ArticlePDF Available

Work schedule, work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to work‐family conflict, work‐family synergy, and domain satisfaction

Authors:
  • Iona College-LaPenta School of Business

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of work schedules on work-family conflict and synergy using the job demands-resources (JD-R) and conservation of resources models. The impact of resources including supervisor support, work schedule control and satisfaction, as well as the moderating effects of work schedules on conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction are examined. Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study examined responses from organizationally-employed respondents (n=2,810) from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce using MANOVA and multiple regressions. Findings – Work schedules were significantly related to work-interfering with family (WIF) and work-family synergy (W-FS) but not for family interfering with work (FIW). Perceived supervisory support was significantly related to employee work schedule control and work schedule satisfaction. Perceived control of work schedule and work schedule satisfaction were significantly related to work-family conflict and synergy. Work schedules moderated the relationship between work-family conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction. Research limitations/implications – Although based on a national probability sample, this study may suffer from common method variance since all measures were from the same self-report questionnaire. Practical implications – The results do suggest that solutions like increased schedule flexibility for all workers may not be efficacious in reducing work-family conflict or increasing work-family synergy. Employee control over work schedule, employee satisfaction with work schedule, and supervisor support need to be considered as well. Originality/value – This study examined the impact of work schedules on work-family conflict and synergy. It is noteworthy since very little research has been conducted on work schedules and synergy. The results also broaden evidence for the JD-R and conservation of resources models.
Work schedule, work schedule
control and satisfaction in
relation to work-family conflict,
work-family synergy, and domain
satisfaction
Nicholas J. Beutell
Hagan School of Business, Iona College, New Rochelle, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of work schedules on work-family conflict
and synergy using the job demands-resources (JD-R) and conservation of resources models. The impact
of resources including supervisor support, work schedule control and satisfaction, as well as the
moderating effects of work schedules on conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction are examined.
Design/methodology/approach This quantitative study examined responses from
organizationally-employed respondents (n¼2;810) from the 2002 National Study of the Changing
Workforce using MANOVA and multiple regressions.
Findings – Work schedules were significantly related to work-interfering with family (WIF) and
work-family synergy (W-FS) but not for family interfering with work (FIW). Perceived supervisory
support was significantly related to employee work schedule control and work schedule satisfaction.
Perceived control of work schedule and work schedule satisfaction were significantly related to
work-family conflict and synergy. Work schedules moderated the relationship between work-family
conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications Although based on a national probability sample, this study
may suffer from common method variance since all measures were from the same self-report
questionnaire.
Practical implications The results do suggest that solutions like increased schedule flexibility for
all workers may not be efficacious in reducing work-family conflict or increasing work-family synergy.
Employee control over work schedule, employee satisfaction with work schedule, and supervisor
support need to be considered as well.
Originality/value This study examined the impact of work schedules on work-family conflict and
synergy. It is noteworthy since very little research has been conducted on work schedules and
synergy. The results also broaden evidence for the JD-R and conservation of resources models.
Keywords Family, Employees, Role conlflict
Paper type Research paper
The theoretical and empirical literature on work-family conflict (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985) and work-family synergy (Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008) has tacitly
assumed that work is structured in a traditional, Monday through Friday, 9:00am to
5:00pm framework and, that, family role activities are enacted based on such a work
schedule. Yet, only one in three employed adult Americans works a typical day shift
(Presser, 1995; 1999). When the “work” in work-family occurs in a form other than a
traditional day schedule (e.g. rotating shifts) discontinuities between work and the rest
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
Work schedule
satisfaction
501
Received 16 January 2010
Revised 23 March 2010
18 June 2010
Accepted 25 June 2010
Career Development International
Vol. 15 No. 5, 2010
pp. 501-518
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620431011075358
of life (particularly family) can occur (Wilson et al., 2007). Understanding the impact of
various work schedules, including supervisory and organizational discretion (Ortega,
2009), has important career implications. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that
workers believe that work schedules can hinder career development (Kelly and Moen,
2007). Further, women on flexible schedules may be perceived as having less job-career
dedication and less advancement motivation (Rogier and Padgett, 2004). Yet, Cooper
(2005) has argued that the future of flexible working can be liberating giving power
and control to employees. The present study was designed to examine work schedules,
work schedule control, and work schedule satisfaction in relation to work-family
conflict and synergy.
Synergy is the term used in the present study to describe how work and family,
acting in concert, can create beneficial feelings and outcomes that are greater than the
effects each is able to create independently (Beutell, 2006; Beutell and Wittig-Berman,
2008). Voydanoff (2004) used the term synergy to characterize work-family facilitation:
“A form of synergy in which resources associated with one role enhance or make easier
participation in the other role” (Voydanoff, 2004, p. 399). Work-family synergy is
distinct from, and not a substitute for, work interfering with family (WIF) and family
interfering with work (FIW). Stated differently, low levels of WIF and FIW is not
equivalent to W-FS.
Unlike work-family enrichment (a specific form of work-family facilitation) that
requires that resources be applied in the other domain (Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus
and Powell, 2006), synergy is intended to reflect energy and mood states that transcend
each role. Although various labels depicting the positive side of work and family have
been used interchangeably (Frone, 2003), work-family synergy refers specifically to
positive energy and mood states that emerge from participating in work and family
roles. And, distinct from related concepts, work-family synergy is conceptualized and
measured as the frequency of experiencing positive energy and mood states as opposed
to a discrete transfer of resources between domains. As such, work-family synergy
incorporates the temporal aspects of interaction between work and family roles.
Thus, the present study examines the impact of different work schedules on
work-family synergy (W-FS) in addition to the two types of work-family conflict, WIF
and FIW. The connection between work-family synergy and work-family conflict is
weak (or negative) from a statistical perspective and the concepts are theoretically
distinct. However, a recent discussion (Powell and Greenhaus, 2006) has explored this
in more detail and additional research is needed to further clarify this issue. The
present study will proceed under the assumption that conflict and synergy are distinct
work-family concepts.
Theoretical model and the impact of work schedules
The present study uses the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) (e.g. Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007) and conservation of resources model (Hobfoll, 1989) to examine the
impact of work schedules on work-family conflict and synergy. The JD-R model
assumes that stress from any occupational role stem from two categories, job demands
and job resources. Job demands refer to aspects of the job that require sustained effort,
and, as such incur certain costs as a result. The demands can be physical,
psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job. In this study, a rotating shift
schedule would be an example of a job demand that could result in physical and
CDI
15,5
502
emotional depletion of the job incumbent. Job resources, on the other hand, include
aspects of the job that help in achieving work goals, reduce demands, and stimulate
personal growth. Supervisor support and perceived work schedule control would be
examples from the present study.
The JD-I model also posits dual underlying psychological processes that affect the
development of job strain and motivation (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). In case of job
strain, poorly designed jobs or excessive job demands can exhaust an employee’s
physical and mental resources resulting in depleted energy, and, eventually, health
problems. The second process involves motivation by advancing the idea that job
resources have motivational potential that can lead to work engagement and
outstanding performance. A distinction is also made between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: the former can generate growth and development while the latter may be
instrumental in achieving work goals.
The conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) provides some insights
into the impact of work schedules. This theory argues that individuals attempt to
achieve a balance between demands and resources by reducing demands or increasing
resources to cope with existing demands. If demands exceed resources over the long
term well-being is decreased. Brotheridge and Lee (2005) have used this model in a
study examining work overload, supervisor support, job distress, work-family conflict,
and well-being. Taken together, the JD-R and conservation of resources models inform
the hypotheses in the present study.
