The sampling
was of probabilistic stage-type stratified. The sampling layers targeted were employee regional
distribution, distribution by areas of activity, gender distribution, and distribution by area of residence
(urban/rural). The study was conducted on a nationally representative sample of 220 people.
Data collection was performed on 16 counties and Bucharest, cumulating a total of 50 sampling
points (national, urban and rural). The study was conducted face to face and the collection period was
29 October–11 November 2018. The national representation of the sample has been assessed, by testing
that there is no statistically significant difference between population mean and sample mean for the
characteristic-respondent age, by testing that there is no statistically significant difference between
population variance at regional level and sample variance at regional level, and through a similar
sample gender distribution at national level with that one of the population.
The questionnaire contains information regarding the overall level of job and salary satisfaction,
the most relevant motivational factors, the main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian
companies, the main forms of work flexibility, urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s
management to improve flexibility and job satisfaction, new spaces of working and how working in
these spaces could impact wellbeing, professional growth and development, social and professional
relationships, personal professional performance, and organizational performance.
The research assessed the notoriety of new types of working (HOT, HOP, FO, and CW) on
organizational performance and feedback from people in offices.
Flex office (FO) designates spaces with impersonal and non-territorial workstations, correlated
with spaces that create better facilities for meetings, concentration, creative activities, learning activities,
and others. Co-working (CW) refers to the activities carried out in rented spaces, by people with
diverse, frequently complementary activities, which they could also carry out at home, but prefer to do
in a multi-relationship environment. Home office is work from home, either full time (HOT) or part
time (HOP).
Within the survey, the following four types of work flexibility have been analyzed: working time
flexibility, contractual flexibility, functional flexibility, and workspace flexibility.
Contractual flexibility was assessed through different types of contracts—full-time employment
contract, part-time employment contract, fixed-term employment contract, work-from-home contract,
distance work (work from a distance, from home or close to home), or other types of contracts (on
request, division of labor) using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 18 of 53
Working time flexibility was evaluated based on seven items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Functional flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous variables
coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Working space flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The presence of the main forms of work flexibility was assessed using dichotomous variables
encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The major characteristics of working time and functional flexibility were quantified using
dichotomous variables encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s management to improve flexibility and
job satisfaction of employees’ work were quantified using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for
presence and 0—otherwise.
The potential impact of new types of working on work efficiency and productivity, on improving
interpersonal relationships by meeting new people, the ability to gain new knowledge, the ability
to increase company performance due to increased profit and more efficient use of workspace,
increased personal comfort, and more efficient management of working time, and the increase of
employee motivation was evaluated based on nine items quantified using dichotomous variables
coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The analysis of the main specificities of work flexibility and job satisfaction was performed
based on descriptive statistics and charts. The investigation of the main differences of opinion
regarding the main forms of work flexibility among Romanian employees was performed based on the
non-parametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests.
In order to develop a multidimensional flexibility indicator, we have incorporated information
from four areas totaling 18 binary items with 36 categories as follows (Figure 2):
X contractual flexibility: four items;
X working time flexibility: seven items;
X functional flexibility: three items;
X working space flexibility: four items.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 56
Working time flexibility was evaluated based on seven items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Functional flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Working space flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The presence of the main forms of work flexibility was assessed using dichotomous variables
encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The major characteristics of working time and functional flexibility were quantified using
dichotomous variables encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s management to improve flexibility and
job satisfaction of employees’ work were quantified using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for
presence and 0—otherwise.
The potential impact of new types of working on work efficiency and productivity, on
improving interpersonal relationships by meeting new people, the ability to gain new knowledge,
the ability to increase company performance due to increased profit and more efficient use of
workspace, increased personal comfort, and more efficient management of working time, and the
increase of employee motivation was evaluated based on nine items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The analysis of the main specificities of work flexibility and job satisfaction was performed based
on descriptive statistics and charts. The investigation of the main differences of opinion regarding
the main forms of work flexibility among Romanian employees was performed based on the nonparametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests.
In order to develop a multidimensional flexibility indicator, we have incorporated information
from four areas totaling 18 binary items with 36 categories as follows (Figure 2):
 contractual flexibility: four items;
 working time flexibility: seven items;
 functional flexibility: three items;
 working space flexibility: four items.
Figure 2. Figure 2. The scheme of employee flexibility composite indicator (CFI). The scheme of employee flexibility composite indicator (CFI).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 19 of 53
Taking into account the fact that the variables are dichotomous, multiple correspondence
analysis (MCA) has been applied [121]. MCA has been applied by Asselin and Vu Tuan [122]
in Vietnam; Ki et al. [123] in Senegal; Ningaye and Ndjanyou [124] and Njong and Ningaye [125] in
the case of Cameroon; and be Njong and Ningaye [125], Ezzari and Verme [126], Canuel et al. [127],
and Asselin [121] to generate composite indices for poverty.
From the technical point of view, MCA is obtained by using a standard correspondence analysis
on an indicator matrix (i.e., a matrix whose entries are 0 or 1). The MCA assumption is extracting
a first factor which retains maximum information contained in this matrix and furthermore, to use
this information to generate a composite indicator for each employee [128]. The difference between
this approach and PCA is that the dependent variable is unobserved and cannot be used directly to
estimate correlation coefficients, employee flexibility being considered as a multidimensional latent
(unobserved) variable [128].
For the construction of a CFI from K ordinal categorical indicators, the monotonicity axiom,
stipulating that if employee “i” increases its situation for a given variable, then its composite flexibility
index value CFIi increases: its flexibility level increases (larger values mean higher flexibility).
The monotonicity axiom translates into the first axis ordering consistency (FAOC) principle [123].
This implies that the first axis must have growing factorial scores indicating a movement from
non-flexible to flexible working status. For each of the nominal variables, the MCA calculates a
discrimination measure on each of the factorial axes. It represents the variance of the factorial scores
of all the modalities of the variable on the axis and measures the magnitude with which the variable
explains the axis.
Category quantification plots represent an alternative method of presenting discrimination of
variables that can identify category relationships. The coordinates of each category on each dimension
are presented in order to dispose which categories are related to each variable [129].
In order to build the composite indicator of flexibility, the weights given by MCA, corresponding
to the standardized scores on the first factorial axis, will be used. When all the variable modalities
have been converted into a dichotomous nature coded 0/1, giving a total of P binary indicators, the CFI
for a certain employee “i” can be written as [121]
CPIi = 1
KW1Ii1 + W2Ii2 + · · · + WpIip, (1)
where W = the weight (score of first standardized axis, (score/pλ1)) of category p, Ip = binary indicator
0/1, which takes on the value 1 when the employee has the modality and 0 otherwise. The CFI
value reflects the average global flexibility level of a particular employee. Furthermore, the index is
transformed using the percentile rank to take values between 0 and 100.
Using the composite indicator of employee work flexibility, we can assess the impact
of work flexibility on the overall level of job satisfaction using binomial logistic regression.
Alternatively, as robustness analysis, we have taken into account in the analysis the potential influence
of each type of work flexibility (contractual flexibility, working time, and functional flexibility and
workspace flexibility) together with individual control variables on the job satisfaction.
In order to do that, we have considered:
– Dependent variable:
• Job satisfaction level was measures using a five-point Likert scale using the following
categories: 1—very dissatisfied to 5—very satisfied answering to the following question:
Are you satisfied with your current job? Furthermore, the variable has been transformed
into a dichotomous one with the categories 1—satisfied and 0—otherwise.
– Explanatory variables on work flexibility:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 20 of 53
• Contractual flexibility: Within the organization you are employed: (1) based on an indefinite
duration employment contract with full time working; (2) on the basis of an employment
contract of indefinite duration with part-time work; (3) based on a fixed-term employment
contract with full working time; (4) based on a fixed-term employment contract with part-time
work; (5) based on home working contract; based on “telework” contract (work at distance,
from home or from a space near the house); based on other types of contracts (on call,
job sharing) coded with 1—yes, 0—no.
• Elements of working time flexibility coded by 1—yes, 0—no: Do you work 40 h a week at the
main job? Do you have more than one job? Do you work the same number of hours every
day? Do you work the same number of days every week? Do you start and end the program
at fixed hours? Do you work in shifts? Do you work flexible hours?
• Elements of functional flexibility conditioned by 1—yes, 0—no: Participation in training
courses paid by the employer; Participation in payment courses from own sources;
Beneficiaries of on-the-job training;
• Elements of new workspace flexibility, coded by 1—yes, 0—no: total home working, partial
home working, coworking, and flex office.
– Control variables:
• Gender: a dummy variable in which 1—man and 2—women.
• Age: a polychotomous variable with values: 1 for under 26 years, 2 for 26–35 years, 3 for
36–45 years, 4 for 46–55 years, 5 for over 55 years.
• Principal occupation: a polychotomous variable with the following values: 1—specialist
with higher education; 2—general manager, director or person holding a senior management
position; 3—person holding a middle management position (head of department, head of
office); 4—Technician; 5—employee in public services (hospital, public catering, education,
police, fire, etc.); 6—skilled worker; 7—unskilled worker; 8—another situation.
• Degree of salary satisfaction: a dichotomous variable that answers the question, How satisfied
are you with the salary you receive? With: 1—satisfied, 0—otherwise.
• Degree of satisfaction regarding working conditions: a dichotomous variable that answers the
question, How satisfied are you with working conditions? With: 1—satisfied, 0—otherwise.
• Seniority within the company: a polychotomous variable with values: 1 for under 1 year;
2 for 1–3 years; 3 for 3–5 years; 4 for 5–10 years; 5 for over 10 years.
• Company size: a polychromatic variable with the following values: 1 for 1–9 employees;
2 for 10–49 employees; 3 for 50–249 employees; 4 for more than 250 employees.
• Sector of activity: a polychotomous variable with values 1—agriculture; 2—manufacturing
industry; 3—wholesale; 4—retail trade; 5—services; 6—construction; 7—other sector.
• Legal status of the company: a polychotomous variable with values 1—limited liability
company (srl); 2—joint stock company; 3—partnership; 4—limited partnership (joint stock
company); 5—autonomous company; 6—national society; 7—other.
Logistic regression models the relationship between a set of independent variables xi (categorical,
continuous) and a dichotomous dependent variable (nominal, binary) Y. Such a dependent variable
occurs when it belongs to two classes, categories—presence/absence, yes/no.
The regression equation obtained provides information about (1) the importance of variables in
class differentiation and (2) the classification of an observation into a class. Logistic regression can be
extended to incorporate more than one explanatory variable, which can be quantitative or qualitative.
The logistic regression model can then be written as follows:
ln
p
1 – p! = β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk, (2)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 21 of 53
where p being P(y = 1|x1, x2, : : : , xk) and is the probability of the event and x1, x2, : : : xk are the
explanatory variables:

P(y = 1 jx1, x2, : : : , xk) = 1 + exp(β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk),

(3)

AssignmentTutorOnline

exp(β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk)
For the coefficient βi, we obtain
exp β0 =
P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0)
1 – P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk)
=
P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0
P(y = 0 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0
, (4)
After estimating the coefficients, the significance of the coefficients, the general goodness of the
model classification, and the capacity of the model to discriminate between the two groups defined by
the response variable is evaluated.
When building the model step by step, checking if the variable removed from the model is
significant, so if the model can be simplified, the LR test is recommended.
Because some data is “rare” (scattered), statistics comparing two models is not distributed χ2,
using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. The test consists of classifying the predicted probabilities into
deciles (10 groups based on the percentile rank) and calculating the χ2 statistic that compares the
observed frequencies with the predicted ones. Small values of the statistics indicate a good fit of
the forecasted data, so an adequacy of the model. In the logistic regression, were used Cox & Snell
Pseudo-R2 and Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 as goodness of fit indicators.
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Romanian Employee Sample Profile
From the total of 220 Romanian employees interviewed, 55% were males, 30% aged between
36–45 years old, and 30% aged between 46–55 years old. Five percent of them registered their age
as under 26 years old, and 7% were elderly (55 years and over). Almost 27% of employees have as
length of service over 10 years, while 82% of employees declared not to have management position
experience. Regarding the received monthly salary, 46% of the respondents declared to earn less than
2500 lei, while only 38% of them declared to earn between 2500–5000 lei. Only a very small proportion
of 2% of the respondents declared to have a salary greater than 7500 lei.
Taking into account professional status, 42% of employees were declared to be skilled workers,
only 19% were higher education specialists, and 15% were public services employees. Most of the
employees come from Bucharest-Ilfov (20%) or the north-west and center regions (13%), most of
them working in small companies with at most 50 employees (31%), followed by those ones from
large companies (27%), from services (44%), manufacturing industry (24%), and retail trade (11%).
Seventy percent of respondents were declared to work in limited liability companies, and only 7%
were in the public sector (Figure 3).
Sustainability Sustainability20202020,,1212, 6086 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 56 22 of 53
Figure 3. Figure 3. Dashboard of the Romanian employee sample profile. Dashboard of the Romanian employee sample profile.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 23 of 53
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed by
teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 56
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed
by teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while
an even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible
number of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed
respondents declared to have more than one job (Figure 6).
15% 17% 20% 24% 47%
81%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with full
working time:
96%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with
part-time work:
3%
on a fixedduration contract
of employment
with full-time
work: 1%
on a fixed-term
contract with
part-time work:
0%
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 56
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed
by teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while
an even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible
number of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed
respondents declared to have more than one job (Figure 6).
15% 17% 20% 24% 47%
81%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with full
working time:
96%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with
part-time work:
3%
on a fixedduration contract
of employment
with full-time
work: 1%
on a fixed-term
contract with
part-time work:
0%
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while an
even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible number
of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed respondents declared
to have more than one job (Figure 6).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 24 of 53
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 56
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in
Romanian companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses
paid by their own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion
(13%) of the Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Have you attended
training courses paid
for by your employer?
Have you benefited
from on-the-job
training?
Have you attended
paid training courses
from your own
sources?
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in Romanian
companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses paid by their
own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion (13%) of the
Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds (Figure 7).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 56
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in
Romanian companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses
paid by their own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion
(13%) of the Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Have you attended
training courses paid
for by your employer?
Have you benefited
from on-the-job
training?
Have you attended
paid training courses
from your own
sources?
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
Numerical flexibility though flexible compensation and working time flexibility through flexible
work schedule have been mentioned as main measures needed in order to increase work flexibility.
Teleworking has been stipulated by only 13% of employees (Figure 9).
Romanian employees tend to be satisfied and very satisfied with their current job, almost 70% of
them declaring this. Regarding salary, a higher proportion (31%) of them declare themselves neutral,
and only 54% of them consider that the salary level is satisfactory for them (Figure 10).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 25 of 53
1
Figure 8. Main forms of workspace flexibility.
Figure 8. Main forms of workspace flexibility.
Numerical flexibility though flexible compensation and working time flexibility through flexible
work schedule have been mentioned as main measures needed in order to increase work flexibility.
Teleworking has been stipulated by only 13% of employees (Figure 9).
Romanian employees tend to be satisfied and very satisfied with their current job, almost 70%
of them declaring this. Regarding salary, a higher proportion (31%) of them declare themselves
neutral, and only 54% of them consider that the salary level is satisfactory for them (Figure 10).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 56 Figure 9. Figure 9.Main measures to be taken to increase the work flexibility. Main measures to be taken to increase the work flexibility.
Figure 10. Distribution of employees according to the level of satisfaction with the current job and salary.
Investigating the correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction, it can be stated that
job satisfaction is directly correlated with salary—the higher the salary, the higher the satisfaction.
This fact was highlighted by a positive and highly statistically significant value of both Kendall and
Spearman correlation coefficients of the ranks of both Kendall and Spearman, the association being
one of medium intensity (Table 2)
very
unsatisfied
unsatisfied either
unsatisfied
either satisfied
satisfied very satisfied
3% 5%
22%
43%
27%
3%
12%
31%
36%
18%
How satisfied are you with your current job? How satisfied are you with the salary you receive?
Figure 10. Distribution of employees according to the level of satisfaction with the current job and salary.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 26 of 53
Investigating the correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction, it can be stated that
job satisfaction is directly correlated with salary—the higher the salary, the higher the satisfaction.
This fact was highlighted by a positive and highly statistically significant value of both Kendall and
Spearman correlation coefficients of the ranks of both Kendall and Spearman, the association being
one of medium intensity (Table 2).
Table 2. The level of correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction.
How Satisfied Are
You with Your
Current Job?
How Satisfied Are
You with the Salary
You Receive?
Kendall’s tau_b
How Satisfied Are
You with Your
Current Job?
Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 0.601 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
Spearman’s rho How Satisfied Are
You with the Salary
You Receive?
Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 0.662 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Sig. = Significance.
Asked how they evaluated the motivation system in Romanian companies, most of respondents
Sustainability (46%) declared that it has not changed and only 34% of them said that it has improved (Figure 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 56 11).
Figure 11. In your opinion, compared to the previous year, how the motivation system in your
company changed?
For Romanian employees, bonuses, a potential good salary, work attractiveness and job stability
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of financialnon-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job stability
were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian
employees (Figure 12).
4.49 4.50 4.53 4.55 4.56
4.42
4.35 4.37
4.02 4.04
Figure 11. In your opinion, compared to the previous year, how the motivation system in your
company changed?
For Romanian employees, bonuses, a potential good salary, work attractiveness and job stability
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of
financial-non-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job
stability were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian employees
(Figure 12).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 27 of 53
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of financialnon-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job stability
were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian
employees (Figure 12).
Figure 12. The most important motivational factors for the Romanian employees.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives, even if it is known that
this type of measure will produce effects only in the short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility
through the participation to training courses, and the working time flexibility through a flexible
program as the main measures in increasing employee work motivation (Figure 13).
4.49 4.50 4.53 4.55 4.56
4.42
4.35 4.37
4.02 4.04
Figure 12. The most important motivational factors for the Romanian employees.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives, even if it is known that
this type of measure will produce effects only in the short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility
through the participation to training courses, and the working time flexibility through a flexible
program as the main measures in increasing employee work motivation (Figure Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 56 13).
Figure 13. Main measures that need to be taken in order to improve the motivation of the employees
of the organization.
Taking into account one of our objectives regarding the way in which new types of workspaces
(FO, CW, HOT, HOP) influence job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
This part of the analysis has a direct correspondence to our research questions and refers to
hypotheses H4–H8. The survey evaluates the best workplace from the employee point of view,
targeting two clusters-one of employees working in offices, at the level of which a choice of a different
work space than the one in which they are currently working has been forced, and the second one of
respondents who do not work in offices at the level of which there is the possibility to choose,
including the space in which they currently work as a desirable space. For both clusters of employees,
the impact on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management, level of
comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships, level
of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation was assessed.
However, from the perspective of work flexibility, we have undertaken in the analysis only the
first cluster of employees working in offices (individual office, office space with up to 10 units, and
Figure 13. Main measures that need to be taken in order to improve the motivation of the employees of
the organization.
Taking into account one of our objectives regarding the way in which new types of workspaces
(FO, CW, HOT, HOP) influence job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management,
level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships,
level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
This part of the analysis has a direct correspondence to our research questions and refers to
hypotheses H4–H8. The survey evaluates the best workplace from the employee point of view,
targeting two clusters-one of employees working in offices, at the level of which a choice of a different
work space than the one in which they are currently working has been forced, and the second one of
respondents who do not work in offices at the level of which there is the possibility to choose, including
the space in which they currently work as a desirable space. For both clusters of employees, the impact
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 28 of 53
on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management, level of comfort, level of
organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships, level of professional
development, and the overall level of work motivation was assessed.
However, from the perspective of work flexibility, we have undertaken in the analysis only the first
cluster of employees working in offices (individual office, office space with up to 10 units, and office
space with more than 10 units); these forms of working space flexibility are very important (Figure 14).
Home working have been mentioned as the perfect space for increasing employee productivity
(42.1%), employee comfort (36.8%), and personal time and space management (34.7%).
Partial home working is seen as optimal solution for increasing professional development
by learning new things (35.1%), for increasing the organizational performance (33.8%), and for
strengthening social and professional relationships (31.2%).
High percentages of positive contributions were assigned for CW in terms of personal and
professional relationship improvement, as well as learning and professional development, while FO
was designated to lead to personal and professional relationship improvement.
In terms of work motivation, almost one third of employees (29.8%) mentioned partial home
working as the perfect mix between higher productivity (produced from working from home) and the
social development obtained through the interaction of new people/colleagues.
Therefore, the new ways of working are well known and frequently used, and there is great
openness and interest in them. Home working has the most appreciations mainly in terms of labor
productivity, comfort, and time and space management, while partial home working has highly
appreciated in terms of organizational performance, relationships, learning and personal development.
In terms of relationships, learning and personal development contributions were also made by
co-working and flex-office. However, the most suitable solution, which results from the study, is a mix
between working from home and working in company offices.
4.3. A Brief Overview on the Main Differences Regarding Work Flexibility among Romanian Employees
According to another objective of our research, we have investigated the main differences regarding
work flexibility characteristics among Romanian employees, the main findings being synthesized as
follows (Table 3):
• The functional flexibility through training courses paid by the employer is more widespread in
large companies, among employees from age group 26–35 years being mostly higher education
specialists and technicians, or working in west and center regions, while employees from
Bucharest-Ilfov tend to pay for training courses themselves. Employees from age group 55 years
old benefited from on-th- job training;
• The lack of flexible working time arrangements has been pointed out by men, by employees aged
36–55 years old, by unqualified workers, by workers with small level of seniority in the company,
being more prevalent in South-East region;
• The contractual flexibility is more widespread among young employees under the age of 26 years
old, among men who are more inclined to have a flexible remuneration, depending on the effort
and the allocated time, together with the extension of holidays and also among employees with a
high level of seniority;
• The new ways of working tend to be more commonly known among employees from micro
companies, to be relevant for both qualified and unqualified workers, to be appreciated by
employees from the age group 36–45 years old. Home working and partial home working are
more present in the north-east region, while co-working and flex office are more prevalent in
the north-west;
• Teleworking has been designated as a main measure to increase work flexibility by men, by young
employees, by employees from the central region, by employees from middle management, by those
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 29 of 53
with between 3–5 years of experience in management positions, and by those with medium
earnings. Teleworking is also important for small companies and for limited liability companies.
• A flexible working schedule, flexible remuneration and the extension of holidays were considered
relevant methods for increasing work flexibility among men, higher education specialists,
and employees in medium and high-level management;
• Teamwork is important as a measure in increasing work flexibility for those employees with high
salaries belonging to middle management;
• Updating job posts according to new tasks is more common in large companies and among those
with high salaries and those with more than 10 years’ experience.
Figure 14. The impact of new forms of workspace.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 30 of 53
Table 3. The empirical results of the main differences regarding work flexibility characteristics.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Contractual flexibility
(type of contracts). 0.172 0.581 0.000 * 0.643 0.018 ** 0.381 0.713 0.884 0.621 0.423
Main forms of work flexibility present at the job
Rotation of stations. 0.417 0.081 *** 0.228 0.272 0.884 0.433 0.655 0.289 0.959 0.572
Teamwork. 0.194 0.235 0.581 0.084 *** 0.862 0.237 0.098 *** 0.300 0.581 0.318
Computer usage. 0.855 0.084 *** 0.073 *** 0.038 ** 0.795 0.361 0.140 0.342 0.542 0.862
Teleworking (remote work, at
home or at a nearby office). 0.050 ** 0.000 * 0.038 ** 0.072 *** 0.385 0.001 * 0.022 ** 0.081 *** 0.009 * 0.523
Improving of work
organization of work. 0.862 0.241 0.033 ** 0.931 1.000 0.620 0.559 0.616 0.528 0.714
Updating job post according
to new tasks. 0.285 0.177 0.523 0.992 0.311 0.020 ** 0.074 *** 0.098 *** 0.371 0.727
Main elements regarding the working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h per week
at the main job? 0.243 0.272 0.007 * 0.882 0.094 *** 0.910 0.542 0.813 0.831 0.098 ***
Do you have more than
one job? 0.723 0.387 0.571 0.035 ** 0.311 0.451 0.332 0.489 0.019 ** 0.674
Do you work the same
number of hours every day? 0.523 0.055 ** 0.419 0.298 0.553 0.446 0.375 0.630 0.260 0.122
Do you work the same
number of days every week? 0.315 0.165 0.921 0.810 0.427 0.433 0.410 0.842 0.251 0.637
Start and finish the program
at fixed hours? 0.086 *** 0.000 * 0.011 * 0.054 ** 0.003 * 0.645 0.179 0.376 0.514 0.069 ***
Are you working in shifts? 0.946 0.016 ** 0.219 0.000 * 0.791 0.165 0.003 0.060 0.194 0.003 *
Do you work flexible? 0.122 0.000 * 0.395 0.536 0.505 0.522 0.393 0.870 0.239 0.494
Have you been consulted
about changes in work
organization and your
working conditions?
0.061 *** 0.000 * 0.521 0.050 ** 0.698 0.403 0.550 0.090 *** 0.263 0.920
Is your work evaluated
periodically? 0.818 0.000 * 0.715 0.082 *** 0.311 0.927 0.359 0.187 0.773 0.050 **
Do you think you are well
informed about the health
and safety risks of your
workplace?
0.291 0.001 * 0.138 0.122 0.151 0.545 0.583 0.203 0.556 0.407
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 31 of 53
Table 3. Cont.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main forms of functional flexibility
Attending training courses
paid by the employer. 0.890 0.001 * 0.040 ** 0.042 ** 0.125 0.000 * 0.036 ** 0.029 ** 0.621 0.419
Attending paid training
courses from your
own sources.
0.152 0.046 ** 0.469 0.000 * 0.392 0.030 ** 0.017 ** 0.354 0.659 0.187
Benefit from
on-the-job training. 0.151 0.542 0.018 ** 0.054 ** 0.600 0.786 0.223 0.372 0.809 0.885
Level of satisfaction
associated with the working
conditions of current job.
0.895 0.051 ** 0.002 ** 0.161 0.786 0.505 0.011 * 0.460 0.364 0.337
Main measures that need to be taken to increase the flexibility of employing the workforce and the working time of employees
A flexible work schedule. 0.320 0.483 0.288 0.093 *** 0.608 0.318 0.269 0.718 0.128 0.764
The ability to work from
home or from a space near
home (teleworking).
0.049 ** 0.110 0.072 *** 0.573 0.310 0.875 0.649 0.674 0.043 ** 0.887
Independent working teams
to manage their time together
to identify a task
(work team autonomy).
0.116 0.837 0.207 0.632 0.263 0.771 0.264 0.918 0.734 0.738
Flexible remuneration,
depending on the effort and
the allocated time.
0.025 ** 0.671 0.608 0.074 *** 0.427 0.249 0.472 0.184 0.373 0.165
Ability to work outside of
regular program hours. 0.304 0.832 0.551 0.808 0.185 0.680 0.660 0.982 0.772 0.593
Better management of the
space to minimize travel
during work.
0.790 0.224 0.522 0.442 0.875 0.193 0.988 0.337 0.377 0.695
Better management of fixed
assets (technologies,
equipment) to put as little
effort into their use.
0.132 0.069 *** 0.637 0.613 0.498 0.840 0.609 0.779 0.063 *** 0.563
Extending holidays. 0.090 *** 0.173 0.661 0.078 *** 0.200 0.797 0.138 0.654 0.562 0.221
Reduction of work week. 0.909 0.238 0.227 0.683 0.684 0.451 0.775 0.618 0.628 0.683
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 32 of 53
Table 3. Cont.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
New ways of working
Home working. 0.032 ** 0.000 * 0.011 * 0.000 * 0.459 0.011 * 0.016 ** 0.017 ** 0.058 *** 0.049 **
Partial home working. 0.050 ** 0.000 * 0.005 * 0.000 * 0.627 0.011 * 0.015 ** 0.012 ** 0.120 0.048 **
Co working. 0.043 ** 0.000 * 0.009 * 0.000 * 0.493 0.011 * 0.005 * 0.018 ** 0.096 *** 0.084 **
Flex office. 0.079 *** 0.000 * 0.004 * 0.000 * 0.541 0.011 * 0.007 * 0.016 ** 0.080 *** 0.109
Note: *** Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 33 of 53
4.4. Building to Measure the Romanian Employee Flexibility Using Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)
In line with the research question, “Overall is there a high level of work flexibility among Romanian
employees?” and trying to test the hypothesis H1, the present section used the MCA for building
a first multi-dimensional work flexibility indicator for Romanian employees aiming to capture the
phenomenon from different angles. The research has been structured into two main stages.
In the first stage, all 18 items with 56 modalities from four dimensions of flexibility have been
included in the analysis in order to provide a first indication of the of the association patterns with the
principle component. In the second stage, we have reversed some items of contractual flexibility and
working time flexibility dimensions in order to achieve the monotonicity axiom. Also, in this step,
the number of variables was reduced to meet the consistency properties of the principal component.
Therefore, we have eliminated the presence of fixed-term employment contracts with full working
time, working the same number of days per week, and the presence of job training in order to assure
the first axis ordering consistency (FAOC-I) applying MCA to 15 items.
Knowing from literature that several forms of work flexibility support sustainability and
acknowledging that the contractual flexibility can support sustainability only under specific conditions,
however, the main goal of the paper was to offer a global perspective from different point of view of
individuals work flexibility level by building a global index highlighting the contribution of the main
existent types of work flexibility among Romanian organizations.
It is worth mentioning that, even if contractual flexibility could support sustainability only in
particular situations, while the other dimensions of work flexibility exhibited positive impact of
sustainable HRM, the contribution of this component in the overall measure of work flexibility is the
smallest, and therefore, the impact could be considered negligible.
The empirical results of final MCA based on Burt matrix are presented in Table 4. The MCA
performed on the remaining variables led to an increase in the explanatory power of the first factor,
which rose from 54% to 62.4%. The second dimension explained another 14.5%, cumulating a total of
79.94% of principal inertia (Table 4).
Table 4. Inertia decomposition of flexibility variables.
Dimension Principal Inertia Percent Cumulating Percent
Dim. 1 0.0384 62.4 62.4
Dim. 2 0.0090 14.54 76.94
Dim. 3 0.0016 2.57 79.51
Dim. 4 0.0001 0.15 79.66
Dim. 5 0.0000 0.07 79.73
Total 0.0616 100
The value of Cronbach’s Alpha (0.73) supported our hypothesis of building a composite flexibility
indicator, the value being superior to the threshold of 0.7.
In order to determine the CFI for each employee, based on the functional form of the CFi previously
expressed, the weights (factorial scores on first axis presented in Appendix A) attributed to the variable
modalities were used. Analyzing the weights from Appendix A, we can determine the relevance that
the analysis attributes to each type of flexibility. As a rule of thumb, we consider values larger than
two as an indication of key flexibility factors. Therefore, we find employees who practice all the new
workspaces such as home-working, partial home-working, co-working, and flex-office and who have
also participated in paid courses from their own resources as having the highest level of flexibility.
Analyzing the discriminating power of each indicator in each of the factorial axis, we can we
easily see that the most discriminating indicators, in the first axis, are (Figure 15)

