Introduction

Over the years, the traditional office-oriented work model (9.00 a.m.–5.00 p.m.) has undergone a significant transformation, principally due to technological advancements, the demand for work–life balance, and the sudden rise of COVID-19 (Chafi et al., 2021; Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023). Consequently, family-friendly practices, such as flexible working arrangements (FWAs), have emerged as a popular alternative, providing employees with greater control and autonomy (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022; Shifrin & Michel, 2022). When job requirements intertwine with family responsibilities, it can create a sense of interference, frequently known as work–family or family–work conflict (Azar et al., 2018; Li & Wang, 2022). This interference leads to procrastination behavior in employees (Akhtar & Malik, 2016). In such a situation, FWAs help employees reduce their work–family interference by providing sufficient control, which may reduce work–family interference and help employees handle their work and family obligations more effectively (French et al., 2023; Gunasekara et al., 2022).

Moreover, flexibility within the workplace not only enables employees to achieve a work–life balance, but research has also found that it possesses significant strategic value for the organization's goals (Kabra & Ramesh, 2015; Singh et al., 2021; Sushil, 2015). For instance, within the high-performance work systems approach, granting employees increased autonomy, and control over their tasks, which involves the capacity to manage both the timing and location of their work, enhances employee productivity (Appelbaum, 2000; Davis & Kalleberg, 2006). Therefore, FWAs can be oriented toward the employer or the employee, depending on whether they primarily cater to the employer’s or the employee's demands (Chung & Horst, 2020).

Furthermore, FWAs predominantly entail two separate yet interconnected dimensions: control over work hours and work location (Allen et al., 2013; Shifrin & Michel, 2022; Sushil, 2018). The former concept is commonly known as "flextime," whereas the latter is termed "flexplace" (Charalampous et al., 2019; Dilmaghani, 2021; Thompson et al., 2015). In this article, alternative work arrangements with employees’ control over schedule and location will be referred to as FWA(s) to ensure uniformity.

The literature suggests that FWAs can have mixed outcomes (Hackney et al., 2022), including positive effects, such as a reduced need for rest periods and time off due to poor health, improved focus due to fewer distractions (Bloom et al., 2015), increased job autonomy, greater job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior (Yadav et al., 2016), and the ability to manage work around personal commitments (French et al., 2023; Neufeld & Fang, 2005). These benefits enhance productivity, lower employee turnover, increase cost savings, and provide a competitive advantage to the firm (Antunes et al., 2023; Shukla et al., 2019). However, there are also challenges associated with FWAs. Studies have shown that these challenges include the diminishing distinction between work and personal life (Routley, 2020), difficulties in disconnecting from work or rumination (Stockkamp et al., 2023), and a loss of professional identity (Boell et al., 2016; Gerards et al., 2018). When employees work remotely, organizations struggle to foster a supportive work culture, and employees experience decreased motivation and job satisfaction (Peters et al., 2016). FWAs limit resource availability, such as technical aid and equipment, and promote isolation (Neufeld & Fang, 2005). Such situations lead to anxiety, difficulties in task completion, irritability, reduced productivity, decreased motivation, and increased stress. From an organizational standpoint, FWAs result in reduced productivity, higher costs, and decreased knowledge-sharing opportunities and interpersonal relationships (Allen et al., 2015; Monteiro et al., 2019).

However, a recent study by Kröner and Müller (2023) highlights the significance of FWAs in enhancing employee well-being and firm success. Possible reasons for this finding include turnover intentions, work–life conflicts, and high work stress, all of which escalated post-COVID-19. The pandemic compelled millions of people worldwide to work from home, and FWAs became the "new normal" (Becker et al., 2022; Kniffin et al., 2021). Post-COVID-19, FWAs were no longer a specific request or workplace practice but a new mandated work context (Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, the extant literature post-COVID-19 suggests diverse viewpoints surrounding FWAs, and their impact on employees and employers has been multifaceted. There is supporting evidence from various theoretical frameworks, including job demand-resource theory (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019; De Carlo et al., 2022), value percept theory (Azar et al., 2018; Masuda et al., 2012), and conservation of resource (COR) theory (Kröll & Nüesch, 2019; Stockkamp et al., 2023), to substantiate the positive outcomes of FWAs. Researchers across various nations have found support for such findings using different methodological approaches (Alsulami et al., 2022; Miglioretti et al., 2022). However, Masuda et al. (2012) highlighted the need for more studies in Asian and Latin American nations. Therefore, it is crucial to amalgamate existing research to achieve a more thorough understanding. Furthermore, earlier research on FWAs has measured their impact on factors such as health-related outcomes (Beckel & Fisher, 2022; Shifrin & Michel, 2022) and work–life integration, in addition to the facilitators and barriers of FWAs (Kumar et al., 2023), the downsides of FWAs (Soga et al., 2022), or any specific aspect of FWAs (Hackney et al., 2022; Lunde et al., 2022). Studies examining FWAs during the COVID-19 pandemic are sparse and scattered (Hackney et al., 2022; Soga et al., 2022). Overall, the reviews lack a holistic perspective and are restricted mainly to the antecedents and effects of FWAs concerning employee–employer-related outcomes. Although these studies are essential to the literature, a more systematic and extensive review is required.

Moreover, the review's structure is as follows: First, the literature analysis has been discussed, which presents the systematic data collection process, descriptive analysis, and methodological approach encompassing the SCM-TBFO framework for the literature review. Second, the extant literature has been examined using this framework. Third, gaps have been identified on the basis of the framework, and future directions have been prescribed. Following that, the study outlines the theoretical and practical implications. Lastly, the conclusion and limitations of the study are addressed.

Literature Analysis

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

During the initial phase, an attempt was made to reach out to subject experts and co-authors to generate a compilation of pertinent terms (Table 1). While searching for literature, the Boolean operator "AND" has been applied across various concepts to avoid redundancy and irrelevancy, and the Boolean operator "OR" is applied between search terms.