Work schedules and work-family conflict and synergy
The impact of work schedules on work and family roles can be understood using the
JD-R model. Work schedules are a demand since each schedule type (e.g. flexible,
rotating) requires a different type of time commitment that can result in physical and
psychological depletion of the employee. And, work-schedules contribute to time-based
conflict between work and family roles: time devoted to work is not available for family
role performance and an employee with a salient work role may be preoccupied with
work when at home (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Indeed, the number of hours
worked and schedule inflexibility have been associated with work-family conflict
(Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Family role demands have also been associated with
higher levels of work-family conflict as well. Work schedule flexibility, on the other
hand, has been shown to have positive consequences on employee outcomes (Haar,
2007). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) included flexibility as one of the major resources in
their model of work-family enrichment. Flexibility is the discretion to determine how
role requirements are met. One such consequence of such flexibility might be the
reduction of work-family conflict or the enhancement of work-family synergy.
Much of our knowledge about the effects of different work schedules comes from
limited samples or case studies focusing on susceptible occupational groups (e.g. shift
work among nurses). Many studies investigate shift workers only so comparisons with
employees working a standard day schedule or another type of schedule cannot be
made (Fenwick and Tausig, 2001). Working a schedule other than a traditional day
schedule may make employees more likely to experience conflict the work and family
roles (Wilson et al., 2007). Certain work schedules may be more out of “sync” with
family life heightening the possibility of work-family conflict. On the other hand,
certain schedules (e.g. flex time) may enhance performance in both work and family
Work schedule
satisfaction
503
leading to reduced conflict and enhanced work-family synergy. Thus, the first goal of
the present study was to test, using a national probability sample, how various work
schedules, including traditional scheduling, relate to work-family conflict and synergy.
Supervisory support
Supervisory support is a significant resource in the JD-R model. Having a high-quality
relationship with one’s supervisor may help to reduce certain job demands (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007) such as a difficult or demanding work schedule. An employee’s
perception of schedule control and schedule satisfaction may depend on the attitudes,
behaviors, and support of their supervisor (Wang and Walumbwa, 2007) as perceived
by employees (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). For many employees, their supervisor
is the literal and figurative face of organizational support. And, although a supervisor
may not be able to provide a work schedule that is not organizationally sanctioned, the
supervisor has the power to formally or informally create an environment that is
supportive or disruptive of the work schedule that employees actually have. Consistent
with the conservation of resources model, supervisor support may reduce role demands
or provide resources that enhance job performance (Brotheridge and Lee, 2005).
Supervisor support may help employees reframe their work demands so they are more
manageable and enhance their coping skills (Bakker et al., 2007). Additionally,
supervisors typically decide if an individual can modify his or her work schedule (Kelly
and Moen, 2007). Such a relationship would strengthen (or weaken) employee feelings
of schedule control and satisfaction. And, similarity between the supervisor and
employee may increase the sense of support that the employee feels. Further,
supervisors may also exhibit family-friendly support when they identify with
employees’ family issues and concerns (e.g. Foley et al., 2006). Thus, employee
perceptions of supervisory support would be expected to influence employee
perceptions of work schedule control and satisfaction with their work schedule.
Work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to WIF, FIW, and W-FS
In addition to the actual work schedule, employees’ perceived control over their work
schedule (Fenwick and Tausig, 2001) and satisfaction with work schedule may be
important factors affecting the impact of work on family and other areas of life (Kelly
and Moen, 2007). Findings reported by Staines and Pleck (1984) and Kinnunen and
Mauno (1998) suggest the positive effects of schedule flexibility on family outcomes.
Lack of schedule control has been found to have significant, negative relationships
with lack of work-home balance and conflict between work and home (Fenwick and
Tausig, 2001; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). In the JD-R model, schedule control and
schedule satisfaction are personal resources that allow the employee to meet
organizational expectations, reflexive or self-sent expectations of control, and
expectations for successfully meeting family role demands. In addition, Bandura (1997)
believed that “beliefs about control are key components of self-knowledge, which
predict positive outcomes regardless of the enactments of those beliefs. This suggests a
direct effect of perceived schedule control on work-family conflict” (Kelly and Moen,
2007, p. 493). Following successful enactment, self-efficacy feelings would increase
thereby increasing satisfaction. As such, it seems reasonable to expect that schedule
control and satisfaction would have similarly beneficial effects on reducing
work-family conflict and enhancing work-family synergy.
CDI
15,5
504
Moderating effects of work schedule: conflict (synergy) and satisfaction
Bakker and Demerouti (2007) identified interaction effects as one of the research needs
in further developing the JD-R model. The idea that any two variables in the
stressor-strain sequence can buffer or interact has been advanced by Kahn and
Byosserie (1992). Given the flexibility of the JD-R model, the present study will extend
this thinking by examining how a job demand (i.e. work schedule) can moderate the
relationship between conflict (synergy) and measures of satisfaction (a proxy for
well-being). In theory, work schedules, a job demand, would potentially lead to stress
or eustress that would generate strain or positive affect (in this case work-family
conflict or synergy, respectively) that would lead to feelings of well-being (i.e. domain
satisfaction) or exhaustion. This line of reasoning addresses a gap in the literature
identified by Haar (2008). Haar (2008) has argued that few studies have examined the
moderator effects of work schedules (like flextime) in relation to work-family conflict
and outcomes such as satisfaction. This is surprising since many studies argue for the
beneficial effects of schedule flexibility as a mechanism to reduce potential conflicts (or
enhance synergy) between work and family roles. Haar’s study did find evidence that
flextime moderated the relationship between work-family outcomes and job
satisfaction. The present study extends this idea to include a range of work
schedules and four types of satisfaction: job satisfaction, family satisfaction, marital
satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Work-family conflict has been associated with
decreased job, family, marital, and life satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000; Beutell and
Wittig-Berman, 1999). On the other hand, work-family synergy (W-FS) would be
expected to increase satisfaction with job, family, marriage, and life (Beutell, 2007;
Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008). Work schedules would be expected to moderate the
relationship between work-family conflict (synergy) and satisfaction.
In summary, this study addressed four research questions relating to the impact of
employee work schedules using the JD-R and conservation of resources models:
(1) are employee work schedules related to significant differences in work-family
conflict and synergy?;
(2) is perceived supervisor support significantly related to employee control in
scheduling hours of work and employee satisfaction with work schedule?;
(3) are perceived employee control over work schedule and work schedule
satisfaction related to work-family conflict and synergy?; and
(4) do employee work schedules moderate the relationship between work-family
conflict (work-family synergy) and domain satisfaction (i.e. job, life, marital, and
family)?
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of organizationally-employed (i.e. excluding the self-employed)
participants (n¼2;810) from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce
(Total n¼3;504) conducted by Harris Interactive using a questionnaire designed by
the Families and Work Institute (Public Use Files: www.familyandwork.org). Sample
eligibility was limited to people who:
.worked at a paid job or operated an income-producing business;
.were 18 years or older;
Work schedule
satisfaction
505
.were in the civilian labor force;
.resided in the contiguous 48 states; and
.lived in a non-institutional residence i.e. household with a telephone.
In households with more than one eligible person, one was randomly selected to be
interviewed. Interviewers offered cash honoraria of $25 as an incentive to participate.
A total 60 percent of the participants worked for a private, for-profit business, 8
percent worked for a non-profit organization, and 18 percent worked for a
governmental agency. With respect to gender, 1,170 men (42.7 percent) and 1,640
women (58.3 percent) participated.
