Work Life Balance: Definition, Roles And Impact

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The following section of this project reviews literature related to work-life balance (WLB) and describes why this complex topic with numerous factors and cofactors underpinning its severity calls for much care from business leaders and has captured the attention of many scholars. It also highlights the academic contributions in the interplay between WLB, organizational commitment and workers’ motivation.

Definition of WLB

Originally introduced in 1972 during the International Labour Relations Conferences (Hian and Einstein, 1990), a large and distinctive body of research shed light on WLB which is considered by work-family researchers as a pervasive subject of contemporary interest. Greenhaus and Allen (2006) who are known as famous pioneers in the field of WLB, stated that WLB refers to “the extent to which an individual’s effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are compatible with the individual’s life priorities”. Drawing on previous research studies, many scholars have suggested that WLB involves a two-way functioning dimension to WFC (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a, 1992b; Frone, Yardley, and Markel, 1997) as family interfere with work and vice-versa resulting in family-to-work and work-to-family conflicts respectively. Consequently, involvement in the work domain becomes more hectic due to participation in the family sphere and vice versa. (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

As opposed to early studies that frequently pointed out that WLB refers to the absence of WFC (Greenhaus, Collins, and Shaw, 2003), some recent scholarly research lay emphasis on the work-family interface from a relatively more dynamic and integrative perspective. As stated by Aminah Ahmad (2008) in her research titled “Job, Family and Individual Factors as Predictors of WFC”, with shifts in the working culture and patterns and in the demography of the labour market, WLB is of increasing interest. Researches have also proven that work-life imbalance which is widely referred to as WFC may result in serious health issues (Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Frone, 2000; Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002;Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997) and poor organizational performance (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;Allen, Herst, Bruck, &Sutton, 2000).

Employers’ roles and responsibility in driving a WLB culture

In accordance with the study by Thompson and Prottas (2006), it was pointed out that a strong managerial support positively impact WLB. Drawing on an earlier research work by the same author in 1999, it was suggested that management support is one of the key driving force maintaining a healthy WLB culture. It was also found that work-family culture creates work-family benefits by workers, develops an emotional attachment to their job position, prevents WFC to arise and reduces the intentions of quitting an organization.

In a study carried out by Bardoel (2003), an examination of the relative roles of managerial factors as opposed toresource dependent and institutionalcomponents to explain management’s provision of work-family programs and to accommodate a working culture in Australia was made. This research has proven that managerial factors are accountable for most of the variance and that identified benefit and acquired efficiency was linked with a fair provision of work-family strategies being implemented. Managers’ strategies and attitudes were associated to the general number of initiatives offered. Institutional initiatives, strategies and practices of large firms or public corporations were contributors instead of being key drivers of decisions of implementing work and family while individual managers drove the outcome.

From a research by Manfredi & Doherty in 2006, the authors came to the conclusion that the most common arrangements amongst support staff are informal flexi-time, part-time, working from home occasionally, and compressed working hours. Malik, (2007) stated that employers can help their employees to provide alternatives working arrangements in line with business requirements to meet customer’s ever-changing demands. However, the efficiency of recording procedures and systems plays a predominant role to maintain fairness and accuracy across the company. Nigel Marsh (2010) during a speech delivered in Australia on “How to make WLB work” stipulated that to reach the nub of the complexity of WLB, employers’ focus should shift from organizing dress-down Fridays, offering paternity leaves or flexi-time which, according to him, “only serve to mask the core issue” and should instead discuss on the fact that some job positions and career options are fundamentally incompatible with employees being completely devoted to their family life.

Various studies consistently express the crucial role of supervisor support in managing WFCs not only in terms of appraisal but by providing support instrumentally, informationally and emotionally also as identified by Nielson, Carlson and Lankau (2001). An empathetic supervisor shows support in the occurrence of unforeseeable family events, especially when working parents have to care for their sick elderly parents or offsprings and cancellation of child care arrangement (Brough & O’Driscoll, 2005). Conflict and tensions are reduced when workers benefit from flexible work schedule to manage unpredictable demands (Kelloway, et al., 1999; Nielson, et al., 2001).

Employees’ roles and responsibility in driving a WLB culture

In their research titled “Impact of working hours on work life balance”, Sarah Holly and Alwine Mohnen (2012) settled their main objective as analyzing the influence of the working hours of workers on their job satisfaction level. Their research has shown that the majority of workerswilling to reduce their working hours is highly dependable on the overtime allowances offered to them. The final results have also demonstrated that generally long working hours do not lower employees’ satisfaction level but impacts their life positively and a reduction in working hours creates an adverse effect on their job satisfaction.

