Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The recent past is a witness to major changes in Indian workplace and families. An increasing number of women, participating in the workplace have brought about diversity in the workforce and consequently a greater need for balancing the work and life of employees belonging to both the genders (Bharat, 2003; Ramu, 1989; Sekharan, 1992; Komarraju, 1997; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000). There was a time when work and home were separate domains and employees had fixed working hours or rather a 9 to 5 job from Monday to Saturday (Bharat, 2008). Gradually this boundary became blurred and then disappeared as the wave of privatisation, liberalisation and globalisation swept through the country. Instead of a 7 or 8 hour working day, people started spending as much as 12 to 16 hours working in the office (Ibid). The result is reduction in the time available for family and personal life related activities. The technological blessings – internet, mobile and laptops began invading the personal space of the individuals. Along with this came the incessant pressures of achieving targets, meeting deadlines and surpassing competition. The public sector banking in India, which till now had been ensconced in Government protection was suddenly exposed to the strategies of technology savvy and nimble private and 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Chapter 1INTRODUCTION
The recent past is a witness to major changes in Indian workplace and families. An
increasing number of women, participating in the workplace have brought about
diversity in the workforce and consequently a greater need for balancing the work and
life of employees belonging to both the genders (Bharat, 2003; Ramu, 1989; Sekharan,
1992; Komarraju, 1997; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000). There was a time when
work and home were separate domains and employees had fixed working hours or rather
a 9 to 5 job from Monday to Saturday (Bharat, 2008). Gradually this boundary became
blurred and then disappeared as the wave of privatisation, liberalisation and globalisation
swept through the country. Instead of a 7 or 8 hour working day, people started spending
as much as 12 to 16 hours working in the office (Ibid). The result is reduction in the time
available for family and personal life related activities. The technological blessings –
internet, mobile and laptops began invading the personal space of the individuals. Along
with this came the incessant pressures of achieving targets, meeting deadlines and
surpassing competition. The public sector banking in India, which till now had been
ensconced in Government protection was suddenly exposed to the strategies of
technology savvy and nimble private and foreign sector entrants’ post 1991.
Intensification of work demands on employees reflects in growing reports of stress and
work imbalance (Bhagwagar, 2009).
Traditionally, Indian banks had offered mass banking products such as Savings Bank,
Current Account, Term Deposit and lending products at rates fixed by the Reserve Bank
of India and remittance instruments in the form of Drafts, Bankers Cheques, Internal
Transfer of funds and Telegraphic Transfers. However, the developments of 1990s
changed the entire structure. The banking sector was deregulated, new players stiffened
competition and the Information Technology revolution eased customer operations. The
information explosion caused by access to internet, resulted in both individual and
corporate customers demanding a wider variety of products and better services. On one
hand it resulted in faster communication, easy access to information and on the other it
led to tighter schedules and ever-escalating corporate targets. The market focus was
1
shifting from mass banking products to class banking with introduction of value added
and customised products. While even the private sector has seen changes in the past few
years, these changes have been more pronounced and comprehensive in case of the
public sector banks. To be able to cope with the ever increasing competition, the public
sector banks were forced to match steps with the private sector banks and this meant an
attitudinal change for the public sector employees. This has not been a simple situation
for the public sector employees, who have been faced with new pressures and realities
coupled with a huge pile of inconsistencies. This study was undertaken how the current
realities have affected the personnel of the public and private banking sector in the
country.
Chapter two traces the history of banking in India , throwing light on factors
contributing to the differences in the culture of public and private sector banking and
hence, their inherent outlook towards profit making and customer service. It was seen
that Private and Foreign banks were better and stronger performers than the Public sector
banks (IBA, 2008). The Private banks had been more successful vis-à-vis Public sector
banks in implementing Total Quality Management initiatives related to customer dealing,
human resource management, and top management commitment (Selvaraj, 2009). There
were other factors as well that emerged from sharper differences between the structure
and philosophy of the Public and Private sector banks. These differences were due to
their respective background which was reflected in their work culture. Public sector
banks had been formed on the concept of socio-economic responsibility with profit as a
secondary motive. On the other hand, for a Private sector bank, profit formed the primary
focus. This was an important factor in shaping the work culture of Public and Private
bank and is deemed in turn to influence the Quality of Work/Life, Work/Life Balance
and Job Performance of the employees. Since, these would eventually influence the
growth and profitability of the bank; it makes for an interesting and important study.
Furthermore, it was observed that public and private sector banks differ with respect to
their compensation pattern. Public sector banks structure compensation in a way such
that there are lower pay differentials between the employees, long-term tenure is
rewarded and there is a high base pay, whereas in the private sector banks, there are
2
larger pay differentials, fewer rewards for tenure, and pay for performance (D'Souza,
2002). In addition, the working environment in private sector banks has been found as
growth driven, technologically advanced, and devoid of bureaucracy, where employees'
promotions are highly contingent on their performance and merit (Jha et al.,, 2008; Singh
and Kohli, 2006; Thakur, 2007). This has an influence on the Quality of Work/Life of
the employee and consequently on his Work/Life Balance.
Since, Work/Life Balance comes out as a dominant issue for the banking sector, given
the changing social set-up and the increased competition at work, extensive literature
review was undertaken in chapter three to understand issues facilitating and inhibiting it
in detail. It was seen that the issues related to Work/Life were compounded due to the
significant shifts in the societal patterns in India. Joint families, which formed the
backbone of the Indian society, are fast disappearing, to be replaced by nuclear families
(Patel 2005). In a joint family system, one had had to care for elders and they, in turn,
would nurture and take care of the other younger members of the family. Today, the
nuclear families with both the partners working at having a career have created a new
dynamics that has become emotionally demanding for the individual. Financial and
social obligations have assumed a different level of significance today. At the same time,
in spite of more women going out to work, there has been little change in patterns of
household responsibilities (Singh 2004). This coupled with the needs of the organisation,
creates havoc with the work and life balance of a person. Work/Life Balance has, indeed,
become a hot topic of discussion and its importance can be gauged from the studies and
surveys conducted all over the world by government bodies, organisations and
researchers (Pocock et al., 2007; Pocock, 2008; Duxbury and Higgins, 2003; Hurst et al.,
2008; Arthur, 2002; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Craig, 2006). With an
increasing number of singles grappling with work-life issues, concepts like part-time and
temporary work have become an everyday phenomenon. There is a lot of diversity in the
twentieth century workforce which needs to be explored and there are dimensions that
influence the quality of work-life balance an individual can forge. Then, Work/Life also
seems to have linkages with Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance of an individual.
Hence, this angle was included in the literature review to arrive at a complete picture.
3
Thus, the research study was undertaken with the following objectives in mind:
a) To understand the status of Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank
employees.
b) To understand the status of Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector
bank employees.
c) To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and the Quality of
Work/Life of an employee.
d) To explore the relationship between work-life balance and employees’ perception
of his job performance.
e) To identify workplace factors that have an impact on Work/Life Balance
Chapter four dealt with the methodology adopted for the research, discussing the
research design, research instruments, the data collection process and the statistical tools
used for the analysis. A mixed research design was adopted where the initial part of the
study had exploratory research design followed up by descriptive research design.
Reserve Bank of India divides banking operations in the India into 6 regions – Eastern,
Western, Northern, North-Eastern, Southern and Central. Of these two zones, Northern
and Central were randomly selected (RBI, 2009). Further, from each of these, one city
was selected randomly, resulting in Jaipur, Lucknow and Delhi. A total of 6 banks, viz.
3 public sector (State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Union Bank) and 3
private sector (HDFC, ICICI and Axis bank) were selected (RBI, 2010).
The study was divided into pilot and final study. The sample size was 610 bank
employees (out of which data of 573 respondents was analysed). The data type was
primary and the data were primarily collected by the administration of structured
questionnaire (with responses measured on a seven point Likert scale) and interview
method. The data collected through the structured questionnaire were subject to
computations in the form of table which made the calculations and analysis easy. After
the analysis of surveys, in-depth interviews of bank employees were conducted to
understand the reasons behind the initial results. Various statistical tools and techniques,
independent samples t-test, ANOVA, factor analysis, correlation, regression and
structural equation modelling, were utilised to analyse the data.
4
The findings, descriptive and inferential analysis of data are given in chapter 5. The data
had a fair representation of female bank employees (27.2%), though; it definitely was
dominated by male employees (72.8%). This was in keeping with the actual population
of women employees in banks, which is in the range of 27-30% for metropolitan cities.
The age of the respondents ranged from 21 years to 59 years, with a mean age of 35.30
years. Such and other sample characteristics, like marital status, working status of
spouse, family size, family type, and number of children were looked into as were the
work-related variables viz., service tenure, average hours worked per week, income,
nature of duties and the city of posting.
The instrument used for measuring Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and
Employee Job Performance was developed by the researcher. There were three scales
which were developed – one for measuring the Work/Life Balance scores, another for
measuring the Quality of Work/Life of the bank employees and the third for measuring
the perceived Job Performance of the employee. The tool used for data collection was a
structured questionnaire with items measured on a seven point Likert scale. The validity
and reliability of these were checked and found to be within acceptable range.
The collected data was cleaned, coded and analysed for the comparison of mean score on
Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank employees; comparison of mean
scores on Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector bank employees;
significance of demographic and work-related variables for Work/Life Balance;
significance of demographic and work-related variables for Quality of Work/Life as also
separate analysis of the demographic and work-related variables for public and private
sector banks. Further, the relationship between Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life
Balance and relationship between Work/Life Balance and Job Performance, too, was
explored. Factors having an impact on Work/Life Balance were identified as was the
relationship between Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance
studied through Structural Equation Modelling. The hypothesised model was then tested
separately for public and private sector bank samples to gauge the similarities/differences
between the two samples and to identify the underlying structure.
5
The analysed results for Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life scores for public
and private sector bank staff were discussed in chapter 6. The mean WLB score for
public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a moderate Work/Life
Balance in general for the banking sector employees. However, the mean score for WLB
for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is 4.38. In this case the
employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance as compared to the
employees of public sector banks. The findings of the research, thus, were quite
interesting. A further analysis was done to understand the patterns of Work/Life Balance
that emerged from the sub-scales of the Work/Life Balance scale. These results revealed
that there was a significant difference in the Work Spillover in Personal Life (public
sector mean = 3.95; private sector mean = 4.37), Personal Life Spillover in Work (public
sector mean = 4.39; private sector mean = 4.92) and Work/Life Balance Constrainers
(public sector mean = 3.47; private sector mean = 3.65) for public and private sector
bank employees. In each of these sub-scales, the mean scores of public sector bank
employees was lower than the mean scores of private sector bank employees, clearly
hinting at private sector offering a better Work/Life Balance to the employee compared
to the public sector banks.