Measures
Each of the measures used in this study was developed by the Families and Work
Institute for their quinquennial (every five years) studies of the US workforce. Many of
the measures have been used in previous studies dating to the Quality of Employment
Survey (Quinn and Staines, 1979) and the Families and Work Institute 1992 and 1997
(Bond et al., 1998) studies. Coefficient alpha (a), reliability coefficients, are presented for
multi-item scales. Recent studies using this data set include Beutell and Wittig-Berman
(2008), Prottas (2008), Prottas and Thompson (2006), and Voydanoff (2005).
Work-family conflict and synergy
Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008) factor analyzed the work and family items from the
National Study of the Changing Workforce (2002) for all wage and salary participants
(n¼2;796) using a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation. Three
“clean” factors emerged in this order: WIF, FIW, and WFS. WIF (a¼0:87) consisted of
five items (I frequently have no energy to do things with my family because of my job).
FIW (a¼0:82) also had five items (I don’t have enough time for my job because of my
family). Work-family synergy consisted of four items (a¼0:67) for the 2002 sample
(e.g. frequency of having more energy to do things with family because of my job;
having more energy at work because of my family/personal life). The synergy factor is
significant since it was identified as one of the research gaps by Byron (2005) and
recently reviewed as work-family enrichment by Greenhaus and Powell (2006).
Work schedule
Work schedule was assessed using the following item: Which of the following best
describes your work schedule (at your main job) a regular daytime schedule, a
regular evening shift, a regular night shift, a rotating shift – one that changes
periodically from day to evening or night, a split shift consisting of two distinct periods
each workday, or a flexible or variable schedule in which you are on call with no set
hours?
Work schedule control and satisfaction
Work schedule control was measure by one item: overall, how much control would you
say you have in scheduling your work hours complete control, a lot of control, some
control, very little control, or none (no control)? Responses were coded so that higher
scores indicate more control over the work schedule. Satisfaction with work schedule
used the following item: is your identified work schedule perfect for you, okay but
CDI
15,5
506
could be better, not very good, or not at all what you want? Higher scores indicate
higher satisfaction levels.
Supervisory support
Supervisor’s support was measured using nine items (e.g. My supervisor keeps me
informed of things I need to do on the job; a¼0:90). Response scales ranged from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” and the items were summed with a high score
indicating more support.
Job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction
Four types of satisfaction were used as outcomes of work-family conflict and synergy.
Job satisfaction ða¼0:68) was measured using two items: how satisfied are you with
your job and would you take the same job again. The items were summed and then
averaged. Marital satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction were measured
using single-item measures of overall satisfaction with higher scores indicating higher
levels of satisfaction.
Results
Table I shows the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations for the major
study variables. Notice that all but one correlations are statistically significant and in
the predicted direction.
Work schedule differences in work-family conflict and synergy
Recall that the first research question focused on differences in work-family conflict
and synergy for each type of work schedule (e.g. day, evening, rotating). A one-factor,
between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test
for overall differences. WIF, FIW, and W-FS served as dependent variables, work
schedule comprised the independent variable, while gender and having a child under
the age of six years were entered as covariates. The a priori level of significance was
set at 0.05. Results from the MANOVA were statistically significant according to
Wilkes Lamda (L) (0.98), F(18, 7558) ¼2.41, p,0:001). Table II presents the
MANOVA results along with between subjects’ effects. Two of the three univariate
ANOVAs were statistically significant: WIF (Fð6;2674Þ¼2:75, p,0:05) and W-FS
(Fð6;2674Þ¼3:87, p,0:01). The analysis for FIW was not significant (FIW
(Fð6;2674Þ¼0:97, ns).
Table III reports the post hoc pair-wise comparisons following the significant
MANOVA for work schedules controlling for gender and having a child less than age
six in the home. These results indicated that, for WIF, those who worked evenings,
nights, rotating shifts, and other schedules were significantly higher in WIF conflict
that those with a traditional day schedule. Those who worked an evening schedule
were significantly lower in conflicts than those who worked “other schedules”. For
W-FS, those working evening or night schedules had significantly lower levels of
synergy than those on a traditional day schedule or a flex/variable schedule. And those
working a flex/variable schedule were had significantly higher W-FS than those
working rotating shifts. These results indicate that work schedules have a significant,
direct effect on WIF and W-FS (but not on FIW) while controlling for gender and
having a child under the age of six years.
Work schedule
satisfaction
507
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. WIF 2.49 0.88 (0.87)
2. FIW 2.08 0.68 0.55 *(0.82)
3. W-F Synergy 2.98 0.77 20.11 *20.02 (0.67)
4. Supervisor support 3.36 0.63 20.34 *20.11 *0.22 *(0.90)
5. Schedule control 3.08 1.59 20.19 *20.08 *0.11 *0.22 *
6. Schedule satisfaction 3.46 0.64 20.30 *20.15 *0.15 *0.25 *0.27 *
7. Job satisfaction 3.02 0.56 20.34 *20.14 *0.24 *0.49 *0.23 *0.35 *(0.68)
8. Life satisfaction 3.27 0.69 20.33 *20.31 *0.26 *0.26 *0.15 *0.23 *0.37 *
9. Marital satisfaction 3.35 0.78 20.17 *20.25 *0.18 *0.17 *0.08 *0.14 *0.18 *0.42 *
10. Family satisfaction 3.03 0.84 20.24 *20.33 *0.23 *0.18 *0.10 *0.18 *0.19 *0.52 *0.58 *
Notes: WIF ¼work interfering with family; FIW ¼family interfering with work; items in parentheses are coefficient alphas for multi-item scales;
*p ,0:001
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations,
inter-correlations
(Pearson), and reliability
coefficients for major
variables
CDI
15,5
508
Supervisor support and employee schedule control and satisfaction
The relationship between supervisory support and employee control in scheduling
work hours and employee satisfaction with work schedule was tested using multiple
regression analysis (research question 2). To control for supervisory similarity,
supervisor’s gender and racial similarity to the employee were entered in the first
equation. Then, employee work schedule control and satisfaction were regressed on
supervisory support. Table IV shows the regression results for this research question.
For the control variables, note that supervisor’s gender was not significant but that
racial/ethnic similarity (dichotomously coded 1 ¼yes and 2 ¼no) of employee and
supervisor did have a statistically significant effect on perceived supervisor support
(
b
¼20:05, p,0:05). This means that there was a tendency for employees to view
ethnic/racially similar supervisors as more supportive. The predictor variables of
schedule control (
b
¼0:17, p,0:01) and schedule satisfaction (
b
¼0:21, p,0:01)
were each significantly related to supervisory support while controlling for
supervisor’s gender and racial/ethnic similarity. Thus, there was support for this
research question.
Work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to WIF, FIW, and W-FS
WIF, FIW, and W-FS were regressed on work schedule control and then on work
schedule satisfaction in two separate equations (Tables V-VI) controlling for
employees’ gender and having a child less than six in the household. Work schedule
Source of variation SS df MS F
Gender
WIF 0.32 1 0.32 0.41
FIW 2.01 1 2.01 4.42*
W-FS 0.22 1 0.22 0.38
Child LT six years
WIF 7.68 1 7.68 10.03 **
FIW 5.12 1 5.12 11.04 **
W-FS 0.05 1 0.05 0.08
Work schedule
WIF 12.63 6 2.11 2.75 *
FIW 2.69 6 0.45 0.97
W-FS 13.57 6 2.26 3.87 **
Error
WIF 2,045.44 2,674 0.76
FIW 1,239.51 2,674 0.46
W-FS 1,561.88 2,674 0.58
Total
WIF 18,906.08 2,683
FIW 12,983.56 2,683
W-FS 25,435.50 2,683
Notes: WIF ¼(work interfering with family); FIW ¼(family interfering with work); and
W-FS ¼(work-family synergy); *p,0.05; **
p,0.01
Table II.
