The Impact of Different Rosters on Employee Work ... - Study at UniSA

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Different</strong> <strong>Rosters</strong> on 

Employee Work and Non-work 

Time Preferences 

Angela Baker, Gregory Roach, Sally Ferguson and 

Drew Dawson 

ABSTRACT. Australian organizations are extending the 8-hour 

shift in response to market demands. <strong>The</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> this study was to 

quantify the impact <strong>of</strong> working time arrangements on employees 

who work shiftwork. A survey was developed to investigate preferred 

work and non-work time and to determine the potential 

impact <strong>of</strong> two rosters (mining and transport). A total <strong>of</strong> 256 shiftworkers 

working either 8- or 12-hour shifts were matched on age, 

gender, marital and parenting status. Both groups placed higher 

value on work time during the day, Monday to Friday and preferred 

weekend work to night work. Furthermore, the two imposed rosters 

suggest that the benefits cited concerning 12-hour rosters and social 

time are more a reduction in the loss <strong>of</strong> preferred time than an 

absolute gain. KEY WORDS • preference • rosters • shiftwork • time 

Introduction 

<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> organizations introducing extended work hours continues to rise 

(Tepas, 1985; Rosa, 1991; Williamson, 1994; Duchon et al.,1994; Lowden et 

al., 1998; Axelsson et al., 1998). From an organizational perspective, the move 

away from the traditional working day occurs as a response to increased 

national and international market competition, economic pressures and globalization 

(Harma, 1998). One strategy that organizations utilize to compete in 

the market is extended shift schedules (shifts longer than 8 hours). For the 

Time & Society copyright © 2003 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) 

VOL. 12 No. 2/3 (2003), pp. 315–332 0961-463X[200309]12:2/3;315–332; 035435 

www.sagepublications.com

316 TIME & SOCIETY 12(2/3) 

organization, the advantages <strong>of</strong> extended shifts include a reduction in worker 

numbers and shift teams, improved communication at shift changeover, reduced 

sickness absence, and improved morale and productivity (Lowden et al., 1998; 

Gillberg, 1998; Smith et al., 1998; Axelsson et al., 1998). However, factors such 

as increased sleepiness, impaired performance, high levels <strong>of</strong> fatigue and 

increased accident/injury rates have also been cited as potential areas <strong>of</strong> concern 

associated with extended hours <strong>of</strong> work (Rosa and Colligan, 1989; Budnick et 

al., 1994; Axelsson et al., 1998; Lowden et al., 1998). 

From an employee perspective, the advantages <strong>of</strong> extended work shifts exist 

at both a personal and an occupational level. In addition to the aforementioned 

advantages <strong>of</strong> improved communication and lower sickness rates, benefits also 

include compression <strong>of</strong> the working week, reduced travelling time and longer 

blocks <strong>of</strong> non-work time (e.g. social, leisure and family time) (Colligan and 

Tepas, 1986; Lowden et al., 1998; Rosa and Colligan, 1989; Smith et al., 1998). 

Specifically, Smith et al. (1998) suggested that employees working 12-hour 

shift configurations had access to more free weekends than those working 

shorter 8-hour shifts. It has been widely reported that free time at weekends and 

in the evenings has greater value than free time during the week (Ernst et al., 

1988; Hornberger and Knauth, 1993; Wedderburn, 1981). This is because the 

majority <strong>of</strong> people are involved in other activities such as work, study or school 

during the week. Other studies examining the social impact <strong>of</strong> extended workdays 

have reported that workers on 12-hour shifts were more satisfied with 

social aspects <strong>of</strong> their working time arrangements than those working 8-hour 

shifts (Jaffe et al., 1996; Lowden et al., 1998). <strong>The</strong> increased satisfaction was 

mainly attributed to the long periods <strong>of</strong> non-work time. Extended work shifts 

essentially compress the work week, providing longer blocks <strong>of</strong> time away from 

work. However, extended work shifts may also have adverse effects on the 

social and family lives <strong>of</strong> shiftworkers and their families. For example, Kundi 

and colleagues (Kundi et al., 1995) reported that nurses working 8-hour shifts 

were more satisfied than those working 12-hour shifts. 

<strong>The</strong> value <strong>of</strong> time appears to be non-transferable across the days <strong>of</strong> the week, 

indicating acceptance <strong>of</strong> the societal norms <strong>of</strong> an evening and weekend society 

(Baker et al., 2003; Ernst et al., 1988; Hornberger and Knauth, 1993). This is 

reflected in the monetary compensation afforded shiftworkers for working at 

‘socially valuable’ times (<strong>of</strong>ten termed penalty rates). While the payment <strong>of</strong> 

penalty rates is one way <strong>of</strong> compensating shiftworkers for the loss <strong>of</strong> socially 

valuable time, it may be more beneficial, both for employees and organizations, 

to reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> working time arrangements through novel and flexible 

rostering strategies. However, this would require some qualitative assessment <strong>of</strong> 

the social impact (or benefits/costs) <strong>of</strong> work schedules. 