The findings of the present study revealed that the Work/Life Balance of male and
female bank employees differed from each other (p = 0.021). The next comparison was
based on the age groups of the employees. In the current study, it was found that there
was a significant relationship between Work/Life Balance and age of the employee.
Comparisons of the Work/Life Balance score between the public and private sector bank
employees with respect to age shows there was a significant difference in the WLB score
for the younger age group of 20-29 years and 30-39 years but not so in case of the older
age groups of 40-49 years as well as for the age group of 50-59 years working in public
and private sector banks. With respect to educational qualifications and Work/Life
Balance between public and private sector banks employees, the results show that there
are significant differences for graduates but not so for post-graduates and professionals.
Further, the current study revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB
scores for staff having nuclear family structure in public sector (M = 4.05) and private
6
sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.000) and also for staff having joint family structure in
public sector (M = 3.94) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), (p = 0.028). In both cases,
it can be seen that private sector staff has a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of
the public sector staff. Family size has acted variously as a facilitator and impeder for
maintaining balance in work and life. Exploring the family size – Work/Life Balance
equation, the current study, however, found that there were no significant differences in
the Work/Life Balance scores of individuals belonging to different family sizes, F (3,569) =
1.841, p = .139.
The current study indicates that there are significant differences in the Work/Life
Balance perception based on the service tenure of the employee, F (3, 569) = 12.076, p =
.000. Scheffe’s test revealed that there are significant differences between employees
with service tenure of 0-9 years and employees have longer service tenures of 10-19 and
20-29 years respectively. It seems that ‘the initial desire for a secure public sector job,
gives way to enjoying the better structured work culture in the private sector bank’
(interview with K Vinay Raj, HDFC, Hazratganj, Lucknow). It is this initial period,
when a private sector entrant is simultaneously preparing for public sector examinations,
that his work/life balance is skewed.
The mean working hours for public sector employees came out to be 48.41 hours per
week, while the mean for private sector bank employees was higher at 56.92 hours on an
average per week. These findings show that Work/Life Balance scores are similar for
both public and private sector employees working up to and including 48 hours per
week. These start showing a significant difference as the working hours go up over 48
hours per week. Even when the hours of work are longer at private sector, it has a better
Work/Life Balance compared to public sector. The difference in the Work/Life Balance
scores with varying hours of work in public and private sector is tied up with the reward-
performance linkage. Private sector rewards for the output which results from the longer
hours of work put it while in the public sector this linkage is not very clear.
Data analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff
performing managerial duties in public sector (M=3.92) and private sector banks
7
(M=4.32,), ( p=0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for staff performing non-
managerial duties in public sector (M=4.38) and private sector banks (M=4.52),
(p=0.266) was not significant. While studies in this respect could not be found,
interviews conducted with the public and private sector bank employees revealed that in
the case of public sector banks, the staff with non-managerial positions has lesser
decision making and responsibilities on them, leading to lower work pressures and
workloads and therefore, a better work/life balance.
Some studies have explored the relationship between WLB and income in context of the
family responsibilities of the employee and the results have indicated that higher income
works in mitigating work/life (im)balance situations, as Duxbury and Higgins (2001)
argue that, “while money cannot buy happiness, it can sure help people cope with work-
life conflict” (p. 61). The same is supported by the current study, where results imply
that as the income of the individual improves, he/she can opt for support services that
make coping with work/life issues easier for him/her. Where incomes are lower, private
sector (M = 3.76) employee show a lower Work/Life Balance as compared to the better
Work/Life Balance scores of the public sector (M = 4.25) bank employees.
The perception of quality of work/life among public and private sector bank employees
differs significantly. This difference in QWL cannot be attributed to the organisational
commitment of employees, supervisory support, rewards and promotion opportunities,
task and capability significance and job ambiguity, which have been perceived as similar
in cases of both public and private sector bank staff. Two major contributors to this
difference in perception are work load and work pressure. The QWL mean value for
public sector bank employees is 3.58, which is higher than 3.51, the mean value for the
QWL scores of private sector bank staff. This implies that the quality of work/life of
private sector bank employees is better than the quality of work/life of public sector bank
employees.
The current study supports a strong link between work/life balance and job performance.
This relationship emerges very strong in the absence of Quality of Work/Life as a
moderating variable (r = 0.91).
8
Based on the findings in chapter 5 and the discussion in chapter 6, certain suggestion
were made to the banking industry, especially to the public sector banks, in chapter 7.
1. Ensure an eclectic mix in age and skill in the personnel
Public sector has suffered to the wide gap in the age groups working with them. An
almost complete stop on recruitments during 1999-2008, there are very few staff
members in the age bracket of 34-39. With almost a complete generation missing in the
public sector banks, there is an increased burden of mentoring freshers who are entering
the system. This has led to additional stress on the officers higher up in the hierarchy.
2. Extend the option of family friendly policies to all employees
Work/Life Balance is an issue which needs to be looked into for everyone, be it single or
married, young or old, men or women, graduate or professional. However, it is this very
diversity in the workforce that calls for extending the benefit of family friendly policies
to all staff member rather than to certain categories.
3. Design cafeteria style benefit plans
Linking with the above suggestion, it would be best if a bouquet of benefit plans could
be designed and the employees helped to make the most relevant choice depending on
their gender, family life cycle, type of care giving responsibilities, income and support
network.
4. Identify and Check Work Standards often
Banking sector is under continuous change and workflows are more quickly dated and
are in need of continuous reviews. Job ambiguity and unreasonable work load need to be
checked and managed. The greater the clarity, the more is accomplished, the more all of
the employees will become aware of opportunities to save time, save energy and save
money.
5. Sustain Quality by Ensuring Staff is well-trained and retained
Bankers who are better trained and have a higher task capability are likely to accomplish
more and be more satisfied than others. Since satisfaction in a particular sphere goes
hand-in-hand with enhancing Work/Life Balance, employees with a better Work/Life
9
Balance are likely to be more committed to the job as well. What is needed is managers,
who are trained in operations forecasting, capacity planning and strategic planning that
will readily identify the line’s or the individual worker’s potential to produce – anywhere
in the bank. Good workers are not just found, they have to be trained, invested in and
retained. Employees who know the quality performance values of their bank should be
treated as real resources.
6. There are significant differences in the work/life scores of managerial and non-
managerial cadres. While both managerial and non-managerial tasks are taken care of by
officers in banks, quite a few non-managerial tasks are allotted to clerical staff. Public
sector has a surplus of clerical cadre, who are neither efficient nor eager to perform
routine or additional duties. Public sector should strive to reduce the numbers in the
clerical role and create more posts in the officer grade.
7. Job security in private sector banks
A recurring theme throughout the interview with private sector bank employees was the
lack of job security in private sector setting. These banks need to work upon providing
better job security, especially in light of the findings that the younger age group in the
private sector keep on exploring options of moving to the public sector due to this very
reason.
To conclude, while the public sector banks have remained oblivious to the family-
friendly policies, private sector banks have taken the initiative to incorporate such
policies into their Human Resource agenda. Further, the philosophy of the people
heading the private sector banks has time and again stressed the need and importance of
having Work/Life Balance as an integral part of working culture. Public sector bank
employees have not been provided the same benefits and the sector needs to explore
ways of improving its manpower management beyond providing just job security.
10
Chapter 2
BANKING SECTOR
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO INDIAN BANKING SECTOR
2.1.1 Evolution of Banking in India
2.1.2 Definition of Bank
2.1.3 Banking Structure in India
2.2 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT IN BANKS
2.3 BANK AND WORK/LIFE BALANCE
2.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
11
Chapter 2
BANKING SECTOR
2.1 Introduction
The year 1991 unleashed the potential of the Indian economy through major policy
changes popularly known as, Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG
model). A series of reforms were undertaken to make India globally competitive and
efficient, targeting the industrial, trade and financial sectors, shaking off the isolation,
inward looking restrictive governance and a hitherto conservative attitude that had been
embraced since independence in 1947. The financial sector reforms set in motion in 1991
and 1998 (Narsimhan Committee I – 1991; Narsimhan Committee II - 1998) had far
reaching results for the Indian banking sector, which moved gradually from a strictly
regulated environment to a deregulated, dynamic market economy. While the market
reforms brought in powerful, demanding and discerning customers on one hand, they
also introduced a new mix of competing players comprising public sector banks, private
banks and foreign banks. These changes were further fuelled by technological
developments acting as catalytic forces for introducing new products, adopting
innovative delivery mechanisms and in general re-writing the rules of working. The
Indian banking system proved resilient and a quick learner, adapting to the new
environment and coping with challenges ranging from WTO and Basel II to Free Trade
Agreements and sub-prime crises. Of special import were the organisational challenges,
requiring banks to re-orient their resources to capitalise on the opportunities being
presented before them. Tapping these meant re-organising branch networks, reducing
establishment cost, attracting and retaining talented staff pool as well as honing their
skills to perfection. The Indian banking sector, thus, poised at an exciting point in its
evolution shall crown those players as winners who can gauge customer expectations,
achieve high levels of customer retention, leverage technology and manpower, thereby
delivering value to all stakeholders.
12
2.1.1. Evolution of Banking in India
Banks and allied activities are not new in India. There is ample evidence in ancient
Indian texts of banks, bankers and investment activities. Vedas, the Manusmriti,
Kautalya’s Arthashastra suggested maximum and minimum interest rate. Manu, the
ancient Indian law-giver, discusses ways of earning wealth (Prasad, 1977) while the
Aitreya Brahman and Taitreya Samhita mention bank as an institution dealing with
money, which ‘like a magnet draws surplus money from the people who are not using it
at the time, and that deposited money is lent to those who are in a position to use it for
productive purposes’ (Prasad, 1977, pg.177). The circular flow of money was supposed
to increase the capital of a banker, who was called Sethi (Prasad, 1977). The system
survives even today in the villages in the form of Sahukaars lending money with very
little documentation and charging exorbitant rates of interests compounded on even
shorter Intervals.
In modern India, the earliest banks were established in the last decades of the 18th
century. Looking closely, the journey of Indian banking can be divided into four distinct
phases from 1770 till date. These are:
• Phase I: Early Historical and Formative Era: 1770 to 1905
• Phase II: Pre-independence Era: 1906 to 1946
• Phase III: Post-independence Regulated Era: 1947 to 1991
Bank, IndusInd Bank, Bank of Rajasthan, Development Credit Bank, Lakshmi Vilas
Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank (Business World, 2009).
