This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Course Coursework Tutor
RESE1058: Foundations of Scholarsh & Res The Dissertation Plan MJ Ferguson
Course School/Level Assessment Weight Submission Deadline
BU/PG 70.00% 15/03/2010
Coursework is receipted on the understanding that it is the student's own work and that it has not, in whole or part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledged in accordance with the University's Regulations regarding Cheating and Plagiarism.
Pravin Kumar Mani
Grade Awarded___________ For Office Use Only__________ Moderation required: yes/no Tutor______________________
Final Grade_________ Date _______________
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1.1 A brief history........................................................................................................... 1.2 Importance and objective 1.3 Hypotheses................................................................................................................. 2. Literature ..................................................................................................................... 2.1 Motivation Studies..................................................................................................... 2.2 Factors studies............................................................................................................ 2.3 Method literature........................................................................................................ 3. Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 4Appendix AHR questiionaire........................................................................................... 5Bibliography ....................................................................................................................
Curiosity is the basic drive for a lot of things in life. Curiosity over a particular thing induces interest which in turn induces the human mind to learn more. I have embarked on this dissertation with such a kind of motive. The topic of my study is “Study of employee perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance” A brief insight into what Work- life balance is: The term “work/life balance” was coined in 1986, although its usage in everyday language was sporadic for a number of years. Interestingly, work/life programs existed as early as the 1930s. Before World War II, the W.K. Kellogg Company created four six-hour shifts to replace the traditional three daily eight-hour shifts, and the new shifts resulted in increased employee morale and efficiency. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s seminal book (1977), Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy, brought the issue of work/life balance to the forefront of research and organizations.2 In the 1980s and 1990s, companies began to offer work/life programs. While the first waves of these programs were primarily to support women with children, today’s work/life programs are less gender-specific and recognize other commitments as well as those of the family. We all play many roles: employee, boss, subordinate, spouse, parent, child, sibling, friend and community member. Each of these roles imposes demands on us that require time, energy and commitment to fulfill. Work-family or work-life conflict occurs when the cumulative demands of these many work and non-work life roles are incompatible in some respect so that participation in one role is made more difficult by participation in the other role. (Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001) Work/life balance, in its broadest sense, is defined as a satisfactory level of involvement or ‘fit’ between the multiple roles in a person’s life. Although definitions and explanations vary, work/life balance is generally associated with equilibrium, or maintaining an overall sense of harmony in life. The study of work/life balance involves the examination of people’s ability to
manage simultaneously the multi-faceted demands of life. Although work/life balance has traditionally been assumed to involve the devotion of equal amounts of time to paid work and non-work roles, more recently the concept has been recognized as more complex. There exists three basic aspects of work life balance
Time balance, which concerns the amount of time given to work and non-work roles. Involvement balance, meaning the level of psychological involvement in, or commitment to, work and non-work roles. Satisfaction balance, or the level of satisfaction with work and non-work roles.
This model of work/life balance, with time, involvement and satisfaction components, enables a broader and more inclusive picture to emerge. For example, someone who works two days a week and spends the rest of the week with his or her family may be unbalanced in terms of time (i.e. equal measures of work and life), but may be equally committed to the work and non-work roles (balanced involvement) and may also be highly satisfied with the level of involvement in both work and family (balanced satisfaction). Someone who works 60 hours a week might be perceived as not having work/life balance in terms of time. However, like the person who works only a few hours a week, this individual would also be unbalanced in terms of time, but may be quite content with this greater involvement in paid work (balanced satisfaction). Alternatively, someone who works 36 hours a week, doesn’t enjoy his or her job and spends the rest of the time pursuing preferred outside activities may be time-balanced but unbalanced in terms of involvement and satisfaction. Thus, achieving balance needs to be considered from multiple perspectives. (Hudson).
The meaning of work/life balance has chameleon characteristics. It means different things to different groups, and the meaning often depends on the context of the conversation and the speaker’s viewpoint. The following are working definitions of terms used regarding work/life balance; some definitions overlap and some are continuing to evolve.