<strong>The</strong> benefits and costs associated with various working time arrangements 

will be dependent on a variety <strong>of</strong> factors. <strong>The</strong>se include the employees’ marital

BAKER ET AL.: IMPACT OF DIFFERENT ROSTERS 317 

status (Mott et al., 1965), gender (Gadbois, 1981; Knauth and Costa, 1996), the 

number and age <strong>of</strong> dependants (De La Mare and Walker, 1968), the nature <strong>of</strong> 

the job (Iskra-Golec et al., 1996), and importantly the specific schedule that one 

works (De La Mare and Shimmin, 1964). Working time arrangements will have 

different ‘costs’ or ‘benefits’, which are likely to vary as employees move 

through the human life cycle (Hewitt, 1993). Tailoring working time arrangements 

to minimize the negative impact would have wide-ranging benefits 

for employees and employers alike. However, it is currently impractical to 

quantify the impact <strong>of</strong> a roster on individual employees. Thus, it is generally the 

employee who ‘flexes’ rather than the roster. 

<strong>The</strong>refore, the first aim was to measure the preferences for work, social, family 

and leisure time <strong>of</strong> employees working 8-hour shifts or 12-hour shifts. 

Secondly, the potential impact <strong>of</strong> two different roster schedules on employee 

time preferences was also quantified. 

Do Employee Time Preferences Vary with Shift Length? 

One hundred and twenty-eight full-time (for 10.9 ± 8.4 years) shiftworkers 

working 8-hour shifts and 128 full-time (for 13.8 ± 9.5 years) shiftworkers 

working 12-hour shifts were selected from a larger subject population consisting 

<strong>of</strong> 763 shiftworkers from a variety <strong>of</strong> Australian organizations. Participants 

were matched on age (36 ± 9 years), gender, parenting and marital status. Four 

matrices were used to quantify the value <strong>of</strong> time assigned by the employees to 

paid work, social, leisure and family time (Baker et al., 2003). 

Participants were required to value each hour <strong>of</strong> the day across the seven days 

<strong>of</strong> the week on a scale from 0 (least preference) to 10 (highest preference) for 

each activity. Data were averaged across subjects to produce mean and standard 

deviations for each hour <strong>of</strong> the week, thereby producing a mean matrix for each 

employee group for each <strong>of</strong> the four activities. <strong>The</strong> mean scores indicate the 

times in the week that are considered <strong>of</strong> greatest or least importance for particular 

activities. <strong>The</strong> mean scores are represented by contour maps, using shading 

to depict different preference levels. 

Activity definitions 

Preferred work time referred to ‘time you would prefer to work in your main 

area <strong>of</strong> paid employment across the week, irrespective <strong>of</strong> current work patterns’. 

Preferred social time referred to ‘time you would prefer to spend with family 

and friends involved in fun and entertainment, eating, drinking and social life 

activities’ (Argyle, 1996). 

Preferred leisure time referred to ‘time you would prefer to spend doing those


activities that you do in your free time, because you want to, for their own sake, 

for fun, entertainment, self-improvement or for goals <strong>of</strong> your own choosing but 

not for material gain’ (Argyle, 1996). 

Preferred family time referred to ‘time you spent with your partner, spouse, 

child(ren) and/or other family members involved in school or sporting activities, 

fun and entertainment, home duty situations, time at home etc.’ (Argyle, 

1996). 

Comparison <strong>of</strong> different shift schedules 

<strong>The</strong> grid system represented a dimensionalization <strong>of</strong> a 168-hour time sequence 

into a 7 × 24-hour time sequence; thus the values for work, social, leisure and 

family are not independent observations. <strong>The</strong>refore, it would be inappropriate to 

quote a multivariate statistic (for example, Hottelling’s T or Roy’s Greatest 

Root) due to matrix singularity. To address the large number <strong>of</strong> dependent variables 

and to control for the probability <strong>of</strong> a type-I error, an ad hoc technique was 

adopted. Significance was imposed at p < .01, with a further requirement <strong>of</strong> at 

least two contiguous cells, either vertical or horizontal, to be considered. Hence, 

multiple t-tests were employed to provide comparisons across the hours <strong>of</strong> the 

day, for each day <strong>of</strong> the week, for each key area, to determine significant differences 

between groups. 