MANOVA results for
work schedule and WIF,
FIW, and W-F Synergy
Work schedule
satisfaction
509
control was significantly related to WIF (
b
¼20:21, p,0:01)and W-FS (
b
¼0:09,
p,0:01) but not to FIW (
b
¼0:04, ns). Similarly, satisfaction with work schedule was
significantly related to WIF (
b
¼20:28, p,0:01) and W-FS (
b
¼0:12, p,0:01) but
not to FIW. Note that the betas, while statistically significant, are low in magnitude.
Nevertheless, the findings do support the research question.
Work schedule at main job Mean SD NSignificance
WIF
1. Regular daytime 2.48 0.85 2,037 1v2, 1v3, 1v7
2. Regular evening 2.47 0.89 121 2v7
3. Regular night shift 2.72 1.05 73
4. Rotating shift 2.63 0.98 191 4v1
5. Split shift 2.67 1.06 38
6. Flex or variable 2.53 0.91 189
7. Other schedule 2.84 0.81 34
FIW
1. Regular daytime 2.09 0.67 2,037 ns
2. Regular evening 1.99 0.75 121
3. Regular night shift 2.17 0.74 73
4. Rotating shift 2.14 0.76 191
5. Split shift 2.09 0.70 38
6. Flex or variable 2.05 0.67 189
7. Other schedule 2.21 0.75 34
W-FS
1. Regular daytime 3.00 0.74 2,037 1v2, 1v3
2. Regular evening 2.75 0.80 121 2v6
3. Regular night shift 2.75 0.90 73 3v6
4. Rotating shift 2.93 0.82 191
5. Split shift 3.00 0.89 38
6. Flex or variable 3.07 0.82 189 6v4
7. Other schedule 2.88 0.71 34
Notes: WIF ¼(work interfering with family); FIW ¼(family interfering with work); and
W-FS ¼(work-family synergy); Means are significantly different at p,0.05
Table III.
Means, standard
deviations, Ns, and
pair-wise comparisons for
work schedules in
relation to work-family
conflict and synergy
Model 1 Model 2
BSEB
b
BSEB
b
Gender of supervisor 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03
Supervisor similarity 20.07 0.03 20.05 20.08 0.03 20.05
Schedule control 0.07 0.01 0.17*
Schedule satisfaction 0.21 0.02 0.21*
R
2
0.00 0.09
Ffor change in R
2
0.03 124.19 *
Notes: Supervisor similarity indicates that supervisor is of same racial/ethnic background as
respondent; *p,0.01
Table IV.
Summary of hierarchical
regressions predicting
supervisor support
CDI
15,5
510
Moderating effects of work schedule: work-family variables and satisfaction
The moderating effects of work schedule on work-family conflict (WIF and FIW) and
work-family synergy (W-FS) and domain satisfaction were tested using multiple
regressions (research question 4). The work schedules were grouped as follows: day
(traditional schedule); evening/night; rotating/split shifts; and flex/variable shifts. A
similar breakdown was used by Fenwick and Tausig (2001). Regressions were
computed for each work schedule, as noted, computing the relationship between WIF,
FIW, and W-FS and each of the domain satisfaction variables (i.e. job, life, marital, and
family satisfaction) variables. Table VII shows the results of these analyses.
The work-family literature typically reveals that work-family conflict is inversely
related to satisfaction variables (e.g. Allen et al., 2000) while work-family synergy is
positively related to domain satisfaction (Beutell, 2006). Examination of Table VII
reveals that the day (traditional) schedule produced the strongest moderator results
overall. The WIF !job satisfaction relationship was significantly and negatively
related for all work schedules while WIF !life satisfaction relationship was
significant for all schedules except the flex/variable schedule. The strongest findings
for FIW and satisfaction involved the day (traditional) schedule (except, interestingly,
job satisfaction). The rotating/split shift showed a moderate, negative relationship
between FIW and family satisfaction. And, for W-FS !job satisfaction relationship
Model 1 Model 2
BSEB
b
BSEB
b
Gender 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.01
Child LT six years 20.02 0.08 20.00 20.06 0.08 20.01
WIF 20.38 0.04 20.21 *
FIW 0.09 0.05 0.04
W-FS 0.19 0.04 0.09*
R
2
0.00 0.05
Ffor change in R
2
0.75 46.35 *
Notes: WIF ¼(work interfering with family); FIW ¼(family interfering with work); and
W-FS ¼(work-family synergy); *p,0.01
Table V.
Summary of hierarchical
regressions predicting
perceived schedule
control
Model 1 Model 2
BSEB
b
BSEB
b
Gender 0.05 0.03 0.04 *0.05 0.02 0.04
Child LT six years 0.06 0.03 0.04 *0.03 0.03 0.02
WIF 20.20 0.02 20.28 **
FIW 20.01 0.02 20.01
W-FS 0.10 0.01 0.12 **
R
2
0.00 0.11
Ffor Change in R
2
4.39 *103.10 **
Notes: WIF ¼(work interfering with family); FIW ¼(family interfering with work); and
W-FS ¼(work-family synergy); *p,0.05; **
p,0.01
Table VI.
Summary of hierarchical
regressions predicting
work schedule
satisfaction
Work schedule
satisfaction
511
WIF FIW W-FS
JS LS MS FS R
2
JS LS MS FS R
2
JS LS MS FS R
2
Work schedule
Day
(traditional) 20.28 ** 20.17 ** 0.02 20.10 0.17 ** 20.01 20.18 ** 20.06 *220 ** 0.15 ** 0.14 ** 0.13 ** 0.05 0.13 ** 0.11 ***
Evening/Night 20.29 ** 20.25 *20.27 ** 20.11 0.41 *** 20.03 20.20 20.19 20.20 0.24 *** 0.13 0.09 20.18 0.23 0.12
Rotating/Split 20.31 ** 20.25 *0.27 ** 20.42 ** 0.35 *** 20.03 20.13 0.03 20.34 ** 0.17 *** 0.22 *0.10 0.03 0.02 0.10 *
Flex/Variable 20.30 ** 20.20 20.04 20.01 0.25 *** 0.04 20.04 0.02 20.19 0.06 0.43 ** 20.04 0.12 0.10 0.25 ***
Notes: Standardized regression coefficients (b) are presented; WIF ¼(work interfering with family); FIW ¼(family interfering with work); and W-FS ¼(work-family
synergy); JS ¼( job satisfaction); LS ¼(life satisfaction); MS ¼(marital satisfaction); and FS ¼(family satisfaction); All
b
s controlled for covariates of gender and presence of
a child under the age of six years; *p,0.05; **
p,0.01; ***
p,0.001
Table VII.
Moderating effects of
work schedule on the
relationship between
WIF, FIW, and W-FS and
domain satisfaction
CDI
15,5
512
was significant for all schedules except the evening/night schedule. All of the
significant findings were in the expected direction.
Discussion
The present results add to the work-family literature by finding some level of support
for each of the four research questions adding to the accumulating evidence on
relationships between work schedules, work schedule control and satisfaction,
supervisory support, and moderating effects of work schedule on the relationship
between work-family conflict (synergy) and satisfaction. Taken as a whole, the results
do suggest that solutions like increased schedule flexibility for all workers may not be
efficacious in reducing work-family conflict and increasing work-family synergy.