Table 1 Search terms
Full size table

Scholars have proposed various systematic literature review approaches (Page et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2020). In this study, the authors followed the guidelines outlined by Page (2021) in the PRISMA framework (Fig. 1). Using this framework, 1238 documents were found. In addition, an attempt has been made to include only articles to derive the initial set of relevant documents. A filter for specific subject areas, “Business, Management, and Accounting; Social Science; and Psychology,” was subsequently applied to ensure that the documents were from appropriate fields. The study’s attempts to explore other domains, such as medicine, environmental science, and mathematics, yielded results that were largely unrelated to the research context. The preferred language was English, and the selected source type was “journal”.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Stepwise selection of articles

Full size image

Furthermore, the study gathered documents until April 2023 from the Scopus database, recognized as the most extensive collection of peer-reviewed articles in the field of social sciences (Jain et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2020, 2021). Nearly, all the papers searched in EBSCO and ProQuest were available in the Scopus database. Consequently, the authors opted to exclusively utilize Scopus (Singh et al., 2023). Additionally, given that the study incorporates papers from psychology and social sciences, it is worth noting that many distinguished psychology and social science journals may not be ranked under the ABDC rankings. However, they often find their place in Quartile 1 (Q1) of the SSCI index, representing the highest quality journal tier. To ensure the utmost relevance and quality, the authors thoughtfully applied the journal selection criteria as Q1 or ABDC A, and the results were narrowed to 365.

Moreover, to ensure that only documents that considered FWAs in the context of overall employee–employer-related outcomes were included, the authors reviewed the abstract and title of the remaining 365 papers. Based on this, the number of articles decreased to 97. In addition, the authors conducted a full-text analysis to ensure the relevance of the selected paper to the topic. This reduced the count to 85. Finally, through "snowballing," five additional papers were included, making the final count of the included articles in the study 90 (Fig. 1). Table 2 confluences the results of the various bibliometric sources from which the studies have been extracted.

Table 2 Article source
Full size table

Descriptive Analysis

In the first step, the authors focused on analyzing the trend of selected articles from the extant literature, as depicted in Fig. 2. Since health authorities reported the first case of COVID-19 in December 2019, the paper categorized studies conducted until 2019 as pre-COVID studies and those conducted from 2020 onwards as post-COVID studies. Research on FWAs and their effect on employee- and employer-related outcomes conducted before and after COVID-19 is substantial for diverse reasons. Such research can assist organizations in identifying the trends and results of using FWAs during such pandemics, which can help them through similar future challenges. In addition, due to technological advancements, especially post-COVID-19, the world has become exponentially more globalized, and FWAs can maximize the gains from such market dynamics. Focusing on the changes caused by COVID-19 and highlighting the outcomes centered around employees and employers, this study provides a holistic literature review.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Identified articles as per the year of publication

Full size image

Furthermore, approximately 67% of the selected articles were published from 2015 onwards (Fig. 2), thus indicating the crucial nature and significance of the research topic being examined. In addition, the latest literature review studies in the area of FWAs have been included, after which it can be said that certain aspects of the holistic literature review were missing from these studies, and thus, a comprehensive assessment is required to obtain an overarching result (Fox et al., 2022; Lunde et al., 2022; Shifrin & Michel, 2022). Furthermore, previous studies have posited the role of specific dimensions, such as employee-oriented, socio-cultural, infrastructural, and employer-oriented, which can be used to segregate the different variables under investigation. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify variables that initiate, impede, catalyze, and result from the implementation of FWAs. Furthermore, with reference to the work of Soga et al. (2022), the authors meticulously organized the TBFO variables gathered from the extensive literature review into the specified four dimensions, as presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Analytical structure
Full size table

Framework

To address the identified gaps, the authors reviewed 90 reputed journal articles to understand FWAs in-depth. The study used the SCM-TBFO framework suggested by Singh and Dhir (2023) to obtain an overarching field view. Furthermore, the paper categorizes distinct triggers, barriers, facilitators, and outcomes into four major dimensions to diversify the scope of the study. This approach has been adopted to obtain a more profound understanding of the effect of FWAs on various outcomes, examine them from different viewpoints, consolidate and provide an extensive examination of the current body of literature, determine the changes induced through COVID-19 in the academic landscape, identify gaps in the current literature and propose future research directions.

The study encompassed various elements to comprehensively understand the factors influencing FWAs and their associated outcomes under the SCM-TBFO framework, namely school of thought (S), i.e., theories from literature; the context of study (C), i.e., the industry and country of study; and frequently used methods (M), which are classified into three primary categories: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (Creswell, 1999; Hegde, 2015; Mariani et al., 2023). Trigger (T) has been defined as "something that causes something else to happen” (Trigger Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary, n.d.). The causes of triggers in the organizational context might be internal, for instance, knowledge gaps, or external, such as policy changes or unforeseen occurrences. Barriers (B) are things or situations that impede or obstruct the process. Furthermore, to understand the catalyzing effect of certain variables on the process of FWAs, this study identified facilitators (F) from extant literature, a component that aids or promotes the process. Finally, the authors explored the outcomes (O) of the studies under consideration.

The rationale behind choosing the SCM-TBFO framework is that in addition to its overarching nature, its effectiveness lies in discerning the insights and perspectives that can shape the research landscape. It also helps to identify gaps from different perspectives and efficiently identify future research agendas. Furthermore, the study classified the TBFO variables into four key dimensions: employee-oriented, socio-cultural, infrastructural, and employer-oriented. This classification broadens the scope of the study and groups related variables together.

Results

This section provides a comprehensive breakdown of the (S) schools of thought, (C) study context, (M) research methods employed, (T) triggers initiating the process, (B) barriers encountered during the process, (F) facilitators aiding the process, and (O) outcomes, all systematically organized based on the insights gathered from the literature review. In addition, it distinguishes COVID-19-induced changes by categorizing studies according to their respective years and discusses these alterations within each identified segment.

Schools of Thought (S)

In the field of FWAs, the literature has delved into various theories to better understand the factors that kickstart the research process (Triggers), the obstacles and support mechanisms encountered along the way (Barriers and Facilitators), and the eventual outcomes. Table 4 provides an overview of the prevailing theories frequently used in FWAs.

Table 4 Schools of thought (S)
Full size table

Conservation of resources, job demands-resources (JD-R), and social exchange are the most conventionally used theories in explaining the findings of studies related to FWAs. The conservation of resources theory states that employees and workers want to retain, obtain, and secure resources such as time, energy, and knowledge. Practices such as FWAs help them maintain these resources (Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023; Stockkamp et al., 2023).

JD-R theory suggests that job characteristics can be classified into job demands or resources (De Carlo et al., 2022). The aspects of a job that necessitate effort and are associated with particular psychological costs are known as job demands. In contrast, factors that help attenuate job demands are called job resources (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019; Kröner & Müller, 2023).

Likewise, job demands and control theory emphasizes how individuals can manage the pace of their work, how and when to execute different tasks, and categorize a job as good or bad. Jobs with high demands and low control are 'high-strain,' while jobs with low demand and high control are 'low-strain' jobs (Chandola et al., 2019). Generally, workplace flexibility helps to increase control over when and where to work, resulting in lower work-related strain (Ab Wahab & Tatoglu, 2020).