Work/family: a term more frequently used in the past than today. The current trend is to use titles that include the phrase work/life, giving a broader work/life connotation or labeling referring to specific areas of support (e.g., quality of life, flexible work options, life balance, etc.) Work/family conflict: the push and pull between work and family responsibilities. Work/life balance from the employee viewpoint: the dilemma of managing work obligations and personal/family responsibilities. Work/life balance from the employer viewpoint: the challenge of creating a supportive company culture where employees can focus on their jobs while at work. Family-friendly benefits: benefits that offer employees the latitude to address their personal and Family commitments, while at the same time not compromising their work responsibilities. Work/life programs: programs (often financial or time-related) established by an employer that offer employees options to address work and personal responsibilities. Work/life initiatives: policies and procedures established by an organization with the goal to Enable employees to get their jobs done and at the same time provide flexibility to handle personal/family concerns. Work/family culture: the extent to which an organization’s culture acknowledges and respects the family responsibilities and obligations of its employees and encourages management and employees to work together to meet their personal and work needs.
A brief history:
During the 1960s and 1970s, employers considered work-life mainly an issue for working mothers who struggled with the demands of their jobs and raising children. Throughout this period and into the mid-1980s, the U. S. government had the major impact in the field, as reflected by the Presidential Conference on Families, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Quality of Employment Survey. During the 1980s, recognizing the value and needs of their women contributors, pioneering organizations such as Merck, Deloitte & Touche, and IBM began to change their internal workplace policies, procedures, and benefits. The changes included maternity leave, employee assistance programs (EAPs), flextime, home-based work, and child-care referral. During the 1980s men also began voicing work-life concerns. The term ‘work-life Balance’ was first coined in 1986 in reaction to the unhealthy choices that many Americans were making in favor of the work place, as they opted to neglect family, friends and leisure activities in the pursuit of corporate goals. Articles of the time suggested a sharp increase in the working hours of the Americans. This had started to affect their families and individual heath. Work life balance slowly was gaining grounds in the various organizations. By the end of the decade, work-life balance was seen as more than just a women’s issue, affecting men, families, organizations and cultures. The 1990s solidified the recognition of work-life balance as a vital issue for everyone--women, men, parents and non-parents, singles, and couples. The 1990s saw a rise in the number of working women and the dual-income families. A second family configuration, the lone parent household also became prevalent in the 1990s. the labor force experienced considerable challenges in balancing the work and family responsibilities. This growing awareness of the central importance of the issue resulted in major growth in attempted work-life solutions during this decade. Numerous studies showed that the generations from baby boomers to new college graduates were making job choices based on their own work-life issues and employers’ cultures. Unfortunately, although companies were adopting family-friendly policies, employees and managers were not implementing them. Many of the policies put into place in the 1980s failed to have a significant impact on most managers’ and employees’ real-world work-life-balance
results. Americans still reported feeling even more overworked and out of touch with their nonwork lives much of the time. (Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001) It can also be argued that much of the above discussion is no longer relevant to our discussion on work-life conflict due to labour market changes that occurred in the late 1990s and beyond. Proponents of this view contend that organizations have made significant progress with respect to work-life balance in recent years. They attribute increase in corporate awareness to two issues: the greater need to recruit and retain workers, and changing attitudes toward work. Such changes, they argue, have provided a power impetus for companies to turn to more flexible, family friendly workplaces as a means of retraining and energizing key employees and meeting strategic objectives. Arnold Deutsche, in his book entitled The Human Resource Revolution: Communicate or Litigate noted that today’s “knowledge workers” hold work attitudes that differ in many ways from those of the “factory and production” workers that preceded them. Key differences include rising expectations for a more rewarding career, more humane working experiences and a greater “democratization” of the workplace. Today’s employees are more likely to want a career not “just a job” and a meaningful life outside of work. Many have high expectations about gaining satisfaction from their work now and in the future, and want a say in decisions affecting their jobs and their employment. Researchers are also seeing a different set of attitudes in individuals just entering the workplace.