Employee control over work schedule, employee satisfaction with work schedule, and
supervisor support need to be considered as well. And, the findings on work-family
synergy are noteworthy since very little research has been conducted on work
schedules and synergy. The results are bolstered by the fact that a well-conducted
national probability sample was analyzed and can be generalized to the US population
residing in the contiguous 48 states.
Contributions of research
The first research question, addressing differences in work-family conflict and
synergy, based on respondent’s work schedule was supported for WIF and W-FS.
Some schedules have the effect of increasing conflict (e.g. night and rotating shifts)
while others seem to reduce levels of work-family synergy (e.g. evening and night).
Interestingly, a flexible or variable schedule did have the highest mean for W-FS and
was significantly higher that the mean for the night shift. Flex scheduling does have
the potential to increase synergy but we need to know more about employee schedule
control and supervisor support, at a minimum, before we know what the impact of
such a schedule might be.
Supervisor support was significantly related to schedule control and schedule
satisfaction. The role of the supervisor clearly warrants additional attention regarding
work schedules along with schedule control and satisfaction, but more broadly, as the
organizational face of all types of support including support for participating in
work-family program initiatives (Swody and Powell, 2007). Other characteristics of the
supervisor might prove to be important as well. A recent study suggested that
supervisors provide more family support to subordinates who were similar in either
gender or race than to those subordinates who were dissimilar (Foley et al., 2006). The
present findings found some evidence for the impact of racial/ethnic similarity but not
for gender. This clearly warrants additional investigation. Further, and importantly,
Wang and Walumbwa (2007) have documented the moderating effect of
transformational leadership in the relationships between work flexibility benefits
and both organizational commitment and work withdrawal.
Another aspect of the supervisor equation is generational differences particularly
relating to Generation X (GenX) and work-family issues (e.g. Beutell and Wittig-Berman,
2008). Van Dyne et al. (2007) suggest that flexible work arrangements, that give
employees more control over when and where they work (such as part-time, flextime,
and flexplace), have served to reduce “face” time in organizations. Such arrangements,
particularly using technology, appeal to GenX employees but may lead Baby Boom
Work schedule
satisfaction
513
managers to make attributions like “slacker” and question the loyalty of GenX workers
(O’Bannon, 2001). Van Dyne et al. (2007) have proposed a theoretical model specifying
facilitating work practices that enhance group processes and effectiveness with the goal
of enhancing group-level, organizational citizenship behaviors. Other investigators have
suggested supervisors should be evaluated, as part of the performance appraisal process,
on their knowledge and effectiveness in assisting employees in reducing work-family
issues (Beauregard, 2006).
The findings also lend support to the moderating effects of work schedule on the
relationship between work-family variables and satisfaction outcomes. This finding
supports Haar’s (2008) contention that work schedule is an overlooked moderator of
work-family conflict and satisfaction. Interestingly, the strongest evidence for the
moderator findings involved WIF-job satisfaction and W-FS-job satisfaction
relationships. It does make sense that a work-related variable such as work schedule
would be related to job satisfaction. And, given what we know about cross-domain
relationships (Ford et al., 2007) it might also be expected that work-family conflict
(synergy) and life satisfaction would be significantly related as well. The present
findings do confirm a WIF-life satisfaction relationship for three of the four schedules.
Yet, only 18 of 48 betas overall achieved statistical significance suggesting a rather
complex pattern of moderating effects that will need much more research. And, 13 of the
significant moderator findings center on WIF and W-FS with FIW findings essentially
confined to traditional, day work schedules. This confirms Shockley and Allen’s (2007)
argument that flexible work arrangements are more highly related to WIF than to FIW.
Implications for theory and practice
The JD-R and conservation of resources models seem well-suited to the variables
examined in this study. The notion of work schedules as a major work demand is
well-established although we still have much to learn about the resources needed to
cope with these demands and the long-term consequences of different schedules on
employee health, well-being, and quality of life. These models also appear to be equally
well suited to studying family role demands and resources. Indeed, recent work by
Lazarova et al. (2010) have used JD-R to examine the positive side of the work-family
interface by examining influences on expatriate work and family role performance.
One of the theoretical challenges is identifying the impact of simultaneous and
sequential demands and resources relating to work and family as individuals and
families attempt to achieve balance in their lives.
The present study extended one aspect of the JD-R model the investigation of
interaction effects suggested by Bakker and Demerouti (2007). These authors indicated
reluctance on the part of researchers to venture beyond main or direct effects, perhaps,
because of the difficulty of detecting interaction effects. Nevertheless, interaction
effects are theoretically important since the effects on employees may be more
exaggerated when demands and resources are at high levels. The present study
examined work schedules as a moderator of the relation between work-family conflict
(synergy) and satisfaction. This suggests that the JD-R model can incorporate
interactions, not only in the stress-strain sequence (Kahn and Byosserie, 1992), but in
the strain-well-being sequence as well.
Although implementing flexible work schedules is often suggested as a practical
intervention to balance work and family, the present findings suggest a more complex
CDI
15,5
514
scenario. Haar (2008), for example, found flextime use did not reduce the negative
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Haar even
suggested that flextime might not be “inherently” positive and such schedules might
be used reactively (causing employee resentment) rather than proactively. This
suggests that management imposed work schedules may undermine employee
commitment, increase work-family conflict, particularly WIF, and decrease
work-family synergy. In this vein, Kelly and Moen (2007) have distinguished
between perceived schedule control and enacted schedule control as well as flexibility
policies and flexibility practices in organizations. The true impact of work schedules
may depend on organizational size, supervisor support, type of work performed, and
the degree of formalization of work policies. Thus, the conceptual model proposed by
Kelly and Moen (2007) appears to be useful for framing subsequent studies and
designing organizational interventions.
Potential limitations
Some limitations of the present research should be noted. Although the data came from
a well-conducted national probability sample, all of the measures were self-reports
collected during one interview. Such self-report, cross-sectional designs tend to inflate
correlations and they lack the ability to make causal inferences, including the direction
of possible causality. Also, cross-sectional designs based on self-report measures do
not afford the ability to rule out the fact that measured constructs share a common
cause. Thus, a portion of the variance in any observed relation is likely to be spurious.
Future research on the impact of employee work schedules might consider measuring
the same individuals over time to permit analysis of changes with increased statistical
power. Some of the findings, while statistically significant, do not account for much
variance. Finally, a number of the study variables (e.g. work schedule, work schedule
control) were based on one-item scales.
Conclusion
Nevertheless, the findings of the present study do add to the accumulating evidence of
the impact of work schedules as a major work-related demand variable affecting
work-family conflict and synergy. The JD-R and conservation of resources models
appear to be useful in framing research hypotheses involving work (family) demands
and resources involving social support, role performance, heath consequences,
satisfaction, and well-being. These models are particularly well-suited to investigating
the impact of various work schedules. Recent research by Greenhaus and Powell (2006)
has suggested some avenues for additional research on work schedules around the
concept of work-family enrichment (similar to work-family synergy). And, more
research along the lines suggested by Kelly and Moen (2007) is needed to develop a
more complete understanding of the impact of various work schedules on the complex
relationship between work and family.