18
2.2. Manpower Management in Banks
The banking reforms and liberal economic policies post 1991 completely shook the
working ethos of the public sector employees, who till then had been used to functioning
according to the 4-6-4 method (in banking parlance Borrow at 4%; Lend at 6%; Go home
at 4pm). Efficient, technology savvy working of private banks made the public sector
banks sit up and take notice.
Between 2004 and 2007, India’s new private banks have grown their
assets by 38% and their employee strength by 43%; for foreign banks,
the assets have grown 27% and employee strength 22%. During this
period, Indian public sector banks have seen their assets growing by
17% while the employee strength has actually gone down by 1%.
According to an estimate of Indian Banks’ Association, the country’s
premier banker body, between now and 2010 more than 63,000 public
sector bank employees will retire and bulk of them are officers. Public
sector banks, which collectively employ about 710,000 employees, need
500,000 new employees in next five years to maintain their growth.
(Goyal, 2007, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-01-02/news/28448432_1_work-life-balance-meritocracy-wrong-lessons accessed on 3rd March 2008)
Till recent past the human resource policies in public sector banks had been guided by
the philosophy of permanent jobs, stability and certainty of benefits. There is a glaring
difference in the efficiency of public and private sector bank employees. The average age
of a public sector banker is close to 50 while the average age of a private sector banker is
closer to 30 (Goyal, 2007). It is noteworthy that while ICICI Bank Ltd. (India’s largest
private sector bank) recorded ` 11.54crore business per employee in 2009, State Bank of
India (India’s largest commercial lender and the largest public sector bank) could garner
just ` 5.56crore worth of business per employee for the same period. SBI lagged behind
the industry average of ` 7.5crore per employee business generated (www.rbi.org.in).
With varying intensity the story is repeated across the number of private and public
sector banks operating in the country. Public sector banks have gained in terms of market
19
share in the previous decade, are rapidly catching up in product innovation, technology
implementation and marketing strategies but have failed to attract the right talent (Bhoir,
2010).
According to the Khandelwal Committee, ‘HR issues have suddenly come to the centre-
stage… (With) HR issues … as the new risk factor in the banking industry’ (Dhanorkar,
2010, http://www.moneylife.in/article/4/6981.html). Banking in a people oriented
business, which needs to be process-driven yet innovative, stable yet flexible and
responsive to change. Since, almost 65 to 70 percent of the total operating costs in banks
accounts for establishment expenses, making rationalisation of manpower in the industry
imperative. Keeping this in mind, the public sector banks had initiated the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme resulting in almost 12percent of the workforce seeking retirement
(Ravichandra in Kamath et al., 2003). VRS changed the nature of the workforce in the
public sector banks with many experienced, skilled and senior people opting for it. Since
banking is a knowledge-based industry, it is necessary to retain employees that can
provide a competitive edge to the bank. The crux of the solution lies in realising and
working towards making human capital the finest asset of the banking system. In recent
years several HR issues have come to the fore in the banking sector. The most prominent
and pertinent ones being:
Increased workloads: While on one hand technology has improved the pace of working
and has facilitated handling of complex, repetitive tasks with simplicity, computerisation
has increased the pressure of work and the responsibility attached to it. Newer
technology has seen most employees in the insurance and banking industry experiencing
serious strain and heavy work-loads (Ravichandra in Kamath et al., 2003). Further,
working for recovery of loans from companies and individuals, trying to attract
customers, rushing against deadlines are all impacting the mental health of Branch
Manager, Marketing Manager, Sales and Customer Care Executives etc. ASSOCHAM
has even suggested that there should be rooms for resting and employees be taught
various relaxation techniques (e.g. meditation, biofeedback, deep breathing or yoga) to
20
reduce stress during work hours. (Banks among top 10 high stress workplaces) retrieved
from http://www.banknetindia.com/banking/70518.htm r
Changes in Job Content: Work methods have seen changes in execution brought about
by computerisation. This has also had an impact on the skills required by the employees.
Routine transactions have seen skills of a mechanical nature on the rise. All the same
these require just as much or even higher degrees of concentration and attention, though
not as much mental effort as before. In contrast, in the area of customer services,
computerization offers potential for an increase in both the necessary range and level of
skills, for example, searching for, extracting and assimilating relevant information in
response to a request. Product innovations have generally led to an increase in the
importance of formal skills. The informal skills, learned on the job that characterized
work are no longer seen as important. With professional and technical jobs increasing in
number and importance, formal theoretical knowledge is becoming more important for
employees in the banking sector (Tremblay, 1991).
2.3. Bank and Work/Life Balance
Work/Life Balance of employees working in the banking sector has been the focus of
very few studies in India. However, there is a need to understand the factors which are
peculiar to the Indian scenario especially in light of the reforms that have been brought
about in the banking industry post globalisation and liberalisation. With the entry of
foreign banks and proliferation of private banks, there is increased competition for the
public sector banks and there is a steady change in the way banks have been functioning
in the country. In the recent past the services offered by Indian public and private sector
banks have undergone a paradigm shift. Customers now have greater choices available to
them and advancements in technology have geared up the competition manifold. Banks
are seeking to simplify the services offered and to reduce the operation times for
customers.
While all of these work in favour of the banks external customers, it is the internal
customer – the employee, who has to deliver the goods. Refurbishing the bank services
21
means an extended load on the bank employee, with longer hours at work, fewer
holidays and greater stress. It also means that the public sector bank employees can no
longer take it easy believing that they have a monopoly in the banking and finance
sector. Further, the foreign banks which have set up shop in India already have
Work/Life Balance on their Human Resource agenda and private sector banks were
quick to follow suit. While private sector banks do mention Work/Life Balance in their
HR policies, they do not necessarily follow it in practice. This is reflected in a rather
poor record of Work/Life Balance, even amongst the best employers (Bhattacharya,
2008).
Till a few years back, working hours used to be more or less fixed from 9am to 5pm or
10am to 5pm from Monday to Saturday or from Monday to Friday in case of five days a
week. For the banking sector, this privilege has faded with globalisation and instead of 7
or 8 hours working; bank employees are spending as much as 12 to 16 hours every day in
the office. The few studies conducted in Indian banks (Ghosh et al.,, 2010; Anbalgan and
Gowry, 2011) have shown that there is a considerable amount of occupational stress
among the employees of both nationalised and other banks. Role overload, role conflict
and lack of senior level support have been identified as the major contributors to stress
(Kumar, 2006). Occupational stress is fast emerging as a major problem for public sector
banks. Jayashree (2010) in her study on 100 public sector bank employees working in
Chennai found that they were faced with severe work pressures, expected to handle
multiple roles and responsibilities leading to time-based strain created due to real or
imaginary deadlines.
The All India Bank Officers’ Confederation (AIBOC) has categorically stated in its
charter of demands (AIBOC, 2007) that ‘Work/Life Balance is sadly missing in the case
of officers in Public Sector Banks’. The increasing shortage of staff due to VRS and Exit
policies has resulted in a tremendous pressure on the existing officers’ leading to
unlimited working hours and, appalling working conditions. The charter demands that
banks should introduce the concept of flexi-time and flexi-place and regulate the
working hours for employees in order to prevent building up of fatigue and the
consequent loss of health. Lady employees are at a distinct disadvantage as there is no
22
Creche facility for the benefit of their children and lack of other facilities like 6 months
maternity leave (banks at present have 90 days maternity leave rule).
Large state-owned banks in India have HR policies and practices similar
to those prevailing in government organisations, and have been slow to
appreciate the pragmatic and market driven HR policies and practices
required to compete with the new generation companies.
While public sector banks are still to fully appreciate the benefits of Quality of
Work/Life and Work/Life Balance for their employees, the private sector and foreign
banks have taken a lead in this area as can be seen by the HR mandates issued by HDFC,
ICICI and Standard Chartered Banks. ICICI offers "flexitime" and "buddy systems" at
work for its women employees and has family friendly HR policies including health-
related benefits, day care and rest room facilities, maternity leave, pick-up and drop
facilities addressing security concerns and provides the options for going on sabbaticals,
thus, taking care of quite a few Work/Life related issues (Wakhlu, 2008). Standard
Chartered recognised that Work/Life Balance was necessary for high productivity and
hence, began practices like offering flexible working hours, work from home and a 6-
month maternity leave. Further, counselling service was made available for employees
struggling with Work/Life conflict issues that could impact their performance (Standard
Chartered Bank, Annual Report, 2009-10). Though the private sector banks have family
friendly policies in place, these are not always practised in spirit.
2.4. Summary and Conclusion
Though, the human interaction in banking services has been decreasing due the increased
use of technology, banking still remains by and large a people oriented business at its
core. Banks are into the business of handling the money of the people, by the people and
23
for the people. The specific dimensions of service sector, intangibility, variability and
perishability of service processes along with the volatile customer expectations, make it
particularly vital for banking organisations (Hodson and Roscigno, 2004) to ensure the
Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life of their employees. This is especially
relevant in light of the fact that technology can be easily replicated and there is very little
differentiation offered by it in the long run. Ultimately, it is the quality of services
rendered by the human resource that can make all the difference and the quality of
services and organisational commitment of an employee are likely to be adversely
affected in case of low Work/Life Balance and reduced Quality of Work/Life (Von de
Looi, 1995 cited in Kandaswamy, 2009). Human resource and its humane touch is the
only remaining resource which cannot be replicated by competitors (Francisco, 2006).
Therefore, it is important to understand those factors that operate in an ‘internal
customer’s work and life that can impact his delivery in the service sector.
The working environment of an organisation has a major role to play in deciding the
quality of Work/Life of its employees. It is naturally assumed that the work culture of
public sector and private sector banks would be different, given the difference in their
origin and early operational philosophy framing their objectives. Public sector banks
were formed on the concept of social economy, where profitability was secondary. Funds
from public sector banks have time and again been diverted by the government for
financing various social sector schemes like poverty alleviation and special employment
programmes to further the social welfare initiatives. Private sector banks, on the other
hand, have worked for profits since their inception. Post 1991 liberalisation and
globalisation public sector was forced to change its working style to be able to compete
with the new generation private sector banks and foreign sector banks. Hence, there is a
pressing need to examine the Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank
employees and verify whether there is a difference in their perception of their Work/Life
Balance and quality of Work/Life experienced by them. The study aims to answer this
question.