Another commonly employed theory in FWAs is the social exchange theory. The basis of this theory is that the decision of management to provide FWAs would alleviate the feeling of obligation in employees to reciprocate the exchange with favorable organizational outcomes and more significant organizational commitment (Berber et al., 2022).

Similarly, the gift exchange theory states that employers may offer family-friendly policies, such as FWAs, as a gift to employees. In return, employers may seek Favorable employee consequences (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2017).

The job characteristics theory suggests that the core attributes of a job, such as task identity, skill variety, and autonomy, influence mental well-being, which can impact employee performance (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2017). Furthermore, FWAs may positively affect employees' perceived autonomy, thus increasing job satisfaction (Baltes et al., 1999).

The work adjustment theory also significantly contributes to FWAs. It asserts that a high resemblance between employees’ abilities and the required job abilities should lead to higher performance. Moreover, the high parallel between employee needs and the organization’s reinforcement system may lead to more favorable job attitudes. Work adjustment is increased when employees and the organization meet each other’s needs (Baltes et al., 1999). Furthermore, high work performance practices, such as FWAs, help firms meet employees' requirements, which may lead to job and schedule satisfaction, creating a committed workforce (Swanberg et al., 2011).

Spieler (2017) used boundary theory to explain the interaction between work and non-work domains while availing flextime. Generally, employees with weak boundaries experience frequent interdomain transitions. In contrast, individuals with robust work–non-work limits experience few interdomain shifts. However, work–non-work interference is one of the critical reasons for job dissatisfaction and employee turnover; employees availing FWAs, such as work from home, can attenuate adverse outcomes of work by having stronger work–non-work boundaries (Ahmad et al., 2022).

The control behavior theory holds that individuals automatically measure advancement toward their goals. In the case of non-attainment or insufficient progress, they experience a negative effect. Combined with boundary theory, the control theory of behavior can explain the impact of work–non-work boundary management during flextime on employee well-being and positive employee attitudes (Spieler et al., 2017).

The value percept theory is another vital theory in the literature on FWAs. According to this theory, employees’ job satisfaction depends on their perception of the value or rewards they receive from their work relative to their effort (Locke, 1976). This theory efficiently explains the difference between individualistic and collectivist cultures in the adoption of FWA policies. For example, because FWAs enhance privacy, autonomy, and individuality among employees, it can result in higher job satisfaction for employees within individualistic nations. FWAs may not have the same impact in a collectivist culture because isolation does not correspond to their value system, and employees prefer to interact frequently with their colleagues and supervisors (Masuda et al., 2012).

Conservation of resource (COR) theory has remained a prominent theoretical framework before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, social exchange theory was prevalent in the literature before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, its use in the literature has diminished in the post-COVID-19 era. One possible reason for this decline could be that during and after COVID-19, FWAs ceased to be optional requests from employees but became mandated arrangements. This shift may have reduced the sense of reciprocity among employees toward their organizations. Moreover, in the post-COVID-19 period, JD-R theory has become increasingly prominent. This may be attributed to the emergence of job demands stemming from the pandemic, such as work intensification and increased stress. FWAs have been used as valuable resources to address these work-related demands.

Context of Study (C)

Although the studies in FWA literature have been pervasive across various nations and industrial sectors, the knowledge base needs to be more uniform to get overarching conclusions. Most researchers focused mainly on data pertaining to a single country (Nordbäck et al., 2017) except a few (Lyness et al., 2012). Among the advanced countries, the USA, UK, Germany, and Australia have the majority of studies (Gunasekara et al., 2022; Kröll & Nüesch, 2019; Prem et al., 2021). Although, with time, researchers have started focusing on developing countries as well, the possible reason behind this shift may be globalization, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing gender sensitivity in developing nations (Alsulami et al., 2022; Azar et al., 2018). Additionally, researchers previously focused on multi-sector datasets (Wright et al., 2016). Gradually, researchers have shifted their focus to single-sector samples to get a more detailed view of the area, especially after COVID-19 (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022; Stockkamp et al., 2023). Moreover, previous research has primarily focused on the service industries. A possible reason for this is that FWAs, such as telecommuting, hold less significance in sectors and job positions where the physical presence of employees is mandatory. Conversely, allowing work flexibility is more feasible when customers do not participate in every process stage (Kotey & Sharma, 2016). The context of the sample studies is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Context of study (C)
Full size table

Methods (M)

The social research method is a systematic approach that researchers employ to collect the data necessary to identify and explain the social phenomena under investigation. In the domain of social science, there are typically three primary research methods: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Firdaus et al., 2021; Hegde, 2015; Mariani et al., 2023). A mixed-method study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis into a single study (Creswell, 1999). Research in the field of FWAs has employed various methods. The majority of the studies opted for quantitative studies (67.8%), qualitative methods being the second most preferred option (26.6%) and mixed methods being the least used (5.6%). The prominent quantitative approaches before and after COVID-19 include regression encompassing least square and fixed effects models and structured equation modeling. Conversely, interviews and case studies are the most prevalent qualitative methods in the literature. However, the use of case studies has been attenuated since the pandemic.

Moreover, existing literature has utilized mixed-method approaches, such as the qualitative comparative analysis. More enhanced mixed methods, like fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA), can be used to conduct case-based analyses and explore complex relationships where causality is not linear or straightforward (Ahmad et al., 2022). Furthermore, the review suggests that future research can incorporate diverse qualitative techniques, such as total interpretive structural modeling (Singh & Singh, 2023; Singh et al., 2022; Yadav et al., 2016), and elevate the use of quantitative approaches like experimental studies, which can offer a more comprehensive perspective.

Furthermore, new measures and scales must be developed to validate results in line with cultural influence (Individualistic vs. Collectivistic) and its extension to under-explored FWA practices such as freelancing and gig workers (Prem et al., 2021). Different methods used in the literature pre- and post-COVID-19 are presented in Table 6. Table 7 shows the contribution of various methods in the sample studies.

Table 6 Widely used methods (M)
Full size table
Table 7 Contribution of methods
Full size table

Triggers (T)

A variety of factors have influenced the process of adopting FWAs. Among the most prevalent reasons are the necessity to balance professional and personal life, increased competition, and shifting conditions in the job market (Uhlig et al., 2023). With the onset of COVID-19, studies began incorporating more sustainability and health-related reasons for implementing FWAs, as Table 8 illustrates.