References
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Work schedule
satisfaction
515
Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003), “Perceived organizational support and psychological
contracts: a theoretical integration”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 491-509.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-38.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost
work engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-84.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Beauregard, T.A. (2006), “Are organizations shooting themselves in the foot: workplace
contributors to family-to-work conflict”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 336-53.
Beutell, N.J. (2006), “Life satisfaction (in relation to work-family variables)”, Sloan Work-Family
Encyclopedia (Boston College), available at: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.
php?id¼3283&area¼All
Beutell, N.J. (2007), “Self-employment, work-family conflict and work-family synergy:
antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 325-34.
Beutell, N.J. and Wittig-Berman, U. (1999), “Predictors of work-family conflict and satisfaction
with family, job, career, and life”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 893-903.
Beutell, N.J. and Wittig-Berman, U. (2008), “Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for
generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and
satisfaction outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 507-23.
Bond, J.T., Galinsky, E. and Swanberg, J.E. (1998), The 1997 National Study of the Changing
Workplace, Families and Work Institute, New York, NY.
Brotheridge, C.M. and Lee, R.T. (2005), “Impact of work-family interference on general
well-being: a replication and extension”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 203-21.
Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-98.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H. and Grzywacz, J.G. (2006), “Measuring the positive side
of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment
scale”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 131-64.
Cooper, C.L. (2005), “The future of work: careers, stress and well-being”, Career Development
International, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 396-400.
Fenwick, R. and Tausig, M. (2001), “Scheduling stress”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44
No. 7, pp. 1179-98.
Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J.H. and Weer, C.H. (2006), “The impact of gender similarity,
racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 420-41.
Ford, M.T., Heinen, B.A. and Langkamer, K. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict: a
meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
CDI
15,5
516
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G. (2006), “When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family
enrichment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 72-92.
Haar, J. (2007), “Exploring the benefits and use of flexitime: similarities and differences”,
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
Haar, J. (2008), “Work-family conflict and job outcomes: the moderating effects of flexitime use in
a New Zealand organization”, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 38-54.
Hobfoll, S. (1989), “Conservation of resources”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-24.
Hobfoll, S. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-24.
Kahn, R.L. and Byosserie, P. (1992), “Stress in organizations”, in Dunette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 571-650.
Kelly, E. and Moen, P. (2007), “Rethinking the clockwork of work: why schedule control may pay
off at work and at home”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 487-506.
Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 157-77.
Lazarova, M., Westman, M. and Shaffer, M. (2010), “Elucidating the positive side of the
work-family interface on international assignments: a model of expatriate work and family
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
O’Bannon, G. (2001), “Managing our future: the generation X factor”, Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 95-109.
Ortega, J. (2009), “Why do employers give discretion? Family versus performance concerns”,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Powell, G.N. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2006), “Is the opposite of positive negative:Untangling the
complex relationship between work-family enrichment and conflict”, Career Development
International, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 650-9.
Presser, H. (1995), “Job, family, and gender: determinants of nonstandard work schedules among
employed Americans in 1991”, Demography, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 577-98.
Presser, H. (1999), “Toward a 24-hour economy”, Science, Vol. 284 No. 5421, pp. 1778-9.
Prottas, D. (2008), “Do the self-employed value autonomy more than employees: research across
four samples”, Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 33-45.
Prottas, D.J. and Thompson, C.A. (2006), “Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: a
comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational
employees”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 366-78.
Quinn, R.P. and Staines, G.L. (1979), The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey, Survey Research
Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rogier, S. and Padgett, M. (2004), “The impact of utilizing a flexible work schedule on the
perceived career advancement potential of women”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Shockley, K.M. and Allen, T.D. (2007), “When flexibility helps: another look at the availability of
flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 479-93.
Staines, G.L. and Pleck, J.H. (1984), “Nonstandard work schedules and family life”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 515-23.
Work schedule
satisfaction
517
Swody, C.A. and Powell, G.N. (2007), “Determinants of employee participation in organizations’
family-friendly programs: a multi-level approach”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 111-22.
Van Dyne, L., Kossek, E. and Lobel, S. (2007), “Less need to be there: cross-level effects of work
practices that support work-life flexibility and enhance group processes and group-level
OCB”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1123-54.
Voydanoff, P. (2004), “The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and
facilitation”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 398-412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005), “Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for
work-to-family conflict and perceived stress”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 491-503.
Wang, P. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2007), “Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment,
and work withdrawal: the moderating role of transformational leadership”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 397-427.
Wilson, M.G., Polzer-Debruyne, A., Chen, S. and Fernandes, S. (2007), “Shift work interventions
for reduced work-family conflict”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 162-77.
About the author
Nicholas J. Beutell is a Professor of Management at Hagan School of Business, Iona College, USA.
He received his PhD in management with a concentration in Human Resource Management from
Stevens Institute of Technology. His major research interests include the work-family interface,
career management, and international and web-based human resource management. His
research has appeared in the Academy of Management Review,International Journal of
Management,Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of Managerial Psychology,Journal of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship,Journal of Vocational Behavior, among others. Dr Beutell is a
Fellow of the Eastern Academy of Management and is a member of the Academy of
Management and SHRM. Nicholas J. Beutell can be contacted at: nbeutell@iona.edu
CDI
15,5
518
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyright owner. Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
... However, very few studies consider both IEQ and work-related factors toward occupant productivity. Although Lan et al. (2010) analyzed IEQ and work-related factors' effect on productivity, their study only considered a limited number of work-related factors such as workload and should be further improved by considering more factors such as schedule flexibility (Beutell, 2010). In addition, Awada et al. (2021) explored how work, worker and workspace affect productivity, but the productivity measured is a relative productivity (i.e. ...
... Work-related factor can also influence occupant productivity (Schiavon and Altomonte, 2014). Unlike IEQ factors, work-related factors are unrelated to environmental quality, mainly including workload (Lan et al., 2010), schedule flexibility (Beutell, 2010), communication (Sherman et al., 2013), interest in work (Shikdar and Das, 2003) and privacy (Lee, 2010). ...
Article
Purpose——Personal lifestyle, work environments and work-related factors can significantly affect occupant productivity. Although many studies examine the affecting factors of occupant productivity in offices, explorations for the home-based work environment, which is designed mainly for living purposes, are still scarce. Moreover, current pandemic has made work from home a new normal for workers around the world. Therefore, it is important to identify key causal factors of occupant productivity when working from home. Design/methodology/approach——This study employed descriptive analysis and regression analysis method to explore the relationship among personal lifestyle, indoor environmental quality and work-related factors toward occupant productivity. A questionnaire including a comprehensive list of key measures was designed and 189 valid responses were collected from more than 13,000 participants. Findings——Results show that a healthy lifestyle, the perceived satisfaction of visual and acoustic environment, communication, interest in work, workload, flexible schedule and privacy positively affect occupant productivity when working from home, while coffee consumption, outside views and windows have negative effect. Originality/value——Opportunities to enhance occupants' home-based work productivity include developing a healthy lifestyle by taking advantage of flexible schedule, equipping a working room at home with advanced and intelligent environment control systems, and improving communication, workload and schedule by changing the policy of companies.
... Therefore, the conflict between the work and family is a form of interrole conflict [4] that has two dimensional structures. The first: the conflicts due to the working rules with family rules that called workfamily conflict and Second, the conflicts due to family rules with working rules that known as familywork conflicts [5]. Generally work -family conflict, has been reported more than family-work conflict [6]. ...
... Also mediating role between job stressors and Work -Family Conflict has been confirmed [13]. Role conflict arises when a person involved in one or more conflicting behaviors, and is forced to behave inconsistently (5). Role ambiguity also occurs when the person realize that, there is sufficient information for an active job (12). ...