X	Do you work in shifts? (0.857)
X	Have you participated in paid courses from your own resources? (0.833)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 34 of 53

X	Do you practice co-working? (0.822)
X	Have you participated in training courses paid for by your employer? (0.819)
X	Do you practice partial home working? (0.802) The most discriminating indicators, in the second axis are Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? (0.77)
X
X	You are an employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract with part-time work (0.568)
X	You are an employee on the basis of an indefinite employment contract with full working time (0.534) You are an employee on the basis of an indefinite employment contract with part-time work (0.463)
X

Analyzing the joint category plot (Figure 16), it can be observed that the closer the response
category’s vector position is to the origin, the more similar the response profile is to the average
profile [126]. A feature of MCA when using binary variables is that the positive and negative point
for each variable is situated 180 degrees away from the origin on the map [130]. The interest is in
seeing “which” side each point falls on relative to the other variables, and we can mention that the
response categories for presence of work flexibility are mostly on the positive side of Dimension 1, and
those for absence of work flexibility on the negative side, in all areas except for indefinite employment
contract with full working time. This separation of “1s” and “0s” on either side of Dimension 1 shows
that, with the exception of indefinite employment contract with full working time, the most important
difference in the sample is between having and not having work flexibility. This separation also implies
that areas are positively correlated except for an indefinite employment contract with full working time.
After analyzing the signs of the weights, we concluded that a negative sign reduces flexibility,
while a positive sign positively contributes to employee flexibility. Using these weights, we created
the CFI of each employee. To avoid having negative values of CFI, we estimated the average of the
negative values of the CFI and add the absolute value of this average to the CFI of each employee to
obtain the positive CFI scores.
Analyzing the relative contribution of the variables to the composite flexibility indicator, we can
highlighted that working in shifts, participation in courses paid from the own resources, co-working,
and participation in courses paid by the employer contribute the most to the construction of the first
axis which is the axis of working time flexibility and functional flexibility mix (Table 5).
Table 5. The relative contribution of the variables to the first dimension.
Variables Relative Contribution (%) to the First Dimension
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with full working time. 0.39
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with part-time work. 0.71
You are employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment
contract with part-time work. 0.08
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? 1.03
Do you have more than one job? 6.25
Do you work the same number of hours every day? 1.58
Do you start and end the program at fixed hours? 6.41
Do you work in shifts? 11.87
Do you work flexible hours? 4.31
Have you participated in training courses paid for by your
employer? 11.35
Have you participated in paid courses from your own sources? 11.54
Do you practice home working? 11.03
Do you practice partial home working? 11.11
Do you practice co-working? 11.39
Do you practice flex-office? 10.97
100.00
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 35 of 53
Figure 15. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) dimension discrimination measure.
ST1-indefinite employment contract with full working time
ST2-indefinite employment contract with part-time work
ST3-fixed-term employment contract with part-time work
ST4-Do you work 40 h a week at your main job?
ST5-Do you have more than one job?
ST6-Do you work the same number of hours every day?
ST7-Do you start and end the program at fixed hours?
ST8-Do you work in shifts?
ST9-Do you work flexible hours?
ST10-Have you participated in training courses paid by employer?
ST11- Have you participated in courses paid from your own sources?
ST12-Do you practice home-working?
ST13-Do you practice partial home-working?
ST14-Do you practice co-working?
ST15-Do you practice flex-office
Figure 15. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) dimension discrimination measure.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 36 of 53
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 37 of 56
Figure 16 Figure 16. . Joint category plot of the Joint category plot of the explored variable categories. explored variable categories.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 37 of 53
Following the MCA procedure, we can finally calculate the CFI for each employee as the average
of its weight categories corresponding to the average of standardized scores on the first factorial axis.
The extreme values of the CFI calculated are -0.933 (the employee with the lowest level of
work flexibility) and 3.026 (the employee with the highest level of work flexibility) among Romanian
employees, stipulating that
• An employee that has the smallest CFI value (-0.933) has an indefinite employment contract with
full working time, working 40 h a week at the job, having usually only one job, working the same
number of hours every day, starting and ending the program at fixed hours, working in shifts and
not working in flexible hours, not participating in training courses paid for by the employer or
with its own resources, and not practicing any forms of workspace (HOT, HOP, CW, FO).
• An employee that has the highest CFI value (3.026) has an indefinite employment contract with
part-time work or a fixed-term employment contract with part-time work, not working 40 h a
week at the job, having more than one job, not working the same number of hours every day,
not starting and ending the program at fixed hours, not working in shifts and working in flexible
hours, participating in training courses paid for by the employer or with its own resources,
and practicing all types of workspace (HOT, HOP, CW, FO).
To facilitate interpretation, we have rescaled the work flexibility indicator to take values between
0 and 100, where 0—lowest level of flexibility and 100—highest level of flexibility. The average level
of flexibility index among interviewed Romanian employees was computed to be 50.22 revealing a
medium level of flexibility, with significant differences among demographic variables. Analyzing
the main descriptive statistics (Table 6), we can mention that the average level of flexibility index
among interviewed Romanian employees was computed to be 50.22, revealing a medium level of
work flexibility among Romanian employees, while most of Romanian employees (n = 85 employees)
rather exhibited a small level of work flexibility, while for medium and high level, the frequencies
are balanced (n = 69 employees respectively 66 employees). The empirical results of Chi-Square test
revealed that there are no statistically significant differences among three categories of employees
(employees with low, medium, and high flexibility), the distribution being equilibrated. However,
only 30% of Romanian employees registered a higher level of work flexibility, the index value being
higher than the threshold of 70.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of composite index of work flexibility.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
≤35.00 85 38.6 38.6 38.6
35.01–70.00 69 31.4 31.4 70.0
70.01+ 66 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 220 100.0 100.0
Analyzing the variations in the work flexibility index according to regions of development,
company size, the legal regime of the company, the activity sector, and the main occupation of
the employee, we can mentioned that the ANOVA analysis supported the hypothesis of statistical
differences for all the variables, with the only exception of the company size. Therefore, employees
from the center and Bucharest-Ilfov; from national companies or public institutions; from companies
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; being general managers, directors, or a person
holding a senior or a middle management position; or being a higher education specialist have a higher
level of work flexibility.
The correlation coefficient between work flexibility indicator and the overall level of job and salary
satisfaction revealed in both cases a positive statistically significant relationship but weak as intensity
(Figure 17).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 38 of 53
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; being general managers, directors, or a person
holding a senior or a middle management position; or being a higher education specialist have a
higher level of work flexibility.
The correlation coefficient between work flexibility indicator and the overall level of job and
salary satisfaction revealed in both cases a positive statistically significant relationship but weak as
intensity (Figure 17).
Figure 17. The relationship between work flexibility index and salary and job satisfaction level.
4.5. Flexible Working Increases Job Satisfaction? An Empirical Analysis among Romanian Employees Based
on Binomial Logistic Regression Models
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
low work flexibility
level
medium work
flexibility level
high work flexibility
level
Overall level of job satisfaction Overall level of salary satisfaction
Figure 17. The relationship between work flexibility index and salary and job satisfaction level.
4.5. Flexible Working Increases Job Satisfaction? An Empirical Analysis among Romanian Employees Based on
Binomial Logistic Regression Models TC “4.6.4. Contribut,ii Privind Evident,ierea Impactului Elementelor de
Flexibilitatea în Muncă Asupra Nivelului General de Motivare al Angajat,ilor Români Utilizând Modelul de
Regresie Logistică Binomială” nf C nl “3”
In line with our research questions and aiming to test the hypotheses H2–H3, we have investigated
the impact of work flexibility, considered as an overall measure as well as individual components,
highlighting its implications on job satisfaction as one of the main outcomes of sustainable HRM. If the
focus is the transition to sustainable HRM, it makes sense to identify the characteristics of sustainable
HRM that could lead to an increase in the outcomes of sustainable HRM. Therefore, in this context,
we anchored work flexibility and its implication on job satisfaction. The empirical results are presented
in Table 7. In order to capture the impact of both overall measure and individual forms of work
flexibility, two logistic regression models have been estimated.
Table 7. The empirical results of the relationship between work flexibility and job satisfaction.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Degree of satisfaction regarding salary
(ref = otherwise)
satisfied
4.645 0.000 *** 104.077 3.699 0.000 *** 40.427
Work flexibility composite indicator 0.026 0.020 ** 1.026
Control variables
Gender (ref = male)
female 1.131 0.100 * 3.099 0.321 0.558 1.378
Occupation (ref = higher education specialist) 0.108 0.030
general manager, director or a person holding
a senior management position -3.146 0.086 * 0.043 -1.114 0.501 0.328
person holding a middle management
position (head of department, head of office) -0.576 0.752 0.562 1.382 0.599 3.985
technician -2.831 0.035 ** 0.059 -3.648 0.004 *** 0.026
employed in public services (hospital, public
catering, police, firefighters) -0.518 0.624 0.596 0.669 0.491 1.951
qualified worker -2.530 0.008 *** 0.080 -1.120 0.138 0.326
unqualified worker -2.870 0.019 ** 0.057 -2.803 0.009 *** 0.061
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 39 of 53
Table 7. Cont.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Age (ref = under 26) 0.879 0.559
26–35 years -0.576 0.700 0.562 -2.195 0.137 0.111
36–45 years -0.939 0.547 0.391 -2.441 0.111 0.087
46–55 years -1.092 0.478 0.335 -2.508 0.095 * 0.081
Over 55 years -1.846 0.403 0.158 -1.959 0.272 0.141
Seniority (ref = less than 1 year) 0.109 0.185
1–3 years -0.469 0.683 0.625 0.460 0.661 1.585
3–5 years -0.946 0.446 0.388 0.131 0.912 1.140
5–10 years -0.841 0.468 0.431 0.242 0.824 1.274
Over 10 years 1.281 0.281 3.601 1.690 0.111 5.419
Company size (ref = 1–9 employees) 0.048 0.118
10–49 employees 1.520 0.070 * 4.574 0.660 0.357 1.934
50–249 employees -0.885 0.329 0.413 -0.922 0.250 0.398
Over 250 employees 0.710 0.405 2.033 0.545 0.501 1.724
Company activity sector (ref = agriculture) 0.088 0.124
Manufacturing industry -0.904 0.625 0.405 -0.032 0.985 0.969
Wholesale -2.846 0.202 0.058 -2.383 0.233 0.092
Retail -3.006 0.127 0.049 -1.639 0.315 0.194
Services -3.446 0.065 * 0.032 -2.347 0.140 0.096
construction -0.258 0.894 0.772 -0.163 0.921 0.849
Another sector -1.038 0.607 0.354 -1.000 0.586 0.368
Company legal regime (ref = limited liability
company)
Stock company
0 0.357
General Partnership -0.297 0.765 0.743
Limited Partnership -18.649 1.000 0.000
Autonomous company 2.759 0.199 15.781
National company -2.043 0.058 * 0.130
Public Institution -0.826 0.480 0.438
Constant 0.245 0.932 1.277 2.351 0.302 10.492
Contractual flexibility
Type of contract (ref = based on employment
contract of indefinite duration with full
working time)
1.000
based on an indefinite employment contract
with part-time work -0.066 0.982 0.936
based on a fixed-term employment contract
with full working time 20.215 0.999 601,744,208.607
based on a fixed-term employment contract
with part-time work 20.911 1.000 1,207,026,856.9
Working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job
?(Ref = no)
Yes
-1.078 0.279 0.340
Do you have more than one job? (Ref = no)
Yes 23.323 0.998 13,465,568,754.7
Do you work the same number of hours every
day? (Ref = no)
Yes
1.581 0.061 * 4.861
Do you work the same number of days each
week? (Ref = no)
Yes
-1.557 0.083 * 0.211
Do you start and end the program at fixed
hours? (Ref = no)
Yes
-0.874 0.285 0.417
Do you work in shifts? (Ref = no)
Yes 0.417 0.532 1.518
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 40 of 53
Table 7. Cont.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Do you work flexible hours (ref = no)
Yes 0.627 0.337 1.872
Functional flexibility
Did you participate on training courses paid
for by the employer? (Ref = no)
Yes
1.602 0.024 ** 4.962
Did you participate on paid courses from your
own sources? (Ref = no)
Yes
-0.884 0.417 0.413
Have you received training at work? (Ref =
no)
Yes
-0.180 0.807 0.836
Workspace flexibility
Have you practiced home working? (Ref = no)
Yes 6.151 0.014 ** 469.008
Did you practice home working partially?
(Ref = no)
Yes
3.031 0.100 * 0.048
Did you practice co-working? (Ref = no)
Yes 2.105 0.101 * 8.203
Did you practice flex-office? (Ref = no)
Yes -0.219 0.857 0.804
Note: *** Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
The empirical results of the first model highlighting the influence of individual forms of flexibility
on the overall level of job satisfaction among Romanian employees revealed salary satisfaction exhibited
a positive and statistically significant impact on the job satisfaction, revealing that employees who are
satisfied with received earnings tend to be satisfied with their job.
The empirical results highlighted that gender and occupation as individual characteristics and
company size and company activity sector as employment related characteristics significantly influenced
the overall level of job satisfaction of Romanian employees.
Women are more satisfied with their job compared to men, while compared to job satisfaction of
specialists with higher education, people with senior management positions, technicians, and skilled
and unskilled workers tend to be less satisfied with their jobs.
Compared to micro-enterprises, employees of small companies with up to 10 employees are more
satisfied with their current job, while employees from services tend to be less satisfied with their jobs
in comparison with those from agriculture, a sign of the coefficient being a negative one.
Age and seniority of employees do not significantly impact the degree of satisfaction with their
current job, the probabilities of the coefficients being higher than the maximum significance threshold
of 10%.
Analyzing now the impact of different forms of work flexibility on job satisfaction, the empirical
results revealed that contractual flexibility captured by indefinite employment contract with part-time
work or fixed-term employment contract with full time or part –time does not reflect any impact on
the satisfaction of Romanian employees regarding their job, the probabilities of the coefficients being
greater than the maximum significance level of 10%.
Elements of working time arrangements statistically impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
even, revealing a certain pattern. Romanian employees are more satisfied working the same number of
hours per day, but more willing to have a flexibility in the number of days per week, and this behavior
significantly influence the overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 41 of 53
Romanian employers allowed their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday,
or a totally free day, and this is also reflected in the level of satisfaction.
Functional flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
mainly through the channel of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the
general job satisfaction of employees.
Workspace flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
through its channels of home working, partial home-working and co-working. For Romanian
employees, it has become essential that employers allow a mix of home and office working, as well as
working in rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important
community relations and resource sharing (resource sharing), to increase the level of satisfaction and
also the longer-term retentive degree.
The empirical results of the second model, highlighting the influence of multidimensional flexibility
composite indicator on the overall level of job satisfaction among Romanian employees, confirmed that
salary satisfaction preserved the same positive and statistically significant impact on job satisfaction.
Technicians and unskilled workers tend to be less satisfied with their job, while the level of job
satisfaction tends to decrease with the age, employees from the age group 46–55 years old being less
satisfied with their jobs compared with the youth.
Employees from national companies tend to be less satisfied with their jobs compared with those
ones from limited liability companies.
The impact of the overall measure of work flexibility on the overall level of job satisfaction was
positive and highly significant, revealing that a higher level of work flexibility, taking into account a
combination of different forms, increases the employee level of job satisfaction. A 10 unit increase in
the work flexibility index increases the log odds of job satisfaction by 0.26.
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test (Appendix B), which shows whether the model adequately
describes the data, highlights a good fit of the data because the probability is above the 5% threshold.
The classification table provides us with information about the classification of individuals.
Thus, of those who declared themselves satisfied, the model correctly classifies 140 people, with a
percentage of 92.1%, while of those who declared themselves dissatisfied or neutral, the model correctly
classifies a number of 55 individuals, cumulating in a success rate of 82.1%. In total, the model correctly
classifies a percentage of 89% (Table 8).
Table 8. Classification table a. Degree of satisfaction with the current job.
Observed
Predicted
Job_Satisf
Percentage Correct
Else Satisfied t
Model I
job_satisf Else 55 12 82.1
Satisfied 12 140 92.1
Overall Percentage 89.0
Model II
job_satisf Else 49 16 75.4
Satisfied 13 135 91.2
Overall Percentage 86.4
a The cut value is 0.500.
4.6. A Brief Overview on the Main Empirical Results
Summarizing the most relevant empirical results of our research, we should mention that:
Hypothesis 1 was supported by the fact that the average value of the composite index of work
flexibility registered the value of 50.22, pointing out a medium level of work flexibility among Romanian
employees. Additionally, in order to respond to the following research questions: “What is the level
of work flexibility registered by most employees?” and “How many employees have a high level of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 42 of 53
work flexibility?”, we can say that almost 40% of Romanian employees exhibited a small level of work
flexibility, and only one third of Romanian employees registered a higher level of work flexibility,
the index value being higher than the threshold of 70.
Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported by the empirical results.
Contractual flexibility proxies by indefinite employment contract with part-time work or fixed-term
employment contract with full time or part time does not support hypothesis H2, not leading to an
increase in the job satisfaction due to the coefficients’ lack of significance.
Working time arrangements only partially supported H2. Although both were working the same
number of hours per day, and the same number of days per week, Romanian employees are more
willing to have flexibility in the number of days per week, behavior that significantly influences the
overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more Romanian employers allowed
their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday or a totally free day, and this
is reflected also in the level of satisfaction. Working time arrangements brings its share of contribution
to sustainable HRM through flexible number of days per week leading to an increase in the overall
level of job satisfaction.
Functional flexibility supported hypothesis H2 through the statistically significant coefficient
of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the general job satisfaction of
employees. The functional flexibility brings its share of contribution to sustainable HRM through the
channel of employee development, an important characteristic of HRM.
Workspace flexibility supported H2 through the statistically and positive impact of home working,
partial home working and co-working, leading to an increase in overall job satisfaction. For Romanian
employees, it becomes essential that this mix of home and office working, as well as working in
rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important community
relations and resource sharing (resource sharing) to increase the level of satisfaction and also the
longer-term retentive degree.
Hypothesis 3 was supported by the positive and highly significant coefficient of the work flexibility
composite index, a global measure including different forms of flexibility and leading to an increase in
the level of job satisfaction.
H4 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOT, as a
new type of working, is associated with a higher level of job performance, a better management of
personal time and space, and a higher level of comfort.
H5 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOP,
as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level of organizational performance, a higher
work motivation, higher personal and professional relationships, and a higher level of learning and
professional development.
H6 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that CW, as a
new type of working, is associated with higher personal and professional relationships, and higher
level of learning and professional development.
H7 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that FO, as a
new type of working, is associated with higher personal and professional relationships.
H8 was supported through high a percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOP is
associated with a higher level of work motivation.
4.7. Emphasizing the Main Implications for Sustainable HRM
In the face of current challenges, the concept of HRM needs to be redefined, with sustainable HRM
being a more appropriate approach to actual human resource management. Sustainable HRM aims at
long-term objectives and results, being characterized by employee and environmental care, employee
participation and development, external partnership, flexibility, compliance with labor regulations,
cooperation between employees, equity, and equality, without affecting profitability.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 43 of 53
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM, two core characteristics:
employee development and a mix of flexible working time and new types of workspaces are
particularly important from the perspective of their impact on two main outcomes of sustainable HRM:
job satisfaction and job performance.
In the light of achieving sustainable HRM, the positive influence of employee development on job
satisfaction as an important outcome of sustainable HRM can be revealed.
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organization’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable HRM.
Employees working desired hours tend to be more motivated and spend a longer period
of time without changing jobs. In recent years, this paradigm shift conduced to an increase on
employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules to meet employee needs, employee
participation on decision making, workspace modelling, increasing employee creativity and
productivity. Job performance and satisfaction influences sustainable HR practices, so their knowledge
is essential to be able to redefine HRM according to current needs. If an organization wants to practice
sustainable HRM, it should focus on developing employees in sustainability, by engaging them through
taskforces, trainings and in the sustainability strategy’s design and implementation.
Employee development needs to be oriented mainly in the acquiring of skills and capacities that
employees can use in the future and seeing employees as a main asset as well as agents of change [3].
Hirsig et al. [43] and Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcie [ ˙ 3] highlighted the importance of investment in
training and education for human resources, creating a win–win situation both for employees (future
employability and career opportunities) and for employer (profitability and success).
The presence of sustainability in HRM can be revealed through employee development via on the
job training, which can be seen as a cost saving approach, leading in turn to higher job motivation [43]
as well as from the perspective of attracting new employees [3] sending the message that the company
is interested in their long term retention.
From the perspective of sustainable HRM, flexible employment forms hardly support the idea of
sustainability and do not highlighted any impact of job satisfaction at the level of Romanian employees.
A mix of flexible working times and new types of workspaces represents a potential solution
for sustainable HRM, increasing the level of job satisfaction and resulting in lesser use of company
cars and reduced need for large buildings, both of which will help the environment. Other than that,
employees will benefit from increased freedom and control which will lead to a better work-life balance
and lower levels of stress.
Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource management in order to
achieve the desideratum of sustainable HRM, the attention needs to be on a mixture of employee
development-flexible and time-flexible places leading to an increase in both employee job satisfaction
and organizational performance, as important outcomes of sustainable HRM. Sustainable HRM should
strive to be involved with the sustainability strategy from the beginning, which will positively influence
their perceived possibilities for putting sustainability on the map and their role in enthusing, facilitating
and motivating employees for sustainability.
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
5.1. Main Conclusions of the Research
Over time, the global market has undergone important changes in the nature of the work
that employees and organizations have to deal with, such as more knowledge-intensive content,
rapid technological change, constant innovation, and more flexible jobs and time programs.
The role of the employee become even more important. Employees working desired hours tend
to be more motivated and spend a longer period of time without changing jobs. In recent years this
paradigm shift conduced to an increase on employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 44 of 53
to meet employee needs, employee participation on decision making, workspace modelling, increasing
employee creativity and productivity. The knowledge of job performance and satisfaction as important
outcomes of is essential to be able to redefine HRM according to current needs.
Work flexibility offers to employees a balance between professional and personal life, leading to
job satisfaction and performance, with positive consequences of the well-being of the organization.
Work flexibility is very important, digital transformations and technology allowing a carrying out of
activities based on an internet connection in many areas.
In such a context, the paper investigated the relationship between employee development and
worktime and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction
and job performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the
face of “future work” challenges. Thus, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types of
flexibility—functional, working time and workspace flexibility in order to highlight the relevance of
employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable HRM in increasing
the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
In order to do that, an employee flexibility composite indicator taking into account the main four
types of flexibility has been developed on the basis of Romanian employees’ points of view gathered by
a national representative survey using the multiple correspondence analysis. Furthermore, the impact
of both individual types of flexibility as well as employee flexibility composite indicator on the overall
level of job satisfaction has been quantified using binary logistic regression models. Within the research,
special attention was granted to the impact of new types of workspaces (FO, CW, HOT, HOP) on the
job performance, job satisfaction, organizational performance, professional growth and development,
social and professional relationships, and personal professional performance as well as on the overall
level of work motivation.
The empirical results revealed that the main forms of work flexibility mentioned by Romanian
employees were work in team, computer usage, teleworking and job rotation. Analyzing the response
provided by the respondents, it can be highlighted that flexible forms of employment or functional
flexibility were present on the Romanian labor market only in a small extent, a larger field being won
by working time flexibility and workspace flexibility.
The functional flexibility related to employee training was found only to a small extent within
Romanian companies, only a third of employees benefiting from training course paid by their
own employer.
A little more than one third of Romanian employees declared to work in a flexible manner and an
even smaller proportion declared to benefit from flexible working hours, flexible number of days per
week, working in shifts, or work outside normal working hours.
In terms of workspace flexibility, the new types of workspaces were highly appreciated by
employees, creating a great openness and interest in them.
Home working has the most appreciations mainly in terms of labor productivity, comfort and time
and space management, while partial home working has highly appreciated in terms of organizational
performance, relationships, learning and personal development. In terms of relationships, learning and
personal development, contributions were also made by co-working and flex-office. However, the most
suitable solution, which results from the study, is a mix between working from home and working in
company offices, with accents in rented spaces co-working.
Another important result of our research was the composite index of work flexibility for
employees, whose average value pointed out an almost medium level of work flexibility with Romanian
organizations, while only a third of Romanian employees exhibited a higher level of work flexibility.
The research pointed out significant differences among demographic variables. Therefore, employees
from the center and Bucharest-Ilfov; from national companies or public institutions; from companies
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; general managers, directors, or a person holding
a senior or a middle management position; or higher education specialists have a higher level of
work flexibility.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 45 of 53
The empirical analysis of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of functional flexibility,
working time and workspace flexibility together with the flexibility composite indicator in increasing
the level of job satisfaction. Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign actual human resource management
in order to include the concept of sustainability, attention needs to be on employee development
together with the mix of flexible working time and workspaces that will increase the employee job
satisfaction, thus leading to sustainable HRM.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives even if it is known that this
type of measure will produce effects only on short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility through
the participation to training courses and the working time flexibility through a flexible program as the
main measures in increasing employee work motivation.
The empirical results of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of two core characteristics
of sustainable HRM: employee development and a mix of flexible working time and new types of
workspaces are particularly important from the perspective of their impact on two main outcomes of
sustainable HRM, job satisfaction, and job performance.
Contractual flexibility does not reflect any impact on the satisfaction of Romanian employees
regarding their job.
Working time arrangements statistically impacted the overall level of job satisfaction, revealing a
certain pattern. Romanian employees are more satisfied working the same number of hours per day
but more willing to have a flexibility in the number of days per week, and this behaviour significantly
influence the overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more Romanian
employers allowed their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday or a totally
free day and this is reflected also in the level of satisfaction.
Functional flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
mainly through the channel of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the
general job satisfaction of employees.
Workspace flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
through its channels of home working, partial home-working and co-working. For Romanian
employees, it has become essential that employers allow a mix of home and office working, as well as
working in rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important
community relations and resource sharing (resource sharing), to increase the level of satisfaction and
also the longer-term retentive degree
Also, the overall measure of work flexibility exhibited a positive impact on job satisfaction,
revealing that a higher level of work flexibility, in a combination of different forms, increases the
employee level of job satisfaction.
Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource management in order
to achieve the desideratum of sustainable HRM, the attention needs to be on a mix of employee
development-flexible and time-flexible places, leading to an increase in both employee job satisfaction
and organizational performance, as important outcomes of sustainable HRM.
5.2. Policy Implications
In the context of today’s economy, when professionals can choose from a wide range of offers
available on the labor market, employers must reinvent themselves and begin to offer potential
employee’s alternative benefits, other than simply financial ones. Most of the time, the flexibility of the
organization can determine both the employee’s longevity and, more importantly, their motivation to
work hard and to be productive. Employer flexibility benefits not only the employees, but also the
organization that offers it. Rigidity removes talent, and in a free, growing market, potential employees
have the opportunity to explore their options before they choose a position.
The labor market is constantly changing, atypical work acquiring a significant influence, especially
in these current times of the coronavirus crisis restrictions. A Gallup article published in early April
2020 has already indicated a change, “three out of five US workers who did their homework during
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 46 of 53
the coronavirus pandemic would prefer to continue working as far away as possible,” while 41% said
they would prefer to return to work or the office to work as they did before the crisis.
Covid-19 produced major changes, including work. All these changes will result in a work
reorganization, as long as flexibility do not change performance targets. In time of coronavirus crisis
working at home became the new normal, work flexibility must be “business as usual” and not just
something to resort to in times of crisis.
After the coronavirus crisis passes, its effects will be felt in both the long term and short term.
Related to work, some managers consider continuing their work from home because they have noticed
an increase in productivity from employees and lower costs. It is obvious that most employees will
notice changes regarding work compared to the period before crisis. In Australia, the country that has
managed this health crisis very well, it is being discussed that the work week will be reduced to four
days a week as a new measure regarding work flexibility in order to restart the economy as soon as
possible, but also to protect citizens. Other organizations are considering work flexibility, a four-day
work week with the fifth day being dedicated to volunteering.
In the event of a crisis, we can respond with either resilience or resistance. According to Mercer’s
2020 Global Talent Trends Study [130] in times of actual crisis, companies said they planned to
increase strategic partnerships (40%), use more variable talent pools (39%), and invest in automation
(34%). Flexible operation is a crucial component, only 44% of companies consider systematically
evaluating jobs for their adaptation, making flexibility dependent on the job, rather than on a person’s
circumstances. Resilience is influenced by the type of industry involved. According to a COVID-19
survey, the sectors that have been significantly impacted following disruptions are healthcare (56%),
retail (56%), mining (55%), manufacturing (46%), and automation (43%). Clearly, business models that
are difficult to digitize, highly dependent on people, or that rely heavily on global supply chains are
the most exposed. In contrast, the least affected sectors are professional services (4%), high technology
(5%), education (9%), insurance (10%), and telecommunications (12%). Depending on how long the
situation continues, many of them will feel the effects of limited funding for discretionary projects and
value-added services.
The state of emergency has removed some preconceived notions. For example, it turns out that we
can work from home, and very well at that. Therefore, this crisis is a great opportunity for companies
and employees to reinvent themselves.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.D., I.C., and S.-A.A.; methodology, A.A.D. and S.-A.A.; software,
A.A.D.; validation, A.A.D., S.-A.A., and A.P.; formal analysis, I.C. and A.P.; investigation, A.A.D. and S.-A.A.;
resources, I.C.; data curation, S.-A.A., I.C., and A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.D., S.-A.A., A.P.,
and I.C.; writing—A.A.D., S.-A.A., A.P., and I.C.; visualization, A.A.D.; supervision, A.A.D. and S.-A.A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The results of multiple correspondence analysis (final weights).
Dim. 1
Contractual flexibility
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with full working time