24
Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF WORK/LIFE 3.1.1. Defining Work/Life Balance
3.1.1.1. Concepts related to Work/Life Balance3.1.1.2. Concepts related to Work/Life Conflict
3.1.1.2.1. Strain Based Conflict3.1.1.2.2. Time Based Conflict3.1.1.2.3. Behaviour Based Conflict
3.1.1.2.3.1. Role Overload3.1.1.2.3.2. Role Ambiguity3.1.1.2.3.3. Role Conflict
3.1.1.3. Linkages between work and life domains3.1.1.3.1. Accommodation model3.1.1.3.2. Compensation model3.1.1.3.3. Conflict (Interference) model3.1.1.3.4. Enrichment model3.1.1.3.5. Instrumental model3.1.1.3.6. Segmentation model3.1.1.3.7. Spillover model
3.1.2. Moderators of work-life balance3.1.2.1. Gender3.1.2.2. Caregiver Strain3.1.2.3. Life Cycle Stage3.1.2.4. Generational Cohort3.1.2.5. Individual Personality Traits
3.1.2.5.1. Locus of Control3.1.2.5.2. Self-efficacy3.1.2.5.3. Positive/Negative effect
3.1.2.6. Support Network3.1.2.6.1. Family
25
3.1.2.6.2. Work Associates3.1.2.7. Resource Quality and Accessibility
3.1.2.7.1. PIE barriers3.1.3. Consequences of work-life imbalance
3.2. QUALITY OF WORK/LIFE 3.2.1. Introduction and History
3.2.1.1. Definition; 3.2.2. Quality of Work/Life Constructs
3.2.2.1. Compensation and Rewards3.2.2.2. Opportunity to Develop and Use Human Capabilities3.2.2.3. Opportunity for Continued Growth, Rewards and
Promotions3.2.2.4. Task Significance3.2.2.5. Social Interaction in the Work Organisation3.2.2.6. Recognition for Achievement3.2.2.7. Meaningful and Significant Work3.2.2.8. Work Pressure3.2.2.9. Autonomy and Control3.2.2.10. Work Load3.2.2.11. Role Ambiguity3.2.2.12. Social Support
3.2.3. Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance
3.3. PERFORMANCE3.3.1. Introduction and definition3.3.2. Performance measurement 3.3.3. Performance and Work/Life Balance3.3.4. Performance and Quality of Work/Life3.3.5. Performance in Banks
3.4. SUMMARY
26
Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction to the Concept of Work/LifeReconciling the competing demands of work and family has taken the centre
stage in today’s conversations. The issue of striking work-life balance is increasingly
surfacing for both working men and women (Aryee et al, 2005; Eagle et al, 1998). The
concept of work-life existed as early as 1930s, however, the term ‘Work/Life Balance’
was coined in 1986 in USA. 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. Kanter (1977), in her work
titled 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. Around this time, the National Framework Committee for
the Promotion of Work-Life Balance, USA defined Work/Life Balance as a “balance
between an individual’s work and their life outside work.” It was in 1980s and 1990s
that companies initiated work/life programs with the primary focus of supporting
women with children. Compared to these, the current work/life programs are less
gender specific and tend to recognise other commitments, other than those of family, as
well.
3.1.1 Defining Work/Life BalanceWork/Life Balance is a term that has evolved around the idea of balancing work,
life and family responsibilities. The term in itself is a misnomer as work is an integral
part of life. However, researchers and thinkers on the issue have chosen to delineate
between the two. Work-life balance has variously been defined as:
‘Work life balance is about people having a measure of control
over when, where and how they work. It is achieved when an
individual’s right to a fulfilled life inside and outside paid
27
work is accepted and respected as the norm to the mutual
benefit of the individual, business and society’.
The Work Foundation: www.employersforworklifebalance.org.uk
Another way of looking at Work/Life Balance is from the perspective of an
equal emphasis on achievement and enjoyment of work as well as of the other three
quadrants (family, society and friends, self) of one’s life. Work/Life Balance in the real
sense translates into a “meaningful achievement and enjoyment in everyday life.” (Bird,
2003).
It is only in the recent years that the term ‘Work/Life Balance’ has replaced the
term ‘Work/Family Balance’ which was in use earlier. The term work/life now extends
to include other life activities like study, exercise, community work, hobbies, care of
elderly as well and not just care of dependent children as was recognised under the term
work-family. At the same time the concept of family has broadened to encompass
extended families, shared parenting, single parent families and a wide range of social
and support networks and communities.
The term Work/Life Balance has three vital components – ‘work’, ‘life’ and
‘balance’. In simple terms, “work” is normally conceived of in this context as including
‘paid employment’ while “life” includes activities outside work. Defining work as ‘paid
employment’, however, fails to take into account the extra unpaid work, commuting
time and the time spent on work related issues while away from work. Further, for those
working from home, the boundary differentiating home and work is very porous.
Technology is increasingly playing a role in blurring the border between home and work
and contributing to stresses and strains in the life of working men and women. Similarly
when looking at ‘life’ most researchers restrict themselves to a narrow definition
whereby life comes to relate with ‘family’, and their research centres around the
spillover of work into the domain of family or vice-versa. However, family is just one
aspect of life outside work. Life outside work would also include free time, self-time
and the time spent with friends, community and engaging in other activities.
28
The term ‘balance’ too, lends itself to a variety of meanings. Clark (2000) refers
to balance as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum
of role conflict” (pg.751). A simplistic definition of balance may be “sufficient time to
meet commitments at both home and work” (Guest, 2002, pg. 256). Therefore, there is a
lot of subjectivity that ‘Work/Life Balance’ incorporates in it. For an individual it may
be a perceived balance between work and the rest of life. This perceived balance would
have different connotations for different people, due to their personal choice, career
stage, family life cycle stage, nature of work and the likes. Thus, for some the preference
may be to spend long hours at work, either because of the career stage or because of a
limited life outside work, while for others, the perceived balance would exist where
work is subordinated to the demands of home. Thus, implying that if individuals do not
feel they have a ‘good’ mix and integration of work and non-work roles, they may
experience negative or conflicting outcomes (Frone et al, 1997). According to
Greenhaus and Beutell, (1985) Work/Life Balance is out of kilter when “the
simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with
one would make more difficult compliance with the other” (pg. 77).
Studies on Work/Life Conflict treat it as a bi-directional relationship where work can
interfere with non-work responsibilities (work/life conflict) and vice versa (life/work
conflict). Implying that a conflict between work and life will force one to forgo rewards
in one sphere for obtaining rewards in the other. The phenomena has been defined as “a
form of inter-role conflict in which work and family demands are mutually incompatible
so that meeting demands in one domain makes it difficult to meet demands in the other”
(Higgins et al.,, 2008, pg 1). Thus, one can distinguish between two types of WFC, each
with its own unique domain-specific antecedents work interfering with family and
family interfering with work (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Conceptual models and
empirical research that support them indicate that the role-related causes of
Work/Family Conflict and Family/Work Conflict reside in the work and family
domains, respectively. The same concept, albeit with the slightly different nomenclature
of ‘Work Interference with Personal Life’ and ‘Personal Life Interference with Work’
has been discussed by Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003) while discussing the scale for
measuring Work/Life Balance.
29
3.1.1.1 Concepts Related To Work-Life Balance
Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003), have described Work/Life Balance in terms of the
three dimensions, namely:
Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL) / Work Interference with Family
(WIF): – The concept of WIPL is almost the same as the one put forth by Greenhouse
and Beutell (1985) as work interfering with family, though it has wider scope in terms
of encompassing the other spheres of life as well. Both refer to a type of role conflict
which occurs when work demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfil
family role responsibilities (i.e. long hours in paid work prevent attendance at a child's
sporting event, preoccupation with the work role prevents an active enjoyment of
family life, work induced stress spills over into the home environment and increases
conflict with the family).
Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW) / Family Interference with Work
(FIW): – The same applies here as well and PLIW is similar to ‘Family interfering with
work’ given by Greenhouse and Beutell (1985) albeit with wider connotations. This
type of role conflict occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more
difficult to fulfil work role responsibilities. (i.e. a child's illness prevents attendance at
work; conflict at home makes concentration at work difficult).
Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE) – this relates to the extent to which
one’s personal life is enhanced by work and vice-versa.
Both FIW and WIF are often clubbed under the head of Role Interference,
which occurs when incompatible demands make it difficult, if not impossible, for an
employee to perform all their roles well. According to this, the different roles essayed
by an individual compete for both time and energy and work/life tends to get
unbalanced whenever there is some sort of conflict or stress in one or the other area of
life or work. The stress could be as much a result of feeling of guilt about the choices
made (Quick et al., 2004) as due to a spillover resulting from worries carried over to
work from issues at life or vice-versa. Hence, while a lot has been researched from the
angle of work-life conflict, there has been hardly any work done with respect to
30
measuring Work/Life Balance. The exceptions to this statement are the studies
undertaken by Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003) and validated by Hayman (2005).
3.1.1.2 Concepts Related To Work-Life Conflict
Work/Life Balance has more often been studied from the angle of work/life
conflict and hence, the concept of work/life conflict and its related dimensions need a
detailed discussion. Work/Family Conflict is a form of inter- role conflict arising
because the pressures emanating from one role are incompatible with those from
another (Stoner, et al 1990, Green house and et al 1950) i.e. Work/Family Conflict is a
form of inter-role conflict that arises when role pressures from the work and family
domains become mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).
When exploring the antecedents of Work-life conflict, the oft cited article by Greenhaus
and Beutell (1985) is of special relevance. Herein are identified the three main factors
leading to work-life conflict – strain based conflict, time based conflict and behaviour
based conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Thus, Work-life conflict broadly
conceptualises to include:
3.1.1.2.1 Strain Based Conflict: This occurs when the strain generated in
one sphere makes it difficult to meet the demands in another sphere due to a reduction
in the coping abilities of the individual. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) have
characterised strain as fatigue, anxiety, irritability and tension. Edwards and Rothbard
(2000) point out that this effect of strain on the abilities may be direct or indirect, as in
case of physical exhaustion. Strain based conflict is more related with psychological
factors and is ‘actualised when employees have difficulty leaving the pressures of work
behind when transitioning to their personal roles’ (Messersmith, 2007, pg. 435). The
strain experienced by the individual causes adverse psychological and physical impact
and this often spills over to the other areas of an individual’s life (Edwards and
Rothbard, 2000).