Work time 

<strong>The</strong> 8-hour employee group preferred not to be engaged in paid work from 

approximately midnight to dawn any day. In contrast, the 12-hour group 

indicated preference scores above zero for all times across the week (Figure 1a 

and 1b). Figure 2 shows the differences in work time preferences between 

employees working 8-hour shifts and employees working 12-hour shifts. 

Employees working 12-hour shifts had significantly higher preferences for 

work in the early morning hours. 

Social time 

<strong>The</strong> highest preference for social time was at the weekends in the evenings for 

both groups (Figure 3a and 3b). However, the 12-hour group had significantly 

higher preferences for social time in the early morning and into the midafternoon 

on weekdays than the 8-hour group (Figure 4). Although the preferences 

<strong>of</strong> the 12-hour group were quite low (2–3) at these times, they were 

significantly higher than the 8-hour group. 

Leisure time 

Both groups had the greatest preference for leisure time in the 

afternoons/evenings <strong>of</strong> Friday, Saturday and Sunday (Figure 5a and 5b). Again,


Mon 

Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 

Sat 

Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Day <strong>of</strong> the week 

9–10 

8–9 

7–8 

6–7 

5–6 

4–5 

3–4 

2–3 

1–2 

0–1 

Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

Hour <strong>of</strong> the day 

FIGURE 1 

Contour maps indicating the preferred working time for employees working 

8-hour shifts (top panel) and 12-hour shifts (lower panel) 

0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 


Tue 

Wed 

Thur 

Fri 


Sun 



FIGURE 2 

<strong>The</strong> difference in work time preferences for employees working 8-hour shifts and 

employees working 12-hour shifts. <strong>The</strong> dark grey area indicates the time <strong>of</strong> the 

week that 12-hour employees indicated higher preferences than 8-hour employees



Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 



9–10 

8–9 

7–8 

6–7 

5–6 

4–5 

3–4 

2–3 

1–2 

0–1 

FIGURE 3 

Contour maps indicating the preferred social time for employees working 8-hour 

shifts (top panel) and 12-hour shifts (lower panel) 


Tue 

Wed 

Thur 

Fri 


Sun 


0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 


FIGURE 4 

<strong>The</strong> difference in social time preferences for employees working 8-hour shifts and 

employees working 12-hour shifts. <strong>The</strong> darker grey area indicates the time <strong>of</strong> the 



the 12-hour group had significantly higher preferences for leisure in the early 

morning hours, in addition to the early afternoons <strong>of</strong> weekdays (Figure 6). 

Family time 

<strong>The</strong> 8-hour group had the highest preference for family time on Saturday 

evening, similar to the 12-hour group (Figure 7a and 7b). <strong>The</strong> 12-hour shiftworkers 

valued family time significantly higher than the 8-hour shiftworkers 

throughout the early mornings Friday, Saturday and Sunday (Figure 8). 

<strong>The</strong> 12-hour group generally indicated a wider range <strong>of</strong> times that they were 

prepared to use for non-work activities. <strong>The</strong>y appear to rate all hours <strong>of</strong> the 

week as potentially valuable, while 8-hour employees do not rate the midnight 

to dawn hours at all. 

Does the <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> Work Vary with Shift Length? 

<strong>The</strong> potential psychosocial impact <strong>of</strong> work schedules was quantified using two 

actual work rosters, one involving 8-hour shifts and one involving 12-hour 

shifts. <strong>The</strong> rosters were chosen as real-world examples <strong>of</strong> 8-hour and 12-hour 

roster systems, used commonly in Australian transport and mining industries 

respectively. <strong>The</strong> schedules <strong>of</strong> the transport and mining rosters were superimposed 

over the mean time value matrices (work, social, family and leisure) <strong>of</strong> 

the 8-hour and 12-hour shiftworking groups. An example <strong>of</strong> the procedure is 

depicted in Figures 9–10. <strong>The</strong> scores in each block corresponding to the 

rostered work hours were summed to produce a score for work, social, leisure 

and family time for each shiftwork group for both rosters. 

<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> the transport (8H) and mining (12H) rosters was determined 

relative to the impact <strong>of</strong> a standard roster (0900h – 1700h, Monday–Friday 

week). As the ‘standard’ working week schedule is essentially the benchmark 

by which penalty rates are determined, the standard score was used as a reference 

point to compare the impact <strong>of</strong> the 8H and 12H rosters. A move away from 

the standard score was demonstrated by either a gain or loss <strong>of</strong> preference 

points, representing a ‘benefit’ or ‘cost’ to the employee. 

Preferred work time scores 

<strong>The</strong> scores allocated by participants for work time represented the hours <strong>of</strong> the 

day the participant preferred to work. Access to preferred work time was 

considered a ‘benefit’ to employees. Thus, the more hours in the roster that 

coincided with high preference points the more beneficial the roster, and the 

higher the score.



Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


9–10 

8–9 

7–8 

6–7 

5–6 

4–5 

3–4 

2–3 

1–2 

0–1 


FIGURE 5 

Contour maps indicating the preferred leisure time for employees working 8-hour 


0000 0400 

0800 

1200 

1600 

2000 

0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 



Tues 

Wed 

Thur 

Fri 


Sun 


Tue 

Wed 

Thur 

Fri 


Sun 


FIGURE 6 

<strong>The</strong> difference in leisure time preferences for employees working 8-hour shifts and 

employees working 12-hour shifts. <strong>The</strong> darker grey area indicates the time <strong>of</strong> the 




Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


Tue 

Wed 

Thu 

Fri 


Sun 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


9–10 

8–9 

7–8 

6–7 

5–6 

4–5 

3–4 

2–3 

1–2 

0–1 


FIGURE 7 

Contour maps indicating the preferred family time for employees working 8-hour 


0000 0400 

0800 

1200 

1600 

2000 

0000 0400 0800 1200 1600 2000 



Tues 

Wed 

Thur 

Fri 


Sun 


FIGURE 8 

<strong>The</strong> difference in family time preferences for employees working 8-hour shifts and 

employees working 12-hour shifts. <strong>The</strong> dark grey area indicates the time <strong>of</strong> the 



FIGURE 9 

<strong>The</strong> transport roster imposed across the 24-hour day and a 7-week cycle using the 

mean preference scores for preferred work time (shaded areas represent hours 

worked).


FIGURE 10 

<strong>The</strong> mining roster imposed across the 24-hour day and a 7-week cycle using the 

mean preference points for preferred work time (shaded areas represent hours 

worked)


Preferred non-work time scores 

<strong>The</strong> non-work scores were determined by superimposing the roster schedules 

over the leisure, family and social matrices. <strong>The</strong> greater the scores obtained by 

summing the preference scores in the roster blocks, the greater the preference for 

non-work activities in those work periods. Thus, a requirement to work during a 

period highly valued for social, leisure or family time represented a cost. 

Determining the impact <strong>of</strong> different shift schedules 

<strong>The</strong> transport roster (8H) represented a cost for employees working 8-hour days 

in terms <strong>of</strong> work time. An average reduction (cost) in preferred paid work time 

<strong>of</strong> 40.7% was found for this group, as compared to the Standard roster (Figure 

11). For preferred social time, a reduction <strong>of</strong> approximately 89.5% was found 

for the 8-hour employees and preferred leisure time was reduced by an average 

<strong>of</strong> approximately 35.3% (Figure 11). <strong>The</strong> score associated with preferred family 

time was 26.7% lower than the score associated with the standard roster 

(Figure 11). 

<strong>The</strong> potential scores for work, social, leisure and family time <strong>of</strong> the 8-hour 

employees were also calculated for the mining roster (12H). If the 8-hour 

employee group worked the mining roster, preferred work time would be 

reduced by 47% compared to the standard roster. Similarly, both preferred 

social time (68.6%) and preferred leisure time (18.4%) were reduced compared 

to the standard roster. Overall, there would be only a 9.9% decrease in preferred 

family time for 8-hour employees if they were to work the mining roster (12H) 

(Figure 11). 

<strong>The</strong>refore, for employees regularly working an 8-hour shift system, both 

potential roster scenarios impacted most significantly on their preferred social 

time. Interestingly, the 8H roster schedule represented the highest cost in terms 

<strong>of</strong> preferred social time for employees currently working an 8-hour schedule. 

If the 12-hour employee group were to work the transport (8H day) roster, 

they would incur an average reduction in preferred paid work time <strong>of</strong> approximately 

35.2% compared with the standard score (Figure 11). For preferred 

social time, a reduction <strong>of</strong> 22.2% was found for the 12-hour employees and 

14.9% reduction in preferred leisure time. Preferred family time was also 

reduced across the 12-hour employee population by 22.7%. 

If the 12-hour employees were to work the mining roster, they would experience 

an average reduction in preferred work time <strong>of</strong> 40.2%. Further, preferred 

social time was reduced by 12.5%, and preferred leisure time by only 5.8%. For 

preferred family time the mining roster represented a cost <strong>of</strong> 11.4% for employees 

currently working 12-hour shifts compared with the standard score (Figure 

11).