yes no

-0.045 1.058

You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with part-time work

yes no

1.667 -0.047

You are employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment
contract with part-time work

yes no

0.738 -0.003

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 47 of 53
Table A1. Cont.
Dim. 1
Working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? yes 0.649
no -0.079
Do you have more than one job? yes 1.963
no -0.093
Do you work the same number of hours every day? yes 0.474
no -0.162
Do you start and end the program at fixed hours? yes 1.031
no -0.451
Do you work in shifts? yes 0.766
no -1.171
Do you work flexible hours? yes 0.430
no -0.255
Functional flexibility
Have you participated in training courses paid for by your
employer?

yes no

0.863 -0.429

Have you participated in paid courses from your own sources? yes 2.732
no -0.398
Workspace flexibility
Do you practice home working? yes 2.625
no -1.199
Do you practice par

sustainability
Article
Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Job
Performance among Romanian Employees—
Implications for Sustainable Human
Resource Management
Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu 1,2,* , Simona-Andreea Apostu 1,3, Andreea Paul 4 and
Ionut Casuneanu 5
1 Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romana Square,
15–17 Dorobant
,i St., Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
2 Labour Market Policies Department, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection,
6–8, Povernei Street, 010643 Bucharest, Romania
3 Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy House-Bucharest, District 5, Calea 13 Septembrie, 13,
010374 Bucharest, Romania
4 Department of International Economic Relations, Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
15–17 Dorobanti St., Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
5 Department of Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15–17 Dorobanti St., Sector 1,
010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Received: 5 June 2020; Accepted: 23 July 2020; Published: 29 July 2020