Technology has contributed in a big way to strain based conflict. Even though
technology has brought greater flexibility to people, it has also lead to employees
31
spending greater number of hours working even when at home, than engaging in non-
work responsibilities. A case in point is working women in India. Indian women have
traditionally been accorded a status lower than that of men in the family. They are
supposed to be ‘self-sacrificing, self-effacing’ and their ‘enabler role gets precedence
over the performer role’ (Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000, pg. 486). Working
mothers bear the burden of guilt of not being able to do justice with their roles of wife,
mother and nurturer. Since the Indian society is a complex combination of custom,
functionality and religious belief (Chitnis, 1988) where individuals live by their
‘ascribed’ rather than ‘achieved’ status (Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000) it
magnifies the strain based conflict for women.
3.1.1.2.2. Time Based Conflict: Time based conflict refers to the simple idea that
additional time spent in one domain (e.g. work) precludes individuals from investing
that time in another domain (e.g. home) (Messersmith, 2007). One of the main
contributors to time-based conflict is work or role overload. Role overload occurs when
the employee’s task demands exceed available time, often leading to higher levels of
stress (Frone et al.,, 1992) and if not addressed, to burnout (Jackson et al.,, 1886). One
of the main contributors to time based conflict is work or role overload, Moore (2000),
when competing roles’ demands exceeds the available time. This is best seen in the case
of women employees. Women are saddled with the primary responsibility for
household work; structural changes in family patterns (joint to nuclear) and the
demands of modern working make reconciliation of time required for work and family
as a key issue. Women assuming multiple roles results in work – family conflict
because time and energy is shared, clubbed and extended across the two spheres of
activity. Increased levels of conflict from the two domains of family and work result in
higher absenteeism, burn-out and reduced work performance for women (Frone et al.,
(1992). Sinclair (1998), Bakker (2000) have described work- life balance as double life
perspective between career and children. Role overload is quite often the result of
domestic contingencies and unpredictable extensions in work schedules.
3.1.1.2.3. Behaviour Based Conflict: The third type of conflict postulated by
Greenhaus and Beutell is behaviour based conflict occurring when behaviours exhibited
32
in one domain are incompatible with the behaviour demands in the other domain. The
conflict is the result of the difficulty experienced by an individual in adapting his
behaviour pattern while traversing from one domain to another. For example, the work
role might require skills that promote aggressiveness, which would be in conflict with
the family role requiring skills fostering understanding and nurturing. Literature on
work-life conflict states that ‘when individuals are expected to behave in an impersonal
or emotionally reserved manner at work but are then asked to be emotionally open ... at
home’, (Messersmith, 2007, pg. 432) it results in behaviour based conflict.
Behaviour based conflict can be an issue for working women who are expected
to behave as hard core, tough professionals and decision makers at their work places
and are then expected to be sensitive, submissive and decision takers as they transit into
their family roles. The same woman who is expected to deftly handle problems in her
professional life and be twice as good as her male counterparts to be appreciated, is
expected to transform into the ideal home-maker and adjust to the patriarchal diktats
once back home. This accounts for severe behaviour based conflict. According to
Duxbury and Higgins (1991) women who are highly involved in their work role have
more work-life conflict due to the increased anxiety and guilt felt by them linked with
their views regarding their ability to perform traditional family roles.
3.1.1.2.3.1. Role Overload:
This form of work-life conflict occurs when the total demands on time and
energy associated with the prescribed activities of multiple roles are too great to
perform the roles adequately or comfortably. It means having too much to do and
too little time to do it in.
3.1.1.2.3.2. Role Ambiguity:
Role ambiguity has been described by Kahn et al., (1964) as the single or
multiple roles that confront an individual, which may not be clearly articulated
(communicated) in terms of behaviours (the role activities or tasks/priorities) or
performance levels (the criteria that the role incumbent will be judged by). It
denotes uncertainty about the expectations, behaviours, and consequences
associated with a particular role and may result from either organizational factors
individual factors (e.g., information processing biases).
3.1.1.2.3.3. Role Conflict:
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 fulfil. Role conflict occurs when
an individual occupies two or more roles simultaneously and the expectations
associated with those different roles are incompatible. When conflicts between
these two domains occur its consequences are reflected in both organization and
domestic life.
3.1.1.3 Linkages between Work and Life Domains
A variety of linking mechanisms have been proposed that explain the nature of
the relationship between work and family roles. Zedeck and Mosier (1990) and
O’Driscoll (1996) have identified five models for explaining the linkages between work
and life, which include Segmentation model, Spillover model, Compensation model,
Instrumental model and Conflict model. With slight variations, Edwards and Rothbard,
(2000), too, have identified these linkages as conflict (or interference), accommodation,
enrichment, compensation, and segmentation. Basically these models represent the
different perspectives on how we look at the work and life domains and their linkages.
In all seven models have been identified which explain the linking mechanism between
work and life. These are:
1. Accommodation model,
2. Compensation model,
3. Conflict (or Interference) model
4. Enrichment model,
5. Instrumental model,
6. Segmentation model and
7. Spillover model.
34
3.1.1.3.1 Accommodation refers to the process by which individuals reduce
their involvement in one role to accommodate the demands of the other role (Lambert,
1990). Work-family accommodation can be used as a strategy in response to actual or
anticipated work-family conflict such that individuals reduce their involvement in a role
that is less important to them. The reduction in involvement can take either of two
forms: behavioural (e.g., curtailing the amount of time devoted to a role) or
psychological (e.g., restricting the level of ego attachment to a particular role).
3.1.1.3.2 The Compensation Model proposes that what may be lacking in
one sphere, in terms of demands or satisfactions can be made up in the other. Implying
that in case an individual is dissatisfied in one life domain (e.g. work), he will reduce
the amount of time and energy spent in that domain. This reduction will naturally lead
to increased time and energy dedicated towards the other domain (e.g. family) in an
effort to compensate for the lack of satisfaction in the first domain (i.e. work). The
linking mechanism of work-family compensation represents efforts by individuals to
offset dissatisfaction in one role by seeking satisfaction in another role (Lambert, 1990;
Zedeck, 1992). These efforts can take the form of decreasing involvement in a
dissatisfying role and increasing involvement in a more satisfying role. Alternately,
individuals may respond to dissatisfaction in one role by pursuing rewarding or
fulfilling experiences in the other role. The latter form of compensation can be either
supplemental or reactive in nature (Zedeck, 1992). Supplemental compensation occurs
when individuals shift their pursuits for rewarding experiences from the dissatisfying
role to a potentially more satisfying one. For example, individuals with little autonomy
at work seek more autonomy outside their work role. On the other hand, reactive
compensation represents individuals' efforts to redress negative experiences in one role
by pursuing contrasting experiences in the other role such as engaging in leisure
activities after a fatiguing day at work.
3.1.1.3.3. Conflict (or Interference) Model proposes that with high levels of
demand in all spheres of life, some difficult choices have to be made and some conflicts
and possibly some significant overload on an individual may occur. Meaning each
sphere has multiple demands, thus requiring individuals to prioritize and make choices
35
and that can lead to conflict. Work-life conflict or interference refers to simultaneous
pressures from the work and family domains that are mutually incompatible in some
respect, such that, meeting the demands of one role makes it difficult to meet the
demands of the other role. Sometimes referred to as negative spillover, work-family
conflict can take different forms and can originate either in the work domain or the
family domain. A closely related idea is that of crossover effect, wherein work-family
conflict has been examined from a systems perspective demonstrating that if one
member of a couple experiences work/family conflict it can significantly impact the
other partner's experience of work/family conflict (Hammer et al.,, 1997). Crossover is
a dyadic, inter-individual transmission of stress or strain (Westman, 2001). Crossover
occurs when a stressor or psychological strain experienced by one person affects the
level of stress or strain experienced by another person in the same social environment
due to an empathic reaction. This increases the stress or strain level of this individual.
3.1.1.3.4. The Enrichment Model (Greenhaus, and Powell. 2006) illustrates how
experiences in one role (work or family) can improve the quality of life in the other role
(family or work). The model proposes that high performance and a positive effect can
result in one role (say work) from the resources generated in the other role (say family)
depending upon the role salience, the perceived relevance of the resource to the
benefiting role and the consistency of the resource with the requirements and norms of
this role. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) have identified five types of resources, skills
and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social-capital resources,
flexibility and material resources, that according to them can be generated in a role.
Further the model identifies two types of mechanisms or paths by which resources are
generated – instrumental (direct effect) and affective (positive affect).
3.1.1.3.5. Instrumental Model states activities in one sphere facilitate success in
the other. Implying that one sphere accentuates or emphasises the importance of the
other sphere. An example here is of an instrumental employee working long hours to
maximise earnings, even if it means working in routine jobs, to allow him/her to
purchase house/car for a young family (Coughlan, 2005). Unlike conflict or
interference, work-family enrichment refers to the process by which one role strengthens
36
or enriches the quality of the other role. Work-family enrichment has also been referred
to as work-family enhancement, work-family facilitation, and positive spillover. All of
these terms describe the notion that a variety of resources from work and family roles
have the capacity to provide positive experiences in the other role.
3.1.1.3.6. The Segmentation Model hypothesizes that work and non-work are two
distinct domains of life that are lived quite separately and have no influence on each
other. Thus, being mutually exclusive, they do not impact each other. Work-life
segmentation originally referred to the notion that work and family roles are
independent of one another such that individuals can participate in one role without any
influence on the other role (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). More recently, segmentation has
been viewed as an intentional separation of work and family roles such that the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of one role are actively suppressed from affecting the
individual's performance in the other role (Lambert, 1990).
3.1.1.3.7. The Spillover Model in contrast to the segmentation model, hypothesizes
that one world can influence the other in either a positive or negative way. This model
stresses the interdependence of work and life on each other and hence, their influence on
the other domain. The spillover from one domain to the other can be either positive or
negative. Commitment to family concerns need not necessarily be detrimental to
performance in the work domain. Family-to-work spillover in the negative sense is
regarded as family-to-work interference. This negative spillover leads to resource
depletion, conflict and lowered performance and reduced satisfaction in either/or both of
the family and work domains. Family-to-work Interference has been defined as the
occurrence of an inter-role conflict where an individual’s attention to his/her family leads
to counterproductive behaviours at work (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). This could also
imply decreased efforts put in work situations due to reduced time, energy and attention
in the work role (Graves et al., 2007). A negative spillover is associated with
psychological strain, a state where the individual is unhappy and anxious. Increased
interference abets psychological strain, promoting a less favourable view of the
individual’s life and career situations.