As observed by Nigel Marsh (2010) after dedicating seven years of his life in studying WLB, each individual is solely responsible for designing his lifestyle as WLB is not the main concern of governments and corporations. Emphasis was laid on the fact that both unethical companies which he considers as “the abattoirs of the human soul” and well-intentioned firms create a false consciousness to exploit workers at the expense of the quality of their life. To explain the corporate ideology of WLB, he pointed out that some firms provide childcare facilities so that working parents can spend longer hours at their workplace. N. Marsh (2010) also stated that by changing society’s perception of success away from the “moronically simplistic notion that the person with the most money when he dies wins, to a more thoughtful and balanced definition of what a life well-lived looks likes”, the quality of life can be radically transformed. Thus, the workaholic culture referred to as “an individual difference characteristic referring to self-imposed demands, compulsive overworking, an inability to regulate work habits, and an overindulgence in work to the exclusion of most other life activities” by Robinson (1997), has to be addressed by changing employees’ attitudes.

Work-family conflicts

Managing a balance between the work and the family domain is a delicate managerial challenge that most organizations have to deal with. As defined by Kahn et al. (1964), work-life conflict is “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect”. While a vast academic body of traditional studies on WLB explores the conflictual relationship between the family and work demands, much of modern literatures suggest that an individual’s quality of life can still be enhanced while being engaged in both roles. In the conceptualization of the sources of conflict, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) identified three major forms of WFC, namely, time-based conflict, strain-based conflict and behavior-based conflict.

When the time spent in performing one role entails painstaking effort to participate in the other role, time-based conflict arises. Time-based conflict encompasses the compulsive hours worked and schedule mismatch as pointed out by Pleck et al. (1980) and role overload as found by Kahn et al. (1964). As endorsed by Buck, Leem MacDermid and Smith (2000), the concept of time-based work family conflicts is based on the scarcity model implying that each individual has a restricted amount of energy whilst a study by Nordenmark (2002) underpins the expansion model suggesting that substitute resources proceeding from multiple roles are more impactful than the plausible stressful outcomes of multiple role engagements. Generally, work-family scholars are acknowledging the complexity of WFC and its multi-dimensional construct.

Herman and Gyllstrom (1977) used work schedule control to demonstrate why university professional staff members encountered more difficulties to carve out time to undertake their dual responsibilities than faculty members who work relatively on longer hours. The conclusion drawn from this investigation is that when employees have control over their work schedules and enjoy flexible working hours, work-family fit is naturally increased. However, a laborious study by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) on the development of a flexi time program in a government agency revealed that the provision of basic program may have been insufficient to reduce the work-family tensions of employees with major childcare responsibility, especially working mothers. Thus, the endorsed degree of flexibility and employees’ personal commitments may mutually influence the occurrence of WFC.

Strain-based conflict, the second form of WFC, arises when strain in participating in one role upsets the performance of an individual in the execution of another role. Evidences significantly support that work stressors can engender strain symptoms like burnout, nervousness, tension, irritability and apathy (Brief, Schuler, & Van Sell, 1981; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980). This form of conflict which results from poor work team support and organizational culture (Hill, 2005) and unsatisfactory spouse support (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), indicates the mental and emotional strain from undertaking the work and family responsibilities and demonstrate how demands from the two spheres can be incompatible.

Despite the fact that the prevalence of behavior-based conflict was not pragmatically evaluated (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), this form of conflict arises the specific behavioral pattern required in conducting one role is incompatible with the behavioral expectation in another role. For example, according to managerial perception, a male manager is expected to be self-reliant, emotionally stable, objective and aggressive (Schein, 1973) while in the family domain, the family members may expect him to adopt a sincere, sensitive and affectionate behavior. Difficulties to adapt behavior to fulfill the expectations of different roles thus creates interrole conflicts as suggested by studies by Bartolome (1972), Gudmundson (2003), Greiff and Munter (1980), Steiner (1972), and Walker (1976).

Additionally, evidences have proven that WFC is one of the main sources of work-related stress in the United States (Allen, Herts, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Frone, 2003). As pointed out by Duxbury & Higgins (2003), in Canada, the persistent shifts in family structures and the constant increase in the proportion of employees with child care, elder care or both, cause an increase in the time allocated in employment and to participate in non-work related activities. According to Gill & Davidson (2001), the sharp increase in broken homes which has led to a rise in single-father families has resulted in a growing pressure on men to assume more family responsibilities. Consequently, with the burden of family caregiving, many men, like women, are encountering increased stress levels and conflicts as they struggle to reconcile family and work demands (Tennant and Sperry, 2003) although research by Doherty & Manfredi (2005) suggests that women show greater concern for WLB than their career aspirations as compared to men.

