Flexible Work Arrangements and Employee Satisfaction in the…

ABSTRACT (300 words)

Short. Dense. No background story.

Structure:

• 12 sentences: Research problem
• 1 sentence: Method (quantitative synthesis of 2024 studies)
• 23 sentences: Core findings (by flexibility type)
• 1 sentence: Theoretical contribution
• 1 sentence: Practical implication

No literature review here. Just results.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION (1,200 words)

1.1 Background (Concise, not historical storytelling)

• Claim: Flexible work became structurally embedded post-COVID.
• Evidence: Cite 23 macro studies (OECD / CIPD / empirical evidence).
• Gap: Existing studies examine single flexibility types, not comparative synthesis.

1.2 Research Problem

Very sharp.

While empirical evidence on flexible work has expanded, findings remain fragmented and sometimes contradictory.

1.3 Research Aim

To quantitatively synthesise empirical evidence on the relationship between spatial, temporal, and operational flexibility and employee satisfaction in the post-COVID context.

1.4 Research Questions

Example:

1. What is the average effect size of spatial flexibility on employee satisfaction?
2. How does temporal flexibility compare?
3. Does operational autonomy moderate outcomes?
4. Under what conditions does flexibility reduce satisfaction?

1.5 Contribution

• Theoretical contribution: clarifies autonomy mechanism
• Empirical contribution: effect size ranges
• Managerial contribution: what actually works

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (1,2001,500 words)

This is where most students are weak.

You must anchor theory.

2.1 Defining Flexible Work (Clear table here)

Table 1: Types of Flexible Work

• Spatial
• Temporal
• Operational

Short definitions. No fluff.

2.2 Theoretical Anchors

You need 23 strong theories:

• Job DemandsResources (JD-R)
• Self-Determination Theory
• Boundary Theory

Each section must follow your rule:

Claim Evidence Compare Implication

Example structure:

Autonomy increases intrinsic motivation (SDT).

Study A finds autonomy predicts satisfaction (=.42).

Study B finds the effect weakens under digital surveillance.

This suggests perceived control, not remote location itself, drives satisfaction.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY QUANTITATIVE SYNTHESIS (1,500 words)

This must look rigorous.

3.1 Research Design

• Secondary quantitative synthesis
• Inclusion: post-2020 studies
• Only peer-reviewed empirical quantitative
• Must report effect sizes or sufficient statistics

3.2 Study Selection Process

Figure 1: PRISMA-style Flow Diagram

• Identified
• Screened
• Included (2024)

3.3 Coding Framework

Table 2: Study Coding Variables

• Author
• Country
• Sample size
• Flexibility type
• Measurement scale
• Effect size
• Controls

3.4 Analytical Strategy

• Effect size extraction (r, , Cohens d)
• Convert to comparable metric
• Mean effect size calculation
• Variance comparison
• Subgroup analysis (region / sector)

This is where First-class depth comes from.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS (3,000 words)

This is the core.

Divide by flexibility type.

4.1 Spatial Flexibility (68 studies)

Table 3: Spatial Flexibility Effect Sizes

Figure 2: Effect Size Distribution Graph

Structure every subsection like this:

Claim Evidence Compare Implication

Example:

Spatial flexibility shows a moderate positive effect (mean r .31).

However, effect size ranges from .10 to .52.

Studies with voluntary remote work show stronger outcomes.

This indicates autonomy moderates the relationship.

Then add:

• Sector differences
• Regional differences
• Monitoring intensity

4.2 Temporal Flexibility (57 studies)

Table 4: Temporal Effect Sizes

Figure 3: Mean Comparison Chart

Direct comparison with spatial.

Temporal flexibility shows stronger average effects than spatial flexibility (mean r .38 vs .31).

However, variability is higher.

Explicit comparison is key for First-class.

4.3 Operational Flexibility (57 studies)

Often strongest effect.

Table 5: Operational Effect Sizes

Figure 4: Cross-Type Comparison Bar Chart

Make this sharp:

Operational autonomy produces the most consistent satisfaction gains.

Unlike spatial flexibility, its effect remains stable across regions.

4.4 Cross-Type Comparison

Figure 5: Combined Effect Size Chart

• Mean effect sizes
• Standard deviation
• Range

This section is critical for analysis marks.

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION (2,500 words)

Now you move from numbers to theory.

Structure:

5.1 Autonomy vs Flexibility

Argue:

The findings suggest autonomy, not flexibility itself, drives satisfaction.

Support with comparison data.

5.2 When Flexibility Fails

• Mandatory remote work
• Digital monitoring
• Blurred boundaries

5.3 Theoretical Implications

• Extends JD-R
• Supports SDT autonomy pathway
• Challenges simplistic flexibility narratives

5.4 Post-COVID Structural Shift

Argue whether flexibility is permanent or contextual.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION (8001,000 words)

Not summary. Synthesis.

Structure:

1. Direct answer to research questions
2. Theoretical contribution
3. Practical recommendations
4. Limitations
5. Future research directions

APPENDICES

• Full study coding sheet
• Effect size calculations
• Inclusion criteria checklist

WHERE TABLES & CHARTS GO (To Impress Markers)

You will have:

• 1 Conceptual Table
• 1 PRISMA diagram
• 1 Coding table
• 34 effect size tables
• 45 comparison graphs

Around 810 visual elements.

That signals quantitative depth.