Table 8 Triggers (T)
Full size table

Employee-Oriented Triggers

Prominent triggers focused on employees before the COVID-19 era that initiated the FWA processes include employees' perceived work-related stress (Weiß, 2020) and employees' desire for enhancements in job quality (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008). Notably, there was a heightened focus on mitigating adverse work outcomes and elevating work standards when employees were working remotely (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008).

At the same time, COVID-19 has shifted the focus from reducing negative aspects to increasing positive employee attitudes. More studies have focused on employees' mental health and well-being to produce positive employee behavior using FWAs (Fox et al., 2022; Stockkamp et al., 2023).

Socio-Cultural Triggers

Work–life interference (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019), aging among employees (Allen et al., 2021), gender roles (Carlson et al., 2010), and cultural preferences (Collectivists vs. Individualists) (Masuda et al., 2012) are a few of the researched socio-cultural triggers. Among these, work–life intersection/spillover is the most studied and has been a focus of interest even post-COVID-19 (Ahmad et al., 2022; Li & Wang, 2022). The probable reasons behind these socio-cultural triggers may be changing labor dynamics globally, which improved workforce diversity and brought several challenges for employers; FWAs may help mitigate these challenges and attract a quality workforce (Baltes et al., 1999). Pre-COVID-19 research also has focused on public policies as a trigger to induce family-friendly practices such as flextime. These practices are vital to the overall policy structure in many European countries, mainly Nordic ones (Lyness et al., 2012). Likewise, advanced nations such as the USA, Australia, and the UK allow and encourage employees to request FWAs (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2017). The government generally introduces these policies to let employees exercise some control over their work time and place of work. Moreover, it encourages employers to offer flexible options to address the varied requirements of the contemporary workforce (Shanmugam & Agarwal, 2019).

COVID-19 has influenced the scope of studies in the socio-cultural domain since businesses shifted online, and virtually managing the workforce became a significant concern for organizations. Thus, workplace switches due to the pandemic became a major FWA process trigger among many studies (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022). According to Li and Wang (2022), during the pandemic, the problem of work–life conflict escalated, potentially attributed to a rise in negative spillover between work and non-work domains among employees working from home. Moreover, COVID-19 exponentially reduced studies concerning public policies as a trigger to opt for FWAs practices; the probable reason might be that COVID-19, by default, shifted the majority of the workforce from office to home, and thus, no government interventions or policies were required to motivate employers and employees to switch to the FWAs. Nevertheless, few legal interventions, such as SDG goals, still thrive in literature since they help firms gain long-term advantages. FWAs practices such as hybrid work and telecommuting help accomplish these SDG goals (Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023).

Employer-Oriented Triggers

Previous research has focused their attention on how output-related functions of an organization including issues, such as improving organizational performance (Kröll & Nüesch, 2019), market competition (Heiden et al., 2021), competitive advantage (Antunes et al., 2023), organizational commitment, cost reduction, boosting employee productivity (Wessels et al., 2019), value creation, dynamic labor market, employee retention, and globalization (Allen et al., 2015) can motivate employers to avail FWAs. Most papers discussed triggers related to short-term quantitative outcomes and lacked a holistic approach for the organization to survive in the long term.

Post-COVID-19, many studies investigated the role of FWAs in organizational sustainability (Alsulami et al., 2022; Gunasekara et al., 2022). Additionally, researchers consistently worked on quantitative consequences of FWAs, such as competitive advantage, employee productivity, dynamic labor market, employee turnover, and globalization, which substantially contribute toward the objectives of organizations (Azeem & Kotey, 2023; Fox et al., 2022).

Barriers (B)

FWAs give employees autonomy and control over their work, as highlighted by Lyness et al. (2012). Nevertheless, these arrangements also present certain challenges, including social isolation, inefficient workplace structures, and increased work intensity, which can negatively impact both employee well-being and organizational outcomes, as noted by Kotey and Sharma (2019). Table 9 shows well-researched barriers that interfere with the ultimate aim of implementing the FWA process.

Table 9 Barriers (B)
Full size table

Employee-Oriented Barriers

Prior studies have highlighted the downsides of implementing FWAs in organizations. However, significantly less research has shown what causes those downsides (Soga et al., 2022). Employee-oriented barriers, such as an increase in perceived cognitive complexity (Kröll & Nüesch, 2019), work intensification (Piasna, 2018), self-comparison (Weiß, 2020), personal threats to professional development (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008), and latent fear of change (Cooper, 2005), act as barriers and can negate employee well-being while opting for FWAs.

The employee-oriented barriers mentioned in bold in Table 9, such as work intensification and threat to advancement, persist in literature even after the pandemic, suggesting future research scope (Kröner & Müller, 2023; Stockkamp et al., 2023). Moreover, studies have identified ‘rumination’ as a prominent contributor to work–family conflict post-COVID-19 since high-performance work practices while working from home require high job involvement, which can cause rumination and reduce psychological detachment from work. Thus, ruminating while non-work can be a barrier and cause negative spillover during family time (Prem et al., 2021; Stockkamp et al., 2023).

Socio-Cultural Barriers

It is evident from previous studies that FWAs result in the individualization of work, leading to social isolation among employees that can even make them feel dehumanized (Ajzen & Taskin, 2021). Additionally, FWAs, like remote work, can result in a blending of work and home roles, blurring the boundaries between them (Chandola et al., 2019), which may lead to frequent interdomain transitions between work and non-work positions (Spieler et al., 2017). Furthermore, being visible at work is often a sign of loyalty and commitment. Employees who avail FWA facilities, such as working from home, are not considered ideal due to visibility issues (Chen et al., 2019). The other reasons are stigma and organizational cultural norms related to opting for FWAs (Chung, 2020). There is also a gendered perception around flexible practice that flexibility is for females, mainly mother employees, and if male employees adopt such practices, they may face career penalties, problems with supervisors, and perceived unfairness in the allocation of family-friendly policies (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019).

A recent study by Ahmad et al. (2022) posits that household constraints, such as the number and age of family members, impact employees’ productivity. Moreover, studies focused on leadership styles supervisors adopt during FWA practices and how impertinent supervisory practices such as close monitoring and authoritarian leadership negatively affect employees' efficiency while using FWAs (Macciotta et al., 2022).