... Given this context, several researchers have dedicated themselves to study, under different approaches, the conflict/balance between work and home experienced by executives in overseas assignments. The literature in this field has at times explored the organizational level, with analyses of the antecedents and consequences of the conflict between work and home (Beutell, 2010). Additionally, some studies have been performed at the individual level of analysis with qualitative approaches to understand expatriates' perceptions of work conflicts and what organizations can do to alleviate this problem (Fischlmayr & Kollinger, 2010;Rosenbusch, Cerny II & Earnest, 2015). ...
... In conclusion, the active role assumed by the expatriate in the present study allowed for the expansion of the findings of the literature beyond the organization actions in relation to the work-home interface (Beutell, 2010) and beyond the conflict between these domains (Kempen, Pangert, Hattrup, Mueller & Joens, 2015). It was possible to identify, at the micro level of social action, the management of boundaries that the expatriates perform and that allow them to minimize the negative consequences of possible inconsistencies between preferences regarding the boundary between work and home. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to understand the tactics that expatriates use to manage the interface between work and home. This qualitative study was performed using in-depth interviews later submitted to content analysis, with 64 male Brazilian expatriates. The results showed that expatriates manage the conflicts that may appear in relationships with social actors from the organizational (e.g., employers, customers, and suppliers) and home (spouse, children, and parents) domains by using boundary work tactics. The analysis revealed a list of tactics that allow the expatriates to integrate or segment the work and home domains. This study suggests how expatriates can actively interact with people from work and home domains in such a way that they can build and maintain better work and home relationships during the period they are living in other country. Additionally, companies should develop work-home policies that consider the preferences that an expatriate and his family have for integrating or segmenting work and home domains.
... Prior research has demonstrated single item measures of family life satisfaction to be inclusive and valid, and to have the advantage of being easier and take less time to complete, while retaining face validity (Fisher et al., 2016). Moreover, prior studies have provided evidence for the validity of a single-item measure of family life satisfaction in relation to various measures of job characteristics and of employees' functioning (e.g., Beutell, 2010;Gillet et al., 2021). ...
Article
This study examined how individual strategies (boundary creation around information and communication technology; ICT) and job stressors (work‐related extended availability) relate to psychological detachment, and how the latter associates with employees' behaviors (presenteeism) and attitudes (family life satisfaction). This research also explored the moderating role of performance‐based self‐esteem in these relationships. Questionnaire surveys were collected among 321 teachers in Sample 1 and 283 workers in Sample 2. Results from Sample 1 revealed that boundary creation surrounding ICT was positively linked to psychological detachment but only among employees with low performance‐based self‐esteem. Results from Sample 2 indicated that work‐related extended availability negatively related to psychological detachment but only among employees with high performance‐based self‐esteem. In addition, psychological detachment was associated with lower levels of presenteeism (Samples 1 and 2) and higher levels of family‐life satisfaction (Sample 2). More generally, these results confirm performance‐based self‐esteem to be a maladaptive individual characteristic, adding up to a negative cycle of stressors to decrease psychological detachment, in turn leading to maladaptive functioning.
... Various studies have examined the impact of marital status on WFC and intentions to leave an organization. In several studies, a negative impact of marital status on WFC was found (Beutell, 2010;Mukanzi & Senaji, 2017;Rathi & Barath, 2013). On the other hand, Liu et al. (2020) found no significant association between marital status and WFC. ...
Article
Full-text available
Family and work are the most important aspects in an individual"s life, and the primary goal is to find a balance between these two. Given the characteristics of working in the hotel industry, employees in this industry very often face a conflict between family and work. This study aims to measure the impact of socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education and marital status) on work-family conflict (WFC) and turnover intentions (TI). On the sample of 1.100 employees in different hotel facilities by applying t -test and analysis of variance ANOVA, it was found that tested socio-demographic characteristics are not significant indicators of experiencing WFC, but age and marital status are proven to be significant determinants of turnover intentions. Results obtained in this study can help managers to understand antecedents and consequences of experiencing work-family conflict and to undertake activities to reduce these conflicts and turnover intentions of employees.
Article
Full-text available
Work-family conflict can lead to irreparable losses to individuals, families and organizations. This matter is especially important for married working women who cannot eschew home responsibilities. To consider an appropriate intervention for this issue, we investigated the effect of a one-month intervention on support from the workplace and the family, individual characteristics and work-family conflict. This quasi-experimental longitudinal study includes an intervention group and a control group, and uses a pre-test, post-test and 6-months follow up design. Participants were 120 married women working in healthcare services, recruited from two cities in South Iran. The web-based multimedia educational program comprised four modules: one for each of the women participants, their spouses, their co-workers, and their workplace supervisors. Data collection tools included a demographic information form, and co-worker support, supervisor social support, spouse support, core self-evaluation and work-family conflict questionnaires. The effect of the intervention was examined at two post-intervention time points. A comparison of changes in mean scores between the intervention and control groups indicated that scores of supervisor support, spouse support, core self-evaluation and work-family conflict in the intervention group one month and six months after the intervention were all significantly improved compared to before the intervention. There was no benefit of the intervention in terms of a change in co-worker support. There was no significant difference across the three time points in the control group. These results confirm that online educational methods can enable health promotion professionals to reduce work-family conflict to the benefit of both employees and organizations.
Article
Purpose The study has a twofold purpose. The first purpose is to understand the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on women's work–home integration and stress from both a constructivist and positivist perspective. The other purpose is to emphasize the need for enterprises to understand the embedded considerations of occupational stress of women for strategy formulation. Design/methodology/approach The study has used a convergent parallel design to obtain data. A total of 63 respondents (a survey with a sample of 53 and ten narratives) was identified using the snowball technique. The respondents were married and working professionals from Kerala. Perceived stress scale was used to procure data on their stress in the home-based work during the pandemic lockdown. Simultaneously narratives were taken from ten respondents from the same pool. The data were analyzed using R software version 4.0.2. Findings The findings reflect that home-based work was stressful for women, and they weighed home tasks over work needs. There was no age difference in perceived stress, while it significantly differed by profession and designation they hold. Also, a mother felt more stressed than a non-mother. Quantitative data heavily backed up the narratives. Of the sample, 76% experienced higher stress levels. Practical implications This research will help users understand the stress distribution in women workers and how various sample characteristics influence stress. The enterprise could use this study to introduce a gender touch to their strategy. The study also adds value to the existing literature on home-based work during the pandemic. Originality/value The study systematically measures the stress felt by women during home-based work using a perceived stress scale. The mixed approach to the study helps to gain a deep understanding of the topic. This study is an original contribution by the authors to the collection of home-based work and stress literature.
Article
Full-text available
We use a meta-analysis to introduce a framework that integrates research on the relationship between working hours and the work-family interface. Using the work-home resources model, we integrate work-family enrichment and conflict theory, focusing on the positive and negative mediational processes of human energy. We conceptualize working hours, within the framework of the work-home resources model, as having the potential to increase vigor and exhaustion in tandem, which in turn would lead to increased work-family enrichment and work-family conflict, respectively. Our model suggests, and a meta-analytic investigation (N = 459,846) confirms that the two dimensions of human energy, vigor and exhaustion, mediate the relationship between working hours and work-to-family enrichment and conflict, respectively. Taken together, our findings contribute to the literature by integrating the positive and negative energy mechanisms in the relationship between working hours and work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Specifically, by showing the parallel paths of vigor and exhaustion that occur when individuals increase working hours, we reconcile mixed findings regarding the effect of working hours on the work-family interface.