Benefits of WLB policies

In the limelight of a study titled “HR interventions for WLB” by R Baral and S Bhargava (2011), it was pointed out that with technological progress, demographic and organizational changes, the concern for WLB is becoming rampant. These scholars suggest that WLB policies must be implemented and fully integrated in the organizational culture for improved employee commitment and productivity. Narayanan & Narayanan (2012), Roehling, Roehling, & Moen (2001), Susi & Jawaharrani (2011) and Yasbek (2004) provide clear explanations on how WLB policies can be cost effective by retaining the talented and committed staff, improving organization’s productivity (Sands and Harper, 2007), reducing work-related stress and creating a healthier working atmosphere. Firms adopting WLB policies can not only reduce their absenteeism (Dex and Scheibl, 1999) and attrition rate but also become an employer of choice which can boost their competitiveness. Other merits of such policies include improvement in recruitment process and retention rates (Allen, 2001; Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002; Honeycut & Rosen 1997; Konrad & Mangel, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).

Nelson, Nemec, Solvik, & Ramsden (2004) focus on the benefits of granting financial assistance to firms for the development of the WLB policies and practices via WLB Challenge Fund (WLB-CF). The findings from this research demonstrated that the WLB-CF considerably boost employers’ willingness to bring drastic amendments in their employment practices and elaborate strategies enhancing WLB.

Realistically, WLB implies altering working patterns so that each individual irrespective of the demographic characteristics can synchronize employment and other responsibilities and ambitions (Pillinger, 2001). In fact WLB policies are widely associated with ‘flexible working’, and englobe policies like part-time jobs, job sharing, flexibleworking, term-time working, shift works, annualized hours, e-working, working from home, career breaks and study leaves. The main target of such policies is to reach a fit between work and home demands that are equitably beneficial to both the employers and workers.

However, Hall & Atkinson (2005) clarified that to maximize the benefits from such policies it is essential to effectively formulate them and devise a well-designed and rational mechanism for their implementation. A decentralized approach can expose workers’ needs without interpreting management’s view on the functioning of work-life integration (WLI) policies. In accordance with the Flexible Work Arrangements Guide (2007) and Redmond et al. (2006), conducting a consultation process between employees and the management before implementing the strategies guarantees that to the most effective policies are adopted. Moreover, supervisors need further support to deliver the policies and ensures impartiality and uniformity when integrating WLB policies.

Frameworks to study WLB (models)

Distinctive concepts with varied pool of explanations in their focus have been developed by different work-life researchers. Somehow, for this study purpose, the two following conflicting models have been considered, namely the spillover model and segmentation model.

The spillover model

The spillover model which is the most commonly adopted theory by work-family researches (Zedeck and Mosier, 1990), although strictly criticized by Rice et al. (1980) in a review article, claims that experiences in one role influences experiences in the other role. According to Rothbard (2000), two interpretations of spillover exist, namely positive and negative spillover where the former postulates positive behaviours, achievement and satisfaction in one area can be transferred in the other area and the latter holds that difficulties encountered in one domain entitle similar feelings in another domain.

Studies by Doby and Caplan (1995) which found out that loss of reputation leads to negative feelings in the family sphere and Williams and Alliger (1994) concluding that negative emotions of working parents are more impactful than positive humours, are consistent with Young and Kleiner (1992)’s perspective suggesting that work and family works as a single entity in the spillover theory and thus no boundary exists between these two spheres.

The segmentation model

The earliest stance on the link between work and family viewed these two spheres as independently segmented and hence do not influence each other. This concept was introduced and applied by Blood and Wolfe (1960) in their investigation on blue collar work experiences. Results showed that work and family segmentation occurs naturally for employees performing unsatisfying or un-involving work tasks. In contrast with the spillover theory, the segmentation model considers the role of family and work as distinct entities where experiences from one sphere do not influence experiences in the other sphere (Young and Kleiner, 1992). Lambert (1990) somehow argues that segmentation is not naturally induced but has to be initiated by employees attempting to draw a line of demarcation between their work demands and family responsibilities.

In a research by Parasuraman et al. (1992) where two career couples were considered as population-based sample, the work attributes which includes role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload were associated solely to job satisfaction. Findings revealed that the family attributes are related to family satisfaction but has no effect on job satisfaction and vice versa. Hence, this study supports the segmentation model as it demonstrates the unresponsiveness of events occurring within one area towards the other which helps to reduce strains from assuming multiple roles.

Impact of WLB on organizational commitment

The psychological contract theory developed by Rousseau (1995) identified that women and other family caregivers can bargain to include additional employment arrangements such as family-responsive benefits in terms of flexible work schedule in their psychological contract (as cited in Scandura and Lankau, 1997). In exploring the links between gender, family obligations and flexible hours worked with organizational commitment and job satisfaction, it was pointed out by Scandura and Lankau (1997) that superior organizational commitment level and job satisfaction are experienced by women recognizing that their employers offer flexible working.

Click Here To Order Now!