As Conger (1998, p. 21) notes:
In a nutshell, they distrust hierarchy. They prefer more informal arrangements. They prefer to judge on merit rather than on status. They are far less loyal to their companies. They are the first generation to be raised on a heavy diet of workplace participation and teamwork. They know computers inside and out. They like money but they also say they want balance in their lives.
Research also indicates that this group wants choice, flexibility and increased control over both their jobs and the work-life interface (Conger, 1998). Individuals who are now entering the workforce tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs. While these individuals enefited from the extra family income being in a dual-income family entailed, many felt that they were deprived of their parents’ company, a situation aggravated by the fact that a very high percent were the children of divorce (Conger, 1998). Many in this new generation of workers say that they do not want the sort of lives their parents led. Rather, they want to spend more time with and be more available to their families (Conger, 1998). This increased desire and quest for a “real balance between work and private life” has major implications for today’s workplace, especially with respect to recruiting and retaining this cohort. This generation can be expected to insist that organizations find more flexible ways to integrate time for family and private lives into demanding careers (Conger, 1998). The business practices that motivated the homogeneous, male breadwinning workforce of the past, therefore, may simply not work for this group of employees. Conger (1998) also suggests that this yearning for life balance may increase conflict for this new generation of workers as their value for interesting work, which is often accompanied by longer hours and greater demands, conflicts with their desire for happy marriages, meaningful family time and weekends they can call their own.( Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001)
1.2 Importance and Objective:
A work/life balance survey conducted in 2002 by TrueCareers states that 70% of more than 1,500 respondents said they don’t have a healthy balance between their personal and work lives.“Holding a Job, Having a Life: Strategies for Change” 2001 study by the Work Institute of America points out that employee-driven solutions help reduce overtime, stress, and workloads, and increase flexibility and family and leisure time. Scientists agree that in moderate amounts stress can be benign, even beneficial, and most people are equipped to deal with it. However, increasing levels of stress can rapidly lead to low employee morale, poor productivity, and decreasing job satisfaction. Some of the specific symptoms that relate directly to productivity in the work environment are abuse of sick time, cheating, chronic absenteeism, distrust, embezzlement, organizational sabotage, tardiness, task avoidance, and violence in the workplace. Other serious repercussions are depression, alcohol and drug abuse, marital and financial problems, compulsive eating disorders, and employee burnout. Dr. Bruce S. McEwen, director of the neuro endocrinology laboratory at Rockefeller University, has been studying stress for more than three decades. As he notes, “blaring car alarms, controlling bosses, two-career marriages, six mile traffic jams, and rude salesclerks were simply not part of the plan.” Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), offered by many employers, are an excellent resource for employees under stress. EAPs provide a myriad of services, from drug and alcohol abuse counseling to addressing family and marriage problems, financial and legal difficulties, and stress-related problems. In addition, in line with the times and the increasing stress levels in our society, a new profession has emerged: work/life professionals. The concept of work/life professionals originally developed as an extension of wellness programs (established as early as 1933) and EAPs (created in the 1940s). Diversity and work/life initiatives can be found at the core of the new social contract being negotiated between employers and employees. “The basic outline of the social contract, as it has emerged during the past several years, calls for workers to commit their best contributions and greatest energies to the job in return for interesting work, respectful treatment, developmental opportunities, and an environment that responds to individual needs. Where those provisions conflict (e.g., the degree of commitment and energy expected by employers versus the flexibility required by employees), the expertise of both diversity management and work/life professionals will be critical to find win-win solutions.”