100 

80 

Work 

100 

80 

Social 

60 

60 

40 

40 

20 

20 

0 

8-hour 

12-hour 

0 

8-hour 

12-hour 

100 

80 

Leisure 

100 

80 

Family 

60 

60 

40 

40 

20 

20 

0 

8-hour 

12-hour 

0 

8-hour 

12-hour 

FIGURE 11 

<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> the 8-hour roster (white bars) or the 12-hour roster (grey bars) on 

the time preferences <strong>of</strong> employees regularly working 8-hour shifts or 12-hour 

shifts. <strong>The</strong> y-axis depicts the percentage change in score compared to the impact <strong>of</strong> 

a standard, 40-hour week. <strong>The</strong> x-axis represents the employee group 

<strong>The</strong>refore, for employees currently engaged in a 12-hour work shift system, 

the greatest cost <strong>of</strong> both an 8H and 12H system was evident in the preferred 

work time. Interestingly, the negative impact on preferred social and leisure 

time <strong>of</strong> the two roster scenarios (8H and 12H) for the 12-hour group was half 

that <strong>of</strong> the 8-hour group. 

Conclusions 

This article demonstrates that it is possible to objectively quantify the potential 

impact <strong>of</strong> a working time arrangement on the preferred work, social, leisure and 

family time <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> employees. <strong>The</strong> way employees value time varies 

depending on their regular working time arrangements. <strong>The</strong> results provide an 

avenue through which the development <strong>of</strong> more sophisticated data analysis


techniques may ultimately make it practical for organizations to tailor roster 

schedules to minimize the adverse impact on employees’ lives. 

Our previous report indicated that employees working a ‘normal’ day shift 

(Monday to Friday, 9am–5pm) had different time preferences for work and 

social time compared to employees working shiftwork (Baker et al., 2003). As 

an extension <strong>of</strong> these findings the current study examined the time valuation <strong>of</strong> 

shiftworkers working different types <strong>of</strong> shiftwork (8-hour shifts versus 12-hour 

shifts). Shiftworkers working 8- and 12-hour shifts both indicated a peak 

preference for work during the daylight hours from Monday to Friday. <strong>The</strong> peak 

preferred working times were consistent with the dominant societal norm <strong>of</strong> an 

evening and weekend society (Baker et al., 2003; Hornberger and Knauth, 

1993). However, the peak preference times for shiftworkers working 12-hour 

shifts extended to an earlier start in the morning and a later finish in the afternoon, 

compared to 8-hour shiftworkers. In addition, while the preference scores 

for work across the night/early morning hours (midnight – 0600h) were low for 

both groups, the 12-hour shiftworkers had a significantly higher score over this 

period. 

Employees currently working 12-hour shifts considered any time <strong>of</strong> the day 

or night acceptable for non-work activities. This finding supports previous 

research showing that shiftworkers selected activities outside <strong>of</strong> the workplace 

that were time flexible, and in many cases individual, rather than groupdetermined 

(Blakelock, 1960). <strong>The</strong> 12-hour shiftworker group viewed all hours 

across the week as potentially more valuable than did the 8-hour group. <strong>The</strong> 

question remains however: do employees who are accustomed to working 

extended shifts consequently have a wider preference for time, or do they work 

extended shifts because they have a broader range <strong>of</strong> time preferences? 

Individuals who work at times <strong>of</strong> social high value are generally compensated 

financially (Allan et al., 1998). However, as more organizations now operate on 

a 24-hour basis, compensation may become increasingly redundant if the value 

<strong>of</strong> time is no longer differentiated across the hours <strong>of</strong> the day and/or the days <strong>of</strong> 

the week. <strong>The</strong> current findings do not support such a trend. Rather, in line with 

previous findings, the data suggest that the value <strong>of</strong> time remains disparate 

across the week, irrespective <strong>of</strong> the system <strong>of</strong> work. <strong>The</strong> standard working week 

continues to be perceived as a marker for working time, despite the fact that it 

may be increasingly out <strong>of</strong> step with the occupational and economic changes <strong>of</strong> 

society (Bittman and Pixley, 1997; Levine and Pittinsky, 1997). 

<strong>The</strong> potential impact <strong>of</strong> different roster schedules on the work and non-work 

time <strong>of</strong> employees was assessed quantitatively. <strong>The</strong> change from one roster to 

another is known to take considerable time and can be a difficult organizational 

process (Baker et al., 1997). For employees working 8-hour shifts, the overall 

impact <strong>of</strong> the mining roster (12-hour shifts) was less than the overall impact <strong>of</strong> 

the transport roster (8-hour shifts). <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> workers would have experi-


enced a reduction in each <strong>of</strong> the preferred activity times when compared to the 

Monday to Friday work schedule; however, the ‘costs’ were generally lower for 

the mining roster (12H) than the transport roster (8H). Thus, the benefits <strong>of</strong>ten 

cited in association with 12-hour shifts may not necessarily be an outright gain 

in preferred time, but rather a reduction in the ‘costs’. <strong>The</strong> mining roster reflected 

more <strong>of</strong> the preferred family time than the transport roster. <strong>The</strong> ‘benefits’ 

may be due to the longer breaks away from the workplace rather than the 

availability <strong>of</strong> ‘free’ time when working on a day-to-day basis. 