Thesis
Full-text available
‘Quality of Work Life’ (QWL) refers to the broad work-related experience an individual has in an organization. However, this experience depends on certain job condition factors prevailing in an organization. This job condition factors also result in certain job outcome factors which in turn influence the QWL of employees in an organization. Thus, the present study aimed to examine the direct impact between job condition factors, job outcome factors, and QWL among women workers in the seafood processing industry in Kerala. The mediating role of job outcome factors in the job condition factors-QWL relationship was also studied. The study also aimed to assess the QWL, job condition factors, and job outcome factors on the basis of selected socio-economic status and job related profile of women workers. A model of job condition factors, job outcome factors, and QWL was developed and it was stated that ‘the job condition factors prevailing in the seafood processing units positively or negatively influence both job outcome factors and QWL of women workers. Also, the job outcome factors positively or negatively influence the QWL of women workers. Further, job condition factors positively or negatively influence the QWL through an increase or decrease in their perceived job outcome factors i.e. job condition factors have both direct and indirect impact on QWL; the indirect impact being through job outcome factors’. Job condition factors (antecedents) include pay & benefits satisfaction, physical job demands, total physical hazards, abusive supervision, supervisory support, role overload, and job insecurity. Job outcome factors (mediators) include work-family conflict (WFC), family-work conflict (FWC), job satisfaction, and turnover intention. The major dependent variable was the QWL. 450 local women workers were randomly drawn using multi-stage random sampling method in a descriptive survey for the study. Structured interview schedule was used for collecting primary data. Harvard professor Richard E Walton’s eight dimensions’ scale was used for measuring QWL and other validated measuring instruments were used to measure job condition factors and job outcome factors in a five-point Likert scale. Statistical packages such as SPSS and AMOS 20.0 were used for analyzing the collected data. Frequency table, mean and standard deviation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modelling (SEM), one-way ANOVA, and independent sample t-test were the statistical tools used in the study. The study confirmed that the majority of the job condition factors have a significant influence on job outcome factors and all the job outcome factors have a significant impact on the QWL of women workers. It was observed that job insecurity was the major contributor of WFC, FWC, and turnover intention among women workers, whereas, pay & benefits satisfaction was the major contributor of job satisfaction among women workers. It was confirmed that among job condition factors, pay & benefits satisfaction was the highest influencing factor of QWL. It was also observed that among job outcome factors, job satisfaction was the highest influencing factor of QWL. It was confirmed that increase in pay & benefits satisfaction and supervisory support leads to increase in QWL. Also, increase in physical job demands, total physical hazards, abusive supervision, role overload, and job insecurity lead to decrease in QWL among women workers. The study demonstrated the mediating role of job outcome factors in the relationship between job condition factors and QWL among women workers. The study also supported the direct effect of job condition factors on the QWL of women workers. The results of one-way ANOVA and independent sample t-test revealed that the socio-economic status and job related profile of women workers have a significant role in their perception towards QWL, job condition factors, and job outcome factors. The findings of the present study provide valuable guidance on how to implement QWL programmes by focusing on reasonably managing job condition factors aiming at maintaining job outcome factors which will enhance the QWL of women workers in the seafood processing industry in Kerala. The implications of the study for theory and research are discussed, its limitations and directions for future research are suggested.
Article
Full-text available
An examination of the literature on conflict between work and family roles suggests that work-family conflict exists when: (a) time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; (b) strain from participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; and (c) specific behaviors required by one role make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another. A model of work-family conflict is proposed, and a series of research propositions is presented.
Article
Full-text available
The potential impact of the backgrounds of Generation Xers and BabyBoomers was reviewed to determine whether key factors and defining moments in their histories may explain the communication disconnect in our nation's workplace. Of special concern, the review sought to analyze the backgrounds of Generation Xers and BabyBoomers to find out how these perspectives influence workplace attitudes and perceptions. It is contemplated that, if these issues can be discussed openly, a more positive work relationship can be cultivated. Additionally, the techniques that could be used by Boomer supervisors to communicate effectively with Xers were reviewed. The results show that, despite a lot of name-calling and blaming, the American workforce and ethic remain strong, and Xers are, slowly but surely, altering the work environment In a manner that may ultimately benefit the family unit and reaffirm America's strong individualistic spirit. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the unique backgrounds of Xers and Boomers and develop a methodology for resolving workplace conflicts between the two generations.
Article
Full-text available
Review of life satisfaction in the work-family literature including the life satisfaction-job satisfaction connection.
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines self-employment in relation to work-family conflict, work-family synergy, autonomy, work pressure, mental health, physical health, and satisfaction indices. The analysis uses data from a national probability sample (n = 708 self-employed), the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce. Significant relationships were found for all of the major variables while controlling for gender, age, and marital status. Mental health symptoms were the strongest predictor of work-family conflict overall while work pressure was the strongest predictor of work-interfering with family (WIF) conflict. Work-family conflict was negatively and significantly related to satisfaction outcomes (i.e., job, family, and life) controlling for age, gender, and marital status, while work-family synergy was positively related to these satisfaction outcomes. A post hoc analysis comparing self-employed participants to wage and salary participants indicated better overall adjustment for the self-employed. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
An examination of the literature on conflict between work and family roles suggests that work-family conflict exists when: (a) time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; (b) strain from participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; and (c) specific behaviors required by one role make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another. A model of work-family conflict is proposed, and a series of research propositions is presented.
Article
Full-text available
The effects of shift work and job schedule control on the family life and health of American workers are analyzed. Using data from the 1992 National Study on the Changing Workforce ( N = 2,905), this article tests whether negative family and health outcomes associated with nonstandard job schedules result from (a) problems of adjusting to the times of nonstandard shifts and/or (b) the lack of scheduling control and (c) whether schedule control mediates the effects of nonstandard shifts. Multivariate results indicate that although nonstandard shifts have few effects, lack of scheduling control has strong negative effects on six of the eight family and health outcomes. There is no evidence that control mediates the effects of schedule times, nor that these effects vary by gender or family status. Implications of these results are discussed.
Article
Psychology has increasingly turned to the study of psychosocial resources in the examination of well-being. How resources are being studied and resource models that have been proffered are considered, and an attempt is made to examine elements that bridge across models. As resource models span health, community, cognitive, and clinical psychology, the question is raised of whether there is overuse of the resource metaphor or whether there exists some underlying principles that can be gleaned and incorporated to advance research. The contribution of resources for understanding multicultural and pan-historical adaptation in the face of challenge is considered.
Article
Burnout has primarily been conceptualized as a result of chronic work stress in an environment with limited opportunities for renewal of resources. Present theoretical models focus on burnout symptoms but rarely on its causes or the developmental process. The Conservation of Resources Theory (COR theory) is being introduced. Following the COR theory, burnout is a continuous process caused by an ongoing, usually low-level, loss of resources. The development of burnout can be described as a spiral of resource losses which obtains its dynamic within the nexus of work stress and unsuccessful coping. Those who are burning out either find their resources threatened with loss, or actually lose resources, or failure to adequately gain fresh resources after significant resource investment. We discuss these basic tenets of the COR theory by reinterpreting recent empirical studies on burnout in educational and organizational settings.
Article
This research was funded in large part by the LSE Industrial Relations Department Basil Blackwell Teaching Fellowship, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, the Overseas Research Studentship Award, and the LSE Metcalfe Studentship for Women. This funding is gratefully acknowledged.