37
Table 3.1: Literature related to Work/Life Balance
Characteristics/Dimensions
Work/Life Balance and Work/Life Conflict Literature
Total no. of
articlesDual career couple Eagle et al, 1998; Aryee et al, 2005 2Interference Greenhouse and Beutell, 1985; Fisher-McAuley
et al.,, 2003 2
Work/Life Balance Fisher-McAuley et al.,, 2003 1Scale validation Hayman 2005 1Inter-role conflict Green house and et al 1950; Stoner, et al 1990 2Strain based conflict Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Chitnis, 1988;
Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Messersmith, 2007
5
Time based conflict Jackson et al.,, 1886; Frone et al.,, 1992; Sinclair, 1998; Moore, 2000; Messersmith, 2007 5
Behaviour based conflict
Duxbury and Higgins, 1991 1
Role overload Bakker, 2000; Messersmith, 2007 2Role ambiguity Kahn et al.,, 1964 1Role conflict Messersmith, 2007 1Accommodation model Lambert, 1990; Zedeck and Mosier, 1990;
Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000
5
Compensation model Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000 4
Conflict (or Interference) model – cross-over effect
Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Hammer et al.,, 1997; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000
5
Crossover effect Westman, 2001 1Enrichment model Greenhaus and Powell, 2006Instrumental model 2Segmentation model Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Lambert, 1990Demand/Control model Karasek’s, 1979 1Spillover model / inter-role facilitation
Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Graves et al.,, 2007; Quick et al.,, 2004 2
Work-family balance Greenhaus, et al.,, 2003 1Work-family expansion Barnett and Hyde, 2001 1Time balance, Involvement balance, Satisfaction balance
Hatton, 20051
Scarcity hypothesis Goode, 1960; Graves et al.,, 2007 2Role theory Kahn et al.,, 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978;
Schaubroeck et al.,, 1993 3
Identity theory Stryker, 1968; Stryker and Burke, 2000; Burke and Reitzes, 1991 3
38
When the spillover from either of the domains is positive in nature, it leads to
enhancement and enrichment of the experience in the other domain. Family-to-work
enhancement or positive spill over thus, can be termed as ‘inter-role facilitation’ (Graves
et al.,, 2007). This results when the experiences in the family domain contribute
positively, improving the individual’s energy levels, work relevant skills and over all
well being. While the detrimental effects of work-life conflict, a result of negative spill
over or interference, has been well researched and documented, the outcome of a positive
spill over has not been explored as well. The view promoting positive spillover or
enhancement, holds that ‘experiences in one domain generate resources that can be
transferred to the other domain’ (Bolger et al.,, 1989) It is this transfer of resources that
is termed as enhancement and which is presumed to contribute positively to satisfaction,
attitudes and performance (Graves et al.,, 2007). Work-family enhancement, which
basically implies strengthening or enhancing the quality of one role by the other, has also
been termed as work-life enrichment, work-family facilitation and positive spill over.
Outcomes of positive spill over or family-to-work enhancement are three pronged – life
satisfaction, career satisfaction and work performance.
The six recurring linking mechanisms identified by Edward and Rothbard (2000)
which effectively integrate the research conducted on the relationships between the work
and family constructs are: spillover, compensation, segmentation, resource drain,
congruence and work-family conflict. While, Spillover, compensation, segmentation and
congruence, according to Edward and Rothbard (2000), are the dominant models
providing the linkage between work and non-work roles, resource drain and work-family
conflict are outcomes of the work and family role performances.
Two mechanisms that are important to make note of, although they are not
"linkages" in the sense of a causal relationship between work and family life, are work-
family balance and work-family expansion. Work-family balance is the extent to which
individuals are equally involved in and equally satisfied with-their work role and their
family role (Greenhaus, et al.,, 2003). Work-family expansion refers to the notion that
simultaneously engaging in multiple work and family roles is beneficial for the physical,
39
mental, and relationship health of individuals (Barnett and Hyde, 2001). The quality of
the roles, rather than the number of roles occupied, or the amount of time spent in
particular role, determine the degree to which individuals experience the positive effects
of participating in multiple roles.
A recent study by Hatton (2005), explored and measured three aspects of
Work/Life Balance:
1. Time balance, which concerns the amount of time given to work and non-work
roles.
2. Involvement balance, meaning the level of psychological involvement in, or
commitment to, work and non-work roles.
3. 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.
The new millennium has seen a rise in the number of dual income families with
both partners juggling work responsibilities with household chores, which once came
under the purview of the stay-at-home spouse. The common perception about the
impact of an overlap or a commitment concurrence between the two domains of family
and work, is interference leading to conflict. The premise rests on the Scarcity
Hypothesis (Goode, 1960), Role Theory (Katz and Kahn, 1978) and the Identity Theory
(Burke and Reitzes, 1991).
The Scarcity Hypothesis states that the physical and psychological resources
available with an individual are fixed in nature. The greater the amount allocated to one
domain, the lesser would be available for the other domain or roles (Goode, 1960). It is
this depletion that leads to interference and consequently to compromises in the
performance and results (Graves et al.,, 2007).
The Role Theory (Kahn et al.,, 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978), states that
organizations can be viewed as a system of roles that rely on the appropriate assignment
of job tasks to roles and employees' motivation to fulfil their assigned role. Employees
40
are socialized into their designated role, given feedback on their success in carrying out
their role, encouraged to make any necessary corrective adjustments to their
performance, and sanctioned for failing to perform according to role expectations.
Ideally, each role consists of a single recurrent activity. However, roles are often
complicated by requiring employees to balance multiple, conflicting, or unclear roles
(Katz and Kahn, 1978). These complications, or role stressors, induce tension, negatively
affect work-related attitudes (Schaubroeck et al.,, 1993), and hurt organizational
effectiveness.
The Identity Theory (Stryker, 1968), states that the self of an individual consists
of a collection of identities, with each of which s/he attaches certain expectations
(Stryker, 1968; Stryker and Burke, 2000). For each of these identities, the individual
strives to strike a balance between his expectations and experiences. Roles recognised by
an individual as having greater expectations and hence, higher commitment, would have
greater time and energy devoted to them, to help translate the expectations into reality
(Burke and Reitzes, 1991).
3.1.2. Moderators of Work/Life and Balance
Work/Life Balance being an employees’ ability to balance work and non-work
demands, is significantly influenced by factors such as gender, dependent care and job
type. Hence, analysis of Work/Life Balance needs to examine the extent to which
following demographic variables impact the demands, attitudes and outcomes: (1)
Early literature on work-family issues states that women experience significantly
greater work and family related stressors than men (Anderson and Leslie, 1991;
Duxbury et al.,, 1994), while some suggest that this is the result of their hormonal
response to different stressors (Jick and Mitz, 1985). There are others who argue that
41
these responses are the result of differences in role expectations and socialisation of
men and women (Duxbury and Higgins, 2001). The former hypothesis is borne out by
differences in stress symptomatology shown by women and men. Women tend to
respond to stress by exhibiting emotional symptoms, such as depression, mental illness,
and general psychological discomfort, while men tend to respond by manifesting
physiological disease, such as heart disease and cirrhosis (Guest, 2001). Others argue
that gender differences in the stress response are attributable to differences in
socialisation processes and role expectations that expose women to a higher level of
stressors. Women, irrespective of their involvement in paid work, are significantly more
likely than men to bear the primary responsibility for home chores and childcare
(Statistics Canada, 2000; Amponsah, 2011). At both their workplace and homes,
women, world over, are exposed to diverse and a greater number of stressors than men.
There is a significance difference in the working roles of women and men and
substantial light has been thrown on the same in literature (Super, 1977; Schein, 1978;
Arnold and Feldman, 1986; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Sirajunisa and
Panchanatham, 2010). Although it is difficult to determine which of these is most
responsible for women’s differential response to stress, there is little doubt that women
are exposed to different (if not more) stressors than men at both work and at home.
3.1.2.2. Caregiver Strain
Another dimension that contributes to strain based conflict is in the form of
caregiver strain, which has been described in terms of "burdens" in the caregivers’ day-
to-day life. This can be attributed to the need to provide care or assistance to someone
else who needs it (Robinson, 1983). Thus, three types of strains are associated with
caregiver strain:
o Emotional strain (i.e. depression, anxiety and emotional exhaustion),
o Physical strain and
o Financial strain.
Caregiver responsibilities (also termed as dependent care responsibilities) are
defined as ‘an individual who spends at least one hour a week caring for a child and/or
an elderly dependent’ (Greenlee and Scharlach, 2007, pg.7). Research (Higgins et al.,,
42
1994; Henley et al.,, 2004) suggests that parents will have more difficulties with respect
to balance than non-parents as they have more demands and less control over their time.
In the new millennium dependent care is not just a question of care for children, with
eldercare responsibilities (defined as providing some type of assistance with the daily
living activities for an elderly relative who is chronically ill, frail or disabled) now
increasing as the parents of Baby Boomers enter their 60s, 70s and 80s. As the “baby
boom” and “baby bust” generations assume responsibility for both dependent children
and aging parents, the “sandwich generation” will experience extraordinary challenges
balancing work and family demands. Further, gender and dependent care status are
often linked considering the fact that even in the new millennium working mothers
assume a disproportionate share of family responsibilities, including eldercare. It is
ironical that society still judges women’s worth by their performance of family roles
(e.g. mother, eldercare giver, cook, homemaker) while men’s merit is judged by their
success as a “breadwinner”.
3.1.2.3. Life Cycle Stage
The dictionary of sociology notes that the term “life cycle” is a widely used
metaphor denoting “the passage of an individual through the successive stages of life. It
is an attempt to relate the place where an individual is in the course of his/her life with
the kind of issues that the person is facing and with the kind of resources s/he will have
available to face those issues. And, eventually, the kind of disturbance s/he could
develop in case s/he fails to cope successfully with those issues”. Researchers rarely use
age alone to define stages in the life cycle. Instead the more common approach is to use
marital status and the presence of children. It is well-established by research that work-
family conflict increases as one’s obligations to family expand through marriage and
the arrival of children (Higgins et al.,, 1994). However, that many of these conflicts
decrease as the age of the youngest child increases.
Karasek’s (1979) Demand/Control model, which predicts that stress will be
highest in situations where individuals have little or no control over the stressful
environment, is often used to explain this phenomenon. Parents of young dependent
43
children (especially mothers) are more likely to face higher, often unpredictable (e.g.,
day-care pick up and drop off, care of sick child) family demands than those with older
children. These higher demands result in lower levels of control over the work and
family interface and thus higher levels of work-family conflict. As the children get
older the demands should decrease, resulting in increased levels of control and lower
stress for the parents. Demographic analysts identify the two dependent groups as
children under 15 years and old people aged 65 (or 60) and over, who are supported
financially and otherwise by the population of working age or active population.