Infrastructural Barriers

Effective execution of FWA practices that require showing up at the office, including flextime and compressed work weeks, demands workplace structure to adapt to those changes. Poor workplace structure can hinder the execution of FWA practices and, if implemented otherwise, may result in inconsistencies and adverse effects on employees who request it (Kotey & Sharma, 2019). Additionally, literature shows that FWA practices are more prevalent in the service sector. Employees in IT, scientific, and other services can easily leverage the benefits of FWAs. They are not required to be physically present at all times and can meet the job demands while on the move. Contrarily, enabling employees to have flexible choices regarding the time and location of work can disrupt manufacturing production since workers have to be present physically and work extensively to meet production targets (Kotey & Sharma, 2016).

The onset of COVID-19 has worsened communication challenges among teams and groups within organizations, primarily due to the lack of face-to-face interaction with colleagues, initiating a debate on how ineffective communication hinders the FWA process (Ahmad et al., 2022). Moreover, mandated work from home during COVID-19 also commenced studies around inadequate working spaces and equipment at home that attenuated the efficiency of FWAs (Macciotta et al., 2022). Furthermore, Mihailović et al. (2021) have posited cybercrime as a significant challenge for organizations that allow FWAs, primarily due to these organizations' hesitance in establishing robust data protection measures.

Employer-Oriented Barriers

Previous research has shown that it is not primarily the number of hours worked during FWAs that propels perceived conflict but instead the unpredictability of working schedules set by the employer (Hofäcker & König, 2013). The main reason behind this unpredictability is the conflicting interests among management and employees, making the FWA process equally complex (Kogi, 1991). Additionally, firms must understand that the total time the practice has been in operation will likely be essential. Previous studies have shown that alternative working arrangements, such as a 4/40 workweek, may have short-term positive effects, which may wane over time as individuals become accustomed to the benefits of FWAs (Baltes et al., 1999).

As per studies amid COVID-19, the primary reason for employee turnover while telecommuting was rigid expectations from management and their authoritative behavior (Ahmad et al., 2022). During such plight, delays and interruptions in work are usual, which can disappoint supervisors. This situation may result in higher employer control and supervision over work, increasing employee stress (Kniffin et al., 2021).

Facilitators (F)

Research has indicated that specific individual and organizational factors, such as trust in management, job crafting, and leadership behavior, are pivotal in facilitating remote work effectiveness (Chafi et al., 2021; Costantini & Weintraub, 2022). These factors enhance the impact of FWAs and promote the desired outcomes. Table 10 provides a detailed representation of the key facilitators in the FWA process.

Table 10 Facilitators (F)
Full size table

Employee-Oriented Facilitators

One crucial tenet of the FWA process that leads to positive employee and employer outcomes is the perception of employees about the organization. It includes their trust in management (Yunus & Mostafa, 2022), perceived organizational and supervisor support (Shanmugam & Agarwal, 2019), and perceived control over work (Lyness et al., 2012). Furthermore, Jena and Memon (2018) highlight the importance of employee voice behavior in elevating their trust in management, which eventually reduces job-related anxiety (Yunus & Mostafa, 2022), and incubating innovative workplace behavior in organizations (Saleh & Wang, 1993). Moreover, the perceived availability of FWAs may promote employee satisfaction and commitment to the organization. A possible reason might be the positive feeling associated with serving an organization that cares about the well-being of its workforce (Scandura & Lankau, 1997).

The pandemic further escalated the need for personal management to stay motivated and to avoid negative spillovers of work over non-work life (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022). Thus, researchers focused on personal management attributes, such as psychological detachment (Stockkamp et al., 2023), self-leadership, self-discipline, job crafting (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022), and hope (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2023), as reinforcers of well-being among employees while working from home.

Socio-Cultural Facilitator

Worker connectedness is one of the essential resources for facilitating a better adjustment to remote work (Griffith et al., 2018). In spatially distributed environments, employees heavily rely on frequent communication with supervisors and colleagues to fulfill their assigned tasks (Neirotti et al., 2019). Additionally, robust work-non-work boundaries promote employee well-being. It helps segregate work goals from other non-work/life domains (Spieler et al., 2017). This segregation helps in devoting cognitive resources toward what is necessary and attenuates the chances of goal failure (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011), amplifying positive affect (Carver & Scheier, 1990). The pre-requisite for a robust work-non-work boundary is social support from family, colleagues, and supervisors (Kuang-Jung, 2001). Fu and Shaffer (2001) also exhibited supervisory support as a buffer against work and family stressors.

Furthermore, the pandemic brought strict lockdowns, resulting in isolation from society that adversely affected employee health, which inclined researchers to substantially focus on social support as a facilitator between FWA practices, primarily work from home, and overall positive employee outcomes (Kröner & Müller, 2023). Moreover, according to Peters et al. (2014), a manager’s transformational leadership style can serve as a vital resource for employees during teleworking. Additionally, it may serve as a reconciler in the connection between FWAs and outcomes at the employee level, as suggested by Gerards et al. (2021).

Infrastructural Facilitator

Over the past few decades, whether it be pre-pandemic or post-pandemic, digital transformation has made it easier for firms to shift their workforce beyond office boundaries (Arntz et al., 2022). It enhanced the process of FWAs by making them more accessible and spatially flexible by integrating the teams on a single platform and increasing the velocity of communication (Uhlig et al., 2023). Moreover, Nam (2014) asserts that technological advancements determine the extent of permeability and amalgamation of work-non-work boundaries. Technology upgradation helps the firms to make the company suitable for new challenges that emerge through globalization and increased interconnectedness among various sects. The studies mainly focused on how technological upgradation can help organizations and employees cope with emerging challenges of lack of camaraderie, information gap, and visibility issues during work from home (Ajzen & Taskin, 2021).

Amid COVID-19, besides technological upgradation, technological adaptation has also become a widely studied infrastructural trigger. During the pandemic, employees reported problems dealing with complex technologies and tech-related stress, resulting in low productivity and high turnover rates. Thus, to make organizations spatially flexible and to create a supportive work environment, technological adaptation became one of the main issues under study during COVID-19 (Uhlig et al., 2023). It helped make FWAs, mainly work from home, feasible during the pandemic and significantly reduced the cost of providing such arrangements (Arntz et al., 2022). Current advancements, such as metaverse and virtual reality, can resolve the visibility issue and give team members a sense of presence and camaraderie (Chafi et al., 2021). Furthermore, Paramita et al. (2021) proposed that investing in communication applications can contribute to narrowing gender gaps by providing women with domestic responsibilities and the opportunity to work from the comfort of their homes.