Overall, employees working 12-hour shifts would have experienced a reduction 

in access to preferred activity times on both the mining (12H) and transport 

(8H) rosters. In both roster schedules, the greatest reduction in percentage 

points was found for preferred working time when compared to the standard 

working week. This is not surprising as shiftworkers indicate preferred working 

times that parallel the standard working week (Baker et al., 2003). 

As a result <strong>of</strong> the matching <strong>of</strong> subjects on factors such as parenting and marital 

status, there were only 10 females in the shiftwork populations, compared 

with 118 males. <strong>The</strong> gender division <strong>of</strong> the current samples does not precisely 

reflect the general distribution across Australian organizations that employ fulltime 

shiftworkers. Currently, 13.7% <strong>of</strong> the workforce are full-time shiftworkers 

and <strong>of</strong> those 71.6% are male and 28.4% are female (ABS, 1997). <strong>The</strong> consequences 

<strong>of</strong> a majority vote with relation to implementing a new roster may 

therefore be highly detrimental to such a group. It has been suggested that the 

optimal roster should be developed as a compromise between the organization 

and employees (Baker, 1980; Barton and Folkard, 1993; Folkard, 1992; Knauth, 

1997); however, implementation <strong>of</strong> a new roster based on democratic principles 

may not be equitable for all workers. <strong>The</strong> current technique <strong>of</strong> quantitating the 

psychosocial impact <strong>of</strong> working time arrangements may allow organizations to 

cater better for specific employee subgroups and to minimize the adverse 

effects. 

Shiftworkers working 8- or 12-hour shifts would have preferred to work the 

mining roster, compared to the transport roster across all four activities. However, 

a Monday to Friday schedule <strong>of</strong> 0900h to 1700h would obviously reflect 

more <strong>of</strong> the preferred times these shiftworkers identified as their peak preference 

for paid work, social, leisure and family activity times. <strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> 

determining the potential impact <strong>of</strong> the roster indicated that shiftwork itself has 

an effect on employees’ life activities. That is, the difference in impact between 

rosters is relatively small compared to the overall shiftwork effect. Nevertheless, 

the process may enable organizations to anticipate the areas incurring most 

negative impact for employees and provide additional support and training to 

minimize the impact. Baker (1980) reported that the adverse consequences 

associated with shiftwork could be reduced by recognizing physiological and 

social needs and by providing shiftworkers with additional support services.


By combining information regarding the potential impact <strong>of</strong> a roster on an 

employee’s work and non-work life with support services, it may be possible for 

an employer to minimize adverse consequences associated with shiftwork. It 

may mean that within one organization there are variations <strong>of</strong> the roster, which 

accommodate a range <strong>of</strong> employee groups or subgroups. 

References 

Allan, C., Brosnan, P. and Walsh, P. (1998) ‘Non-standard Working-time Arrangements 

in Australia and New Zealand’, International Journal <strong>of</strong> Manpower 19(4): 234–49. 

Argyle, M. (1996) <strong>The</strong> Social Psychology <strong>of</strong> Leisure. London: Penguin. 

Australian Bureau <strong>of</strong> Statistics (1997) Working Arrangements, Cat. No. 6342.0, August. 

Axelsson, J., Kecklund, G., Akerstedt, T. and Lowden, A. (1998) ‘Effects <strong>of</strong> Alternating 

8- and 12-hour Shifts on Sleep, Sleepiness, Physical Effort and Performance’, 

Scandinavian Journal <strong>of</strong> Work and Environmental Health 24(suppl. 3): 62–8. 

Baker, A., Ferguson, S. and Dawson, D. (2003) ‘<strong>The</strong> Perceived Value <strong>of</strong> Time Controls 

Versus Shiftworkers’, Time & Society 12(1): 27–39. 

Baker, A., Roberts, T. and Dawson, D. (1997) ‘Improving Shiftwork Management III: 

Understanding Shiftwork’, <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Occupational Health and Safety – Australia 

and New Zealand 13(15): 451. 

Baker, D. (1980) ‘<strong>The</strong> Use and Health Consequences <strong>of</strong> Shiftwork’, International 

Journal <strong>of</strong> Health Services 10(3): 405–21. 

Barton, J. and Folkard, S. (1993) ‘Advancing versus Delaying Shift Systems’, Ergonomics 

36(1–3): 59. 

Bittman, M. and Pixley, J. (1997) <strong>The</strong> Double Life <strong>of</strong> the Family. Sydney: Allen & 

Unwin. 