Table 3.2: Literature related to moderators of Work/Life Balance
Charactertistic/Dimension Moderators
Number of
articlesGender Anderson and Leslie, 1991; Duxbury et al.,,
1994; Jick and Mitz, 1985; Duxbury and Higgins, 2001; Guest, 2001; Amponsah, 2011; Super, 1977; Schein, 1978; Arnold and Feldman, 1986; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Sirajunisa and Panchanatham, 2010
11
Caregiver strain Robinson, 1983; Henley et al.,, 2004; Greenlee and Scharlach, 2007 3
Life Cycle Stage Higgins et al.,, 1994 1Generational cohort Henley et al.,, 2004; Karl Mannheim in the
early 1920s; Conger, 1998 3
Locus of control Rotter, 1966; Mitchell et al.,, 1975; Spector, 1985 3
Self-efficacy Bandura, 1977, 1982; Garland et al.,, 1988 3Positive/negative effect Isen and Baron, 1990; Watson and Clark,
1984; Watson et al.,, 1988; Burke et al.,, 1993
4
Support network Bowen, 1998; Ganster et al.,, 1986; House and Wells, 1978; LaRocco et al.,, 1980; Warren and Johnson, 1995
5
Family Blegen et al.,, 1988; Shellenbarger, 1998b; 1998b; Voydanoff, 1988; Bond et al.,, 1998; Minehan, 1997; Rachor, 1998; Gahan and Abeysekera, 2009; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Schor, 1991; Caplan, 1976.
11
Work associates Kossek and Nichol, 1992; Kossek, 1990; House and Wells, 1978; Ganster et al.,, 1986; Hopkins, 1997; LaRocco et al.,, 1980.
6
44
PIE barriers Parish and Hao, 1991; Bloom et al.,, 2006; Kossek et al.,, 1997 3
3.1.2.4. Generational cohort
A generational cohort has been defined as "the aggregation of individuals who
experience the same event within the same time interval" (Henley et al.,, 2004, pg.
431). The idea that a group of individuals born in a particular period of time (termed as
generational cohort) are bound together by sharing a common set of historical events
occurring during this time frame was first introduced by Karl Mannheim in the early
1920s. Their values and beliefs are shaped on similar lines. The demands, attitudes and
outcomes of three generational cohorts Baby Boomer (age 45 to 60), Generation X (age
30 to 44) and Generation Y (age 20 to 29) show significant differences. Research in the
area suggests that Baby Boomers hold decidedly different values regarding the place of
job or career in their lives and have been described as “driven” with a work oriented
value system. On the other hand Generation X value greater equality for women, are
more accepting of diverse family structures, and are more committed to flexibility,
individualism and diversity. Similarly, those just entering the workplace, “Generation
Y” or “Echo Boomers” hold views divergent from the other two cohorts These
individuals tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs and while they
benefited from the extra family income, many felt that they were deprived of their
parents’ company - a situation that is exacerbated by a very high percentage of them
being the children of divorce (Conger, 1998). Hence, many of this new generation
employees say that they do not want the sort of lives their parents led.
Apart from these, how an individual copes with work-life issues depends on
three variable sets – individual personality traits (locus of control, emotional
maturity/stability, and self-efficacy), support network (relationships within family,
friends and work associates) and resource accessibility (financial resources and
information).
3.1.2.5. Individual Personality Traits
The response an individual chooses while dealing with a situation reflects his
ability, attitude and value system and has an impact on his level of work-life balance.
Researchers have used individual differences as moderators of the relationship between
45
work-family experiences and individual well-being (Frone et al.,, 1992; Higgins et al.,,
1992). Personality traits tend to augment or lessen life complexity and dynanism and
thus influence work-life balance. Personality traits have a bearing on work-life balance
are:
3.1.2.5.1. Locus of control. Locus of control is one’s perception of the degree of control
she or he has over events in life (Rotter, 1966). Rotter (1966) identified internal locus of
control individuals as people who tend to perceive outcomes of their behaviors as
resulting from their own efforts. External locus of control individuals tend to believe
that the events surrounding them are beyond their control. Persons with an internal
locus of control tend to prefer participative managerial styles, are more motivated,
experience less anxiety and also report higher levels of job satisfaction. (Mitchell et al.,,
1975; Spector, 1985). Since individuals with internal locus of control believe that
outcomes of their performances and efforts are within their control, they are more adept
at handling their life complexities and dynamism, thus leading to better work-life
balance.
3.1.2.5.2. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs, expectations, and
judgments about their ability to accomplish tasks required for handling forthcoming
situations and problems (Bandura, 1977, 1982). There is evidence of a positive
relationship existing between self-efficacy and performance (Garland et al.,, 1988).
High self-efficacy facilitates a positive outcome and success as these individuals put in
greater efforts and persist in face of challenge in the expectation of mastering the
situation or overcoming the challenge (Bandura, 1982).
3.1.2.5.3. Positive/negative effect. Individuals with a tendency to view themselves,
others, and the events in their lives in a more positive light are referred to as individuals
with positive effect, whereas those who generally take a negative view of life and
themselves have negative affect (Isen and Baron, 1990; Watson and Clark, 1984; Watson
et al.,, 1988). Positive and negative affect are directly linked with the stress levels
perceived by individuals in light of uncertain and complex life situations. Individuals
with positive affect not only have a tendency to view their life events in more positive
46
light than they actually are; they are also better equipped to exploit their support network
and resources at their disposal. On the other hand negative affect people focus on the
negative aspects when they evaluate their life situations. Research indicates that they
report more stress at work (Burke et al.,, 1993). Since the negative affect people take a
rather pessimistic view of life, the resultant feeling of depression, frustrations and
helplessness contribute to lower levels of Work/Life Balance.
3.1.2.6 Support Network
Abundant research data is available which addresses the issue of support
available from family, friends and work associates (Bowen, 1998; Ganster et al.,, 1986;
J. S. House and Wells, 1978; LaRocco et al.,, 1980; Warren and Johnson, 1995). It is
these domains that provide support and resources to an individual aiding creation of
Work/Life Balance. Abundance of individual level resources within support network
increases the number of options at the disposal of the person, helping him cope better
with life complexity and dynamism issues. On the other hand, a scarcity of support
network resources reduces the options available with an individual, leaving him with
fewer alternatives for managing the demands of work and family. Thus, Work/Life
Balance becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as the supportive network of
relationships with an individual decrease or fizzle out.
3.1.2.6.1. Family: Family members’ age, composition and work schedules have a
significant impact on the life complexity and pressures faced by an individual (Blegen
et al.,, 1988). Increase in the number of children in the family and their ages
(Shellenbarger, 1998b; Voydanoff, 1988), care requirements of elders in the family
(Bond et al.,, 1998; Minehan, 1997; Rachor, 1998; Shellenbarger, 1998a), working
spouse with hectic work schedule (Gahan and Abeysekera, 2009; Rajadhyaksha and
Bhatnagar, 2000) all make their own demands on the time of an individual making life
more complex and dynamic. At the same time one’s engagement in family activities is
also a source of satisfaction and happiness, though providing coordination challenges
for an individual (Schor, 1991). Emotional, financial, information and physical (child
care assistance, help with shopping and coverage for events like doctor’s visit, repair
47
calls) support may also be forthcoming form the members of the family (Caplan, 1976),
helping balance work and life.
3.1.2.6.2. Work Associates: Organizational culture and the nature of support provided
by the supervisor have a significant impact on the work-life balance of an individual.
Leave and time off policies, employee wellness programs, employee assistance
programs, and flexible work arrangements (i.e., flextime, part-time, job sharing,
reduced hours, compressed work weeks, and tele-commuting), whether paid for by the
employer or merely facilitated, are all intended to help employees maintain a healthy
balance between work and life (Kossek and Nichol, 1992). Company-sponsored day
care centers for children and elder care consultation and referral services are examples
of ways employers may assist employees with dependent care concerns (Kossek, 1990).
In addition to the types of explicit programs, the workplace is a source of support from
co-workers (House and Wells, 1978), supervisors (Ganster et al.,, 1986; Hopkins, 1997;
LaRocco et al.,, 1980), and the organizational culture. These types of programs result in
more resources for individuals to utilize in reducing experienced complexity and
dynamism in life and reaching work-life balance.
3.1.2.7 Resource quality and accessibility
Existence and accessibility to resources are two distinct things. An individual
may have abundant resources in his life and yet be unable to exploit them for coping
with life complexity and dynamism as they are inaccessible to him. Accessibility of
resources is dependent on the absence of physical, informational and economic (PIE)
barriers. Ability of an individual to use the resources to his benefit moderates the
relationship between work-life balance and life complexity, dynamism.
3.1.2.7.1. PIE barriers: Even though resources may be readily available, they may not
be easily accessible on account of geographical distances (Parish and Hao, 1991).
Similarly, resources cannot be of much use if an individual lacks information about
them. Especially in terms of employee assistance programmes put in place by the
organizations, it has been observed that communication about their existence and how
they can be utilised is important before they can be effectively used by the employees.
48
The greater the familiarity with the programme, the higher is the usage (Bloom et al.,,
2006).
Further economics works as both a barrier as well as a facilitator in as much as
for certain segments of the population organizing child care and elder care is easier
because the costs are within their reach. Individuals for whom these costs are
prohibitively high, organizing such help is an issue that adds complexity to the life
situation, thus, adversely influencing the work-life balance equation (Kossek et al.,,
1997). Thus, for resources to be beneficial, they have to be both within reach physically
as well as financially viable.
3.1.3 Consequences of Work/Life Im(balance)
Work/Life Balance is about creating and maintaining a workplace that supports a
healthy work environment, enabling the employees to give their best to both family and
job. Research findings (Duxbury and Higgins, 2001; Quick et al.,, 1997; Frone et al,
1997; Aryee, 1992) show that work-life conflict has two major impacts – individual
outcomes and organisational outcomes. Poor Work/Life Balance has been known to
reduce the work quality as well as the productivity of the individual.
3.1.3.1. Individual outcomes
The manifestation of distress at the individual level can be divided into three classes:
a) behavioural consequences, such as changes in eating, smoking, or
drinking behaviours;
b) psychological consequences, including depression, lower life satisfaction
and burnout; and
c) physical health consequences, most often those associated with
cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal disorders.