Employer-Oriented Facilitator

FWA's execution can benefit from formalized organizational policies by reducing workers' informational needs since rules and regulations are well-defined (Corso et al., 2006). It helps maintain transparency and equality and marginalizes managerial discretion (Xiang et al., 2022). Literature suggests that unified institutional policies are vital for successfully implementing FWA practices (Alsulami et al., 2022). Moreover, employees unsatisfied with the organization's formal policies on FWAs can negotiate their requirements with managers to play an active role in modifying flexibility according to their needs (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019). This negotiation process is called I-deals or idiosyncratic deals, and it significantly influences the correlation between FWAs and work–life balance (Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019). Furthermore, the intensity/frequency of telecommuting may also work as a moderator between telecommunicating and work–family conflicts (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). The more the employees telecommute, the less the spillover of their work over their families (Allen et al., 2015).

Post-COVID-19 studies have mainly focused on the role of management, namely support, encouragement, transparency, and openness to feedback for the successful implementation of FWA practices and how these managerial attributes enhance the essence of flexibility (Alsulami et al., 2022; Chafi et al., 2021; Gunasekara et al., 2022). Moreover, management through objectives can provide employees with clarity on their work tasks, primarily when communication issues exist within the organization (Macciotta et al., 2022). Mihalca et al. (2021) posited that role clarity mediates work overload and exhaustion experienced by remote workers during the pandemic. They recommended that role clarity may help negate the fatigue among teleworkers.

Outcomes(O)

FWAs can yield favorable outcomes, including enhanced quality of life (Gunasekara et al., 2022), increased autonomy (Ab Wahab & Tatoglu, 2020), and improved cognitive flexibility (Uhlig et al., 2023). However, they can also lead to negative consequences, such as exhaustion and fatigue (Soga et al., 2022). Table 11 provides an overview of the outcomes associated with the successful implementation of FWAs.

Table 11 Outcomes (O)
Full size table

Employee-Oriented Outcomes

The most researched outcome of FWAs is job satisfaction (Kröll & Nüesch, 2019). Most studies suggest that FWAs positively impact job satisfaction (Stockkamp et al., 2023; Uglanova & Dettmers, 2018). Contrarily, there is a scarcity of studies that show a detrimental or no effect of FWAs on job satisfaction, especially in collectivist nations (Narayanan & Nath, 1982), suggesting a gap in the existing body of literature.

Furthermore, there is sufficient research, especially post-COVID-19 highlighting the positive health-related outcomes of FWAs for employees, namely reduced stress, lower allostatic load, reduced exhaustion, lower psychological distress, and higher cognitive flexibility (French et al., 2023; Li & Wang, 2022; Miglioretti et al., 2022) except few showing deteriorating effects (Heiden et al., 2021). Additionally, apart from job satisfaction, other job-related outcomes for employees that demand further attention are job autonomy (Yunus & Mostafa, 2022), job-person fit (Wessels et al., 2019), role conflict (Allen et al., 2015), and task significance (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022).

Socio-Cultural Outcomes

Studies mainly emphasized work–life integration as an outcome in the socio-cultural dimension. At first, work–life balance was primarily perceived as an employee issue, and organizations focused solely on the work aspect (Graham & Dixon, 2014). However, in recent times, researchers have begun to acknowledge the positive aspects of the work–family interface (Rastogi et al., 2016). They now recognize that work and personal life are interconnected, and finding a harmonious integration of both can yield beneficial outcomes for employers, employees, and their families (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). Since FWAs help employees manage work–life boundaries by providing autonomy and control over time and place (Brough et al., 2005), they promote family satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2010) and reduce work–life conflicts (Azar et al., 2018).

With globalization, pandemic-related shifts, and changing workforce dynamics, studies seem to promote the culture of caring about the non-work–life of individuals more and develop practices in particular new forms of FWAs that support work–life integration (Fox et al., 2022; Gunasekara et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2023). Subramanian and Suresh (2022) emphasized that integrating FWAs is a central factor influencing the development of organizational culture. Additionally, reducing gender gaps, improving employee work–life quality, and achieving social sustainability through parity in working life, well-being, and safety for both firms and individuals are critical topics under study post-pandemic (Alsulami et al., 2022; Gunasekara et al., 2022).

Employer-Oriented Outcomes

From the employer's point of view, work engagement has been the most frequently studied outcome, both pre-and post-COVID-19 (Richman et al., 2008). FWA practices contribute to an improved work–life balance for employees, leading to enhanced productivity and employee performance (Bal & De Lange, 2015). Spatial FWAs, such as teleworking, provide high job resources through autonomy and the ability to manage one’s schedule and location. These resources help bolster work engagement and reduce emotional exhaustion (Costantini & Weintraub, 2022; Miglioretti et al., 2022). Furthermore, Rudolph and Baltes (2017) demonstrated that FWA access, use, and frequency affect work engagement positively.

Moreover, organizations that promote FWAs may enhance employees' contributions such that they feel free to share their voices, incubating innovative employee behavior (Azeem & Kotey, 2023). Another often-reported outcome is organizational commitment (Chen & Fulmer, 2018). Kelliher and Anderson (2010) opined that flexible workers have more sense of responsibility toward the organization than those who do not have flexibility options. While availing FWA facilities, employees often perceive that the employer has taken steps to consider their needs (Gouldner, 1960). As a result, there may be an underlying assumption that they should reciprocate, leading to a sense of commitment to the organization (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2017).

Regarding turnover intention, studies show mixed effects of FWA on employee turnover intentions. Many researchers claim that turnover intention decreases and employee retention increases after adopting FWA practices (Alsulami et al., 2022; Azar et al., 2018; Gunasekara et al., 2022), although the majority of these studies are from individualistic countries, whereas comparative research on individualistic and collectivist countries explained that while telecommuting, the turnover intention is high in collectivist countries (Masuda et al., 2012). As can be seen, studies show both negative and positive effects of FWAs on organizational outcomes, though the positives have overshadowed the negative results. Subsequently, these positive outcomes may help the organizations to sustain by reducing hiring and training costs and improving return on labor (ROL) (Kotey & Sharma, 2019). Table 11 shows various employee–employer-related outcomes and their social and cultural impacts.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to analyze studies concerning FWAs systematically. The authors identified and thoroughly examined the significant elements found in the literature, namely, theories, contexts, methods, triggers, barriers, facilitators, and outcomes. These elements provided a more holistic view of the field compared to past reviews by considering less discussed factors such as triggers, barriers, and facilitators (Kumar et al., 2023). In addition, the dimension-wise findings presented in the review can help identify future research agendas by examining the interaction between triggers and facilitators/barriers of different dimensions and how they affect the outcomes. Figure 3 depicts the framework, showcasing the potential interactions among these components.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Proposed research framework

Full size image

The study acknowledges the well-established theoretical frameworks in FWAs, such as COR and JD-R theory. However, it highlights the potential significance of less commonly used theories that can provide valuable insights, such as planned behavior, absorptive capacity, effort-reward imbalance, and nudge theories. By considering these less frequently used theories in the context of FWAs, researchers can expand their understanding of the factors that influence employees' attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes related to flexibility in the workplace. These theories offer alternative perspectives and can provide valuable insights into the complexities of FWAs, helping organizations design and implement more effective strategies in this domain.