Why Should Employers Care about Employees’ Work-Life Balance? Many organizations feel that helping employees balance competing work and non-work demands is not their responsibility. Rather, they subscribe to a somewhat outdated view called the “myth of separate worlds” that is based on the premise that work is work and life is life and that the domains do not overlap. Such organizations argue that “it was the employee’s choice to have a family so balancing competing demands is their problem not ours.” Such organizations also note that they are “in the business” of increasing shareholder value and serving customers and not helping employees cope with stress. In other organizations, employees without dependent care responsibilities interpret “family friendly” as favoritism and complain that they are being “unfairly” or inequitably treated. Such employees feel that their colleagues with childcare or eldercare responsibilities are “getting away with less work” and that the needs of childless employees are being ignored. This backlash against “family friendly” makes it harder for organizations who wish to address the issue. Our research debunks the above preconceptions and supports that the inability to balance work and family is “everyone’s problem.” High work-life conflict negatively impacts the employer, the employees’ colleagues, the employee, the employees’ family, and society as a whole. From the employer’s perspective, the inability to balance work and family demands has been linked to reduced work performance, increased absenteeism, higher turnover, lower commitment and poorer morale. Work-life conflict has also been linked to productivity decreases associated with lateness, unscheduled days off, emergency time off, excessive use of the telephone, missed meetings, and difficulty concentrating on the job. Conflict between work and family demands is also a problem for employees and their families. (Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001) Work-life balance strategies are used as solutions to reduce these growing work life conflicts. All the above mentioned facts address the fact that Work life balance welfare measures influence the overall loyalty of an employee towards his/her organization. Now in our study we are going to do a detailed study of the above fact by dividing work life balance into subsections and studying the effect welfare measures related to the same on the employee’s performance level.
The null hypothesis for the first part of the study, is that organizational understanding improves work life balance for the employee The hypothesis is that organizational understanding does not improve work life balance for the employee. The null hypothesis for the second part of the study, is that flexible work schedule improves work life balance for the employee The hypothesis is that flexible work schedules do not improve work life balance for the employee. The null hypothesis for the third part of the study, is that child care practices improve work life balance for the employee The hypothesis is that child care practices do not improve work life balance for the employee.
An evaluation of the literature sources pointed out online management journals like JSTOR and search engines like Google scholar to be the best of source points for collection of previous reviews. So, most of my literature review is from the above mentioned sources. 2.1 Motivation studies The article which majorly inspired me to take up this study on work / life balance measures effectiveness is the article named “The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: a review of the literature” by Philippa Yasbek. This article enumerated the numerous benefits of work life balance measures. They are the following • Reduced staff turnover rates (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life Balance,2003; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001; Galinsky and Johnson,1998; Eaton, 2001) • Less loss of knowledge workers to competitors (Dex and Scheibl, 1999) • Lower recruitment and training costs, associated with reduced turnover (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001; Eaton, 2001)
• Becoming a good employer or an employer of choice (Dex and Scheibl, 2001;Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997) • Broader recruitment pool (Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001) • Improved quality of applicants (Dex and Scheibl, 1999) • Increased return on investment in training as employees stay longer (Dex and Scheibl, 1999) • Reduced absenteeism (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life Balance, 2003;Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources Development Canada,2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Comfort, Johnson, and Wallace, 2003) • Reduced use of sick leave (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997) • Reductions in worker’s stress levels (Evans, 2001) • Reduced liability for stress under the Health and Safety in Employment Act • Increased return rate from parental leave (Managing Work/Life Balance, 2003) • Reduction in worker stress from conflicts between work and family roles (Evans, 2001; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; White, et al. 2003) • Improved morale or satisfaction (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life Balance, 2003; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Comfort, Johnson, and Wallace, 2003) • Greater staff loyalty and commitment (Dex and Scheibl, 2001; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Eaton, 2001) • Greater flexibility in deploying staff such as an ability to offer extended hours of business to customers (Evans, 2001; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002) • Improved corporate image, which can lead to greater sales or improved stock price of ethical investment choice (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001) • Improved productivity (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures,1997; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Eaton, 2001)