Blakelock, E. (1960) ‘A New Look at the New Leisure’, Administrative Science Quarterly: 

446–67. 

Budnick, L., Lerman, S., Baker, T., Jones, E. and Czeisler, C. (1994) ‘Sleep and Alertness 

in a 12-hour Rotating Shiftwork Environment’, Journal <strong>of</strong> Occupational 

Medicine 36(12): 1295–300. 

Colligan, M. and Tepas, D. (1986) ‘<strong>The</strong> Stress <strong>of</strong> Hours <strong>of</strong> Work’, American Industrial 

Hygiene Association Journal 47(11): 686–95. 

De La Mare, G. and Shimmin, S. (1964) ‘Preferred Patterns <strong>of</strong> Duty in a Flexible Shift- 

Working Situation’, Occupational Psychology 38: 203–14. 

De La Mare, G. and Walker, J. (1968) ‘Factors Influencing the Choice <strong>of</strong> Shift Rotation’, 

Occupational Psychology 41(1): 1–21. 

Duchon, J., Keran, C. and Smith, T.J. (1994) ‘Extended Workdays in an Underground 

Mine: A Work Performance Analysis’, Human Factors 36: 258–68. 

Ernst, A., Nachreiner, F. and Hanecke, K. (1988) ‘Common Free Time <strong>of</strong> Family 

Members under <strong>Different</strong> Shift Systems’, Applied Ergonomics 19(3): 213–18. 

Folkard, S. (1992) ‘Is <strong>The</strong>re a “Best Compromise” Shift System?’, Ergonomics 35(12): 

1453–63. 

Gadbois, C. (1981) ‘Women on Night Shift. Interdependence <strong>of</strong> Sleep and Off-the-Job 

Activities’, in V. Reinberg, N. Vieux and P. Andlauer (eds) Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Fifth 

International Symposium on Night and Shiftwork, pp. 223–7. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


Gadbois, C., Reinberg, V., Vieux, N. and Andlauer, P. (1981) ‘Women on Night Shift: 

Interdependence <strong>of</strong> Sleep and Off-the-job Activities’, Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Fifth International 

Symposium on Night and Shiftwork, pp. 223–7. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 

Gillberg, M. (1998) ‘Subjective Alertness and Sleep Quality in Connection with Permanent 

12-hour Day and Night Shifts’, Scandinavian Journal <strong>of</strong> Work and Environmental 

Health 24(suppl. 3): 76–81. 

Harma, M. (1998) ‘New Work Times are Here – Are We Ready?’, Scandinavian Journal 

<strong>of</strong> Work and Environmental Health 24(suppl.3): 3–6. 

Hewitt, P. (1993) ‘Interindividual Differences in the Subjective Valuation <strong>of</strong> Leisure 

Time Utility’, Ergonomics 36: 255–64. 

Hornberger, S. and Knauth, P. (1993) ‘Interindividual Differences in the Subjective 

Valuation <strong>of</strong> Leisure Time Utility’, Ergonomics 36(1–3): 255–64. 

Iskra-Golec, I., Folkard, S. and Marek, T. (1996) ‘Health, Well being and Burnout in 

ICU Nurses on 12 and 8 Hour Shifts’, Work and Stress 10: 251–6. 

Jaffe, M., Smolensky, M. and Wun, C. (1996) ‘Sleep Quality and Physical and Social 

Well-being in North American Petrochemical Shift Workers’, Southern Medical 

Journal 89(3): 305–12. 

Knauth, P. (1997) ‘Changing Schedules: Shiftwork’, Chronobiology International 14(2): 

159–71. 

Knauth, P. and Costa, G. (1996) ‘Psychological Effects’, in W. Colquhoun, G. Costa, S. 

Folkard and P. Knauth (eds) Shiftwork Problems and Solutions, pp. 89–112. Frankfurt 

am Main: Peter Lang. 

Kundi, M., Koller, M. and Stefan, H. (1995) ‘Attitudes <strong>of</strong> Nurses Towards 8-h and 12-h 

Shift Systems’, Work and Stress 9: 134–9. 

Levine, J. and Pittinsky, T. (eds) (1997) Working Fathers: New Strategies for Balancing 

Work and Family. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. 

Lowden, A., Kecklund, G., Axelsson, J. and Akerstedt, T. (1998) ‘Change from an 8- 

hour Shift to a 12-hour Shift: Attitudes, Sleep, Sleepiness and Performance’, Scandinavian 

Journal <strong>of</strong> Work and Environmental Health 24(suppl. 3): 69–75. 

Mott, P., Mann, F., McLoughlin, Q. and Warwick, D. (1965) Shiftwork: <strong>The</strong> Social, 

Psychological and Physical Consequences. Ann Arbor: University <strong>of</strong> Michigan Press. 

