Table 5 Cluster analysis based on motives: cluster means of clustering, outcome, and profiling variables (N = 241).

From: Unravelling motives and time use of additional leave in a flexible benefits plan: a mixed-methods case study in Belgium

Cluster letter

A

 

B

 

C

 

p

Cluster name

Work–life balancers

 

Time-strapped leave seekers

 

Leave-sufficient non-seekers

  

Sample size

128 (53.1%)

 

61 (25.3%)

 

52 (21.6%)

  

Clustering variables

 Work intensity (mean 9 items)

2.518 (0.653)

B, C

2.882 (0.664)

A

2.840 (0.817)

A

<0.001

 Exp. TU F1 (mean items 6, 7, 9, 10)—Personal & social leisurea

2.930 (0.624)

B

2.434 (0.563)

A, C

2.812 (0.724)

B

<0.001

 Exp. TU F2 (mean items 1, 2, 5)—Non-care work & personal developmenta

2.839 (0.567)

 

2.781 (0.486)

 

2.744 (0.837)

 

0.613

 Exp. TU F3 (mean items 3, 4)—Care worka

2.996 (0.437)

 

2.811 (0.430)

 

2.923 (0.871)

 

0.105

 Ideal worker norm (mean 4 items)

1.869 (0.638)

 

1.750 (0.825)

 

1.784 (0.634)

 

0.492

 Difficulty in taking up standard leave

1.820 (0.681)

C

1.820 (0.592)

C

4.077 (0.518)

A, B

<0.001

 Sufficiency of standard leave

3.633 (0.638)

B, C

2.000 (0.408)

A, C

3.981 (0.754)

A, B

<0.001

Outcome variables

 Choice for additional leave days within the FBP

  No

72 (56.2%)

B, C

21 (34.4%)

A, C

40 (76.9%)

A, B

<0.001

  Yes

56 (43.8%)

 

40 (65.6%)

 

12 (23.1%)

  

 Number of additional leave days chosen within the FBP

3.391 (4.295)

B, C

5.016 (4.326)

A, C

1.654 (3.319)

A, B

<0.001

 Work–life balance (mean 5 items)

3.737 (0.787)

B, C

3.325 (0.839)

A

3.408 (0.818)

A

0.002

Profiling variables

 Sex

  Male

56 (43.8%)

C

22 (36.1%)

C

35 (67.3%)

A, B

0.002

  Female

72 (56.2%)

 

39 (63.9%)

 

17 (32.7%)

  

 Age

45.000 (11.156)

B

40.754 (9.271)

A, C

45.346 (10.808)

B

0.023

 Personal educational level

  Low (max. secondary education)

18 (14.1%)

 

6 (9.8%)

 

7 (13.5%)

 

0.291

  Medium (higher non-university education)

65 (50.8%)

 

24 (39.3%)

 

21 (40.4%)

  

  High (higher university education)

45 (35.2%)

 

31 (50.8%)

 

24 (46.2%)

  

 Relationship status

  Single

18 (14.1%)

 

9 (14.8%)

 

10 (19.2%)

 

0.579

  Partner but not living together

12 (9.4%)

 

3 (4.9%)

 

2 (3.8%)

  

  Partner and living together

98 (76.6%)

 

49 (80.3%)

 

40 (76.9%)

  

 Number of children living inside the household

  0

59 (46.1%)

 

22 (36.1%)

 

23 (44.2%)

 

0.892

  1

27 (21.1%)

 

13 (21.3%)

 

11 (21.2%)

  

  2

34 (26.6%)

 

22 (36.1%)

 

15 (28.8%)

  

  3 or more

8 (6.2%)

 

4 (6.6%)

 

3 (5.8%)

  

 Age youngest child

15.356 (9.179)

B

10.220 (9.167)

A

13.758 (7.513)

 

0.011

 Household composition

  Young single (≤40 yr), no children

14 (10.9%)

 

9 (14.8%)

 

5 (9.6%)

 

0.645

  Single (all ages), children

9 (7.0%)

 

2 (3.3%)

 

3 (5.8%)

  

  Older single (>40 yr), no children

7 (5.5%)

 

1 (1.6%)

 

4 (7.7%)

  

  Young couple (resp. ≤ 40 yr), no children

12 (9.4%)

 

5 (8.2%)

 

6 (11.5%)

  

  Couple (all ages), children

60 (46.9%)

 

37 (60.7%)

 

26 (50.0%)

  

  Older couple (resp. >40 yr), no children

26 (20.3%)

 

7 (11.5%)

 

8 (15.4%)

  

 Work schedule

  Full-time

78 (60.9%)

 

46 (75.4%)

 

36 (69.2%)

 

0.128

  Part-time

50 (39.1%)

 

15 (24.6%)

 

16 (30.8%)

  

 Contractual number of weekly working hours

35.420 (5.522)

 

36.749 (3.630)

 

35.969 (5.822)

 

0.256

 Number of standard leave days

32.918 (6.094)

 

32.680 (5.063)

 

32.635 (6.441)

 

0.944

 Personal monthly salary (thousands)

2.543 (0.511)

C

2.629 (0.488)

C

2.923 (0.536)

A, B

<0.001

 Seniority (number of years of work experience in the company)

15.734 (11.197)

B

9.361 (8.554)

A, C

14.404 (11.414)

B

<0.001

 Materialism (mean 9 items)

2.374 (0.683)

 

2.559 (0.626)

 

2.444 (0.648)

 

0.200

 Importance of protecting the environment

  Not important at all

1 (0.8%)

 

0 (0.0%)

 

0 (0.0%)

 

0.339

  Not very important

5 (3.9%)

 

5 (8.2%)

 

1 (1.9%)

  

  Somewhat important

86 (67.2%)

 

36 (59.0%)

 

29 (55.8%)

  

  Very important

36 (28.1%)

 

20 (32.8%)

 

22 (42.3%)

  

 Number of environmental actions

  Low (0–3)

25 (19.5%)

 

17 (27.9%)

 

12 (23.1%)

 

0.780

  Medium (4–6)

77 (60.2%)

 

33 (54.1%)

 

29 (55.8%)

  

  High (7–9)

26 (20.3%)

 

11 (18.0%)

 

11 (21.2%)

  

 Travel behaviour: number of trips

  At less than 200 km from my home

2.086 (1.557)

 

2.328 (1.620)

 

1.788 (1.486)

 

0.188

  Within Europe (at more than 200 km from my home) by car

1.281 (1.197)

 

1.295 (1.174)

 

0.923 (0.837)

 

0.121

  Within Europe (at more than 200 km from my home) by train or bus

0.219 (0.663)

 

0.197 (0.749)

 

0.173 (0.734)

 

0.921

  Within Europe (at more than 200 km from my home) by plane

0.617 (0.861)

 

0.885 (1.066)

C

0.423 (0.605)

B

0.018

  Outside of Europe by plane

0.109 (0.401)

 

0.180 (0.500)

 

0.115 (0.323)

 

0.528

  1. For scale variables, mean values (and standard deviations between brackets) are shown. For categorical variables, absolute frequencies (and relative frequencies between brackets) are shown. p indicates the 2-tailed p-value of the one-way ANOVA test (for scale variables) or the p-value of the chi-square test (for categorical variables). A letter indicates that the cluster mean is significantly different from another cluster mean, with the letter indicating which this other cluster is (Bonferroni test for post-hoc multiple comparison analysis (for scale variables) or pairwise chi-square test (for categorical variables), with alfa = 0.05).
  2. a“Exp. TU FX” refers to “Experienced time use factor X” based on principal component analysis.
Back to article page