2.2 Factor studies Since the article had references to all its point a detailed study into all the uses urged me to do a more subdivided study on the Work life balance measures. This lead me to examine articles which studied the extent to which various family friendly measures influenced an individual’s performance. This article cited here, “Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family friendly policies on Altitudes of Federal Government Employees”. I have quoted the article so as to provide a better understanding. “We are concerned with both the direct and indirect effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction. Flextime, for instance, may increase job satisfaction directly by enhancing an employee's perceptions of his/her working conditions and benefits. At the same time, it might prove helpful in abating work-family conflicts for those with significant family demands, thus improving their sense of satisfaction with work-family balance and, in turn, their job satisfaction. Further, previous research suggests that direct and indirect effects may sometimes be inverse to one another, with a particular policy having a positive direct effect on job satisfaction, for example, but having a negative impact on satisfaction with work-family balance and thus a negative indirect effect on job satisfaction. Therefore, we examine the effects of these familyfriendly policies on both satisfactions with work-family balance and job satisfaction. Organizational Understanding: our findings show that organizational understanding has more impact on both satisfaction with work-family balance and job satisfaction than all family-friendly policies examined here, for the overall sample and for most subpopulations. Even where specific policies are significantly related to satisfaction; the actual impact of perceived organizational understanding outweighs those effects by a factor of six or sevenfold in most cases (betas not shown). Indeed, for young single men, men in traditional households, and unmarried fathers, organizational understanding is the only family-friendly factor with a significant effect on satisfaction with work-family balance. These findings are consistent with earlier research showing that adopting family-friendly policies in the absence of a supportive organizational culture may encounter resistance from both employees and management (Ford Foundation 1997; Friedman and Galinsky 1992; Hochschild 1997; Vincola 1998). More importantly, in unsupportive organizations, work-family concerns may not be recognized as legitimate human resource issues and may not be integrated into the organizational culture. As a result, managers
may effectively penalize workers who use or express an interest in using family-friendly policies, viewing them as less committed to their jobs and less deserving of job advancement or resources needed to perform their jobs (Daddy Trap 1998; Ford Foundation 1997; Hall 1990; Hochschild 1997). Because managers and organizational cultures can do so much on an informal basis to either undercut or advance official policies, we should not be surprised to find organizational understanding to be as significant, or even more significant, than use of specific family-friendly policies in predicting satisfaction with work-family balance and job satisfaction. At the same time, because our (and most other researchers') measure of organizational understanding of family needs is a subjective indicator of respondents' perceptions, we can-not be sure whether the demonstrated impact is indeed a function of actual organizational understanding or whether we have found simply that employees who are positive about their jobs are likely to be more positive about their employers' response to family needs as well as more positive about their own ability to achieve a desirable balance between work and family. Flexible Schedules: Flexible scheduling is the most commonly used family-friendly policy examined here; it may also be the most evenly dispersed among various subpopulations. Consistent with an early study of flextime in federal employment (Bohen and Viveros-Long 1981), but contrary to other research (Winett and Neale 1980; Winett, Neale, and Williams 1982), use of flexible schedules in our entire sample demonstrates a small negative effect on job satisfaction and shows no significant impact on satisfaction with work-family balance. Further, reliance on flexible scheduling has no significant impact on either work-family balance or job satisfaction for most of our subpopulation groups. However, for reasons that are not clear, older unmarried men relying on flexible schedules (nearly half do, demonstrating the highest usage rate of cohorts examined) are significantly less satisfied with their work-family balance than their counterparts who do not use flexible schedules. Yet unmarried mothers using flexible scheduling are significantly more satisfied with theirs, as might be expected in light of their difficult role as single parents and the way that flexible schedules might help them meet those responsibilities. Flexible schedules might be a desirable benefit for reasons other than clear-cut family ones, evidenced by the significant positive relationship between flexible schedules and job satisfaction among young women in dual-income households with no children present; use of such schedules has no impact on work-family balance, but it is the only family-friendly policy linked to job satisfaction for this cohort.
Child Care Again consistent with previous research (Ezra and Deckman 1996), we do not find use of the specific child care options provided by the government to have a significant impact on levels of satisfaction with work-family balance for either the sample as a whole or for any of the subpopulations examined. However, we do find that use of any of these child care programs has a direct positive effect on job satisfaction, both for the sample as a whole and for specific subpopulations. For mothers in dual-income households, unmarried fathers (but not unmarried mothers), and married men aged 60 or older (perhaps with a second family or care of a grandchild), use of any of the child care resources available is directly associated with greater levels of job satisfaction. Indeed, it is noteworthy that for unmarried fathers and older married men, child care is the only specific family-friendly policy, outside of organizational understanding, to exert a direct influence on job satisfaction.” If closely observed the above cited article presents a different weightage to different factors. This made me ponder upon reexamining these in addition to assessing the total impact and also finding out any additional factors. An in addition to these articles the reference cited in these articles and sub articles were also reviewed to underline the above mentioned conceptualizations.