Rosa, R. (1991) ‘Performance, Alertness and Sleep after 3.5 Years <strong>of</strong> 12-hour Shifts: A 

Follow-up Study’, Work and Stress 5: 107–16. 

Rosa, R. and Colligan, M. (1989) ‘Extended Workdays: Effects <strong>of</strong> 8-hour and 12-hour 

Rotating Shift Schedules on Performance, Subjective Alertness, Sleep Patterns and 

Psychosocial Variables’, Work and Stress 3: 21–32. 

Smith, L., Folkard, S., Tucker, P. and MacDonald, J. (1998) ‘Work Shift Duration: A 

Review Comparing 8-hour and 12-hour Shift Systems’, Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine 55(4): 217–29. 

Tepas, D.I. (1985) ‘Flexitime: Compressed Workweeks and Other Alternative Work 

Schedules’, in S. Folkard and T. Monk (eds) Hours <strong>of</strong> Work: Temporal Factors in 

Work Scheduling, pp. 147–64. Chichester: Wiley. 

Wedderburn, A. (1981) ‘Is <strong>The</strong>re a Pattern in the Value <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong>f Work?’, in A. 

Reinberg, N. Vieux and P. Andluade (eds) Night and Shiftwork: Biological and Social 

Aspects, pp. 495–504. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 

Williamson, A. (1994) ‘Changing the Hours <strong>of</strong> Shiftwork: A Comparison <strong>of</strong> 8- and 12- 

hour Shift <strong>Rosters</strong> in a Small Group <strong>of</strong> Computer Operators’, Ergonomics 37(2): 

287–98.


ANGELA BAKER is a senior research fellow in the Centre for Sleep 

Research, University <strong>of</strong> South Australia. She has worked extensively as an 

organizational researcher and consultant, advising on fatigue and shiftwork 

management issues in the mining, transport, manufacturing and health sectors. 

In addition, she has developed shiftwork and fatigue-based policy and 

facilitated shiftwork education sessions. She is a regular presenter at both 

national and international conferences. ADDRESS: Centre for Sleep 

Research, University <strong>of</strong> South Australia, 5th Floor, Basil Hetzel Institute, 

<strong>The</strong> Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville Rd, Woodville, SA 5011, 

Australia. 

[email: angela.baker@unisa.edu.au] 

GREGORY ROACH is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for 

Sleep Research, University <strong>of</strong> South Australia. His primary area <strong>of</strong> research 

interest is the impact <strong>of</strong> hours <strong>of</strong> work on performance/efficiency/safety in 

industries that require shiftwork. He has conducted field-based evaluations 

<strong>of</strong> the working conditions, sleep patterns, fatigue levels, performance 

impairment, and biological adaptation <strong>of</strong> shiftworkers in the rail, aviation, 

mining, and defence industries. ADDRESS: Centre for Sleep Research, 

University <strong>of</strong> South Australia, 5th Floor, Basil Hetzel Institute, <strong>The</strong> Queen 

Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville Rd, Woodville, SA 5011, Australia. 

[email: gregory.roach@unisa.edu.au] 

SALLY FERGUSON is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for 

Sleep Research, University <strong>of</strong> South Australia. She has over 10 years’ 

experience in the field <strong>of</strong> biological rhythms and sleep. Her research has 

focused on the impact <strong>of</strong> inadequate sleep on human health and well-being, 

and investigating ways to improve human sleep. In addition, she works as 

an industry consultant in the area <strong>of</strong> fatigue management. ADDRESS: 

Centre for Sleep Research, University <strong>of</strong> South Australia, 5th Floor, Basil 

Hetzel Institute, <strong>The</strong> Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville Rd, Woodville, 

SA 5011, Australia. 

[email: sally.ferguson@unisa.edu.au] 

DREW DAWSON is the Director <strong>of</strong> the Centre for Sleep Research, 

University <strong>of</strong> South Australia. He is nationally and internationally recognized 

for his contributions to both industry and the scientific community in 

relation to organizational psychology and human factors, industrial relations 

and the human implications <strong>of</strong> hours-<strong>of</strong>-work. He consults with industry 

on fatigue in the workplace and has instigated fatigue management programmes, 

undertaken pre-employment assessments and facilitated shiftwork 

education sessions. ADDRESS: Centre for Sleep Research, 

University <strong>of</strong> South Australia, 5th Floor, Basil Hetzel Institute, <strong>The</strong> Queen 

Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville Rd, Woodville, SA 5011, Australia. 

[email: drew.dawson@unisa.edu.au]

The Impact of Different Rosters on Employee Work ... - Study at UniSA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?