Abstract: In light of future work challenges, actual human resource management (HRM) needs to
be redesigned, including long-term development, regeneration, and renewal of human resources,
passing from consuming to developing human resources by incorporating the concept of sustainability.
Thus, sustainable HRM is seen as an extension of strategic human resources, presenting a new approach
to human resource management. The labor market is constantly changing, atypical work acquiring a
significant relevance, especially in these current times of coronavirus crisis restrictions. In Romania,
promoting the law of teleworking transformed labor flexibility into a topic of interest, and became an
increasingly vital requirement for employment and a motivating factor for Romanian employees.
In such a context, this paper aims to investigate the link between employee development and worktime
and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction and job
performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the face of
“future work” challenges. Additionally, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types of
flexibility—contractual, functional, working time, and workspace flexibility—in order to highlight
the relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable
HRM in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction. In order to make this possible,
an “employee flexibility composite indicator,” which takes into account different types of flexibility,
has been developed using feedback from Romanian employees, which was gathered by a national
representative survey using multiple correspondence analysis. Furthermore, the impact of both
individual and employee flexibility on overall level of job satisfaction has been quantified using binary
logistic regression models. Within the research, there is a particular focus on the impact of new types
of workspaces (flex office, co-working, total home office, partial home office—FO, CW, HOT, HOP) on
job performance, job satisfaction, organizational performance, professional growth and development,
social and professional relationships, and personal professional performance as well as on the overall
level of work motivation. The empirical results revealed that these new types of workspaces are
highly appreciated by employees, generating a growing interest among them. Partial home working,
the mix between working from home and working in a company’s office, has been considered an
optimal solution in increasing organizational performance, social and professional relationships,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086; doi:10.3390/su12156086 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 2 of 53
learning and personal development, and the overall level of work motivation. The results of the
multiple correspondence analysis highlighted a medium level of flexibility among those Romanian
employees interviewed, with only one third of them exhibiting high levels of flexibility. The empirical
analysis of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of functional flexibility, working time,
and workspace flexibility along with the flexibility composite indicator in increasing the level of
job satisfaction in employees. Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource
management in order to include the concept of sustainability, attention needs to be on a combination
of employee development-flexible time and flexible places, leading to an increase in both employee
job satisfaction and organizational performance as important outcomes of sustainable HRM.
Keywords: sustainable human resource management; work flexibility; job satisfaction;
job performance; Romania; employee survey; composite indicator; multiple correspondence analysis;
logistic regression analysis; new types of workspaces
1. Introduction
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organisation’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable human resource management (HRM). In the face of current challenges, the concept of
HRM needs to be redefined, with sustainable HRM being a more appropriate approach to actual human
resource management. Sustainable HRM’s aims is for long-term objectives and results, with a focus on
employee and environmental care, employee participation and development, external partnership,
flexibility, compliance with labor regulations, cooperation between employees, equity, and equality,
all without affecting profitability.
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM, the two core characteristics—employee
development and a combination of flexible working time and new types of workspaces—are particularly
important in terms of their impact on the two main outcomes of sustainable HRM—job satisfaction
and job performance.
The labor market is constantly changing, and the role of the employee is incredibly important.
When employees are able to choose their preferred working hours, they tend to be more motivated
and spend a longer period of time without changing jobs. In recent years, this paradigm shift resulted
in an increase in employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules to meet employee needs,
employee participation in decision making, workspace modelling, and increasing employee creativity
and productivity. Sustainable HR practices are largely influenced by the level of job performance and
satisfaction; therefore, in-depth knowledge of these factors is essential in redefining HRM according to
current needs.
Work flexibility offers employees a balance between their professional and personal lives,
leading to job satisfaction and high performance and an overall improvement of the organization
as a whole. Work flexibility is very important, and with digital advancements and improved
technology, employees are able to continue their work anywhere they wish, provided they have an
internet connection.
Atypical job roles have become significantly more common, especially characterized today by the
restrictions caused by the coronavirus crisis. Although full-time permanent employment represents
most of today’s workforce, the increasing prevalence of non-standardized forms of employment
has brought structural change to work patterns, most likely resulting in a change to employee job
satisfaction levels, providing information that could be incredibly valuable to us.
In Romania, promoting the law of teleworking transformed labor flexibility into a topic of interest,
becoming an increasingly essential condition required for employment and a motivating factor for
Romanian employees.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 3 of 53
In such a context, this paper aims to investigate the link between employee development and
worktime and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction,
and job performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the
face of ‘future work’ challenges. Furthermore, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types
of flexible contracts, functional, working hours, and workspace flexibility in order to highlight the
relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable HRM
in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
Could different forms of work flexibility lead to an increase in job satisfaction and job performance?
This is the main question of our research. In attempting to answer to this question, the empirical
analysis will be structured on three levels. On the first level, we will examine the main characteristics
of both job satisfaction and work flexibility among Romanian employees, highlighting the impact
of new forms of workspace flexibility on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
First, we will investigate the key differences regarding the main forms of work flexibility
among Romanian employees, focusing particularly on contractual flexibility, working time flexibility,
functional flexibility, and workspace flexibility. Second, we will identify the main determinants of work
flexibility for Romanian employees and build a composite flexibility indicator using the results from
the multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Finally, we will investigate both the potential impact of
the composite flexibility indicator and the impact of individual flexibility forms on the overall level of
job satisfaction of Romanian employees using the binary logistic regression model, revealing its main
implications for achieving the desideratum of sustainable HRM.
This paper contributes to the sustainable HRM literature in several ways. First, it analyses the
impact of two important characteristics of sustainable HRM employee development and worktime and
workspace flexibility, grounded in an evidence-based approach on two major outcomes of sustainable
HRM (job satisfaction and job performance), contributing to the diminution of the gap in scientific
knowledge especially at a national level. Second, the paper offers a first attempt at investigating the
impact of the new forms of workspaces on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation. This is
particularly important when taking into account the restrictions regarding social distancing in the
context of the current health crisis. Third, the paper considers a multi-dimensional approach of work
flexibility from the perspective of working time and workspaces as well as employee development,
which is considered to be an important characteristic of sustainable HRM. Fourth, the paper provides,
to our knowledge, a first composite measure of work flexibility seen from different angles at an
individual level that offers a global view of the main elements of flexibility present within Romanian
organizations. Furthermore, the paper analyzes how this synthetic measure impacts employee job
satisfaction as an important outcome of sustainable HRM, thus highlighting the way in which the
HRM needs to be redesigned.
The paper is organized in the following sections. Section 1 represents the introduction,
highlighting the relevance of the topic and the main aim of our research. Section 2, the literature review
has been organized into four main sub-sections and starts with an introductory section on sustainable
HRM presenting the main conclusions from the literature regarding job satisfaction, work flexibility,
and sustainable HRM and a short presentation of the particularities of work flexibility in times of
crisis. Sections 2.2–2.4 present the most relevant conclusions from literature regarding the relationship
between work flexibility and job satisfaction, work flexibility and job performance, as well as work
flexibility and a combination of the two.
Section 3 is dedicated to the presentation of survey design, some theoretical considerations,
the methodology, and the data.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 4 of 53
Section 4 is dedicated to empirical results and it is divided into seven sub-sections. The first is
dedicated to the presentation of a profile of Romanian employees profile, while the next two present the
main characteristics of job satisfaction and work flexibility among Romanian employees. Analysis of
the impact of new forms of workspace flexibility on job satisfaction, job performance, personal time
and space management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and
professional relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
Section 4.5 presents the main differences among Romanian employees regarding different forms of
work flexibility, and Section 4.6 is dedicated exclusively to the development of a composite indicator
of Romanian employee flexibility using multiple correspondence analysis. The last sub-section tries
to respond to the following question, “Does flexible working increase job satisfaction?” to capture
the impact of both the flexibility composite indicator and the individual forms of work flexibility
on job satisfaction using the binomial logistic regression models emphasizing the main implications
for achieving sustainable HRM desideratum. The paper ends with main conclusions and policy
implications, which are considered fundamental in the process of redesigning HRM in the face of
“future work” challenges.
2. Theoretical Considerations and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Sustainable Human Resource Management Literature
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organisation’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable HRM. The employees are one of the most important stakeholders in an organization and
the organization as a whole is a stakeholder of HRM.
In a volatile labor market, it is becoming increasingly important to change the prevailing situation
where human resources are consumed rather than developed, if the focus is to increase the retention of
employees. In this endeavor, sustainable HRM has been included as a response to changes regarding
societal levels, labor market, and employment relations. Sustainable HRM represents an extension
of strategic HRM and presents a new approach to people management [1], being seen as a possible
solution to lead humanity back into HRM [2], while sustainability refers to resource regeneration,
development, and renewal. However, the difference between strategic and sustainable HRM implies
larger aims; while strategic HRM is determined by organizational performance, mainly in terms of
economic outcomes, sustainable HRM also considers social human, environmental, and financial
outcomes [1].
In terms of sustainability, it represents a survival strategy for organizations to arrange systems
where employees would have (a) the intention to work for a particular organization, (b) the capability
to perform tasks in a proper manner for business, and (c) the possibility to work toward better health,
lower stress, or a work–life balance [3].
Sustainable HRM is the result of various disciplines and research areas, focusing on corporate
sustainability and social responsibility and sustainable work systems. It respects the classic concepts and
practices regarding strategic management of human resources from the private sector [4]. Most HRM
models present the concept of work flexibility as having a direct and significant influence on the
management of people in organizations [5].
It has a wide scope, involving the creation of adequate working conditions, sustainable leadership,
cooperation and teamwork, diversity and multiculturalism, ethics and governance, value creation and
inculcation, health and safety, workforce involvement, and a sustainable environment [6]. Sustainability
can be used as a principle for HRM itself and the tasks of sustainable HRM are twofold. First, it cultivates
the conditions for personal employee sustainability and advances the ability of HRM systems to
regularly attract, regenerate and develop motivated and engaged employees by sustainably building
the HRM system itself [3].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 5 of 53
Esfahani et al. investigated the important features of a sustainable HRM in innovative organizations
to identify the relationship between psychological capital, human resource flexibility, and sustainable
HRM [7]. They examined HRM in innovative organizations that can benefit from psychological capital
and flexibility of human resources, with the results indicating that flexibility and functional optimism
of human resources significantly influenced the sustainability of human resources. Kazlauskaite and
Buciuniene [8] strongly believed that, in order to achieve and support the sustainable competitive
advantage, companies need to have unique, valuable, and inimitable employees.
A relevant contribution to the literature concerns the proposal made by Stankeviciute and
Savaneviciene [1] identifying 11 characteristics of sustainable HRM—long-term orientation, care of
employees, care of the environment, profitability, employee participation and social dialogue,
employee development, external partnership, flexibility, compliance beyond labor regulations,
employee cooperation, fairness, and equality. From all these characteristics, employee development
and flexibility affect overall level of job satisfaction, which is the subject matter of our research.
In designing sustainable HRM, Cohen et al. [9] mentioned three characteristics—equity, well-being,
and employee development—and the study is particularly relevant for our research in terms of the
last factor.
Zaugg [10] have taken into account the following characteristics of sustainable HRM: flexibility,
employee participation, value orientation, strategy orientation, competency and knowledge orientation,
stakeholder orientation, and building mutually trustful employee–employer relationships. Park [11]
associated six themes with sustainable HRM—a diverse workforce, employees’ development, flexibility,
volunteer work, employees’ health, and green HRM.
A model of sustainable HRM and organizational performance was proposed by Nyameh [12],
highlighting the role of training, rewards, and participation on sustainable HRM outcomes, such as
employee satisfaction, employee motivation, and employee retention or loyalty.
Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcien ˙ e [ ˙ 1] argued that sustainable HRM reduces the negative impact
of HRM on employees and contributing to employee wellbeing by decreasing work-related stress,
work-family conflict, and burnout.
HRM practices lead to attracting, motivating, and retaining employees to ensure the survival of
the organization [13]. This practice considers that human capital plays a significant role in achieving
the organization’s goals [14], being positively correlated with the employee engagement if used
properly [15]. HRM practices are influenced by organizational performance and improve employee
well-being through job satisfaction and organizational commitment [16]. Other HRM practices such
as training and development and performance assessment encourage the employees to work better,
thus increasing the organizational performance [17]. Training gives employees the opportunity to
obtain knowledge and skills that can help them achieve their responsibilities adequately, resulting in
improved performance [18]. The characteristics of sustainable HRM affect employee satisfaction;
therefore, to ensure sustainability and increase the efficiency of the organization, it is necessary to meet
the needs of employees who benefit from good working conditions [1].
Figure 1 highlights the most relevant studies focusing on work flexibility, job satisfaction and job
performance, and also studies at the intersection of these three relevant topics. Table 1 presents an
overview of the most relevant studies regarding work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance
at a national level.
In order to increase business efficiency, competitiveness, success, and to ensure sustainability,
it is commonly agreed that the focus needs to also be on satisfying the needs of employees by
providing them with good working conditions [19–21]. Additionally, Al Mamun et al. [22], Cantele and
Zardini [23], Delmas and Pekovic [24], Pintão et al. [25], and Dongho [26] reinforced the core importance
of employee satisfaction and the fact that their productivity crucially impacts the company’s success or
failure. An increase in the overall level of employee satisfaction also increases the level of retention.
Work environment and working conditions are very important in this context. The ideal situation is for
employees to be satisfied with their conditions and work environment [27–29]. The importance of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 6 of 53
work environment in terms of enhancing satisfaction and motivation of employees, while increasing
corporate sustainability performance, has been highlighted by Chang et al. [30], Chatterjee et al. [31],
Gianni et al. [32], Roxas et al. [33], and Chandrasekar [34].
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 56
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of theoretical considerations between work flexibility, job
satisfaction, and job performance.
In order to increase business efficiency, competitiveness, success, and to ensure sustainability, it
is commonly agreed that the focus needs to also be on satisfying the needs of employees by providing
them with good working conditions [19–21]. Additionally, Al Mamun et al. [22], Cantele and Zardini
[23], Delmas and Pekovic [24], Pintão et al. [25], and Dongho [26] reinforced the core importance of
employee satisfaction and the fact that their productivity crucially impacts the company’s success or
failure. An increase in the overall level of employee satisfaction also increases the level of retention.
Work environment and working conditions are very important in this context. The ideal situation is
for employees to be satisfied with their conditions and work environment [27–29]. The importance of
work environment in terms of enhancing satisfaction and motivation of employees, while increasing
corporate sustainability performance, has been highlighted by Chang et al. [30], Chatterjee et al. [31],
Gianni et al. [32], Roxas et al. [33], and Chandrasekar [34].
Strenitzerová and Achimsky [6] offer a new perspective of the achievement of employee satisfaction
and loyalty as part of sustainable human resource management, revealing that higher financial rewards
lead to the greatest satisfaction, while the employees’ age, job position, and length of employment strongly
impact employee loyalty. The results present a particular interest for our research, since employee
satisfaction is seen as a key challenge for sustainable human resource management.
Giovanis [35] explored the relationship between job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and two
types of flexible employment arrangements—teleworking and flexible timing—revealing a positive
causal effect from these employment arrangements on job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Also,
our research treats the relationship between different forms of work flexibility and job satisfaction
among Romanian employees.
Analyzing different forms of employment and their relationship with employee loyalty, KotRadojewska and Timenko [36] provided evidence that the employees with an indefinite duration
employment contract exhibited a higher level of loyalty compared to those with a fixed-term
employment contract. This relevant finding will also be included in our research, but with an impact
on job satisfaction.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of theoretical considerations between work flexibility,
job satisfaction, and job performance.
Strenitzerová and Achimsky [6] offer a new perspective of the achievement of employee satisfaction
and loyalty as part of sustainable human resource management, revealing that higher financial
rewards lead to the greatest satisfaction, while the employees’ age, job position, and length of
employment strongly impact employee loyalty. The results present a particular interest for our research,
since employee satisfaction is seen as a key challenge for sustainable human resource management.
Giovanis [35] explored the relationship between job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and two types
of flexible employment arrangements—teleworking and flexible timing—revealing a positive causal
effect from these employment arrangements on job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Also, our research
treats the relationship between different forms of work flexibility and job satisfaction among
Romanian employees.
Analyzing different forms of employment and their relationship with employee loyalty,
Kot-Radojewska and Timenko [36] provided evidence that the employees with an indefinite duration
employment contract exhibited a higher level of loyalty compared to those with a fixed-term
employment contract. This relevant finding will also be included in our research, but with an
impact on job satisfaction.
Although there is an extensive body of literature written of job satisfaction, Gazioglu and
Tansel [37] provide an interesting analysis of the determinants of job satisfaction in Britain considering
the following four different measures of job satisfaction: satisfaction with their influence over the
job, satisfaction with the amount of pay received, satisfaction with the sense of achievement gained,
and satisfaction with the level of respect given from supervisors. Among the interesting results
obtained, and taking into account the aim of our research, they found that long working hours
reduce satisfaction, while those employees who had job training were more satisfied than those
who had no training opportunities. These results are even more relevant from the perspective of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 7 of 53
working time and functional flexibility and led us to research how these characteristics affect Romanian
employee satisfaction.
Flexibility is an important characteristic of sustainable HRM [1,11] that primarily reflects the needs
of employees. Sustainability in the field of human resources and its benefits imply a broader approach
to labor regulations, as compliance with institutional requirements does not lead to sustainability [38].
It represents the capability of organizations to confront the dynamics and uncertainty of their
environments, rapidly changing their organizational routines or resource bases.
Work flexibility and its implementation have occupied an important place in the last few decades
in industrial sociology and human resource management, becoming a popular term in many fields and
directions of research, presented as a necessity in the contemporary workplace [39]. Since organizational
environments have become more complex and dynamic, companies increasingly use HRM practices
that enhance their flexibility, such as contingent work, part-time or temporary work, and flexible
contract work [40].
From the perspective of employees’ initiatives regarding the work they performed or the way
they are employed, Reilly [41] proposed five types of work flexibility—functional, numerical, temporal,
local, and financial. An alternative classification of work flexibility arrangements have been proposed
by the International Classification for Standards, according to which there are two types of work
flexibility—on the one hand, there is a quantitative flexibility (involving changes regarding the number
of employees and working hours), and on the other hand, there is a qualitative flexibility (involving
the content of competence and quality of work) [42].
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM pointed out by Stankeviciute and
Savaneviciene [1], two core characteristics are of particular interest for our research—employee
development and a mix of flexible working time, and new types of workspaces to increase job
satisfaction leading to sustainable HRM. Casuneanu identified the following four different forms
of work flexibility: working time flexibility, contractual flexibility, functional flexibility (vocational
training), and wage flexibility [43].
In light of sustainability, functional flexibility achieved through employee development is even
more important from the perspective of acquiring of skills and developing capacities that employees
will need in the future. Thus, the development of employees needs to take into account the investment
in future skills, and the employees’ need to be regarded as two facets: the main asset as well as an
agent of change [1]. Hirsig et al. [44] argue that, “it becomes more and more important to invest in
continuous training and education for the workforce rather than in infrastructure and equipment.”
Hirsig et al. [44] and Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcie [ ˙ 1] highlighted the importance of investment
in training and education for human resources, creating a win–win situation both for employees (future
employability and career opportunities) and for employer (profitability and success).
The presence of sustainability in HRM can be revealed through employee development through
on the job training, which can be seen as a cost-saving approach, leading in turn to higher job
motivation [45] as well as through mentoring and sharing the knowledge with new employees [46],
sending the message that through training and development, the company is interested in their long
term retention. Employee development can be seen also as a mechanism for helping individuals in
achieving their own self-development and self-enrichment goals or as learning opportunities seen as a
“sustainable” investment in personnel [46,47]. In conclusion, employees’ development is regarded
as an important element of sustainable HRM and represents an important aspect of our research,
aiming to examine its relationship with job satisfaction.
Flexibility represents another important characteristic of sustainable HRM, mainly being reflected
in terms of employee needs. Furthermore, we refer to different types of work flexibility, from contractual
flexibility or flexible employment to working time arrangements and new workspaces.
Among these forms of work flexibility, the relatively short-term perspective of contractual
flexibility based on different types of employment contracts (part-time work or fixed-term employment)
makes it difficult to support in some ways the idea of sustainability, which implies a long-run approach.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 8 of 53
According to Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcien ˙ e [ ˙ 1], the only way in which this contractual flexibility
could lead to sustainability is if it helps the labor market integrate particular groups (students or
persons with disabilities). Although flexible employment does not support the idea of sustainability
within HRM, the increasing incidence of non-standardized forms of employment are creating structural
changes regarding work patterns in Romania, leading us to include it in the analysis with the aim of
revealing its impact on the overall level of job satisfaction.
On the other hand, flexible working time and workspaces support the sustainability in the HRM,
not only from the perspective of the environmental benefits, due to working from home and thus less
use of company cars and less need for large company buildings [48], but also from the perspective of
the employees’ heightened satisfaction, freedom, and control, it being acknowledged that a mix of
flexible working time and new types of workspaces increases job satisfaction, leading to sustainable
HRM [1]. From this precise point of view, it very important to identify the forms of work flexibility
that exhibited a positive impact on employee job satisfaction and job performance.
If a company intends to adopt a sustainable HRM, their focus needs to be on their employees’
development, advancing them in sustainability by assigning task forces, in-depth training, flexible
workhours, and a workspace with beneficial environmental impacts.
Work Flexibility in Times of Crisis
Before the coronavirus crisis, employees were already demanding a new focus on life. Workplaces
faced constant change prior to the pandemic, and there will be more to come. In her article published
on Gallup website [49], Mullen O’Keefe argued that, “Flexibility will look different in each workplace
because culture is as unique to an organization as DNA is to a person.”
Certain jobs require employees to be physically present. Thus, this particularly situation which
we are facing, offers the opportunity of revisiting the company policies in order to better incorporate
flexibility overall. There is a debate how the labor market will look after the pandemic, and an
answer needs to be given of whether employees will continue working from home when public health
restrictions are no longer necessary.
According to Mullen O’Keefe, in addition to the “when,” managers should consider if the “where”
for workers can change too [49]. Full-time remote work is not the only solution. According to
Cheremond [50], the main findings of the recent Gartner poll revealed that one of the future work
trends post pandemic refers to the increase of remote working, stipulating that 48% of employees most
likely will decide to work remotely at least part of the time after COVID-19 compared with only 30% of
them before the pandemic; flexible working will be a new normal after the virus.
The measures of social and physical distance aimed at stopping the transmission of COVID-19 and
preventing the emergence of new ones imposed physical distance between people (at least one meter)
and reduced contact with contaminated surfaces, encouraging and supporting a virtual connection
within families and communities. Regarding the development of professional activities, work flexibility
was introduced, such as teleworking, distance learning, reduction and avoidance of congestion, and the
closure of non-essential facilities and services [51].
The coronavirus pandemic resulted in the largest number of employees worldwide being forced to
work remotely, with working at home becoming the new normal [52]. The impact of COVID-19 on the
labor market differs considerably between countries. Employees in Germany have a well-established
short-term work schedule and are unlikely to be affected by the crisis. Within countries, impacts are
uneven and exacerbate existing inequalities. Workers in alternative employment arrangements and
occupations, characterized by a small part of the tasks performed from home, have experienced reduced
hours, job losses, and declining earnings [53]. Working from home can be useful for people working in
IT or other industries, but there are employees for whom working from home is not possible, even in
a crisis. The health crisis has affected training efforts; therefore, retraining has become a challenge.
All these consequences could have been minimized if they had been planned well in advance or if
employees had been familiar with such strategies [54].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 9 of 53
All measures taken during the coronavirus crisis will have short-term and long-term effects on
people’s lives, especially on working life, given the changes regarding work arrangements (short-term
work, flexible location, and time). The relationships between work and career of people working in
flexible roles could be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, generating an examination of the effects
on the work and career of those people, so that the pandemic can contribute to the flexible working
offset [55]. The importance of employee satisfaction during the crisis, referring to the coronavirus
crisis, was analyzed by Shan and Thang. The results indicated that companies with higher employee
satisfaction are more resistant to negative shocks across the market during the COVID-19 outbreak [56].
Akkermans et al. identified the Covid-19 pandemic as a career shock, which will have a major
impact on people’s work and careers. The impact of the crisis will depend on contextual and individual
factors and will affect people differently depending on their stage of career and life. Although the
pandemic represents a negative career shock, it can have long-term positive implications, the short-term
consequences are different from the long-term ones [57].
Before the coronavirus crisis, the business world was already opening up to the idea of remote
work. A survey conducted by LinkedIn at the end of 2019, indicated that home working is an
attractive concept for both employers and employees, with benefits such as better work–life balance,
increased productivity, and lower costs for buildings and infrastructure. This idea was strengthened
during the pandemic, as it was observed that flexibility in work is a viable solution, with some
managers claiming that it increased employee productivity, which could lead to a reassessment of how
people will work after the pandemic [58].
Megan Brenan [59] has already indicated a change—“three out of five US workers who did
their homework during the coronavirus pandemic would prefer to continue working as far away as
possible,” and 41% said they would prefer to return to their work or office to work after the crisis.
These changes will result in a work reorganization, as long as flexibility does not change performance
targets. Flexibility at work must be “business as usual” and not just something to resort to in times
of crisis.
As the pandemic resets major work trends, HR leaders need to rethink workforce and
employee-related strategies. Among these trends, one already marked shifts, others have new
impacts, referring to an increase the remote work, contingent worker expansion, a separation of critical
skills and roles, the (de)humanization of employees, and a transition from designing for efficiency to
designing for resilience.
2.2. Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction Literature
Job Satisfaction is an essential criterion that cannot be overestimated, representing a combination
of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that determine an employee’s
satisfaction with their job [48], emotional stability, and conscientiousness [60].
Regarding the employee role at work, satisfaction can be defined as emotional orientations on the
part of employees toward the work roles they perform [47], greatly influencing employee motivation,
which influences productivity and, therefore, organization performance as a whole [61].
Many studies have highlighted the fact that employee motivation influences job satisfaction,
while the level of motivation has an impact on productivity and therefore on company performance.
The employees’ perceptions of the nature of their work have a considerable impact on job satisfaction
level, with financial compensation having a significant impact on overall employee satisfaction [47].
Other studies have analyzed job performance, satisfaction and the intention of resigning, the result of
which indicates that low-performing employees leave their jobs for various reasons [62].
The factors that significantly influence job satisfaction and career advancement are age,
work seniority, gender, education, position in the organization [63–65], employee abilities, and country
of residence [42]. Other determinants of job satisfaction are communication and the nature of work [66],
as well as the national culture, which moderates the relationship between leadership behavior and job
satisfaction [67] and generates an increase in satisfaction [68].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 10 of 53
At a national level, employee job satisfaction has been the subject of many empirical studies,
analyzing factors influencing employee satisfaction [69] and testing empirically motivation theories [70].
Key factors enhancing overall levels of job satisfaction are communication and nature of work [71],
the economic status provided by a particular job [69], emotional stability [60], financial incentives [72],
and the combination between extrinsic factors (bonuses and monetary benefits) and intrinsic factors
(professional fulfilment and good relationships) [73].
Origo and Pagani [42] and Possenriede and Plantenga [74] analyzed the relationship between work
flexibility and job satisfaction revealing that temporary and local work flexibility requires employees’
control over their professional life, improving the link between paid work and private life, and leading
to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction. Flexible work leads to greater job satisfaction and
low level of burnout and stress [75], with benefits to employee health and well-being [76] correlating
with a good work–family relationship and high job satisfaction [77]. The results of these studies are of
particular importance, since the relationship between work flexibility and job satisfaction is the subject
matter of our research.
The main factors that influence job satisfaction and flexibility in different Romanian companies
were investigated by Că¸suneanu et al. [78], revealing that a flexible schedule is essential in improving
work motivation, with employees of small companies assigning a higher level of importance to remote
work or teleworking. Romanian employees expect to be rewarded for personal characteristics and
work behavior with non-financial rewards, appreciation, and recognition being equally important
as any financial rewards [71]. Other studies have indicated that rewards positively influence job
satisfaction [79].
Based on previous theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses are created to stipulate
how the main four types of flexibility (contractual, functional, working time, and workspace) will
highlight the relevance of employee development and employee flexibility as part of sustainable HRM
in increasing the overall level of job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). On average, there is a moderate level of work flexibility among Romanian employees.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Different types of work flexibility lead to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction,
contributing to the achievement of sustainable HRM.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). The employee flexibility composite indicator leads to an increase in overall level of job
satisfaction, contributing to the achievement of sustainable HRM.
2.3. Work Flexibility and Job Performance Literature
Job performance is a central element within industrial and organizational psychology,
reflecting scalable actions, behaviors, and outcomes that employees engage with, or contribute to,
within organizations [80], and being defined by how employee behaviors contribute to organizational
goals [81]. Job performance is influenced by individual characteristics (experience and ability),
outcomes (e.g., feedback and job security), work environment [82], and education [83]. The general
individual determinants for job performance are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and
skills, and motivation [84].
In accordance to our objectives, it is worth to mention the findings of Waldman and Spangler [85],
who developed an integrated model of job performance, influenced by individual characteristics
(experience, ability), outcomes (feedback, job security), but also by work environment.
In Romania, several intrinsic factors contribute to increased job performance, resulting in employees
feeling appreciated and consequently pursuing the organization’s objectives, leading to an increase in job
involvement, a decrease in absenteeism, and a boost in self-confidence [86] leading to fewer fluctuations
regarding the job [85]. Additionally, factors such as self-determination [87], job tability, authority,
responsibility and autonomy at work, workplace comfort, advancement prospects, benefits packages,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 11 of 53
professional development, job attractiveness, remuneration [85], effective communication between
management and employees, early distribution of tasks, a feeling of recognition, and an attractive
salary [88] are also important in increasing employee performance.
Work adjustment theory states that work flexibility leads to higher employee involvement and an
increased level of job performance. If Bal and DeLane [89] proved that the relationship between work
flexibility and job performance was mediated by employee commitment, it was also demonstrated that
time flexibility significantly impacted labor productivity [90,91].
Significant results proving that work flexibility leads to performance has been provided by
Beltrán-Martín et al. [92], Lepak et al. [93], Martinez-Sanchey et al. [90], Bran and Udrea [91] and
Valverde et al. [94].
Research has also proven that investments in human capital also increase labor productivity,
as well as employee stability in the labor market, employability, and adaptability to new global labor
conditions, including job performance [95,96].
Today, flexibility in the workplace is an increasing need in companies in order to recruit the best
staff and to increase productivity among employees. Labor market flexibility is important as it is a
positive quality that is highly valued by both jobseekers and employers.
Based on previous theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses have been created in order
to stipulate how the new forms of workspace flexibility lead to an increase in job performance, a better
management of personal time and space, a higher level of comfort, improved personal and professional
relationships, a higher level of learning and professional development, and increased work motivation:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Total home office (HOT), as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level of job
performance, a better management of personal time and space, and a higher level of comfort.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Partial home office (HOP), as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level
of organizational performance, improved work motivation, improved personal and professional relationships,
and higher level of learning and professional development.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Co-working (CW), as new type of working, is associated with improved personal and
professional relationships and higher levels of learning and professional development.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Flex office [FO], as new type of working, is associated with improved personal and
professional relationships.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). Partial home office (HOP) is associated with an improved level of work motivation.
2.4. Theoretical Considerations on the Relationship between Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction,
and Job Performance
Flexible work practices are designed to meet the needs of employers, thus improving the work–life
balance of employees in a manner consistent with the needs of the company and conducing to job
satisfaction and job performance. For both companies and the labor market in general, work flexibility
is seen as the key to success, influencing working conditions, productivity, profitability, and overall
performance. Economists argue that work flexibility has relevant effects on workers’ well-being and
job satisfaction [3,95].
Carvalho and Cabral-Cardoso revealed that numerical and functional flexibility can be achieved
simultaneously and interdependently by implementing a unique HRM system based on workforce
commitment [97]. Businesses with flexible operations often have several forms of flexible working
models that reflect an innovation in human resource management [98].
Analyzing the influence of sustainable human resource management (HRM) practices on workplace
performance, Manzoor et al. demonstrated that HRM practices, such as employee selection, participation,
and empowerment significantly and positively influenced employee work performance [95].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 12 of 53
National empirical evidence on work flexibility has been demonstrated by the studies of
Casuneanu [96], Lefter et al. [99], Dima et al. [100], Lefter and Casuneanu [101], and Lefter et al. [102],
and Casuneanu et al. [78].
In summary, the core idea of all empirical studies regarding work flexibility characteristics of
Romanian employees refers to teamwork and usage of information technology as primordial elements
of flexibility, while the most important forms of flexibility in the opinion of Romanian employees are
team autonomy and working time flexibility. Therefore, the importance of work flexibility is once
again highlighted, and the motivation of our research could also be explained from this perspective.
Although there are several other studies examining the relationship between work flexibility and
job satisfaction, and studies examining the relationship between work flexibility and job performance,
there are relatively few studies analyzing the relationship between work flexibility and both job
performance and satisfaction simultaneously.
Significant results of the impact of work flexibility on job satisfaction and job performance have
been provided by Orpen [103], Solanki [104], Al Omar et al. [105], Govender et al. [106], Lefter et al. [101],
Casuneanu [96], and Burtăverde [107]. In his study, Orpen [103] validated only the relationship between
work flexibility and job satisfaction and invalidated the relationship between work flexibility and
job performance.
The link between flexible work arrangements, satisfaction, and performance was investigated by
Govender et al. [106]. The results indicated that most employees are satisfied with their actual work
arrangements and work flexibility which could contribute to their decision to remain with their current
employer. Job performance and work flexibility have a strong positive correlation and flexible work
arrangements improve employee retention and job satisfaction, increasing productivity.
The link between work flexibility, job satisfaction and job performance in Romania was analyzed by
Lefter et al. [99] using survey data based on a sample of 220 employees; the empirical results highlighting
that work flexibility (flexible schedule, teleworking, or reduced working time) significantly influences
job satisfaction and job performance. In addition, flexible work has been found to significantly influence
employee well-being, personal and professional performance, and the overall level of motivation.
Casuneanu [96] pointed out the importance of flexible hours, among other motivational factors,
in increasing the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
In this context of work flexibility and job satisfaction, and respectively, work flexibility and job
performance, it is also worth analyzing potential links between job satisfaction and job performance
within the literature. The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been studied
throughout the history of industrial and organizational psychology, with many researchers considering
a causal relationship between satisfaction and performance [108].
Satisfied employees are found to perform better and contribute to the organization success [109].
The positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been provided by the
studies of Christen et al. [110], Katzell et al. [111], O’Leary et al. [112], Norris and Niebuhr [113],
Petty et al. [114], and Neagu [115].
Pavalache-Ilie [80] studied the relationship between “good soldier syndrome” and job satisfaction
by researching two independent studies (public and private) conducted in Romania. The results
indicated that job satisfaction is associated with performance behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship,
self-efficacy, hospitality, and seniority within the organization), with the involvement in public
organizations being more intense than in private ones.
In the context of today’s economy, when professionals can choose from a wide range of offers
available on the labor market, employers must reinvent themselves and begin to offer potential
employee’s alternative benefits other than simply financial ones. Most of the time, the flexibility of the
organization can determine, not only the employee’s longevity but, more importantly, their motivation
to work hard and to be productive. Employer flexibility benefits not only the employees but also the
organization that offers it. Rigidity removes talent, and in a free, growing market, potential employees
have the opportunity to explore their options before they choose a position.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 13 of 53
Table 1. An overview of the most relevant studies on work flexibility job satisfaction and job performance at a national level.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility
Lefter, Davidescu, and
Casuneanu (2017) [99] Sample of 100 employees
Principal
Components
Analysis
Most respondents consider teamwork and the use of information
technology to be key elements of work flexibility.
Dima, T, uclea, Vrânceanu,
and T
, igu [100] Sample of 1180 employees
Model based on
structural
equations
At an individual level, telework could establish a greater work-life
balance, and at a social level, it could generate lasting effects for
long-term labor management.
Lefter and Că¸suneanu
(2018) [101] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire The main forms of flexibility at work in Romanian companies are represented by teamwork, computer use, and telework.
Casuneanu, Lefter, and
Davidescu (2019) [78] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
Measures to be taken to improve employee motivation are flexible
program in case of big companies, while the small companies
employees consider the ability to work from home (remote work) or
near to the house (teleworking) to be important.
Lefter, Casuneanu, and
Enache (2018) [102] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
The main elements of flexibility (teamwork and usage of information
technology) are very important for Romanian employees-autonomy of
work teams and working time flexibility.
Job
satisfaction
Pook, Fustos, and Marian
(2003) [65]
Sample of 932 employees from
Hungary, Poland and Romania Questionnaire Degree of functioning, gender and position significantly influence job satisfaction and advancement.
Analoui (2000) [74] 23 Romanian organizations Questionnaire and
sample interviews
Recognition and appreciation, salary and remuneration, promotion
status and professional satisfaction are key factors among Romanian
managers.
Săveanu and Săveanu
(2011) [69] Sample of 1489 subjects European Values Survey 2008 Work is very important for Romanians, and the main factor that influences job satisfaction is the economic situation.
Matei and Abrudan
(2016) [68]
100 online recruitment
companies Questionnaire
Intrinsic factors have generated an increase regarding the level of
satisfaction, proving that the theory is not adequate to the Romanian
cultural context.
Burlacu and Birsan
(2016) [116] Sample of 500 subjects Questionnaire
Almost half of the interviewees consider that the salary is not sufficient
to cover the monthly expenses, the salaries cannot be considered
satisfactory nor can they ensure a proper quality of life.
Tampu (2016) [72] Sample of 629 employees Questionnaire Main motivational factors are focusing on extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation, attitude at work, job satisfaction, rewards, and incentives.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 14 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Job
satisfaction
Matei and Fataciune
(2016) [66]
Sample of 120 employees from
public and private sector
Job satisfaction
survey
Communication and the nature of work are determinants of job
satisfaction work, highlighting a higher satisfaction for private
employees.
Cristescu, Stănilă, and
Andreica (2013) [73]
Sample of 355 employees from
public sector Questionnaire
A combination of external advantages (bonuses and non-monetary
benefits) and intrinsic factors (satisfaction and professional fulfilment,
good relations with the local community) increase the professional
motivation of civil servants.
Job
performance
Mihalcea (2013) [85] Sample Questionnaire
Leaders who registered task orientation, dominance, ambition,
independence, and self-confidence generate a low level of satisfaction
among their employees, being identified by moderate correlation, and
managers who generated professional satisfaction were characterized
by sensitivity to other people’s problems, the need for affiliation and
support, less assertive and reduced control over the work of
subordinates.
Ölçer and Florescu
(2015) [87] Sample Questionnaire
Competence, self-determination and impact have positively influenced
the work performance of employees. Job satisfaction led to job
performance, and job satisfaction partially mediated the relationships
between competence and performance at work.
Bercu and Onofrei
(2017) [86] Sample Questionnaire
The results revealed that intrinsic factors are a priority, employees who
feel valued will pursue the organization’s goals, work involvement will
increase, absenteeism will be reduced and there will be less fluctuations
in the workplace. The main motivation of civil servants leading to job
performance is job stability, followed by authority, responsibility and
autonomy at work, comfort, prospect of advancement, benefits
package, professional development, job attractiveness, and
remuneration.
Tampu and Cochina
(2015) [88]
Sample of 629 employees from
multinationals in Bucharest Questionnaire
Communication between the management team and employees, early
distribution of tasks, recognition or an attractive salary are relevant in
increasing employee performance.
Suciu, Mortan, and Lazăr
(2013) [70]
Sample of civil servants in the
North-West Region Questionnaire The results highlighted a direct link between job performance and expectation, influencing their motivation to work.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 15 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility
and job
satisfaction
Că¸suneanu, Lefter, and
Davidescu (2019) [78] Sample Questionnaire
The empirical results revealed that the employees of small companies
are the most satisfied with their current job and the salary received, and
the least satisfied are the employees of medium or large companies.
Buzea (2014) [79] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that Romanian employees expect to be rewarded
for personal characteristics, followed by work behavior. Non-financial
rewards, appreciation, and recognition are just as important as the
financial reward.
Tănăsescu and Leon
(2019) [117] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that rewards positively influence job satisfaction,
while the relationships between job satisfaction and job performance,
and between rewards and job performance are not significant.
Flexibility
and job
performance
Wallace (2003) [118]
Sample in eight countries (UK,
Netherlands, Sweden, Czechia,
Hungary, Slovenia, Romania,
and Bulgaria)
The results identified high flexibility for highly educated people and
low flexibility for people with low education, low incomes, and often
with young workers and those in rural areas.
Bran and Udrea (2016) [91] Sample Questionnaire
The results identified that increasing work flexibility significantly
improved job performance, motivation leading to performance, and in
conjunction with flexibility lead to superior performance.
Serban (2012) [119] Sample Questionnaire
Labor market flexibility has a beneficial impact on labor productivity.
Investments in human capital increase labor productivity, employee
stability in the labor market, employability and adaptability to new
global labor conditions, including job performance.
Job
satisfaction
and job
performance
Neagu (2010) [115] Sample Questionnaire
The results concluded that job satisfaction is positively correlated with
communication and motivation, and inversely correlated with
organizational commitment.
Pavalache-Ilie (2013) [80] Sample Questionnaire
The results showed that job satisfaction is associated with performance
behaviors (organizational citizenship, self-efficacy, hospitality, and
seniority within the organization), and the involvement in public
organizations being more intense than in private ones.
Ionescu and Horga
(2013) [120]
Sample of employees in tourism
sector Questionnaire
The results highlighted the importance of job satisfaction and effective
communication within companies, leading to higher financial
performance.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 16 of 53
Table 1. Cont.
Domain Authors Study Method Results
Work
flexibility, job
satisfaction
and job
performance
Lefter, Davidescu, and
Casuneanu (2017) [99] Sample of 220 employees Questionnaire
Empirical results identified that work flexibility (flexible working
hours, teleworking or reduced working hours) significantly influenced
job satisfaction and job performance. In addition, flexible work has
significantly influenced well-being, personal and professional
performance, and motivation.
Burtăverde (2015) [107] Sample of 144 employees Questionnaire
The results indicated life satisfaction in general is directly correlated
with honesty and health, and between emotional factor and job
satisfaction the link is reversed. A positive relationship was
determined between conscientiousness, job satisfaction, satisfaction
with life and health, and between openness and satisfaction with life.
Casuneanu (2011) [96] Sample of 402 employees
CATI system
(telephone-assisted
telephone
interview).
Employees are looking for jobs that provide them with stability and
security.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 17 of 53
3. Data and Methods
In order to investigate the relationship between work flexibility as part of sustainable HRM and
job satisfaction and job performance as sustainable HRM outcomes among Romanian employees,
the research aims to respond to the following specific questions:
What kind of work flexibility elements are present in Romanian organizations? To what extent
are different forms of work flexibility present within Romanian organizations? Is HOT, as a new
type of working, related to a higher level of job performance and comfort and better management of
personal time and space? Is HOP, as a new type of working, related to a higher level of organizational
performance, higher work motivation, higher personal, professional relationships, and higher level of
learning and professional development? Is CW, as a new type of working, related to higher personal,
professional relationships and higher level of learning and professional development? Is FO, as a new
type of working, associated with higher personal, professional relationships? Is HOP related to a
higher level of work motivation? Overall, is there an average medium level of work flexibility among
Romanian employees? What is the level of work flexibility registered by most employees? How many
employees have a high level of work flexibility?
Do different forms of work flexibility increase the overall level of job satisfaction? Does an employee
flexibility composite index lead to an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction, contributing to the
achievement of sustainable HRM?
In order to assess this, a quantitative sociological survey was conducted based on a structured
questionnaire among adults aged 15–64 who, at the time of the survey, were employees. The sampling
was of probabilistic stage-type stratified. The sampling layers targeted were employee regional
distribution, distribution by areas of activity, gender distribution, and distribution by area of residence
(urban/rural). The study was conducted on a nationally representative sample of 220 people.
Data collection was performed on 16 counties and Bucharest, cumulating a total of 50 sampling
points (national, urban and rural). The study was conducted face to face and the collection period was
29 October–11 November 2018. The national representation of the sample has been assessed, by testing
that there is no statistically significant difference between population mean and sample mean for the
characteristic-respondent age, by testing that there is no statistically significant difference between
population variance at regional level and sample variance at regional level, and through a similar
sample gender distribution at national level with that one of the population.
The questionnaire contains information regarding the overall level of job and salary satisfaction,
the most relevant motivational factors, the main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian
companies, the main forms of work flexibility, urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s
management to improve flexibility and job satisfaction, new spaces of working and how working in
these spaces could impact wellbeing, professional growth and development, social and professional
relationships, personal professional performance, and organizational performance.
The research assessed the notoriety of new types of working (HOT, HOP, FO, and CW) on
organizational performance and feedback from people in offices.
Flex office (FO) designates spaces with impersonal and non-territorial workstations, correlated
with spaces that create better facilities for meetings, concentration, creative activities, learning activities,
and others. Co-working (CW) refers to the activities carried out in rented spaces, by people with
diverse, frequently complementary activities, which they could also carry out at home, but prefer to do
in a multi-relationship environment. Home office is work from home, either full time (HOT) or part
time (HOP).
Within the survey, the following four types of work flexibility have been analyzed: working time
flexibility, contractual flexibility, functional flexibility, and workspace flexibility.
Contractual flexibility was assessed through different types of contracts—full-time employment
contract, part-time employment contract, fixed-term employment contract, work-from-home contract,
distance work (work from a distance, from home or close to home), or other types of contracts (on
request, division of labor) using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 18 of 53
Working time flexibility was evaluated based on seven items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Functional flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous variables
coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Working space flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The presence of the main forms of work flexibility was assessed using dichotomous variables
encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The major characteristics of working time and functional flexibility were quantified using
dichotomous variables encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s management to improve flexibility and
job satisfaction of employees’ work were quantified using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for
presence and 0—otherwise.
The potential impact of new types of working on work efficiency and productivity, on improving
interpersonal relationships by meeting new people, the ability to gain new knowledge, the ability
to increase company performance due to increased profit and more efficient use of workspace,
increased personal comfort, and more efficient management of working time, and the increase of
employee motivation was evaluated based on nine items quantified using dichotomous variables
coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The analysis of the main specificities of work flexibility and job satisfaction was performed
based on descriptive statistics and charts. The investigation of the main differences of opinion
regarding the main forms of work flexibility among Romanian employees was performed based on the
non-parametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests.
In order to develop a multidimensional flexibility indicator, we have incorporated information
from four areas totaling 18 binary items with 36 categories as follows (Figure 2):
X contractual flexibility: four items;
X working time flexibility: seven items;
X functional flexibility: three items;
X working space flexibility: four items.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 56
Working time flexibility was evaluated based on seven items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Functional flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
Working space flexibility was evaluated based on three items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The presence of the main forms of work flexibility was assessed using dichotomous variables
encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The major characteristics of working time and functional flexibility were quantified using
dichotomous variables encoded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The urgent measures to be taken by the organization’s management to improve flexibility and
job satisfaction of employees’ work were quantified using dichotomous variables coded by 1—for
presence and 0—otherwise.
The potential impact of new types of working on work efficiency and productivity, on
improving interpersonal relationships by meeting new people, the ability to gain new knowledge,
the ability to increase company performance due to increased profit and more efficient use of
workspace, increased personal comfort, and more efficient management of working time, and the
increase of employee motivation was evaluated based on nine items quantified using dichotomous
variables coded by 1—for presence and 0—otherwise.
The analysis of the main specificities of work flexibility and job satisfaction was performed based
on descriptive statistics and charts. The investigation of the main differences of opinion regarding
the main forms of work flexibility among Romanian employees was performed based on the nonparametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests.
In order to develop a multidimensional flexibility indicator, we have incorporated information
from four areas totaling 18 binary items with 36 categories as follows (Figure 2):
 contractual flexibility: four items;
 working time flexibility: seven items;
 functional flexibility: three items;
 working space flexibility: four items.
Figure 2. Figure 2. The scheme of employee flexibility composite indicator (CFI). The scheme of employee flexibility composite indicator (CFI).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 19 of 53
Taking into account the fact that the variables are dichotomous, multiple correspondence
analysis (MCA) has been applied [121]. MCA has been applied by Asselin and Vu Tuan [122]
in Vietnam; Ki et al. [123] in Senegal; Ningaye and Ndjanyou [124] and Njong and Ningaye [125] in
the case of Cameroon; and be Njong and Ningaye [125], Ezzari and Verme [126], Canuel et al. [127],
and Asselin [121] to generate composite indices for poverty.
From the technical point of view, MCA is obtained by using a standard correspondence analysis
on an indicator matrix (i.e., a matrix whose entries are 0 or 1). The MCA assumption is extracting
a first factor which retains maximum information contained in this matrix and furthermore, to use
this information to generate a composite indicator for each employee [128]. The difference between
this approach and PCA is that the dependent variable is unobserved and cannot be used directly to
estimate correlation coefficients, employee flexibility being considered as a multidimensional latent
(unobserved) variable [128].
For the construction of a CFI from K ordinal categorical indicators, the monotonicity axiom,
stipulating that if employee “i” increases its situation for a given variable, then its composite flexibility
index value CFIi increases: its flexibility level increases (larger values mean higher flexibility).
The monotonicity axiom translates into the first axis ordering consistency (FAOC) principle [123].
This implies that the first axis must have growing factorial scores indicating a movement from
non-flexible to flexible working status. For each of the nominal variables, the MCA calculates a
discrimination measure on each of the factorial axes. It represents the variance of the factorial scores
of all the modalities of the variable on the axis and measures the magnitude with which the variable
explains the axis.
Category quantification plots represent an alternative method of presenting discrimination of
variables that can identify category relationships. The coordinates of each category on each dimension
are presented in order to dispose which categories are related to each variable [129].
In order to build the composite indicator of flexibility, the weights given by MCA, corresponding
to the standardized scores on the first factorial axis, will be used. When all the variable modalities
have been converted into a dichotomous nature coded 0/1, giving a total of P binary indicators, the CFI
for a certain employee “i” can be written as [121]
CPIi = 1
KW1Ii1 + W2Ii2 + · · · + WpIip, (1)
where W = the weight (score of first standardized axis, (score/pλ1)) of category p, Ip = binary indicator
0/1, which takes on the value 1 when the employee has the modality and 0 otherwise. The CFI
value reflects the average global flexibility level of a particular employee. Furthermore, the index is
transformed using the percentile rank to take values between 0 and 100.
Using the composite indicator of employee work flexibility, we can assess the impact
of work flexibility on the overall level of job satisfaction using binomial logistic regression.
Alternatively, as robustness analysis, we have taken into account in the analysis the potential influence
of each type of work flexibility (contractual flexibility, working time, and functional flexibility and
workspace flexibility) together with individual control variables on the job satisfaction.
In order to do that, we have considered:
– Dependent variable:
• Job satisfaction level was measures using a five-point Likert scale using the following
categories: 1—very dissatisfied to 5—very satisfied answering to the following question:
Are you satisfied with your current job? Furthermore, the variable has been transformed
into a dichotomous one with the categories 1—satisfied and 0—otherwise.
– Explanatory variables on work flexibility:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 20 of 53
• Contractual flexibility: Within the organization you are employed: (1) based on an indefinite
duration employment contract with full time working; (2) on the basis of an employment
contract of indefinite duration with part-time work; (3) based on a fixed-term employment
contract with full working time; (4) based on a fixed-term employment contract with part-time
work; (5) based on home working contract; based on “telework” contract (work at distance,
from home or from a space near the house); based on other types of contracts (on call,
job sharing) coded with 1—yes, 0—no.
• Elements of working time flexibility coded by 1—yes, 0—no: Do you work 40 h a week at the
main job? Do you have more than one job? Do you work the same number of hours every
day? Do you work the same number of days every week? Do you start and end the program
at fixed hours? Do you work in shifts? Do you work flexible hours?
• Elements of functional flexibility conditioned by 1—yes, 0—no: Participation in training
courses paid by the employer; Participation in payment courses from own sources;
Beneficiaries of on-the-job training;
• Elements of new workspace flexibility, coded by 1—yes, 0—no: total home working, partial
home working, coworking, and flex office.
– Control variables:
• Gender: a dummy variable in which 1—man and 2—women.
• Age: a polychotomous variable with values: 1 for under 26 years, 2 for 26–35 years, 3 for
36–45 years, 4 for 46–55 years, 5 for over 55 years.
• Principal occupation: a polychotomous variable with the following values: 1—specialist
with higher education; 2—general manager, director or person holding a senior management
position; 3—person holding a middle management position (head of department, head of
office); 4—Technician; 5—employee in public services (hospital, public catering, education,
police, fire, etc.); 6—skilled worker; 7—unskilled worker; 8—another situation.
• Degree of salary satisfaction: a dichotomous variable that answers the question, How satisfied
are you with the salary you receive? With: 1—satisfied, 0—otherwise.
• Degree of satisfaction regarding working conditions: a dichotomous variable that answers the
question, How satisfied are you with working conditions? With: 1—satisfied, 0—otherwise.
• Seniority within the company: a polychotomous variable with values: 1 for under 1 year;
2 for 1–3 years; 3 for 3–5 years; 4 for 5–10 years; 5 for over 10 years.
• Company size: a polychromatic variable with the following values: 1 for 1–9 employees;
2 for 10–49 employees; 3 for 50–249 employees; 4 for more than 250 employees.
• Sector of activity: a polychotomous variable with values 1—agriculture; 2—manufacturing
industry; 3—wholesale; 4—retail trade; 5—services; 6—construction; 7—other sector.
• Legal status of the company: a polychotomous variable with values 1—limited liability
company (srl); 2—joint stock company; 3—partnership; 4—limited partnership (joint stock
company); 5—autonomous company; 6—national society; 7—other.
Logistic regression models the relationship between a set of independent variables xi (categorical,
continuous) and a dichotomous dependent variable (nominal, binary) Y. Such a dependent variable
occurs when it belongs to two classes, categories—presence/absence, yes/no.
The regression equation obtained provides information about (1) the importance of variables in
class differentiation and (2) the classification of an observation into a class. Logistic regression can be
extended to incorporate more than one explanatory variable, which can be quantitative or qualitative.
The logistic regression model can then be written as follows:
ln
p
1 – p! = β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk, (2)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 21 of 53
where p being P(y = 1|x1, x2, : : : , xk) and is the probability of the event and x1, x2, : : : xk are the
explanatory variables:

P(y = 1 jx1, x2, : : : , xk) = 1 + exp(β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk),

(3)

exp(β0 + β1×1 + β2×2 + · · · + βkxk)
For the coefficient βi, we obtain
exp β0 =
P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0)
1 – P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk)
=
P(y = 1 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0
P(y = 0 x1, x2, : : : , xk = 0
, (4)
After estimating the coefficients, the significance of the coefficients, the general goodness of the
model classification, and the capacity of the model to discriminate between the two groups defined by
the response variable is evaluated.
When building the model step by step, checking if the variable removed from the model is
significant, so if the model can be simplified, the LR test is recommended.
Because some data is “rare” (scattered), statistics comparing two models is not distributed χ2,
using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. The test consists of classifying the predicted probabilities into
deciles (10 groups based on the percentile rank) and calculating the χ2 statistic that compares the
observed frequencies with the predicted ones. Small values of the statistics indicate a good fit of
the forecasted data, so an adequacy of the model. In the logistic regression, were used Cox & Snell
Pseudo-R2 and Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 as goodness of fit indicators.
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Romanian Employee Sample Profile
From the total of 220 Romanian employees interviewed, 55% were males, 30% aged between
36–45 years old, and 30% aged between 46–55 years old. Five percent of them registered their age
as under 26 years old, and 7% were elderly (55 years and over). Almost 27% of employees have as
length of service over 10 years, while 82% of employees declared not to have management position
experience. Regarding the received monthly salary, 46% of the respondents declared to earn less than
2500 lei, while only 38% of them declared to earn between 2500–5000 lei. Only a very small proportion
of 2% of the respondents declared to have a salary greater than 7500 lei.
Taking into account professional status, 42% of employees were declared to be skilled workers,
only 19% were higher education specialists, and 15% were public services employees. Most of the
employees come from Bucharest-Ilfov (20%) or the north-west and center regions (13%), most of
them working in small companies with at most 50 employees (31%), followed by those ones from
large companies (27%), from services (44%), manufacturing industry (24%), and retail trade (11%).
Seventy percent of respondents were declared to work in limited liability companies, and only 7%
were in the public sector (Figure 3).
Sustainability Sustainability20202020,,1212, 6086 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 56 22 of 53
Figure 3. Figure 3. Dashboard of the Romanian employee sample profile. Dashboard of the Romanian employee sample profile.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 23 of 53
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed by
teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 56
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed
by teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while
an even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible
number of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed
respondents declared to have more than one job (Figure 6).
15% 17% 20% 24% 47%
81%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with full
working time:
96%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with
part-time work:
3%
on a fixedduration contract
of employment
with full-time
work: 1%
on a fixed-term
contract with
part-time work:
0%
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 56
4.2. Analysing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility and Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of
Romanian Employees
Investigating what are the main elements of work flexibility present among Romanian
organizations, 81% of employees mentioned team working, 47% indicated computer usage, followed
by teleworking (24%) and job rotation (20%) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Main elements of work flexibility present in Romanian companies.
In line with our objectives and examining the particularities of different forms of work flexibility,
it can be highlighted that flexible employment was found only to a very small extent, only 3% of
employees declared to work based on part-time contract, and only 1% of employees work on the basis
of fixed duration contract with full time (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while
an even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible
number of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed
respondents declared to have more than one job (Figure 6).
15% 17% 20% 24% 47%
81%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with full
working time:
96%
on the basis of an
indefinite working
contract with
part-time work:
3%
on a fixedduration contract
of employment
with full-time
work: 1%
on a fixed-term
contract with
part-time work:
0%
Figure 5. Types of Romanian employee contracts.
Also, flexible time arrangements seem to have a relatively small prevalence among Romanian
organizations—almost 40% of employees declared they work in a flexible manner and in shifts, while an
even smaller proportion declared to have flexible working hours per day and per week, flexible number
of days per week, or work outside normal working hours. Only 55 of interviewed respondents declared
to have more than one job (Figure 6).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 24 of 53
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 56
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in
Romanian companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses
paid by their own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion
(13%) of the Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Have you attended
training courses paid
for by your employer?
Have you benefited
from on-the-job
training?
Have you attended
paid training courses
from your own
sources?
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in Romanian
companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses paid by their
own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion (13%) of the
Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds (Figure 7).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 56
Figure 6. Characteristics of working time flexibility in Romanian companies.
The functional flexibility related to employee training is found only to a small extent in
Romanian companies—only a third of employees testify that they have attended training courses
paid by their own employer or they have benefited from on the job training. A very small proportion
(13%) of the Romanian employees invest in themselves by paying courses from their own funds
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Have you attended
training courses paid
for by your employer?
Have you benefited
from on-the-job
training?
Have you attended
paid training courses
from your own
sources?
Figure 7. Main forms of functional flexibility.
From the new types of workspaces assuring an increased level of flexibility, home working and
partial home working are the most commonly known and used among employees and companies
(Figure 8).
Numerical flexibility though flexible compensation and working time flexibility through flexible
work schedule have been mentioned as main measures needed in order to increase work flexibility.
Teleworking has been stipulated by only 13% of employees (Figure 9).
Romanian employees tend to be satisfied and very satisfied with their current job, almost 70% of
them declaring this. Regarding salary, a higher proportion (31%) of them declare themselves neutral,
and only 54% of them consider that the salary level is satisfactory for them (Figure 10).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 25 of 53
1
Figure 8. Main forms of workspace flexibility.
Figure 8. Main forms of workspace flexibility.
Numerical flexibility though flexible compensation and working time flexibility through flexible
work schedule have been mentioned as main measures needed in order to increase work flexibility.
Teleworking has been stipulated by only 13% of employees (Figure 9).
Romanian employees tend to be satisfied and very satisfied with their current job, almost 70%
of them declaring this. Regarding salary, a higher proportion (31%) of them declare themselves
neutral, and only 54% of them consider that the salary level is satisfactory for them (Figure 10).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 56 Figure 9. Figure 9.Main measures to be taken to increase the work flexibility. Main measures to be taken to increase the work flexibility.
Figure 10. Distribution of employees according to the level of satisfaction with the current job and salary.
Investigating the correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction, it can be stated that
job satisfaction is directly correlated with salary—the higher the salary, the higher the satisfaction.
This fact was highlighted by a positive and highly statistically significant value of both Kendall and
Spearman correlation coefficients of the ranks of both Kendall and Spearman, the association being
one of medium intensity (Table 2)
very
unsatisfied
unsatisfied either
unsatisfied
either satisfied
satisfied very satisfied
3% 5%
22%
43%
27%
3%
12%
31%
36%
18%
How satisfied are you with your current job? How satisfied are you with the salary you receive?
Figure 10. Distribution of employees according to the level of satisfaction with the current job and salary.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 26 of 53
Investigating the correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction, it can be stated that
job satisfaction is directly correlated with salary—the higher the salary, the higher the satisfaction.
This fact was highlighted by a positive and highly statistically significant value of both Kendall and
Spearman correlation coefficients of the ranks of both Kendall and Spearman, the association being
one of medium intensity (Table 2).
Table 2. The level of correlation between job satisfaction and salary satisfaction.
How Satisfied Are
You with Your
Current Job?
How Satisfied Are
You with the Salary
You Receive?
Kendall’s tau_b
How Satisfied Are
You with Your
Current Job?
Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 0.601 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
Spearman’s rho How Satisfied Are
You with the Salary
You Receive?
Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 0.662 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Sig. = Significance.
Asked how they evaluated the motivation system in Romanian companies, most of respondents
Sustainability (46%) declared that it has not changed and only 34% of them said that it has improved (Figure 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 56 11).
Figure 11. In your opinion, compared to the previous year, how the motivation system in your
company changed?
For Romanian employees, bonuses, a potential good salary, work attractiveness and job stability
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of financialnon-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job stability
were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian
employees (Figure 12).
4.49 4.50 4.53 4.55 4.56
4.42
4.35 4.37
4.02 4.04
Figure 11. In your opinion, compared to the previous year, how the motivation system in your
company changed?
For Romanian employees, bonuses, a potential good salary, work attractiveness and job stability
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of
financial-non-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job
stability were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian employees
(Figure 12).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 27 of 53
have been identified as the highest motivational factors. It is worth mentioning that a mix of financialnon-financial incentives, together with bonuses and salaries, work attractiveness, and job stability
were ranked on the first positions.
Therefore, it seems that, compared to previous years in which the focus was on non-financial
incentives, in the recent period, financial incentives tend to return as important for Romanian
employees (Figure 12).
Figure 12. The most important motivational factors for the Romanian employees.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives, even if it is known that
this type of measure will produce effects only in the short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility
through the participation to training courses, and the working time flexibility through a flexible
program as the main measures in increasing employee work motivation (Figure 13).
4.49 4.50 4.53 4.55 4.56
4.42
4.35 4.37
4.02 4.04
Figure 12. The most important motivational factors for the Romanian employees.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives, even if it is known that
this type of measure will produce effects only in the short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility
through the participation to training courses, and the working time flexibility through a flexible
program as the main measures in increasing employee work motivation (Figure Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 56 13).
Figure 13. Main measures that need to be taken in order to improve the motivation of the employees
of the organization.
Taking into account one of our objectives regarding the way in which new types of workspaces
(FO, CW, HOT, HOP) influence job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space
management, level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional
relationships, level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
This part of the analysis has a direct correspondence to our research questions and refers to
hypotheses H4–H8. The survey evaluates the best workplace from the employee point of view,
targeting two clusters-one of employees working in offices, at the level of which a choice of a different
work space than the one in which they are currently working has been forced, and the second one of
respondents who do not work in offices at the level of which there is the possibility to choose,
including the space in which they currently work as a desirable space. For both clusters of employees,
the impact on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management, level of
comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships, level
of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation was assessed.
However, from the perspective of work flexibility, we have undertaken in the analysis only the
first cluster of employees working in offices (individual office, office space with up to 10 units, and
Figure 13. Main measures that need to be taken in order to improve the motivation of the employees of
the organization.
Taking into account one of our objectives regarding the way in which new types of workspaces
(FO, CW, HOT, HOP) influence job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management,
level of comfort, level of organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships,
level of professional development, and the overall level of work motivation.
This part of the analysis has a direct correspondence to our research questions and refers to
hypotheses H4–H8. The survey evaluates the best workplace from the employee point of view,
targeting two clusters-one of employees working in offices, at the level of which a choice of a different
work space than the one in which they are currently working has been forced, and the second one of
respondents who do not work in offices at the level of which there is the possibility to choose, including
the space in which they currently work as a desirable space. For both clusters of employees, the impact
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 28 of 53
on job performance, job satisfaction, personal time and space management, level of comfort, level of
organizational performance, level of personal and professional relationships, level of professional
development, and the overall level of work motivation was assessed.
However, from the perspective of work flexibility, we have undertaken in the analysis only the first
cluster of employees working in offices (individual office, office space with up to 10 units, and office
space with more than 10 units); these forms of working space flexibility are very important (Figure 14).
Home working have been mentioned as the perfect space for increasing employee productivity
(42.1%), employee comfort (36.8%), and personal time and space management (34.7%).
Partial home working is seen as optimal solution for increasing professional development
by learning new things (35.1%), for increasing the organizational performance (33.8%), and for
strengthening social and professional relationships (31.2%).
High percentages of positive contributions were assigned for CW in terms of personal and
professional relationship improvement, as well as learning and professional development, while FO
was designated to lead to personal and professional relationship improvement.
In terms of work motivation, almost one third of employees (29.8%) mentioned partial home
working as the perfect mix between higher productivity (produced from working from home) and the
social development obtained through the interaction of new people/colleagues.
Therefore, the new ways of working are well known and frequently used, and there is great
openness and interest in them. Home working has the most appreciations mainly in terms of labor
productivity, comfort, and time and space management, while partial home working has highly
appreciated in terms of organizational performance, relationships, learning and personal development.
In terms of relationships, learning and personal development contributions were also made by
co-working and flex-office. However, the most suitable solution, which results from the study, is a mix
between working from home and working in company offices.
4.3. A Brief Overview on the Main Differences Regarding Work Flexibility among Romanian Employees
According to another objective of our research, we have investigated the main differences regarding
work flexibility characteristics among Romanian employees, the main findings being synthesized as
follows (Table 3):
• The functional flexibility through training courses paid by the employer is more widespread in
large companies, among employees from age group 26–35 years being mostly higher education
specialists and technicians, or working in west and center regions, while employees from
Bucharest-Ilfov tend to pay for training courses themselves. Employees from age group 55 years
old benefited from on-th- job training;
• The lack of flexible working time arrangements has been pointed out by men, by employees aged
36–55 years old, by unqualified workers, by workers with small level of seniority in the company,
being more prevalent in South-East region;
• The contractual flexibility is more widespread among young employees under the age of 26 years
old, among men who are more inclined to have a flexible remuneration, depending on the effort
and the allocated time, together with the extension of holidays and also among employees with a
high level of seniority;
• The new ways of working tend to be more commonly known among employees from micro
companies, to be relevant for both qualified and unqualified workers, to be appreciated by
employees from the age group 36–45 years old. Home working and partial home working are
more present in the north-east region, while co-working and flex office are more prevalent in
the north-west;
• Teleworking has been designated as a main measure to increase work flexibility by men, by young
employees, by employees from the central region, by employees from middle management, by those
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 29 of 53
with between 3–5 years of experience in management positions, and by those with medium
earnings. Teleworking is also important for small companies and for limited liability companies.
• A flexible working schedule, flexible remuneration and the extension of holidays were considered
relevant methods for increasing work flexibility among men, higher education specialists,
and employees in medium and high-level management;
• Teamwork is important as a measure in increasing work flexibility for those employees with high
salaries belonging to middle management;
• Updating job posts according to new tasks is more common in large companies and among those
with high salaries and those with more than 10 years’ experience.
Figure 14. The impact of new forms of workspace.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 30 of 53
Table 3. The empirical results of the main differences regarding work flexibility characteristics.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Contractual flexibility
(type of contracts). 0.172 0.581 0.000 * 0.643 0.018 ** 0.381 0.713 0.884 0.621 0.423
Main forms of work flexibility present at the job
Rotation of stations. 0.417 0.081 *** 0.228 0.272 0.884 0.433 0.655 0.289 0.959 0.572
Teamwork. 0.194 0.235 0.581 0.084 *** 0.862 0.237 0.098 *** 0.300 0.581 0.318
Computer usage. 0.855 0.084 *** 0.073 *** 0.038 ** 0.795 0.361 0.140 0.342 0.542 0.862
Teleworking (remote work, at
home or at a nearby office). 0.050 ** 0.000 * 0.038 ** 0.072 *** 0.385 0.001 * 0.022 ** 0.081 *** 0.009 * 0.523
Improving of work
organization of work. 0.862 0.241 0.033 ** 0.931 1.000 0.620 0.559 0.616 0.528 0.714
Updating job post according
to new tasks. 0.285 0.177 0.523 0.992 0.311 0.020 ** 0.074 *** 0.098 *** 0.371 0.727
Main elements regarding the working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h per week
at the main job? 0.243 0.272 0.007 * 0.882 0.094 *** 0.910 0.542 0.813 0.831 0.098 ***
Do you have more than
one job? 0.723 0.387 0.571 0.035 ** 0.311 0.451 0.332 0.489 0.019 ** 0.674
Do you work the same
number of hours every day? 0.523 0.055 ** 0.419 0.298 0.553 0.446 0.375 0.630 0.260 0.122
Do you work the same
number of days every week? 0.315 0.165 0.921 0.810 0.427 0.433 0.410 0.842 0.251 0.637
Start and finish the program
at fixed hours? 0.086 *** 0.000 * 0.011 * 0.054 ** 0.003 * 0.645 0.179 0.376 0.514 0.069 ***
Are you working in shifts? 0.946 0.016 ** 0.219 0.000 * 0.791 0.165 0.003 0.060 0.194 0.003 *
Do you work flexible? 0.122 0.000 * 0.395 0.536 0.505 0.522 0.393 0.870 0.239 0.494
Have you been consulted
about changes in work
organization and your
working conditions?
0.061 *** 0.000 * 0.521 0.050 ** 0.698 0.403 0.550 0.090 *** 0.263 0.920
Is your work evaluated
periodically? 0.818 0.000 * 0.715 0.082 *** 0.311 0.927 0.359 0.187 0.773 0.050 **
Do you think you are well
informed about the health
and safety risks of your
workplace?
0.291 0.001 * 0.138 0.122 0.151 0.545 0.583 0.203 0.556 0.407
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 31 of 53
Table 3. Cont.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main forms of functional flexibility
Attending training courses
paid by the employer. 0.890 0.001 * 0.040 ** 0.042 ** 0.125 0.000 * 0.036 ** 0.029 ** 0.621 0.419
Attending paid training
courses from your
own sources.
0.152 0.046 ** 0.469 0.000 * 0.392 0.030 ** 0.017 ** 0.354 0.659 0.187
Benefit from
on-the-job training. 0.151 0.542 0.018 ** 0.054 ** 0.600 0.786 0.223 0.372 0.809 0.885
Level of satisfaction
associated with the working
conditions of current job.
0.895 0.051 ** 0.002 ** 0.161 0.786 0.505 0.011 * 0.460 0.364 0.337
Main measures that need to be taken to increase the flexibility of employing the workforce and the working time of employees
A flexible work schedule. 0.320 0.483 0.288 0.093 *** 0.608 0.318 0.269 0.718 0.128 0.764
The ability to work from
home or from a space near
home (teleworking).
0.049 ** 0.110 0.072 *** 0.573 0.310 0.875 0.649 0.674 0.043 ** 0.887
Independent working teams
to manage their time together
to identify a task
(work team autonomy).
0.116 0.837 0.207 0.632 0.263 0.771 0.264 0.918 0.734 0.738
Flexible remuneration,
depending on the effort and
the allocated time.
0.025 ** 0.671 0.608 0.074 *** 0.427 0.249 0.472 0.184 0.373 0.165
Ability to work outside of
regular program hours. 0.304 0.832 0.551 0.808 0.185 0.680 0.660 0.982 0.772 0.593
Better management of the
space to minimize travel
during work.
0.790 0.224 0.522 0.442 0.875 0.193 0.988 0.337 0.377 0.695
Better management of fixed
assets (technologies,
equipment) to put as little
effort into their use.
0.132 0.069 *** 0.637 0.613 0.498 0.840 0.609 0.779 0.063 *** 0.563
Extending holidays. 0.090 *** 0.173 0.661 0.078 *** 0.200 0.797 0.138 0.654 0.562 0.221
Reduction of work week. 0.909 0.238 0.227 0.683 0.684 0.451 0.775 0.618 0.628 0.683
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 32 of 53
Table 3. Cont.
Gender
Sig. (Mann–
Whitney Test)
Regions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Age
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Main
Occupation
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Length of
Service
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Experiment in
Management
Positions
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Salary
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Size
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Company
Legal Status
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
Sector of
Activity
Sig. (Kruskal–
Wallis Test)
New ways of working
Home working. 0.032 ** 0.000 * 0.011 * 0.000 * 0.459 0.011 * 0.016 ** 0.017 ** 0.058 *** 0.049 **
Partial home working. 0.050 ** 0.000 * 0.005 * 0.000 * 0.627 0.011 * 0.015 ** 0.012 ** 0.120 0.048 **
Co working. 0.043 ** 0.000 * 0.009 * 0.000 * 0.493 0.011 * 0.005 * 0.018 ** 0.096 *** 0.084 **
Flex office. 0.079 *** 0.000 * 0.004 * 0.000 * 0.541 0.011 * 0.007 * 0.016 ** 0.080 *** 0.109
Note: *** Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 33 of 53
4.4. Building to Measure the Romanian Employee Flexibility Using Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)
In line with the research question, “Overall is there a high level of work flexibility among Romanian
employees?” and trying to test the hypothesis H1, the present section used the MCA for building
a first multi-dimensional work flexibility indicator for Romanian employees aiming to capture the
phenomenon from different angles. The research has been structured into two main stages.
In the first stage, all 18 items with 56 modalities from four dimensions of flexibility have been
included in the analysis in order to provide a first indication of the of the association patterns with the
principle component. In the second stage, we have reversed some items of contractual flexibility and
working time flexibility dimensions in order to achieve the monotonicity axiom. Also, in this step,
the number of variables was reduced to meet the consistency properties of the principal component.
Therefore, we have eliminated the presence of fixed-term employment contracts with full working
time, working the same number of days per week, and the presence of job training in order to assure
the first axis ordering consistency (FAOC-I) applying MCA to 15 items.
Knowing from literature that several forms of work flexibility support sustainability and
acknowledging that the contractual flexibility can support sustainability only under specific conditions,
however, the main goal of the paper was to offer a global perspective from different point of view of
individuals work flexibility level by building a global index highlighting the contribution of the main
existent types of work flexibility among Romanian organizations.
It is worth mentioning that, even if contractual flexibility could support sustainability only in
particular situations, while the other dimensions of work flexibility exhibited positive impact of
sustainable HRM, the contribution of this component in the overall measure of work flexibility is the
smallest, and therefore, the impact could be considered negligible.
The empirical results of final MCA based on Burt matrix are presented in Table 4. The MCA
performed on the remaining variables led to an increase in the explanatory power of the first factor,
which rose from 54% to 62.4%. The second dimension explained another 14.5%, cumulating a total of
79.94% of principal inertia (Table 4).
Table 4. Inertia decomposition of flexibility variables.
Dimension Principal Inertia Percent Cumulating Percent
Dim. 1 0.0384 62.4 62.4
Dim. 2 0.0090 14.54 76.94
Dim. 3 0.0016 2.57 79.51
Dim. 4 0.0001 0.15 79.66
Dim. 5 0.0000 0.07 79.73
Total 0.0616 100
The value of Cronbach’s Alpha (0.73) supported our hypothesis of building a composite flexibility
indicator, the value being superior to the threshold of 0.7.
In order to determine the CFI for each employee, based on the functional form of the CFi previously
expressed, the weights (factorial scores on first axis presented in Appendix A) attributed to the variable
modalities were used. Analyzing the weights from Appendix A, we can determine the relevance that
the analysis attributes to each type of flexibility. As a rule of thumb, we consider values larger than
two as an indication of key flexibility factors. Therefore, we find employees who practice all the new
workspaces such as home-working, partial home-working, co-working, and flex-office and who have
also participated in paid courses from their own resources as having the highest level of flexibility.
Analyzing the discriminating power of each indicator in each of the factorial axis, we can we
easily see that the most discriminating indicators, in the first axis, are (Figure 15)