2.3 Literature for methodology METHOD Research Design The research design for this study is descriptive and had utilized a multi-method approach. Quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods have been employed. This design was chosen as it is a way to collect data in order to answer questions about the employee perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance.The study also identified and described the worklife balance of the employees in the company and how it affects the organizational commitment of employee perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance.The research methods selected are survey and interviews; as such research instruments employed included a survey questionnaire and follow-up interviews guide, with the former being carried out first. ANOVA and Correlation tests were done to test the significance of worklife balance on organizational commitment. The survey questionnaire will be conducted within the company employees as respondents. Interviews will be conducted to enrich and verify information ought to be gathered regarding Worklife Balance and Organizational from the survey questionnaires. These interviews will help to place the data gathered into context which aided interpretation. Subjects and sampling procedure The organization selected for this study was PRIMARK. It is a chain of retail stores across uk with minimum of 50 employees in each store . The rationale behind the selection was that there is a mix of employees from different ethnic origin and other diversity which exists among the employees currently working for it. As mentioned, this study aimed to explore about the employee perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance. The study which will be a purposive sampling method in selecting the respondents from the official list of employees provided by the firm’s human resource representative, the researcher will select those who fall under the definition of highly diversified group. .
Research Instruments There were three (3) instruments which will be used for the study. The first instrument, developed by the researcher, will be the interview guide for the semi-structured interviews with the human resources representatives of the organization. This was accompanied by a letter of request to the general manager to accommodate the group (which is a requirement and prevails as a constraint). The second instrument was the survey questionnaire for the employees, which started with items on their basic information. The questionnaire was composed of two scales, namely the Worklife Balance Scale , and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire . The third instrument was the interview guide for the semi-structured interviews with employees. The purpose of these interviews was to expound on the data that will be obtained from the survey questionnaires. Questions were based from the review of literature as well as the survey questionnaire. Follow-up questions were asked to probe for more information and clarification from the interviewees. However, the interview guide was only tentative as the questions could vary depending on the answers of the respondents in the survey questionnaire. Also, an audio recording device will be utilized to document both the interviews with human resource department representatives and employees for data analysis.
Worklife Balance Scale The worklife balance scale was adapted from the article “Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed to Measure WorkLife Balance” of Hayman (2005). The chosen scale was used over other scales because of its relevance for participants who do not have family responsibilities but still may experience work impinging on their personal life. It assessed if the participants currently feel that they had a balance between work and life. The article was an assessment of Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton and Gavin (2003) original scale that was also used to assess the three dimensions of worklife balance namely: work interference with personal life (WIPL), personal life interference with work (PLIW), and work/personal life enhancement (WPLE). The updated scale consisted of 15 items from the original 19 items which had higher
Cronbach alpha values for the three factors of 0.93 for WIPL, 0.85 for PLIW, and .69 for WPLE. The 15 items was divided into 5 items for each factor. The first five items measured Work interference with personal life (WIPL), while the next five items measured personal life interference with work (PLIW) and lastly, the final five items easured work/personal life enhancement (WPLE). Item number seven was reversed scored. Scores with a higher score signifies less balance. A 7 point time related scale was used (e.g. 1=Not at all, 4=Sometimes, and 7=All the time). Hayman, (2005) researched that the time based stem is recommended so that the respondents would have the same time frame for reference while responding to Worklife Balance and Organizational Commitment of each item. Hayman (2005) also stated that the scale had acceptable reliability estimates and factor loading patterns for worklife balance. Three-component model of Organizational Commitment questionnaire The three (3) component model of organizational commitment questionnaire, revised by Lee, Allen and Meyer (2001) is a 15-item questionnaire in a 7-point Likert scale that measures the three components of commitment namely affective, continuance and normative. With a total of 15 items, each component was confirmed using 5 questions each. The first five items measured Affective Commitment (AC), whereas items six to ten measured Continuance Commitment (CC), and the last five items measured Normative commitment (NC). This questionnaire was chosen over the earlier questionnaire models by Allen and Meyer, 1991, and Allen and Meyer 1996, because of the reported findings that the questionnaire was mostly conducted in North America. This questionnaire on the other hand was restructured per item, tested in emic-etic approach to be a better fit to the data than other competing models (Lee, Allen, & Meyer, 2001). The test has been adapted for Asian respondents. Compared to the Nonwestern questionnaire revision by Ko, Price, and Mueller (1997) of Cronbach's alphas: ACS=0.86, CCS=0.61, NCS=0.74, the questionnaire by Lee, et al. (2001) rated Cronbach’s alphas of 0.86 for ACS, 0.76 for CCS, and 0.83 for NCS. The questionnaire has confirmed good psychometric properties in terms of validity, internal consistency with respect to turnover intention (Lee, K. et al,(2001).