To better understand the impact of contextual dissimilarities on FWAs, authors have followed an approach that includes selecting specific countries and industries for the analysis. However, the majority of studies were from the USA and Europe. Therefore, as highlighted by Masuda et al. (2012), more quality studies from Asian, Anglo, and Latin American regions are required to depict FWAs more comprehensively. This is particularly important as FWA practices, such as remote work, have gained prominence in developing countries following the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the critical methods identified for studying the impact of contextual differences on FWAs are methods like regression analysis, SEM, case studies, and interviews. Each method offers distinct advantages and adds to a holistic comprehension of the subject. Each approach has unique strengths, and the study encourages future researchers to elevate the use of mixed methods and adopt more advanced analytical techniques, such as topic modeling (Singh et al., 2023), in their research endeavors.

The analysis of factors that trigger the implementation of FWAs reveals that various firms employ distinct mechanisms to respond to specific organizational and environmental changes, such as competitive pressures, work–life intersection, workforce sustainability, and shifts in labor market dynamics. Furthermore, the review explicitly highlights work intensification, blurred boundaries, organizational cultural norms, and social isolation as potential barriers organizations encounter in these processes. Moreover, the authors also examined the key facilitators of the FWAs process, such as workers' connectedness, perceived availability of FWAs, formalization, and social support, which prevails even after COVID-19. In addition, the results validate the existence of both adverse and positive consequences linked to FWAs, a finding consistent with the observations made by Hackney et al. (2022). However, positive outcomes were predominant, including increased job satisfaction, autonomy, work–life integration, work engagement, organizational commitment, productivity, and innovation. In addition to positive effects, there are several negative ones, such as cognitive irritation, cynicism, and work exhaustion due to higher employer expectations.

Furthermore, in today's environment, defined by global competition and the imperative for continual change, organizations need to implement innovations and adaptations that meet the requirements of all stakeholders (Badakhshan et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a lack of adequate information flow among stakeholders can disrupt the organization's functioning (Dwivedi et al., 2021). Hence, the involvement of stakeholders becomes a pivotal foundation for creating a sustainable workplace environment and competitive advantage for the firms (D’Adamo, 2023; D’Adamo et al., 2023). Crucial stakeholders in the context of FWAs typically include shareholders and employees. Implementing FWAs can directly impact organizational efficiency and improve employee productivity, benefiting the shareholders. This is of paramount significance if organizations have to thrive in a dynamic environment and gain a competitive edge.

Moreover, employees hold a central stake in FWAs as they are the primary beneficiaries. FWAs facilitate a positive work–life balance for employees, fostering a sense of reciprocity and encouraging positive work behaviors in return (McNall et al., 2010). Organizations should strive to create policies to cultivate a culture supporting FWAs and engaging stakeholders to thrive for a sustainable workplace. At the same time, it is essential that organizations address significant challenges related to FWAs, including work intensification, limited team cohesion, and unpredictable work schedules. These efforts will emphasize to employees that their needs, preferences, and well-being are integral considerations for the organization, ultimately resulting in a mutually beneficial situation for both employees and employers. Consequently, such talent management strategies make a firm more agile, ultimately increasing its competitiveness (Rožman et al., 2023).

Direction for Future Research

The review opens up several potential avenues for future research. First, most studies have focused on Western samples, with the predisposition that the context is relatively homogeneous across all nations concerning cultural and legal characteristics. However, Masuda et al. (2012) posited that FWAs could enhance privacy and limit daily interactions with colleagues and supervisors, which can favor an employee in an individualistic culture. Conversely, implementing FWAs may have negative implications in a collectivist culture, where people emphasize building social connections. It could lead to decreased work quality, increased work–life conflict, and higher employee turnover intentions. In addition, the success of any workplace practice, including FWAs, relies on the alignment between cultural beliefs embedded in managerial procedures and employees’ values and needs (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). Therefore, a greater focus on studies in Asian and Latin American contexts is necessary, especially after a pandemic such as COVID-19, which relocated the workplace from office to home regardless of the context. Furthermore, a comparative study between developing and developed countries may help clarify the compatibility of different forms of FWAs in various countries.

Second, in the post-COVID-19 era, organizations view employee health as a top priority. Therefore, additional research should explore the connection between FWAs and engagement in health-sustaining behaviors, such as physical activities. It is also essential to investigate whether the use or availability of FWAs moderates the relationship between FWAs and somatic symptoms, highlighting their potential impact on employee well-being (Shifrin & Michel, 2022). Furthermore, it is evident that with the arrival of any pandemic, there comes a risk of increased mental issues in employees, which can cost organizations a considerable amount of money in the form of unproductivity, absenteeism, and high attrition. Organizations require prior preparation and remedies to cope with such pandemics and their ill effects in future (Radanliev & De Roure, 2021). Future research can focus on the role of various remedies, such as mental therapies, on employee productivity while working remotely.

Third, researchers have mainly explored how working from home influenced employee-oriented and socio-cultural factors, such as the psychological well-being of employees and work–family interaction (Golden, 2012; Song & Gao, 2020). However, few have explored the infrastructural factors, such as the quality of workspace at home, and the ones that have done so have focused predominantly on either the period before COVID-19 or in a specific context. Indeed, further research is necessary to generalize the role of the quality of home workspace, the frequency of FWA use, planning behavior, and management by objective as facilitators of productivity and satisfaction across various forms of FWAs. Studies focusing on different cultural preferences and contexts will provide valuable insights into how these factors influence work outcomes and employee well-being, aiding in the development of adaptable FWAs.

Fourth, in future, more longitudinal studies will be required to examine the post-pandemic impacts on employees' job-related well-being while availing FWA practices. Moreover, future researchers can test different antecedents, mediators, and moderators and their effect on consequences through the research framework. Furthermore, the framework sets the stage for future review studies using other databases, such as Web of Science and EBSCO.