X	Do you work in shifts? (0.857)
X	Have you participated in paid courses from your own resources? (0.833)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 34 of 53

X	Do you practice co-working? (0.822)
X	Have you participated in training courses paid for by your employer? (0.819)
X	Do you practice partial home working? (0.802) The most discriminating indicators, in the second axis are Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? (0.77)
X
X	You are an employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract with part-time work (0.568)
X	You are an employee on the basis of an indefinite employment contract with full working time (0.534) You are an employee on the basis of an indefinite employment contract with part-time work (0.463)
X

Analyzing the joint category plot (Figure 16), it can be observed that the closer the response
category’s vector position is to the origin, the more similar the response profile is to the average
profile [126]. A feature of MCA when using binary variables is that the positive and negative point
for each variable is situated 180 degrees away from the origin on the map [130]. The interest is in
seeing “which” side each point falls on relative to the other variables, and we can mention that the
response categories for presence of work flexibility are mostly on the positive side of Dimension 1, and
those for absence of work flexibility on the negative side, in all areas except for indefinite employment
contract with full working time. This separation of “1s” and “0s” on either side of Dimension 1 shows
that, with the exception of indefinite employment contract with full working time, the most important
difference in the sample is between having and not having work flexibility. This separation also implies
that areas are positively correlated except for an indefinite employment contract with full working time.
After analyzing the signs of the weights, we concluded that a negative sign reduces flexibility,
while a positive sign positively contributes to employee flexibility. Using these weights, we created
the CFI of each employee. To avoid having negative values of CFI, we estimated the average of the
negative values of the CFI and add the absolute value of this average to the CFI of each employee to
obtain the positive CFI scores.
Analyzing the relative contribution of the variables to the composite flexibility indicator, we can
highlighted that working in shifts, participation in courses paid from the own resources, co-working,
and participation in courses paid by the employer contribute the most to the construction of the first
axis which is the axis of working time flexibility and functional flexibility mix (Table 5).
Table 5. The relative contribution of the variables to the first dimension.
Variables Relative Contribution (%) to the First Dimension
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with full working time. 0.39
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with part-time work. 0.71
You are employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment
contract with part-time work. 0.08
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? 1.03
Do you have more than one job? 6.25
Do you work the same number of hours every day? 1.58
Do you start and end the program at fixed hours? 6.41
Do you work in shifts? 11.87
Do you work flexible hours? 4.31
Have you participated in training courses paid for by your
employer? 11.35
Have you participated in paid courses from your own sources? 11.54
Do you practice home working? 11.03
Do you practice partial home working? 11.11
Do you practice co-working? 11.39
Do you practice flex-office? 10.97
100.00
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 35 of 53
Figure 15. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) dimension discrimination measure.
ST1-indefinite employment contract with full working time
ST2-indefinite employment contract with part-time work
ST3-fixed-term employment contract with part-time work
ST4-Do you work 40 h a week at your main job?
ST5-Do you have more than one job?
ST6-Do you work the same number of hours every day?
ST7-Do you start and end the program at fixed hours?
ST8-Do you work in shifts?
ST9-Do you work flexible hours?
ST10-Have you participated in training courses paid by employer?
ST11- Have you participated in courses paid from your own sources?
ST12-Do you practice home-working?
ST13-Do you practice partial home-working?
ST14-Do you practice co-working?
ST15-Do you practice flex-office
Figure 15. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) dimension discrimination measure.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 36 of 53
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 37 of 56
Figure 16 Figure 16. . Joint category plot of the Joint category plot of the explored variable categories. explored variable categories.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 37 of 53
Following the MCA procedure, we can finally calculate the CFI for each employee as the average
of its weight categories corresponding to the average of standardized scores on the first factorial axis.
The extreme values of the CFI calculated are -0.933 (the employee with the lowest level of
work flexibility) and 3.026 (the employee with the highest level of work flexibility) among Romanian
employees, stipulating that
• An employee that has the smallest CFI value (-0.933) has an indefinite employment contract with
full working time, working 40 h a week at the job, having usually only one job, working the same
number of hours every day, starting and ending the program at fixed hours, working in shifts and
not working in flexible hours, not participating in training courses paid for by the employer or
with its own resources, and not practicing any forms of workspace (HOT, HOP, CW, FO).
• An employee that has the highest CFI value (3.026) has an indefinite employment contract with
part-time work or a fixed-term employment contract with part-time work, not working 40 h a
week at the job, having more than one job, not working the same number of hours every day,
not starting and ending the program at fixed hours, not working in shifts and working in flexible
hours, participating in training courses paid for by the employer or with its own resources,
and practicing all types of workspace (HOT, HOP, CW, FO).
To facilitate interpretation, we have rescaled the work flexibility indicator to take values between
0 and 100, where 0—lowest level of flexibility and 100—highest level of flexibility. The average level
of flexibility index among interviewed Romanian employees was computed to be 50.22 revealing a
medium level of flexibility, with significant differences among demographic variables. Analyzing
the main descriptive statistics (Table 6), we can mention that the average level of flexibility index
among interviewed Romanian employees was computed to be 50.22, revealing a medium level of
work flexibility among Romanian employees, while most of Romanian employees (n = 85 employees)
rather exhibited a small level of work flexibility, while for medium and high level, the frequencies
are balanced (n = 69 employees respectively 66 employees). The empirical results of Chi-Square test
revealed that there are no statistically significant differences among three categories of employees
(employees with low, medium, and high flexibility), the distribution being equilibrated. However,
only 30% of Romanian employees registered a higher level of work flexibility, the index value being
higher than the threshold of 70.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of composite index of work flexibility.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
≤35.00 85 38.6 38.6 38.6
35.01–70.00 69 31.4 31.4 70.0
70.01+ 66 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 220 100.0 100.0
Analyzing the variations in the work flexibility index according to regions of development,
company size, the legal regime of the company, the activity sector, and the main occupation of
the employee, we can mentioned that the ANOVA analysis supported the hypothesis of statistical
differences for all the variables, with the only exception of the company size. Therefore, employees
from the center and Bucharest-Ilfov; from national companies or public institutions; from companies
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; being general managers, directors, or a person
holding a senior or a middle management position; or being a higher education specialist have a higher
level of work flexibility.
The correlation coefficient between work flexibility indicator and the overall level of job and salary
satisfaction revealed in both cases a positive statistically significant relationship but weak as intensity
(Figure 17).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 38 of 53
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; being general managers, directors, or a person
holding a senior or a middle management position; or being a higher education specialist have a
higher level of work flexibility.
The correlation coefficient between work flexibility indicator and the overall level of job and
salary satisfaction revealed in both cases a positive statistically significant relationship but weak as
intensity (Figure 17).
Figure 17. The relationship between work flexibility index and salary and job satisfaction level.
4.5. Flexible Working Increases Job Satisfaction? An Empirical Analysis among Romanian Employees Based
on Binomial Logistic Regression Models
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
low work flexibility
level
medium work
flexibility level
high work flexibility
level
Overall level of job satisfaction Overall level of salary satisfaction
Figure 17. The relationship between work flexibility index and salary and job satisfaction level.
4.5. Flexible Working Increases Job Satisfaction? An Empirical Analysis among Romanian Employees Based on
Binomial Logistic Regression Models TC “4.6.4. Contribut,ii Privind Evident,ierea Impactului Elementelor de
Flexibilitatea în Muncă Asupra Nivelului General de Motivare al Angajat,ilor Români Utilizând Modelul de
Regresie Logistică Binomială” nf C nl “3”
In line with our research questions and aiming to test the hypotheses H2–H3, we have investigated
the impact of work flexibility, considered as an overall measure as well as individual components,
highlighting its implications on job satisfaction as one of the main outcomes of sustainable HRM. If the
focus is the transition to sustainable HRM, it makes sense to identify the characteristics of sustainable
HRM that could lead to an increase in the outcomes of sustainable HRM. Therefore, in this context,
we anchored work flexibility and its implication on job satisfaction. The empirical results are presented
in Table 7. In order to capture the impact of both overall measure and individual forms of work
flexibility, two logistic regression models have been estimated.
Table 7. The empirical results of the relationship between work flexibility and job satisfaction.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Degree of satisfaction regarding salary
(ref = otherwise)
satisfied
4.645 0.000 *** 104.077 3.699 0.000 *** 40.427
Work flexibility composite indicator 0.026 0.020 ** 1.026
Control variables
Gender (ref = male)
female 1.131 0.100 * 3.099 0.321 0.558 1.378
Occupation (ref = higher education specialist) 0.108 0.030
general manager, director or a person holding
a senior management position -3.146 0.086 * 0.043 -1.114 0.501 0.328
person holding a middle management
position (head of department, head of office) -0.576 0.752 0.562 1.382 0.599 3.985
technician -2.831 0.035 ** 0.059 -3.648 0.004 *** 0.026
employed in public services (hospital, public
catering, police, firefighters) -0.518 0.624 0.596 0.669 0.491 1.951
qualified worker -2.530 0.008 *** 0.080 -1.120 0.138 0.326
unqualified worker -2.870 0.019 ** 0.057 -2.803 0.009 *** 0.061
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 39 of 53
Table 7. Cont.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Age (ref = under 26) 0.879 0.559
26–35 years -0.576 0.700 0.562 -2.195 0.137 0.111
36–45 years -0.939 0.547 0.391 -2.441 0.111 0.087
46–55 years -1.092 0.478 0.335 -2.508 0.095 * 0.081
Over 55 years -1.846 0.403 0.158 -1.959 0.272 0.141
Seniority (ref = less than 1 year) 0.109 0.185
1–3 years -0.469 0.683 0.625 0.460 0.661 1.585
3–5 years -0.946 0.446 0.388 0.131 0.912 1.140
5–10 years -0.841 0.468 0.431 0.242 0.824 1.274
Over 10 years 1.281 0.281 3.601 1.690 0.111 5.419
Company size (ref = 1–9 employees) 0.048 0.118
10–49 employees 1.520 0.070 * 4.574 0.660 0.357 1.934
50–249 employees -0.885 0.329 0.413 -0.922 0.250 0.398
Over 250 employees 0.710 0.405 2.033 0.545 0.501 1.724
Company activity sector (ref = agriculture) 0.088 0.124
Manufacturing industry -0.904 0.625 0.405 -0.032 0.985 0.969
Wholesale -2.846 0.202 0.058 -2.383 0.233 0.092
Retail -3.006 0.127 0.049 -1.639 0.315 0.194
Services -3.446 0.065 * 0.032 -2.347 0.140 0.096
construction -0.258 0.894 0.772 -0.163 0.921 0.849
Another sector -1.038 0.607 0.354 -1.000 0.586 0.368
Company legal regime (ref = limited liability
company)
Stock company
0 0.357
General Partnership -0.297 0.765 0.743
Limited Partnership -18.649 1.000 0.000
Autonomous company 2.759 0.199 15.781
National company -2.043 0.058 * 0.130
Public Institution -0.826 0.480 0.438
Constant 0.245 0.932 1.277 2.351 0.302 10.492
Contractual flexibility
Type of contract (ref = based on employment
contract of indefinite duration with full
working time)
1.000
based on an indefinite employment contract
with part-time work -0.066 0.982 0.936
based on a fixed-term employment contract
with full working time 20.215 0.999 601,744,208.607
based on a fixed-term employment contract
with part-time work 20.911 1.000 1,207,026,856.9
Working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job
?(Ref = no)
Yes
-1.078 0.279 0.340
Do you have more than one job? (Ref = no)
Yes 23.323 0.998 13,465,568,754.7
Do you work the same number of hours every
day? (Ref = no)
Yes
1.581 0.061 * 4.861
Do you work the same number of days each
week? (Ref = no)
Yes
-1.557 0.083 * 0.211
Do you start and end the program at fixed
hours? (Ref = no)
Yes
-0.874 0.285 0.417
Do you work in shifts? (Ref = no)
Yes 0.417 0.532 1.518
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 40 of 53
Table 7. Cont.
Model I Model II
Variables B Sig. Exp (B) B Sig. Exp (B)
Do you work flexible hours (ref = no)
Yes 0.627 0.337 1.872
Functional flexibility
Did you participate on training courses paid
for by the employer? (Ref = no)
Yes
1.602 0.024 ** 4.962
Did you participate on paid courses from your
own sources? (Ref = no)
Yes
-0.884 0.417 0.413
Have you received training at work? (Ref =
no)
Yes
-0.180 0.807 0.836
Workspace flexibility
Have you practiced home working? (Ref = no)
Yes 6.151 0.014 ** 469.008
Did you practice home working partially?
(Ref = no)
Yes
3.031 0.100 * 0.048
Did you practice co-working? (Ref = no)
Yes 2.105 0.101 * 8.203
Did you practice flex-office? (Ref = no)
Yes -0.219 0.857 0.804
Note: *** Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
The empirical results of the first model highlighting the influence of individual forms of flexibility
on the overall level of job satisfaction among Romanian employees revealed salary satisfaction exhibited
a positive and statistically significant impact on the job satisfaction, revealing that employees who are
satisfied with received earnings tend to be satisfied with their job.
The empirical results highlighted that gender and occupation as individual characteristics and
company size and company activity sector as employment related characteristics significantly influenced
the overall level of job satisfaction of Romanian employees.
Women are more satisfied with their job compared to men, while compared to job satisfaction of
specialists with higher education, people with senior management positions, technicians, and skilled
and unskilled workers tend to be less satisfied with their jobs.
Compared to micro-enterprises, employees of small companies with up to 10 employees are more
satisfied with their current job, while employees from services tend to be less satisfied with their jobs
in comparison with those from agriculture, a sign of the coefficient being a negative one.
Age and seniority of employees do not significantly impact the degree of satisfaction with their
current job, the probabilities of the coefficients being higher than the maximum significance threshold
of 10%.
Analyzing now the impact of different forms of work flexibility on job satisfaction, the empirical
results revealed that contractual flexibility captured by indefinite employment contract with part-time
work or fixed-term employment contract with full time or part –time does not reflect any impact on
the satisfaction of Romanian employees regarding their job, the probabilities of the coefficients being
greater than the maximum significance level of 10%.
Elements of working time arrangements statistically impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
even, revealing a certain pattern. Romanian employees are more satisfied working the same number of
hours per day, but more willing to have a flexibility in the number of days per week, and this behavior
significantly influence the overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 41 of 53
Romanian employers allowed their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday,
or a totally free day, and this is also reflected in the level of satisfaction.
Functional flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
mainly through the channel of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the
general job satisfaction of employees.
Workspace flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
through its channels of home working, partial home-working and co-working. For Romanian
employees, it has become essential that employers allow a mix of home and office working, as well as
working in rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important
community relations and resource sharing (resource sharing), to increase the level of satisfaction and
also the longer-term retentive degree.
The empirical results of the second model, highlighting the influence of multidimensional flexibility
composite indicator on the overall level of job satisfaction among Romanian employees, confirmed that
salary satisfaction preserved the same positive and statistically significant impact on job satisfaction.
Technicians and unskilled workers tend to be less satisfied with their job, while the level of job
satisfaction tends to decrease with the age, employees from the age group 46–55 years old being less
satisfied with their jobs compared with the youth.
Employees from national companies tend to be less satisfied with their jobs compared with those
ones from limited liability companies.
The impact of the overall measure of work flexibility on the overall level of job satisfaction was
positive and highly significant, revealing that a higher level of work flexibility, taking into account a
combination of different forms, increases the employee level of job satisfaction. A 10 unit increase in
the work flexibility index increases the log odds of job satisfaction by 0.26.
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test (Appendix B), which shows whether the model adequately
describes the data, highlights a good fit of the data because the probability is above the 5% threshold.
The classification table provides us with information about the classification of individuals.
Thus, of those who declared themselves satisfied, the model correctly classifies 140 people, with a
percentage of 92.1%, while of those who declared themselves dissatisfied or neutral, the model correctly
classifies a number of 55 individuals, cumulating in a success rate of 82.1%. In total, the model correctly
classifies a percentage of 89% (Table 8).
Table 8. Classification table a. Degree of satisfaction with the current job.
Observed
Predicted
Job_Satisf
Percentage Correct
Else Satisfied t
Model I
job_satisf Else 55 12 82.1
Satisfied 12 140 92.1
Overall Percentage 89.0
Model II
job_satisf Else 49 16 75.4
Satisfied 13 135 91.2
Overall Percentage 86.4
a The cut value is 0.500.
4.6. A Brief Overview on the Main Empirical Results
Summarizing the most relevant empirical results of our research, we should mention that:
Hypothesis 1 was supported by the fact that the average value of the composite index of work
flexibility registered the value of 50.22, pointing out a medium level of work flexibility among Romanian
employees. Additionally, in order to respond to the following research questions: “What is the level
of work flexibility registered by most employees?” and “How many employees have a high level of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 42 of 53
work flexibility?”, we can say that almost 40% of Romanian employees exhibited a small level of work
flexibility, and only one third of Romanian employees registered a higher level of work flexibility,
the index value being higher than the threshold of 70.
Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported by the empirical results.
Contractual flexibility proxies by indefinite employment contract with part-time work or fixed-term
employment contract with full time or part time does not support hypothesis H2, not leading to an
increase in the job satisfaction due to the coefficients’ lack of significance.
Working time arrangements only partially supported H2. Although both were working the same
number of hours per day, and the same number of days per week, Romanian employees are more
willing to have flexibility in the number of days per week, behavior that significantly influences the
overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more Romanian employers allowed
their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday or a totally free day, and this
is reflected also in the level of satisfaction. Working time arrangements brings its share of contribution
to sustainable HRM through flexible number of days per week leading to an increase in the overall
level of job satisfaction.
Functional flexibility supported hypothesis H2 through the statistically significant coefficient
of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the general job satisfaction of
employees. The functional flexibility brings its share of contribution to sustainable HRM through the
channel of employee development, an important characteristic of HRM.
Workspace flexibility supported H2 through the statistically and positive impact of home working,
partial home working and co-working, leading to an increase in overall job satisfaction. For Romanian
employees, it becomes essential that this mix of home and office working, as well as working in
rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important community
relations and resource sharing (resource sharing) to increase the level of satisfaction and also the
longer-term retentive degree.
Hypothesis 3 was supported by the positive and highly significant coefficient of the work flexibility
composite index, a global measure including different forms of flexibility and leading to an increase in
the level of job satisfaction.
H4 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOT, as a
new type of working, is associated with a higher level of job performance, a better management of
personal time and space, and a higher level of comfort.
H5 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOP,
as a new type of working, is associated with a higher level of organizational performance, a higher
work motivation, higher personal and professional relationships, and a higher level of learning and
professional development.
H6 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that CW, as a
new type of working, is associated with higher personal and professional relationships, and higher
level of learning and professional development.
H7 was supported through a high percentage of positive contributions, confirming that FO, as a
new type of working, is associated with higher personal and professional relationships.
H8 was supported through high a percentage of positive contributions, confirming that HOP is
associated with a higher level of work motivation.
4.7. Emphasizing the Main Implications for Sustainable HRM
In the face of current challenges, the concept of HRM needs to be redefined, with sustainable HRM
being a more appropriate approach to actual human resource management. Sustainable HRM aims at
long-term objectives and results, being characterized by employee and environmental care, employee
participation and development, external partnership, flexibility, compliance with labor regulations,
cooperation between employees, equity, and equality, without affecting profitability.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 43 of 53
Among the main characteristics of sustainable HRM, two core characteristics:
employee development and a mix of flexible working time and new types of workspaces are
particularly important from the perspective of their impact on two main outcomes of sustainable HRM:
job satisfaction and job performance.
In the light of achieving sustainable HRM, the positive influence of employee development on job
satisfaction as an important outcome of sustainable HRM can be revealed.
Employees are key stakeholders in the formation and development of the organization’s human and
social capital and are a key source of knowledge and support for the development and implementation
of sustainable HRM.
Employees working desired hours tend to be more motivated and spend a longer period
of time without changing jobs. In recent years, this paradigm shift conduced to an increase on
employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules to meet employee needs, employee
participation on decision making, workspace modelling, increasing employee creativity and
productivity. Job performance and satisfaction influences sustainable HR practices, so their knowledge
is essential to be able to redefine HRM according to current needs. If an organization wants to practice
sustainable HRM, it should focus on developing employees in sustainability, by engaging them through
taskforces, trainings and in the sustainability strategy’s design and implementation.
Employee development needs to be oriented mainly in the acquiring of skills and capacities that
employees can use in the future and seeing employees as a main asset as well as agents of change [3].
Hirsig et al. [43] and Stankeviˇciut ¯ e and Savaneviˇcie [ ˙ 3] highlighted the importance of investment in
training and education for human resources, creating a win–win situation both for employees (future
employability and career opportunities) and for employer (profitability and success).
The presence of sustainability in HRM can be revealed through employee development via on the
job training, which can be seen as a cost saving approach, leading in turn to higher job motivation [43]
as well as from the perspective of attracting new employees [3] sending the message that the company
is interested in their long term retention.
From the perspective of sustainable HRM, flexible employment forms hardly support the idea of
sustainability and do not highlighted any impact of job satisfaction at the level of Romanian employees.
A mix of flexible working times and new types of workspaces represents a potential solution
for sustainable HRM, increasing the level of job satisfaction and resulting in lesser use of company
cars and reduced need for large buildings, both of which will help the environment. Other than that,
employees will benefit from increased freedom and control which will lead to a better work-life balance
and lower levels of stress.
Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource management in order to
achieve the desideratum of sustainable HRM, the attention needs to be on a mixture of employee
development-flexible and time-flexible places leading to an increase in both employee job satisfaction
and organizational performance, as important outcomes of sustainable HRM. Sustainable HRM should
strive to be involved with the sustainability strategy from the beginning, which will positively influence
their perceived possibilities for putting sustainability on the map and their role in enthusing, facilitating
and motivating employees for sustainability.
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
5.1. Main Conclusions of the Research
Over time, the global market has undergone important changes in the nature of the work
that employees and organizations have to deal with, such as more knowledge-intensive content,
rapid technological change, constant innovation, and more flexible jobs and time programs.
The role of the employee become even more important. Employees working desired hours tend
to be more motivated and spend a longer period of time without changing jobs. In recent years this
paradigm shift conduced to an increase on employee autonomy, interruptions during work schedules
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 44 of 53
to meet employee needs, employee participation on decision making, workspace modelling, increasing
employee creativity and productivity. The knowledge of job performance and satisfaction as important
outcomes of is essential to be able to redefine HRM according to current needs.
Work flexibility offers to employees a balance between professional and personal life, leading to
job satisfaction and performance, with positive consequences of the well-being of the organization.
Work flexibility is very important, digital transformations and technology allowing a carrying out of
activities based on an internet connection in many areas.
In such a context, the paper investigated the relationship between employee development and
worktime and workspace flexibility as relevant characteristics of sustainable HRM, job satisfaction
and job performance among Romanian employees in order to identify how to redesign HRM in the
face of “future work” challenges. Thus, the paper aims to examine the impact of different types of
flexibility—functional, working time and workspace flexibility in order to highlight the relevance of
employee development and employee flexibility as important aspects of sustainable HRM in increasing
the overall level of employee job satisfaction.
In order to do that, an employee flexibility composite indicator taking into account the main four
types of flexibility has been developed on the basis of Romanian employees’ points of view gathered by
a national representative survey using the multiple correspondence analysis. Furthermore, the impact
of both individual types of flexibility as well as employee flexibility composite indicator on the overall
level of job satisfaction has been quantified using binary logistic regression models. Within the research,
special attention was granted to the impact of new types of workspaces (FO, CW, HOT, HOP) on the
job performance, job satisfaction, organizational performance, professional growth and development,
social and professional relationships, and personal professional performance as well as on the overall
level of work motivation.
The empirical results revealed that the main forms of work flexibility mentioned by Romanian
employees were work in team, computer usage, teleworking and job rotation. Analyzing the response
provided by the respondents, it can be highlighted that flexible forms of employment or functional
flexibility were present on the Romanian labor market only in a small extent, a larger field being won
by working time flexibility and workspace flexibility.
The functional flexibility related to employee training was found only to a small extent within
Romanian companies, only a third of employees benefiting from training course paid by their
own employer.
A little more than one third of Romanian employees declared to work in a flexible manner and an
even smaller proportion declared to benefit from flexible working hours, flexible number of days per
week, working in shifts, or work outside normal working hours.
In terms of workspace flexibility, the new types of workspaces were highly appreciated by
employees, creating a great openness and interest in them.
Home working has the most appreciations mainly in terms of labor productivity, comfort and time
and space management, while partial home working has highly appreciated in terms of organizational
performance, relationships, learning and personal development. In terms of relationships, learning and
personal development, contributions were also made by co-working and flex-office. However, the most
suitable solution, which results from the study, is a mix between working from home and working in
company offices, with accents in rented spaces co-working.
Another important result of our research was the composite index of work flexibility for
employees, whose average value pointed out an almost medium level of work flexibility with Romanian
organizations, while only a third of Romanian employees exhibited a higher level of work flexibility.
The research pointed out significant differences among demographic variables. Therefore, employees
from the center and Bucharest-Ilfov; from national companies or public institutions; from companies
activating in wholesale, services, or constructions; general managers, directors, or a person holding
a senior or a middle management position; or higher education specialists have a higher level of
work flexibility.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 45 of 53
The empirical analysis of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of functional flexibility,
working time and workspace flexibility together with the flexibility composite indicator in increasing
the level of job satisfaction. Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign actual human resource management
in order to include the concept of sustainability, attention needs to be on employee development
together with the mix of flexible working time and workspaces that will increase the employee job
satisfaction, thus leading to sustainable HRM.
Romanian employees mentioned the importance of financial incentives even if it is known that this
type of measure will produce effects only on short-term, the relevance of functional flexibility through
the participation to training courses and the working time flexibility through a flexible program as the
main measures in increasing employee work motivation.
The empirical results of logistic regression analysis pointed out the role of two core characteristics
of sustainable HRM: employee development and a mix of flexible working time and new types of
workspaces are particularly important from the perspective of their impact on two main outcomes of
sustainable HRM, job satisfaction, and job performance.
Contractual flexibility does not reflect any impact on the satisfaction of Romanian employees
regarding their job.
Working time arrangements statistically impacted the overall level of job satisfaction, revealing a
certain pattern. Romanian employees are more satisfied working the same number of hours per day
but more willing to have a flexibility in the number of days per week, and this behaviour significantly
influence the overall level of their satisfaction. In the last few years, more and more Romanian
employers allowed their own employees to either work from home or have a shorter Friday or a totally
free day and this is reflected also in the level of satisfaction.
Functional flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
mainly through the channel of training courses paid by the employer who lead to an increase in the
general job satisfaction of employees.
Workspace flexibility statistically and positively impacted the overall level of job satisfaction
through its channels of home working, partial home-working and co-working. For Romanian
employees, it has become essential that employers allow a mix of home and office working, as well as
working in rented spaces, in an environment with several social relations, characterized by important
community relations and resource sharing (resource sharing), to increase the level of satisfaction and
also the longer-term retentive degree
Also, the overall measure of work flexibility exhibited a positive impact on job satisfaction,
revealing that a higher level of work flexibility, in a combination of different forms, increases the
employee level of job satisfaction.
Therefore, if the challenge is to redesign the actual human resource management in order
to achieve the desideratum of sustainable HRM, the attention needs to be on a mix of employee
development-flexible and time-flexible places, leading to an increase in both employee job satisfaction
and organizational performance, as important outcomes of sustainable HRM.
5.2. Policy Implications
In the context of today’s economy, when professionals can choose from a wide range of offers
available on the labor market, employers must reinvent themselves and begin to offer potential
employee’s alternative benefits, other than simply financial ones. Most of the time, the flexibility of the
organization can determine both the employee’s longevity and, more importantly, their motivation to
work hard and to be productive. Employer flexibility benefits not only the employees, but also the
organization that offers it. Rigidity removes talent, and in a free, growing market, potential employees
have the opportunity to explore their options before they choose a position.
The labor market is constantly changing, atypical work acquiring a significant influence, especially
in these current times of the coronavirus crisis restrictions. A Gallup article published in early April
2020 has already indicated a change, “three out of five US workers who did their homework during
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 46 of 53
the coronavirus pandemic would prefer to continue working as far away as possible,” while 41% said
they would prefer to return to work or the office to work as they did before the crisis.
Covid-19 produced major changes, including work. All these changes will result in a work
reorganization, as long as flexibility do not change performance targets. In time of coronavirus crisis
working at home became the new normal, work flexibility must be “business as usual” and not just
something to resort to in times of crisis.
After the coronavirus crisis passes, its effects will be felt in both the long term and short term.
Related to work, some managers consider continuing their work from home because they have noticed
an increase in productivity from employees and lower costs. It is obvious that most employees will
notice changes regarding work compared to the period before crisis. In Australia, the country that has
managed this health crisis very well, it is being discussed that the work week will be reduced to four
days a week as a new measure regarding work flexibility in order to restart the economy as soon as
possible, but also to protect citizens. Other organizations are considering work flexibility, a four-day
work week with the fifth day being dedicated to volunteering.
In the event of a crisis, we can respond with either resilience or resistance. According to Mercer’s
2020 Global Talent Trends Study [130] in times of actual crisis, companies said they planned to
increase strategic partnerships (40%), use more variable talent pools (39%), and invest in automation
(34%). Flexible operation is a crucial component, only 44% of companies consider systematically
evaluating jobs for their adaptation, making flexibility dependent on the job, rather than on a person’s
circumstances. Resilience is influenced by the type of industry involved. According to a COVID-19
survey, the sectors that have been significantly impacted following disruptions are healthcare (56%),
retail (56%), mining (55%), manufacturing (46%), and automation (43%). Clearly, business models that
are difficult to digitize, highly dependent on people, or that rely heavily on global supply chains are
the most exposed. In contrast, the least affected sectors are professional services (4%), high technology
(5%), education (9%), insurance (10%), and telecommunications (12%). Depending on how long the
situation continues, many of them will feel the effects of limited funding for discretionary projects and
value-added services.
The state of emergency has removed some preconceived notions. For example, it turns out that we
can work from home, and very well at that. Therefore, this crisis is a great opportunity for companies
and employees to reinvent themselves.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.D., I.C., and S.-A.A.; methodology, A.A.D. and S.-A.A.; software,
A.A.D.; validation, A.A.D., S.-A.A., and A.P.; formal analysis, I.C. and A.P.; investigation, A.A.D. and S.-A.A.;
resources, I.C.; data curation, S.-A.A., I.C., and A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.D., S.-A.A., A.P.,
and I.C.; writing—A.A.D., S.-A.A., A.P., and I.C.; visualization, A.A.D.; supervision, A.A.D. and S.-A.A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The results of multiple correspondence analysis (final weights).
Dim. 1
Contractual flexibility
You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with full working time