Nancy R .Lock wood. (2003) Research Quarterly. Work life balance- challenges and solutions.Society for human research management. Philippa Yasbek .2004 Labour Market Policy Group.http://www.futureofwork.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.pdf Ezzedeen, S. R., & Swiercz, P. M. (2002). Rethinking worklife balance: Development and validation of the cognitive intrusion of work scale (CIWS)—A dissertation research proposal. Proceedings of the 2002 Eastern Academy of Management Meeting. Fineman, M. (1999). Why diversity professionals should care about work/life balance. Mosaics, 5, 6, 6-7. Fingerman, J. (2003). Tip of the Month for February 2003. Work & Family Connection. Retrieved February 4, 2003, French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York: Wiley. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family— Allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press. Gottlieg, B. H., Kelloway, E. K., & Barham, E. (1998). Flexible work arrangements: Managing the work-family boundary. New York: John Wiley & Sons. In perspective: Use of work/life benefits on the rise. (2002). IOMA’s Report on Managing Benefits Plans, 02, 8,7-9. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States:A critical review and agenda for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Labor project for working families. (2002). Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://istsocrates.berkeley.edu/~iir /workfam/home.html Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 5, 801-815. Landauer, J. (1997, July). Bottom-line benefits of work/life programs. HR FOCUS, 74, 7, 3-4. Lee, M. (1997). Fighting back against stress in the workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Chiron International Publishing.Mack, D. R. (2002). Balancing work and family. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www.shrm.org/consultants/links/balancing.htm
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. McCartney, C. (2002). Work/life balance: The role of the manager. Training, 35.Montague, J. (2001). Redesigned work improves business, life balance. Control Engineering, 48, 3, 14-15. The Online EAP Directory, http://www.eap-sap.com/eap/Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 3, 299-312. Parus, B. (2000). Measuring the ROI of work/life programs.Workspan, 43, 9, 50-54. Parus, B. (2002). Recognition: A strategic tool for retaining talent. Workspan, 45, 11, 14-17. Raphael, T. (2001). The drive to downshifting. Workforce, 80, 10, 23. Reynolds, H. B. (1999). It’s not enough to offer work/lifeprograms—you need to promote them. Benefits Quarterly Saltzstein, Alan L.; Ting, Yuan; Saltzstein, Grace Hall.2001Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family friendly policies on Altitudes of Federal Government Employees”. Public Administration Review, v61 n4 p452-67. Web site resource: JSTOR and SAGE journals WWW.SCRIBD.COM
Gantt wise tabulation.
TASKS Collecting data from hr executives Collecting data from employees Analysing the data Interpreting Post analysis Final compilation
START DATE 03/20/2010 03/25/2010 03/30/2010 04/05/2010 04/10/2010 04/20/2010
DURATION(DA YS) 5 6 10 4 8 9
END DATE 03/25/2010 03/31/2010 04/10/2010 04/14/2010 04/08/2010 04/29/2010