Theoretical Implications

With this study, the aim was to address multiple gaps while offering significant contributions to the field. First, the review extends the limited understanding of the various schools of thought explored in the existing FWA literature, such as social exchange, job characteristics, boundary management, and resource-based theories. It presents a systematic demonstration of how these theories are applied within the context of FWAs. Future researchers can utilize these theories to investigate unexplored aspects of FWAs, uncovering new dimensions in their studies. Second, the review examined the extant literature from a contextual standpoint. The evidence suggests that the successful implementation of FWAs relies on organizations' unique characteristics and operational environment. For instance, Masuda et al. (2012) highlighted the significance of aligning an organization's work practices with the cultural preferences of its employees. Hence, it is essential to place a greater emphasis on conducting research across diverse contexts to enhance the understanding of FWAs, thereby preventing the thoughtless adoption of practices from unrelated settings.

Third, from the methods perspective, the study identified a scarcity of the latest data analytics methods, such as topic modeling and semantic analysis applied in the domain. Subsequent researchers could employ contemporary data analytics techniques for examining FWAs, mainly when dealing with extensive sample sizes encompassing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Fourth, the study is among the initial studies to evaluate factors related to FWAs across four principal dimensions: employee-oriented, socio-cultural, infrastructural, and employer-oriented. Fifth, the findings highlight that several factors can drive the adoption of FWAs, including employee-oriented factors, such as the desire to enhance employees' mental well-being; social-cultural triggers, such as public policies and increasing diversity in labor markets; and employer-oriented triggers, such as competitive advantage and organizational efficacy. This classification of triggers can assist employers and managers in determining when to consider implementing FWAs. Sixth, this review highlights the key barriers and facilitators of the FWA process, providing a basis for future research to investigate the intricacies of the FWA process in greater depth.

Finally, the authors curate the outcomes of implementing FWAs under the key dimensions, including employee-oriented outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction, lower level of allostatic load, reduced stress, and autonomy; socio-cultural outcomes, such as family satisfaction, reduced gender gaps, and enhance work–life integration; and employer-oriented outcomes, such as employee performance, cost reduction, and increased return on labor. Future studies can build upon these findings to investigate further potential outcomes stemming from the adoption of FWAs within organizational settings.

Practical Implications

The studies suggest that employees and organizations can gain numerous advantages by deliberately adopting FWAs. To implement these practices effectively, organizations should consider diverse theoretical models, such as boundary theory and social exchange theory. This approach will provide a comprehensive understanding of how FWAs impact employee and employer outcomes. In addition, organizations should customize FWAs to suit the distinct features of each context and acquire a comprehensive understanding of how contextual features influence the efficacy of these practices.

Moreover, from the methodological standpoint, organizations should be cautious while designing and executing studies to accurately measure the influence of FWAs on employee and work-related outcomes. Furthermore, they should use more than one method to validate and triangulate the findings of studies. Organizations must also identify and understand the triggers that activate the need to implement FWAs and should simultaneously work to develop strategies to respond to these triggers effectively, thus facilitating employee well-being and improving the firm's bottom line.

Regarding barriers, organizations should allocate resources to develop self-optimizing AI systems using real-time algorithmic analytics. These systems can predict cyber threats and minimize their consequences while enabling remote work for employees (Radanliev & De Roure, 2022, 2023). Furthermore, to enable employee welfare and increase organizational commitment, organizations should focus on mitigating the effects of employer-oriented barriers, close monitoring, rigid expectations, and the unpredictability of work schedules. Moreover, organizations must prioritize developing and maintaining various facilitators to create a work environment conducive to FWAs, which benefits employees and employers. Organizations also need to estimate and evaluate the outcomes of FWAs to determine the critical areas for improvement.

Furthermore, managers can use the abovementioned dimensions to distinguish the different elements. These may help the organization better identify the root cause and can help to reduce processing time and cost. Eventually, given the crucial role that public policies play in the adoption of FWAs, particularly in light of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5's emphasis on gender equality, it is a recommendation to policymakers to provide incentives for these alternative work arrangements. Such initiatives can assist women, especially mothers, in balancing their professional and domestic responsibilities more efficiently, ultimately promoting diversity and inclusion within organizations.

Conclusions

This study extensively reviewed FWAs and their impact on employee–employer-related outcomes. Furthermore, it highlighted the COVID-19-influenced changes in the extant literature. The authors reviewed 90 articles published in reputable journals to identify and analyze the existing literature in this domain and categorized the literature into seven key elements: schools of thought, context, methodology, triggers, barriers, facilitators, and outcomes. This categorization facilitated a structured and nuanced examination of the multifaceted aspects of FWAs. Moreover, the extracted TBFO variables were classified into four main categories: employee-focused, socio-cultural, infrastructure-related, and employer-focused. These dimensions provide a holistic perspective on the diverse factors that influence FWAs.

Furthermore, the review recognizes the significance of well-established theoretical frameworks, such as COR theory, and less commonly used theories, such as planned behavior theory. It also underscores the need for more research from various regions, including Asian, Anglo, and Latin American countries, to present a comprehensive view of FWAs, particularly considering the increasing prominence of these practices in developing countries following the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, although most studies were based on quantitative approaches, future research should explore mixed methods and advanced analytical techniques, such as topic modeling. Furthermore, examining the triggers for implementing FWAs reveals that organizations employ them in response to various organizational changes, such as labor market dynamics, high employee turnover, and globalization. Moreover, the review highlights potential barriers (including work intensification, blurred boundaries, cultural norms, and social isolation) and identifies facilitators (such as workers' connectedness, perceived availability of FWAs, formalization, and social support). Additionally, while past research has predominantly concentrated on the positive aspects of FWAs, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, it is essential to acknowledge the potential adverse effects, including cognitive irritation, cynicism, and exhaustion due to heightened employer expectations.

Considering the present state of the scholarship exploring the relationship between FWAs and employee–employer-related outcomes, the study notes the limitations that must be considered while interpreting the study's findings. One limitation of the study is that it employed a rigorous process of selecting articles based on specific keywords and journal ranking criteria. Specifically, it included only articles that met the requirements of containing keywords such as "flexplace," "flextime," "flexible working schedule," and "flexible working arrangements" in the abstract, title, and keywords. Consequently, there is a chance that certain pertinent studies might have been unintentionally overlooked. Future research can explore this area by including additional studies and expanding the scope of the investigation.

Moreover, the study only consists of a single database, Scopus, and articles with the preferred language English. Future researchers can elaborate on the same work by comprising multiple databases and multilingual articles. Furthermore, the paper compasses multiple dimensions, elements, and outcomes of FWAs. Upcoming studies can focus on specificity to fine-tune the different aspects of FWAs.