yes no

-0.045 1.058

You are employee on the basis of an indefinite employment
contract with part-time work

yes no

1.667 -0.047

You are employee on the basis of a fixed-term employment
contract with part-time work

yes no

0.738 -0.003

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 47 of 53
Table A1. Cont.
Dim. 1
Working time flexibility
Do you work 40 h a week at your main job? yes 0.649
no -0.079
Do you have more than one job? yes 1.963
no -0.093
Do you work the same number of hours every day? yes 0.474
no -0.162
Do you start and end the program at fixed hours? yes 1.031
no -0.451
Do you work in shifts? yes 0.766
no -1.171
Do you work flexible hours? yes 0.430
no -0.255
Functional flexibility
Have you participated in training courses paid for by your
employer?

yes no

0.863 -0.429

Have you participated in paid courses from your own sources? yes 2.732
no -0.398
Workspace flexibility
Do you practice home working? yes 2.625
no -1.199
Do you practice partial home working? yes 2.819
no -1.106
Do you practice co-working? yes 3.426
no -0.832
Do you practice flex-office? yes 3.468
no -0.724
Appendix B
Table A2. Hosmer and Lemeshow test for models I and II.
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Chi-Squaredf Sig.
Model I 9.221 8 0.324
Model II 3.421 9 0.905
Sig. = Significance.
Table A3. Model summary.
Model Summary
-2 Log Likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
Model I 121.917 a 0.491 0.693
Model II 137.608 a 0.443 0.625
a Estimation terminated at iteration number 20 because maximum iterations has been reached. Final solution cannot
be found.
References
1. Stankeviˇciut ¯ e, Z.; Savaneviˇcien ˙ e, A. Designing Sustainable HRM: The Core Characteristics of Emerging Field. ˙
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4798. [CrossRef]
2. De Prins, P.; Van Beirendonck, L.; De Vos, A.; Segers, J. Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice
through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Manag. Rev. 2014, 25, 263–284. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 48 of 53
3. Ehnert, I.; Harry, W.; Zink, K.J. Sustainability and HRM. An Introduction to the Field. In Sustainability and
Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations; Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink, K.J.,
Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 3–32. ISBN 978-3-642-37524-8.
4. Macke, J.; Genari, D. Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 208, 806–815. [CrossRef]
5. Sisson, K.; Storey, J. The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing the Employment Relationship;
Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2000.
6. Strenitzerová, M.; Achimský, K. Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty as a Part of Sustainable Human Resource
Management in Postal Sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4591. [CrossRef]
7. Esfahani, S.A.; Rezaii, H.; Koochmeshki, N.; Sharifi-Parsa, S. Sustainable and Flexible Human Resource
Management for innovative organizations. AD-Minist. 2017, 30, 195–215. [CrossRef]
8. Kazlauskaite, R.; Buciuniene, I. The Role of Human Resources and Their Management in the Establishment
of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Eng. Econ. 2008, 5, 78–85.
9. Cohen, E.; Taylor, S.; Muller-Camen, M. HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability.
SHRM Rep. 2012, 1, 1–16.
10. Zaugg, R.; Blum, A.; Norbert, T. Sustainability in Human Resource Management. In Evaluation Report;
IOP Press: Bristol, UK, 2001; Volume 1.
11. Park, L.Y. EOR-Based HRM System and Organizational Ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. 2017. [CrossRef]
12. Nyameh, J. Impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management and organizational performance. Int. J.
Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 1287–1292.
13. Schuler, R.S.; Jackson, S.E. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices.
Acad. Manag. Exec. 1987, 1, 207–219. [CrossRef]
14. Delery, J.E.; Doty, D.H. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic,
contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 802–835. [CrossRef]
15. Purcell, J. Understanding the People and Performance Link, Unlocking the Black Box; CIPD Press: London,
UK, 2003.
16. Appelbaum, E.; Bailey, T.; Berg, P.; Kalleberg, A. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work
Systems Pay Off ; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000.
17. Snell, S.A.; Dean, J.W. Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: A human capital
perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 467–504.
18. Armstrong, M. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10th ed.; Kogan Page Ltd.: London, UK;
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2006.
19. Lorincova, S.; Hitka, M.; Starchon, P.; Stachova, K. Strategic Instruments for Sustainability of Human Resource
Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Using Management Data. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3687.
[CrossRef]
20. Dirisu, J.; Worlu, R.; Osibanjo, A.; Salau, O.; Borishade, T.; Meninwa, S.; Atolagbe, T. An integrated dataset
on organisational culture, job satisfaction and performance in the hospitality industry. Data Brief 2018, 19,
317–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Raziq, A.; Maulabakhsh, R. Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Proc. Econ. Financ. 2015, 23,
717–725. [CrossRef]
22. Al Mamun, C.A.; Hasan, M.N. Factors affecting employee turnover and sound retention strategies in business
organization: A conceptual view. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2017, 15, 63–71.
23. Cantele, S.; Zardini, A. Sustainability a Competitive Advantage for Small Businesses? An Empirical Analysis
of Possible Mediators in the Sustainability–Financial Performance Relationship. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182,
166–176. [CrossRef]
24. Delmas, M.A.; Pekovic, S. Environmental Standards and Labor Productivity: Understanding the Mechanisms
that Sustain Sustainability. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 230–252. [CrossRef]
25. Pintão, S.; Chaves, C.; Branco, M.C. Employees’ recognition of corporate sustainability: A case study.
Corp. Gov. 2018, 18, 104–118. [CrossRef]
26. Dongho, K. Employee Motivation: “Just Ask Your Employees”. Seoul J. Bus. 2006, 12, 19–35.
27. Monusova, G.A. Job satisfaction: International comparisons. World Econ. Int. Relat. 2008, 12, 74–83.
28. Bakotic, D.; Babic, T.B. Relationship between working conditions and job satisfaction: The case of Croatian
ship building company. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 206–213.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 49 of 53
29. Chatzopoulou, M.; Vlachvei, A.; Monovasilis, T. Employee’s motivation and satisfaction in light of economic
recession: Evidence of Grevena Prefecture-Greece. Proc. Econ. Financ. 2015, 24, 136–145. [CrossRef]
30. Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Soebarto, V.; Lu, Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Sustainability attitude and
performance of construction enterprises: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1440–1451. [CrossRef]
31. Chatterjee, S.; DuttaGupta, S.; Upadhyay, P. Sustainability of microenterprises: An empirical analysis.
Benchmarking 2018, 25, 919–931. [CrossRef]
32. Gianni, M.; Gotzamani, K.; Tsiotras, G. Multiple perspectives on integrated management systems and
corporate sustainability performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1297–1311. [CrossRef]
33. Roxas, B.; Ashill, N.; Chadee, D. Effects of entrepreneurial and environmental sustainability orientations on
firm performance: A study of small businesses in the Philippines. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 163–178.
[CrossRef]
34. Chandrasekar, K. Workplace environment and its impact organizational performance in public sector
organizations. Int. J. Enterp. Comput. Bus. Syst. 2011, 1, 1–15.
35. Giovanis, E. Do the flexible employment arrangements increase job satisfaction and employee loyalty?
Evidence from Bayesian networks and instrumental variables. Int. J. Comput. Econ. Econom. 2019, 9, 84–115.
36. Kot-Radojewska, M.; Timenko, I.V. Employee loyalty to the organization in the context of the form of
employment. Oeconomia Copernic. 2018, 10, 511–527. [CrossRef]
37. Gazioglu, S.; Tansel, A. Job satisfacion in Britain: Individual and job related factors. Appl. Econ. 2006, 38,
1163–1171. [CrossRef]
38. Kozica, A.M.F.; Kaiser, S. A sustainability perspective on flexible HRM: How to cope with paradoxes of
contingent work. Manag. Rev. 2012, 23, 239–261. [CrossRef]
39. Halpern, D.F. Public Policy, Work, and Families: The Report of the APA Presidential Initiative on Work and Families;
American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
40. Kalleberg, A. Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-Time, Temporary and Contract Work. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 2000, 16, 341–365.
41. Reilly, P. Flexibility at Work. In Balacing the Interests of Employer and Employee; Gower House: London, UK,
2001.
42. Origo, F.; Pagani, L. Is Work Flexibility a Stairway to Heaven? The Story Told by Job Satisfaction in Europe.
Work. Pap. Ser. 2006, 97, 1–19.
43. Casuneanu, I. Improving the flexibility of the labor force in Romanian enterprises using the practices in the
field from some EU countries. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2013, XX, 110–122.
44. Hirsig, N.; Rogovsky, N.; Elkin, M. Enterprise Sustainability and HRM in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations;
Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink, K.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 127–152.
45. Aziri, B. Job satisfaction. A literature review. Manag. Res. Pract. 2011, 3, 77–86.
46. Peariasamy, T.; Mansor, N.N.A. On-the-job knowledge sharing: How to train employees to share job
knowledge. J. Kemanus. 2008, 12, 87–101.
47. Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
48. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction; Harper and Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1935.
49. O’Keefe, S.M. Amid COVID-19, Let’s Rethink Workplace Flexibility. Gallup. Available online: https://www.
gallup.com/workplace/310214/amid-covid-let-rethink-workplace-flexibility.aspx (accessed on 8 May 2020).
50. Cheremond, R.J. As the Pandemic Resets Major Work Trends, HR Leaders Need to Rethink Workforce and
Employee Planning, Management, Performance and Experience Strategies. Gartner. Available online: https:
//www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/9-future-of-work-trends-post-covid-19/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
51. World Health Organization. Covid-19 Strategy Update. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/covid-strategy-update-14april2020.pdf?sfvrsn=29da3ba0_19 (accessed on 7 May 2020).
52. Buheji, M.; Ahmed, D.A.A. Planning for “The New Normal”—Foresight and Management of the Possibilities
of Socio-economic. Spillovers due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Bus. Manag. Strategy 2020, 11, 160–179. [CrossRef]
53. Adams-Prassl, A.; Boneva, T.; Golin, M.; Rauh, C. Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence
from Real Time Surveys; IZA DP No. 13183; IZA: Bonn, Germany, 2020.
54. Chaturvedi, S. COVID-19 pandemic: Are we witnessing the first world war? Indian J. Public Health 2020, 64,
99–101.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 50 of 53
55. Spurk, D.; Straub, C. Flexible employment relationships and careers in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.
J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103435. [CrossRef]
56. Shan, C.; Tang, D.Y. The Value of Employee Satisfaction in Disastrous Times: Evidence from COVID-19.
Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3560919 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
57. Akkermans, J.; Richardson, J.; Kraimer, M.L. The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers
and vocational behavior. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103434. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Linkedin Learning. 2019 Workplace Learning Report. Available online: https://learning.linkedin.com/
content/dam/me/business/en-us/amp/learning-solutions/images/workplace-learning-report-2019/pdf/
workplace-learning-report-2019.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2020).
59. Brenan, M. U.S. Workers Discovering Affinity for Remote Work. Gallup. Available online: https://news.
gallup.com/poll/306695/workers-discovering-affinity-remote-work.aspx (accessed on 3 April 2020).
60. Ani¸tei, M.; Stoica, I.; Samsonescu, M. Particularities of Personality Traits and Perceived Stress at Workplace
for the Young Workers in Romania. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 1010–1014. [CrossRef]
61. Shepard, E.; Clifton, T.; Kruse, D. Flexible working hours and productivity: Some evidence from
pharmaceutical industry. Ind. Relat. 1996, 35, 123–139.
62. McNeilly, K.; Goldsmith, R.E. The moderating effects of gender and performance on job satisfaction and
intentions to leave in the sales force. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 219–232. [CrossRef]
63. Clark, A.E. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Econ. 1997, 4, 341–372.
[CrossRef]
64. Tang, N.; Cousins, C. Working time, gender and family: An East-West European comparison. Gend. Work
Organ. 2005, 12, 527–550. [CrossRef]
65. Pook, L.A.; Füstös, J.; Marian, L. The impact of gender bias on job satisfaction Components of job satisfaction
and advancement in post-liberation Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2003, 22, 37–50.
66. Matei, A.I.; Fataciune, M. Exploring the Job Satisfaction of Public and Private Employees in Romania.
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business Administration, Catalonia, Spain, 13 April
2016; pp. 138–145.
67. Yousef, D.A. Organizational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relationships of Leadership Behavior with Job
Satisfaction and Performance in a Non-Western Country. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 6–24. [CrossRef]
68. Matei, M.C.; Abrudan, M.M. Adapting Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory to the Cultural Context of Romania.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 221, 95–104. [CrossRef]
69. Săveanu, T.; Săveanu, S.M. Do we really hate our jobs? Determinants of determinants of job satisfaction in
Romania. Ann. Fac. Econ. 2011, 1, 723–729.
70. Suciu, L.E.; Mortan, M.; Lazar, L. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. An Empirical Study: Civil Servant’s
Performance Appraisal Influencing Expectancy. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2013, 9, 180–200.
71. Analoui, F. What motivates senior managers? The case of Romania. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 324–340.
[CrossRef]
72. Tampu, L.D. Key Facts about Motivation on Romanian Employers. Bus. Econ. 2016, 1, 217–227.
73. Cristescu, A.; Stanilă, L.; Andreica, M.E. Motivation of the public employee in Romania in the context of the
economic crisis. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2013, 20, 49–64.
74. Possenriede, D.S.; Plantenga, J. Temporal and Locational Flexibility of Work, Working-Time Fit, and Job
Satisfaction. IZA Discussion Paper 2014, No. 8436. Available online: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8436.pdf
(accessed on 11 April 2020).
75. Almer, E.D.; Kaplan, S.E. The Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements on Stressors, Burnout, and Behavioral
Job Outcomes in Public Accounting. Behav. Res. Account. 2002, 14, 1–34. [CrossRef]
76. Casey, P.R.; Grzywacz, J.G. Employee health and well-being: The role of flexibility and work-family balance.
Psychol. Manag. J. 2008, 11, 31–47. [CrossRef]
77. Jijena Michel, R.D.; Jijena Michel, C.E.Work Schedule Flexibility, Work-Family Enrichment and Job Satisfaction.
J. Behav. Sci. 2015, 25, 78–90.
78. Casuneanu, I.; Lefter, V.; Davidescu, A.A.M. Does Company Size Matter? An Empirical Investigation on Job
Satisfaction and Work Flexibility based on Romanian Employees’ Opinions. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.
2019, 9, 362–382. [CrossRef]
79. Buzea, C. Equity Theory Constructs in a Romanian Cultural Context. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2014, 25, 421–439.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 51 of 53
80. Pavalache-Ilie, M. Organizational citizenship behaviour, work satisfaction and employees’ personality.
Sci. Direct Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127, 489–493. [CrossRef]
81. Campbell, J.P. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Dunnette, M.D., Lough, L.M., Eds.; American
Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 687–732.
82. Waldman, D.A.; Spangler, W.D. Putting together the pieces: A closer look at the determinants of job
performance. Hum. Perform. 1989, 2, 29–59. [CrossRef]
83. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Age, work experience, and the psychological contract. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30,
1053–1075. [CrossRef]
84. Campbell, J.P.; McCloy, R.A.; Oppler, S.H.; Sager, C.E. A Theory of Performance. In Personnel Selection in
Organizations; Wiely: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; pp. 35–70.
85. Bercu, A.M.; Onofrei, A.M. The Empirical Research on Civil Servants’ Motivation: Evidence from Romania.
Manag. Glob. Transit. 2017, 15, 399–417. [CrossRef]
86. Mihalcea, A. Leadership, personality, job satisfaction and job performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127,
443–447. [CrossRef]
87. Ölçer, F.; Florescu, M.S. Mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between psychological
empowerment and job performance. Bus. Excell. Manag. 2015, 5, 5–32.
88. Tampu, D.L.I.; Cochina, I. Motivation & Employee Performance. Proc. Int. Manag. Conf. 2015, 9, 812–821.
89. Bal, P.M.; De Lange, A.H. From flexibility human resource management to employee engagement and
perceived job performance across the lifespan: A multisample study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 88,
126–154. [CrossRef]
90. Martínez-Sánchez, A.; Pérez-Pérez, M.; De-Luis-Carnicer, P.; Vela-Jiménez, M.J. Telework, human resource
flexibility and firm performance. New Technol. Work Employ. 2007, 22, 208–223. [CrossRef]
91. Bran, C.; Udrea, C.I. The Influence of Motivation and Flexibility on Job Performance. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2016, 136–143.
92. Beltrán-Martín, I.; Roca-Puig, V.; Escrig-Tena, A.; Bou-Llusar, J.C. Human Resource Flexibility as a Mediating
Variable between High Performance Work Systems and Performance. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 1009–1044.
[CrossRef]
93. Lepak, D.P.; Takeuchi, R.; Snell, S.A. Employment Flexibility and Firm Performance: Examining the
Interaction Effects of Employment Mode, Environmental Dynamism, and Technological Intensity. J. Manag.
2003, 29, 681–703.
94. Valverde, M.; Tregaskis, O.; Brewster, C. Labor flexibility and firm performance. Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 2000, 6,
649–661. [CrossRef]
95. Manzoor, F.; Wei, L.; Bányai, T.; Nurunnabi, M.; Subhan, Q.A. An Examination of Sustainable HRM Practices
on Job Performance: An Application of Training as a Moderator. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2263. [CrossRef]
96. Casuneanu, I. The Romanian employee motivation system: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Math. Models
Methods Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 931–938.
97. Carvalho, A.; Cabral-Cardoso, C. Flexibility through HRM in management consulting firms. Pers. Rev. 2008,
37, 332–349. [CrossRef]
98. Dex, S.; Scheibl, F. Flexible and family friendly arrangements in SMEs: The business case. Br. J. Ind. Relat.
2001, 38, 411–431. [CrossRef]
99. Lefter, V.; Davidescu, A.A.M.; Casuneanu, I. Identifying the Main Factors of Workplace Flexibility Among
Romanian Employees. Solut. Bus. Cult. Relig. East. Eur. Beyond 2017, 115–128. [CrossRef]
100. Dima, A.M.; T, uclea, C.E.; Vrânceanu, D.M.; T, igu, G. Sustainable Social and Individual Implications of
Telework: A New Insight into the Romanian Labor Market. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3506. [CrossRef]
101. Lefter, V.; Casuneanu, I. Revealing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility. An Empirical Analysis Based
on Romanian Employees’ Perspective. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2018, 18, 471–476.
102. Lefter, V.; Casuneanu, I.; Enache, A.O. Analyzing the Link Between Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction and Job
Performance Among Romanian Employees. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2018, 18, 477–482.
103. Orpen, C. Effect of flexible working hours on employee satisfaction and performance: A field experiment.
J. Appl. Psychol. 1981, 66, 113–115. [CrossRef]
104. Solanki, K.R. Flextime association with job satisfaction, work productivity, motivation & employees stress
levels. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 1, 9–14.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 52 of 53
105. Al Omar, A.; Lolli, J.; Chen-McCain, S.L.; Dickerson, J. A Comparison between Full and Part-Time Lodging
Employees on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Job Performance. In Proceedings of the
International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track, Denver, CO, USA, 29 July 2011.
106. Govender, L.; Migiro, S.O.; Kyule, A.K. Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction and Performance.
J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2018, 10, 268–277.
107. Burtaverde, V. Psychometric properties of the hexaco PI-R on a Romanian sample. The relationship with
work outcomes and general outcomes. Rom. J. Exp. Appl. 2015, 6, 31–58.
108. Bowling, N.A. Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination.
J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 167–185. [CrossRef]
109. Judje, T.A.; Joyce, E.B.; Thoresen, C.J.; Patton, K.P. The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship.
Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 376–407.
110. Christen, M.; Iyer, G.; Soberman, D. Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Effort: A Reexamination Using
Agency Theory. J. Mark. 2001, 70, 137–150. [CrossRef]
111. Katzell, R.A.; Barrett, R.S.; Parker, T.C. Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics.
J. Appl. Psychol. 1961, 45, 65–72. [CrossRef]
112. O’Leary, P.; Wharton, N.; Quinlan, T. Job satisfaction of physicians in Russia. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur.
2009, 22, 221–231. [CrossRef]
113. Norris, D.R.; Niebuhr, R.E. Organization tenure as a moderator of the job satisfaction-job performance
relationship. J. Vocat. Behav. 1984, 24, 169–178. [CrossRef]
114. Petty, M.M.; McGee, G.W.; Cavender, J.W. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Individual Job
Satisfaction and Individual Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 712–721. [CrossRef]
115. Neagu, M. Motivation and organizational commitment as predictors of workplace performance in a bread
factory from Romania. Rom. J. Exp. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 1, 13–23.
116. Burlacu, M.I.; Birsan, A. The Monthly Salary as a Motivational Factor from the Perpective of the Degree of
Satisfaction and the Quality of Life. Proc. Int. Manag. Conf. 2016, 10, 418–427.
117. Tanasescu, C.E.; Leon, R.D. Human Resources Practices in the Romanian Banking System: Rewards,
Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance. Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ. 2019, 7, 469–483. [CrossRef]
118. Wallace, C. Work Flexibility in Eight European countries: A cross-national comparison. Czech Sociol. Rev.
2003, 39, 773–794.
119. Serban, A.C.; Better, A. Employability through Labour Market Flexibility. The Case of Romania. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 4539–4543. [CrossRef]
120. Ionescu, A.; Horga, M.G.; Nancu, D. Firm Financial Performance: An Empirical Investigation on Romanian
SMEs. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2013, 1, 1299–1303.
121. Asselin, L.M. Multidimensional Poverty Composite: Indicator of Multidimensional Poverty; Institut de
mathematique Gauss: Levis, QC, Canada, 2002.
122. Asselin, L.M.; Anh, V.T. Multidimensional Poverty and Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In Quantitative
Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement; Kakwani, N., Silber, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London,
UK, 2008.
123. Ki, J.B.; Bocar, F.; Faye, S. Pauvrete Multidimensionnelle au Senegal: Une Approche par le Besoine de
Base. PEP Working Paper. 2005. Available online: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/29985
(accessed on 1 October 2005).
124. Ningaye, P.; Ndjanyou, L. Multidimensional Poverty in Cameroon: Its Determinants and Spatial Distribution.
In Final Report to AERC Presented during the 2006 December Biannual Workshop; AERC: Auburn, CA, USA, 2006.
125. Njong, M.A.; Ningaye, P.M. Characterising Weights in the Measurement of Multidimensional Poverty:
An Application of Data-Driven Approaches in Cameroonian Data; OPHI Working Paper; Oxford Poverty
& Human Development Initiative: London, UK, 2008; No. 21.
126. Ezzari, A.; Verme, P. A Multiple Correspondence Analysis Approach to the Measurement of Multidimensional
Poverty in Morroco, 2001–2007; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 181–209.
127. Canuel, M.; Abdous, B.; Belanger, D.; Gosselin, P. Development of Composite Indices to Measure the Adoption
of Pro-Environmental Behaviours across Canadian Provinces. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101569. [CrossRef]
128. Costa, A.O.; Oliveira, L.B.; Lins, M.P.E.; Silva, A.C.M.; Araujo, M.S.M.; Pereira, A.O.; Rosa, L.P. Sustainability
analysis of biodiesel production: A review on different resources in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013,
27, 407–412. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 53 of 53
129. Saunier, O.; Mathieu, A.; Didier, D.; Tombette, M.; Quélo, D.; Winiarek, V.; Bocquet, M. An inverse modeling
method to assess the source term of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident using gamma dose rate
observations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 11403–11421. [CrossRef]
130. Mercer’s 2020 Global Talent Trends Study. Available online: https://www.mercer.com/our-thinking/career/
global-talent-hr-trends.html (accessed on 18 April 2020).
‘ 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

tial home working? yes 2.819
no -1.106
Do you practice co-working? yes 3.426
no -0.832
Do you practice flex-office? yes 3.468
no -0.724
Appendix B
Table A2. Hosmer and Lemeshow test for models I and II.
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Chi-Squaredf Sig.
Model I 9.221 8 0.324
Model II 3.421 9 0.905
Sig. = Significance.
Table A3. Model summary.
Model Summary
-2 Log Likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
Model I 121.917 a 0.491 0.693
Model II 137.608 a 0.443 0.625
a Estimation terminated at iteration number 20 because maximum iterations has been reached. Final solution cannot
be found.
References
1. Stankeviˇciut ¯ e, Z.; Savaneviˇcien ˙ e, A. Designing Sustainable HRM: The Core Characteristics of Emerging Field. ˙
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4798. [CrossRef]
2. De Prins, P.; Van Beirendonck, L.; De Vos, A.; Segers, J. Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice
through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Manag. Rev. 2014, 25, 263–284. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 48 of 53
3. Ehnert, I.; Harry, W.; Zink, K.J. Sustainability and HRM. An Introduction to the Field. In Sustainability and
Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations; Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink, K.J.,
Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 3–32. ISBN 978-3-642-37524-8.
4. Macke, J.; Genari, D. Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 208, 806–815. [CrossRef]
5. Sisson, K.; Storey, J. The Realities of Human Resource Management: Managing the Employment Relationship;
Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2000.
6. Strenitzerová, M.; Achimský, K. Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty as a Part of Sustainable Human Resource
Management in Postal Sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4591. [CrossRef]
7. Esfahani, S.A.; Rezaii, H.; Koochmeshki, N.; Sharifi-Parsa, S. Sustainable and Flexible Human Resource
Management for innovative organizations. AD-Minist. 2017, 30, 195–215. [CrossRef]
8. Kazlauskaite, R.; Buciuniene, I. The Role of Human Resources and Their Management in the Establishment
of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Eng. Econ. 2008, 5, 78–85.
9. Cohen, E.; Taylor, S.; Muller-Camen, M. HRM’s role in corporate social and environmental sustainability.
SHRM Rep. 2012, 1, 1–16.
10. Zaugg, R.; Blum, A.; Norbert, T. Sustainability in Human Resource Management. In Evaluation Report;
IOP Press: Bristol, UK, 2001; Volume 1.
11. Park, L.Y. EOR-Based HRM System and Organizational Ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. 2017. [CrossRef]
12. Nyameh, J. Impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management and organizational performance. Int. J.
Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 1287–1292.
13. Schuler, R.S.; Jackson, S.E. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices.
Acad. Manag. Exec. 1987, 1, 207–219. [CrossRef]
14. Delery, J.E.; Doty, D.H. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic,
contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 802–835. [CrossRef]
15. Purcell, J. Understanding the People and Performance Link, Unlocking the Black Box; CIPD Press: London,
UK, 2003.
16. Appelbaum, E.; Bailey, T.; Berg, P.; Kalleberg, A. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work
Systems Pay Off ; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000.
17. Snell, S.A.; Dean, J.W. Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: A human capital
perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 467–504.
18. Armstrong, M. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10th ed.; Kogan Page Ltd.: London, UK;
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2006.
19. Lorincova, S.; Hitka, M.; Starchon, P.; Stachova, K. Strategic Instruments for Sustainability of Human Resource
Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Using Management Data. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3687.
[CrossRef]
20. Dirisu, J.; Worlu, R.; Osibanjo, A.; Salau, O.; Borishade, T.; Meninwa, S.; Atolagbe, T. An integrated dataset
on organisational culture, job satisfaction and performance in the hospitality industry. Data Brief 2018, 19,
317–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Raziq, A.; Maulabakhsh, R. Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Proc. Econ. Financ. 2015, 23,
717–725. [CrossRef]
22. Al Mamun, C.A.; Hasan, M.N. Factors affecting employee turnover and sound retention strategies in business
organization: A conceptual view. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2017, 15, 63–71.
23. Cantele, S.; Zardini, A. Sustainability a Competitive Advantage for Small Businesses? An Empirical Analysis
of Possible Mediators in the Sustainability–Financial Performance Relationship. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182,
166–176. [CrossRef]
24. Delmas, M.A.; Pekovic, S. Environmental Standards and Labor Productivity: Understanding the Mechanisms
that Sustain Sustainability. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 230–252. [CrossRef]
25. Pintão, S.; Chaves, C.; Branco, M.C. Employees’ recognition of corporate sustainability: A case study.
Corp. Gov. 2018, 18, 104–118. [CrossRef]
26. Dongho, K. Employee Motivation: “Just Ask Your Employees”. Seoul J. Bus. 2006, 12, 19–35.
27. Monusova, G.A. Job satisfaction: International comparisons. World Econ. Int. Relat. 2008, 12, 74–83.
28. Bakotic, D.; Babic, T.B. Relationship between working conditions and job satisfaction: The case of Croatian
ship building company. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 206–213.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 49 of 53
29. Chatzopoulou, M.; Vlachvei, A.; Monovasilis, T. Employee’s motivation and satisfaction in light of economic
recession: Evidence of Grevena Prefecture-Greece. Proc. Econ. Financ. 2015, 24, 136–145. [CrossRef]
30. Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Soebarto, V.; Lu, Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Sustainability attitude and
performance of construction enterprises: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1440–1451. [CrossRef]
31. Chatterjee, S.; DuttaGupta, S.; Upadhyay, P. Sustainability of microenterprises: An empirical analysis.
Benchmarking 2018, 25, 919–931. [CrossRef]
32. Gianni, M.; Gotzamani, K.; Tsiotras, G. Multiple perspectives on integrated management systems and
corporate sustainability performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1297–1311. [CrossRef]
33. Roxas, B.; Ashill, N.; Chadee, D. Effects of entrepreneurial and environmental sustainability orientations on
firm performance: A study of small businesses in the Philippines. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 163–178.
[CrossRef]
34. Chandrasekar, K. Workplace environment and its impact organizational performance in public sector
organizations. Int. J. Enterp. Comput. Bus. Syst. 2011, 1, 1–15.
35. Giovanis, E. Do the flexible employment arrangements increase job satisfaction and employee loyalty?
Evidence from Bayesian networks and instrumental variables. Int. J. Comput. Econ. Econom. 2019, 9, 84–115.
36. Kot-Radojewska, M.; Timenko, I.V. Employee loyalty to the organization in the context of the form of
employment. Oeconomia Copernic. 2018, 10, 511–527. [CrossRef]
37. Gazioglu, S.; Tansel, A. Job satisfacion in Britain: Individual and job related factors. Appl. Econ. 2006, 38,
1163–1171. [CrossRef]
38. Kozica, A.M.F.; Kaiser, S. A sustainability perspective on flexible HRM: How to cope with paradoxes of
contingent work. Manag. Rev. 2012, 23, 239–261. [CrossRef]
39. Halpern, D.F. Public Policy, Work, and Families: The Report of the APA Presidential Initiative on Work and Families;
American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
40. Kalleberg, A. Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-Time, Temporary and Contract Work. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 2000, 16, 341–365.
41. Reilly, P. Flexibility at Work. In Balacing the Interests of Employer and Employee; Gower House: London, UK,
2001.
42. Origo, F.; Pagani, L. Is Work Flexibility a Stairway to Heaven? The Story Told by Job Satisfaction in Europe.
Work. Pap. Ser. 2006, 97, 1–19.
43. Casuneanu, I. Improving the flexibility of the labor force in Romanian enterprises using the practices in the
field from some EU countries. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2013, XX, 110–122.
44. Hirsig, N.; Rogovsky, N.; Elkin, M. Enterprise Sustainability and HRM in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business Organizations;
Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink, K.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 127–152.
45. Aziri, B. Job satisfaction. A literature review. Manag. Res. Pract. 2011, 3, 77–86.
46. Peariasamy, T.; Mansor, N.N.A. On-the-job knowledge sharing: How to train employees to share job
knowledge. J. Kemanus. 2008, 12, 87–101.
47. Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
48. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction; Harper and Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1935.
49. O’Keefe, S.M. Amid COVID-19, Let’s Rethink Workplace Flexibility. Gallup. Available online: https://www.
gallup.com/workplace/310214/amid-covid-let-rethink-workplace-flexibility.aspx (accessed on 8 May 2020).
50. Cheremond, R.J. As the Pandemic Resets Major Work Trends, HR Leaders Need to Rethink Workforce and
Employee Planning, Management, Performance and Experience Strategies. Gartner. Available online: https:
//www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/9-future-of-work-trends-post-covid-19/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
51. World Health Organization. Covid-19 Strategy Update. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/covid-strategy-update-14april2020.pdf?sfvrsn=29da3ba0_19 (accessed on 7 May 2020).
52. Buheji, M.; Ahmed, D.A.A. Planning for “The New Normal”—Foresight and Management of the Possibilities
of Socio-economic. Spillovers due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Bus. Manag. Strategy 2020, 11, 160–179. [CrossRef]
53. Adams-Prassl, A.; Boneva, T.; Golin, M.; Rauh, C. Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence
from Real Time Surveys; IZA DP No. 13183; IZA: Bonn, Germany, 2020.
54. Chaturvedi, S. COVID-19 pandemic: Are we witnessing the first world war? Indian J. Public Health 2020, 64,
99–101.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 50 of 53
55. Spurk, D.; Straub, C. Flexible employment relationships and careers in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.
J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103435. [CrossRef]
56. Shan, C.; Tang, D.Y. The Value of Employee Satisfaction in Disastrous Times: Evidence from COVID-19.
Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3560919 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
57. Akkermans, J.; Richardson, J.; Kraimer, M.L. The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers
and vocational behavior. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103434. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Linkedin Learning. 2019 Workplace Learning Report. Available online: https://learning.linkedin.com/
content/dam/me/business/en-us/amp/learning-solutions/images/workplace-learning-report-2019/pdf/
workplace-learning-report-2019.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2020).
59. Brenan, M. U.S. Workers Discovering Affinity for Remote Work. Gallup. Available online: https://news.
gallup.com/poll/306695/workers-discovering-affinity-remote-work.aspx (accessed on 3 April 2020).
60. Ani¸tei, M.; Stoica, I.; Samsonescu, M. Particularities of Personality Traits and Perceived Stress at Workplace
for the Young Workers in Romania. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 1010–1014. [CrossRef]
61. Shepard, E.; Clifton, T.; Kruse, D. Flexible working hours and productivity: Some evidence from
pharmaceutical industry. Ind. Relat. 1996, 35, 123–139.
62. McNeilly, K.; Goldsmith, R.E. The moderating effects of gender and performance on job satisfaction and
intentions to leave in the sales force. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 219–232. [CrossRef]
63. Clark, A.E. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Econ. 1997, 4, 341–372.
[CrossRef]
64. Tang, N.; Cousins, C. Working time, gender and family: An East-West European comparison. Gend. Work
Organ. 2005, 12, 527–550. [CrossRef]
65. Pook, L.A.; Füstös, J.; Marian, L. The impact of gender bias on job satisfaction Components of job satisfaction
and advancement in post-liberation Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2003, 22, 37–50.
66. Matei, A.I.; Fataciune, M. Exploring the Job Satisfaction of Public and Private Employees in Romania.
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business Administration, Catalonia, Spain, 13 April
2016; pp. 138–145.
67. Yousef, D.A. Organizational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relationships of Leadership Behavior with Job
Satisfaction and Performance in a Non-Western Country. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 6–24. [CrossRef]
68. Matei, M.C.; Abrudan, M.M. Adapting Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory to the Cultural Context of Romania.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 221, 95–104. [CrossRef]
69. Săveanu, T.; Săveanu, S.M. Do we really hate our jobs? Determinants of determinants of job satisfaction in
Romania. Ann. Fac. Econ. 2011, 1, 723–729.
70. Suciu, L.E.; Mortan, M.; Lazar, L. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. An Empirical Study: Civil Servant’s
Performance Appraisal Influencing Expectancy. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2013, 9, 180–200.
71. Analoui, F. What motivates senior managers? The case of Romania. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 324–340.
[CrossRef]
72. Tampu, L.D. Key Facts about Motivation on Romanian Employers. Bus. Econ. 2016, 1, 217–227.
73. Cristescu, A.; Stanilă, L.; Andreica, M.E. Motivation of the public employee in Romania in the context of the
economic crisis. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2013, 20, 49–64.
74. Possenriede, D.S.; Plantenga, J. Temporal and Locational Flexibility of Work, Working-Time Fit, and Job
Satisfaction. IZA Discussion Paper 2014, No. 8436. Available online: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8436.pdf
(accessed on 11 April 2020).
75. Almer, E.D.; Kaplan, S.E. The Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements on Stressors, Burnout, and Behavioral
Job Outcomes in Public Accounting. Behav. Res. Account. 2002, 14, 1–34. [CrossRef]
76. Casey, P.R.; Grzywacz, J.G. Employee health and well-being: The role of flexibility and work-family balance.
Psychol. Manag. J. 2008, 11, 31–47. [CrossRef]
77. Jijena Michel, R.D.; Jijena Michel, C.E.Work Schedule Flexibility, Work-Family Enrichment and Job Satisfaction.
J. Behav. Sci. 2015, 25, 78–90.
78. Casuneanu, I.; Lefter, V.; Davidescu, A.A.M. Does Company Size Matter? An Empirical Investigation on Job
Satisfaction and Work Flexibility based on Romanian Employees’ Opinions. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.
2019, 9, 362–382. [CrossRef]
79. Buzea, C. Equity Theory Constructs in a Romanian Cultural Context. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2014, 25, 421–439.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 51 of 53
80. Pavalache-Ilie, M. Organizational citizenship behaviour, work satisfaction and employees’ personality.
Sci. Direct Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127, 489–493. [CrossRef]
81. Campbell, J.P. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Dunnette, M.D., Lough, L.M., Eds.; American
Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 687–732.
82. Waldman, D.A.; Spangler, W.D. Putting together the pieces: A closer look at the determinants of job
performance. Hum. Perform. 1989, 2, 29–59. [CrossRef]
83. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Age, work experience, and the psychological contract. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30,
1053–1075. [CrossRef]
84. Campbell, J.P.; McCloy, R.A.; Oppler, S.H.; Sager, C.E. A Theory of Performance. In Personnel Selection in
Organizations; Wiely: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; pp. 35–70.
85. Bercu, A.M.; Onofrei, A.M. The Empirical Research on Civil Servants’ Motivation: Evidence from Romania.
Manag. Glob. Transit. 2017, 15, 399–417. [CrossRef]
86. Mihalcea, A. Leadership, personality, job satisfaction and job performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 127,
443–447. [CrossRef]
87. Ölçer, F.; Florescu, M.S. Mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between psychological
empowerment and job performance. Bus. Excell. Manag. 2015, 5, 5–32.
88. Tampu, D.L.I.; Cochina, I. Motivation & Employee Performance. Proc. Int. Manag. Conf. 2015, 9, 812–821.
89. Bal, P.M.; De Lange, A.H. From flexibility human resource management to employee engagement and
perceived job performance across the lifespan: A multisample study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 88,
126–154. [CrossRef]
90. Martínez-Sánchez, A.; Pérez-Pérez, M.; De-Luis-Carnicer, P.; Vela-Jiménez, M.J. Telework, human resource
flexibility and firm performance. New Technol. Work Employ. 2007, 22, 208–223. [CrossRef]
91. Bran, C.; Udrea, C.I. The Influence of Motivation and Flexibility on Job Performance. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2016, 136–143.
92. Beltrán-Martín, I.; Roca-Puig, V.; Escrig-Tena, A.; Bou-Llusar, J.C. Human Resource Flexibility as a Mediating
Variable between High Performance Work Systems and Performance. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 1009–1044.
[CrossRef]
93. Lepak, D.P.; Takeuchi, R.; Snell, S.A. Employment Flexibility and Firm Performance: Examining the
Interaction Effects of Employment Mode, Environmental Dynamism, and Technological Intensity. J. Manag.
2003, 29, 681–703.
94. Valverde, M.; Tregaskis, O.; Brewster, C. Labor flexibility and firm performance. Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 2000, 6,
649–661. [CrossRef]
95. Manzoor, F.; Wei, L.; Bányai, T.; Nurunnabi, M.; Subhan, Q.A. An Examination of Sustainable HRM Practices
on Job Performance: An Application of Training as a Moderator. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2263. [CrossRef]
96. Casuneanu, I. The Romanian employee motivation system: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Math. Models
Methods Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 931–938.
97. Carvalho, A.; Cabral-Cardoso, C. Flexibility through HRM in management consulting firms. Pers. Rev. 2008,
37, 332–349. [CrossRef]
98. Dex, S.; Scheibl, F. Flexible and family friendly arrangements in SMEs: The business case. Br. J. Ind. Relat.
2001, 38, 411–431. [CrossRef]
99. Lefter, V.; Davidescu, A.A.M.; Casuneanu, I. Identifying the Main Factors of Workplace Flexibility Among
Romanian Employees. Solut. Bus. Cult. Relig. East. Eur. Beyond 2017, 115–128. [CrossRef]
100. Dima, A.M.; T, uclea, C.E.; Vrânceanu, D.M.; T, igu, G. Sustainable Social and Individual Implications of
Telework: A New Insight into the Romanian Labor Market. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3506. [CrossRef]
101. Lefter, V.; Casuneanu, I. Revealing the Main Characteristics of Work Flexibility. An Empirical Analysis Based
on Romanian Employees’ Perspective. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2018, 18, 471–476.
102. Lefter, V.; Casuneanu, I.; Enache, A.O. Analyzing the Link Between Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction and Job
Performance Among Romanian Employees. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2018, 18, 477–482.
103. Orpen, C. Effect of flexible working hours on employee satisfaction and performance: A field experiment.
J. Appl. Psychol. 1981, 66, 113–115. [CrossRef]
104. Solanki, K.R. Flextime association with job satisfaction, work productivity, motivation & employees stress
levels. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 1, 9–14.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 52 of 53
105. Al Omar, A.; Lolli, J.; Chen-McCain, S.L.; Dickerson, J. A Comparison between Full and Part-Time Lodging
Employees on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Job Performance. In Proceedings of the
International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track, Denver, CO, USA, 29 July 2011.
106. Govender, L.; Migiro, S.O.; Kyule, A.K. Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction and Performance.
J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2018, 10, 268–277.
107. Burtaverde, V. Psychometric properties of the hexaco PI-R on a Romanian sample. The relationship with
work outcomes and general outcomes. Rom. J. Exp. Appl. 2015, 6, 31–58.
108. Bowling, N.A. Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination.
J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 167–185. [CrossRef]
109. Judje, T.A.; Joyce, E.B.; Thoresen, C.J.; Patton, K.P. The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship.
Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 376–407.
110. Christen, M.; Iyer, G.; Soberman, D. Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Effort: A Reexamination Using
Agency Theory. J. Mark. 2001, 70, 137–150. [CrossRef]
111. Katzell, R.A.; Barrett, R.S.; Parker, T.C. Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics.
J. Appl. Psychol. 1961, 45, 65–72. [CrossRef]
112. O’Leary, P.; Wharton, N.; Quinlan, T. Job satisfaction of physicians in Russia. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur.
2009, 22, 221–231. [CrossRef]
113. Norris, D.R.; Niebuhr, R.E. Organization tenure as a moderator of the job satisfaction-job performance
relationship. J. Vocat. Behav. 1984, 24, 169–178. [CrossRef]
114. Petty, M.M.; McGee, G.W.; Cavender, J.W. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Individual Job
Satisfaction and Individual Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 712–721. [CrossRef]
115. Neagu, M. Motivation and organizational commitment as predictors of workplace performance in a bread
factory from Romania. Rom. J. Exp. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 1, 13–23.
116. Burlacu, M.I.; Birsan, A. The Monthly Salary as a Motivational Factor from the Perpective of the Degree of
Satisfaction and the Quality of Life. Proc. Int. Manag. Conf. 2016, 10, 418–427.
117. Tanasescu, C.E.; Leon, R.D. Human Resources Practices in the Romanian Banking System: Rewards,
Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance. Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ. 2019, 7, 469–483. [CrossRef]
118. Wallace, C. Work Flexibility in Eight European countries: A cross-national comparison. Czech Sociol. Rev.
2003, 39, 773–794.
119. Serban, A.C.; Better, A. Employability through Labour Market Flexibility. The Case of Romania. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 4539–4543. [CrossRef]
120. Ionescu, A.; Horga, M.G.; Nancu, D. Firm Financial Performance: An Empirical Investigation on Romanian
SMEs. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2013, 1, 1299–1303.
121. Asselin, L.M. Multidimensional Poverty Composite: Indicator of Multidimensional Poverty; Institut de
mathematique Gauss: Levis, QC, Canada, 2002.
122. Asselin, L.M.; Anh, V.T. Multidimensional Poverty and Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In Quantitative
Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement; Kakwani, N., Silber, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London,
UK, 2008.
123. Ki, J.B.; Bocar, F.; Faye, S. Pauvrete Multidimensionnelle au Senegal: Une Approche par le Besoine de
Base. PEP Working Paper. 2005. Available online: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/29985
(accessed on 1 October 2005).
124. Ningaye, P.; Ndjanyou, L. Multidimensional Poverty in Cameroon: Its Determinants and Spatial Distribution.
In Final Report to AERC Presented during the 2006 December Biannual Workshop; AERC: Auburn, CA, USA, 2006.
125. Njong, M.A.; Ningaye, P.M. Characterising Weights in the Measurement of Multidimensional Poverty:
An Application of Data-Driven Approaches in Cameroonian Data; OPHI Working Paper; Oxford Poverty
& Human Development Initiative: London, UK, 2008; No. 21.
126. Ezzari, A.; Verme, P. A Multiple Correspondence Analysis Approach to the Measurement of Multidimensional
Poverty in Morroco, 2001–2007; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 181–209.
127. Canuel, M.; Abdous, B.; Belanger, D.; Gosselin, P. Development of Composite Indices to Measure the Adoption
of Pro-Environmental Behaviours across Canadian Provinces. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101569. [CrossRef]
128. Costa, A.O.; Oliveira, L.B.; Lins, M.P.E.; Silva, A.C.M.; Araujo, M.S.M.; Pereira, A.O.; Rosa, L.P. Sustainability
analysis of biodiesel production: A review on different resources in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013,
27, 407–412. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086 53 of 53
129. Saunier, O.; Mathieu, A.; Didier, D.; Tombette, M.; Quélo, D.; Winiarek, V.; Bocquet, M. An inverse modeling
method to assess the source term of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident using gamma dose rate
observations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 11403–11421. [CrossRef]
130. Mercer’s 2020 Global Talent Trends Study. Available online: https://www.mercer.com/our-thinking/career/
global-talent-hr-trends.html (accessed on 18 April 2020).
‘ 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).