3.1.3.1.1. Behavioural consequences: Workplace stress has been identified as a major
contributing factor to a wide range of adverse behaviours, including increased cigarette
smoking, the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, accident proneness, violent behaviour,
and eating disorders (Quick et al.,, 1997). Very little research has been done specifically
49
on the behavioural consequences of work-life conflict, but work by Frone et al., (1993;
1997) has strongly suggested a connection with increased alcohol consumption.
3.1.3.1.2. Psychological consequences: Workplace stress has been identified as a
significant contributor to reduced psychological functioning, and the psychological
effects of workplace stress have been well documented (Quick et al.,, 1997). Among the
problems associated with distress are depression, reduced life satisfaction, perceived
stress, and “burnout”. Depressed mood is defined as a state characterized by low energy
and persistent feelings of helplessness and hopelessness (Duxbury and Higgins,
1998).Given the persistent, and often irreconcilable, time demands of the work and
family roles, it is not surprising that work-life conflict has been shown to be a significant
contributor to depressed mood (Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Frone et al.,, 1992; Frone et al.,,
1997; Higgins et al.,, 1992; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Control over the work-family
interface has been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of symptoms of
depression (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). It has also been observed that improvements in
the quality of work-life (e.g., increased work-time or work-location flexibility) will
produce corresponding improvements in the quality of life as it makes it easier for
employees to reduce the strains of managing the modern family (Duxbury and Higgins,
1998). Generally, the research has supported these contentions. High work-life conflict
has consistently been associated with a reduction in overall life satisfaction (Aryee,
1992; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; Rice et al.,, 1992).
Burnout is a concept which dates to the late 1970s, and is characterized as a state
of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion (Maslach, 1978). Most commonly
associated with “white collar professions” (Karasek and Theorell, 1990) which combine
a high level of interpersonal involvement with exposure to emotionally demanding
situations, burnouts are particularly seen in the human services professions, in public
service and managerial positions (Duxbury and Higgins, 1998). In addition to its
draining effect on individuals, burnout is strongly correlated with unfavourable
organizational outcomes, including reduced job satisfaction and increased job conflict
(Duxbury and Higgins, 1998).
50
3.1.3.1.3. Physical health consequences: Although the behavioural and psychological
effects of work-related stress are themselves immense, they may in turn have a
potentially more devastating effect on an individual’s medical health (Quick et al.,,
1997). It is believed that, with prolonged exposure to stressors, chronic arousal of the
sympathetic and endocrine systems may contribute to the development of more serious
medical conditions (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987), including cardiovascular disease
ulcer), arthritis, allergy, skin disease, and backpain; (Quick et al.,, 1997). In fact, these
physical disorders are so closely related to distress that Selye labelled them the “diseases
of adaptation” (Selye, 1976).
Table 3.3: Literature related to consequences of Work/Life (Im)balance
Consequences LiteratureNumber
of articles
Behavioural consequences
Quick et al.,, 1997; Frone et al., 1993; 1997 3
Psychological consequences
Quick et al.,, 1997; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Frone et al.,, 1992; Frone et al.,, 1997; Higgins et al.,, 1992; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Aryee, 1992; Rice et al.,, 1992; Karasek and Theorell, 1990
10
Physical health consequences
Quick et al.,, 1997; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987; Selye, 1976.
3
Absenteeism Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990.
2
Turnover intention Quick et al.,, 1997; Robbins, 1993; MacBride-King, 1990; Cooper et al.,, 1996; Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998.
6
Performance Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990
2
3.1.3.2 Organisational outcomes
Problems with work-related stress and work-life conflict affect not only
individual employees, but also their employers. Both organizations and individuals
benefit from an optimum level of stress, and both pay a price for mismanaged stress and
distress (Quick et al.,, 1997). The consequences of an optimal “healthy” level of stress in
51
organizations include high performance and vitality (Ibid). The unhealthy consequences
of excessive or mismanaged stress take the form of “organizational distress” (Ibid, pg.
89). Signs of organizational distress range from increased absence and turnover due to
illness and the inability to manage work-related stress to decrements in job satisfaction,
commitment and productivity (Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Higgins et al.,, 1992).
3.1.3.2.1. Absenteeism: Absenteeism can also be correlated with scores on formal
measures of work-life conflict collected through survey. Duxbury and Higgins (1998)
divided their sample of 5,000 Saskatchewan employees into those who reported high
work-life conflict and those who reported low work-life conflict. The number of days
absent per year in the high work-life conflict group was over three times that in the low
conflict group (9.5 days versus 2.5). MacBride-King (1990) obtained similar results in
the Conference Board Study after grouping her respondents into high- and low-conflict
categories (5 days for high conflict employees versus 2.5 for low). Combined with the
labour force survey data presented earlier, these empirical studies provide strong
evidence of a link between work-life conflict and absence.
3.1.3.2.2. Turnover: Although a certain level of turnover is essential to organizational
vitality (Quick et al.,, 1997), the costs associated with replacement mean most
organizations strive to keep turnover to a minimum (Robbins, 1993). The cost of
turnover includes not only the obvious loss of the productivity of the qualified employee,
but also the hidden costs of recruiting, hiring, and training a replacement (MacBride-
King, 1990). Estimates indicate that the ratio of turnover costs to annual salary ranges
from 1.2 to 2. As expected, research has linked work-related stress and burnout to
increased turnover (Cooper et al.,, 1996; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Work has also
been done in the context of work-life conflict. In the Conference Board study, 12% of
Canadian employees said they had left a previous employer due to family
responsibilities; 14% had considered leaving their current employer (MacBride-King,
1990). Women were about four times (20%) more likely than men (6%) to report having
left a previous employer for this reason. Recent work by Duxbury and Higgins (1998)
with Saskatchewan employees indicated that 30% of employees with high work-family
conflict would consider leaving their jobs for one with a better “balance”, compared to
only4% of a low conflict group. The authors caution that high turnover is a particular
52
threat to organizational health, as the employees who leave are those who are most
“marketable”, and accordingly, are those with skills the employer can least afford to lose.
3.1.3.2.3. Performance: Work-life researchers have typically explored employee
performance by using a measure of employees’ perceived productivity (Duxbury and
Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990). This approach uses survey format to ask
employees to what extent their personal and family obligations have interfered with their
work.
3.2 Quality of Work/Life
3.2.1. Introduction and History
The concept of quality of work life made an appearance in India in the mid-
seventies. At that time the country was transiting through a phase of intense labour
unrest. The concept received substantial support from the government as well as the
public sector but failed to take roots, the interest in it was short lived. The Indian
economic reforms of 1991 triggered a fresh interest in Quality of Work life due to the
pressures on the HR functions of domestic companies. India has been regarded as a
dynamic emerging nation, poised to becoming the fourth largest economy by 2020
according to the World Bank forecasts (Sundaray, et al, 2010). There has been a
tremendous increase in competition with more and more foreign firms making a beeline
for India, necessitating reorientation of the human resource and employment
relationships of Indian organisations (Budhwar, 2000; Sodhi, 1999). Post liberalisation,
there has been an excessive concern within the organisations with economic
development and materialism. There is also an increasing realisation that a motivated and
productive workforce is essential for attaining a sustained competitive advantage for
business operating on a global level. Consequently, organisations have become
conscious of the relevance of quality of work life in enhancing employee performance
and productivity.
53
The genesis of Quality of Work Life can be traced back to the humanistic
traditions of social studies which stress the employees’ need for satisfying and
meaningful work experiences. The term QWL, encompassing an individual’s outlook on
his working conditions and environment was coined in late 1960s by Irving Bluestone,
working with General Motors. It was further deliberated upon in the International
Conference on ‘democratisation of work’ held at Columbia University’s Arden House,
New York, in 1973 and the International Council for the Quality of Working Life was
created to promote and research it better. Davis and Cherns, post the Arden House
meeting, linked organisational redesign to quality of work life and democratisation at the
workplace. The late 1970s experienced a brief lull in interest and research related to
quality of work life, which however picked up once again with QWL projects at General
Motors Tarrytown, USA and Volvo, Sweden, bearing results. This reawakening of
interest in QWL led to another international conference on QWL in Toronto, Canada,
where the term was broadly defined to include the ‘general objective of arranging
organizations, management procedures and jobs for maximum utilization of individual
talents and skills in order to create more challenging and satisfying work and improve
Social integration Walton, 1973; 1975; Orpen, 1981; Bertrand, 1992; Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Boumans et al.,, 2004; Gellis and Chun Kim, 2004; Wai Chai Tai and Robinson, 1998; Hawkins and Shohet, 2000; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Scaife and Walsh, 2001.
11
Recognition for achievement
Kotze, 2008; Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Bakker et al.,, 2005.
5
Task significance / Meaningful and Significant work
Orpen, 1981; Chalofsky, 2003; Dolet, 2003; Thomas, 2000; Grady and McCarthy, 2008; Wrezesniewski et al.,, 2003; Hackman and Oldham, 1976.
7
Work pressure Nordqvist et al.,, 2004; Guest, 1998; Sturges and Guest, 2004; De Dreu, 2003; Durham et al.,, 2000; Kelly and Loving, 2004; Van der Kleij et al.,, 2008.
7
Autonomy Orpen, 1981; Stein, 1983; Newell, 2002; Kerce and Booth-Kewley, 1993; Herman and Hulin, 1972; Loscocco, 1990; Jenkins, 1991; Karasek, 1998; Van der Doef and Maes, 1999.
9
Work load French and Caplan, 1970; 1974; Miller, 1960; Terryberry, 1968; Russek and Zohman, 1958; Morgan et al.,, 2002; Brulin et al.,, 2000; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Zika-Viktorsson, 2002; Noboeka, 1995; Lindkvist, 2001.
12
Role ambiguity / Job ambiguity
Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Kleynhans et al.,, 2006; Tubre and Collins, 2000; Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007; Kahn et al.,, 1964; Kendall et al.,, 2000; Cooper et al.,, 2001; Dunnette, 1998; Li and Bagger, 2008.
9
Social support Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Elliot, 2004; Kilfedder et al.,, 2001; Bakker et al.,, 2005; Howard, 2008.
5
Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance
Bailey, 2006; Rapport et al.,, 2002; Bailyn et al.,, 2001; Jackson, 2002; Kotze, 2005; Greenhaus, et al., 2003; Kofodimos, 1993; Barnett and Hyde, 2001; Mark and
10
60
MacDermid, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1992.
3.2.2.5. Social Interaction in the Work Organization
According to Walton (1973) and Orpen (1981), the quality of social interaction is
another determinant of QWL. Five factors, namely, support, tolerance, equality, mobility
and identification are considered essential for these interactions to have beneficial
outcomes for individuals. Support relates to the nature of relationships between team
members, which should be characterized by socio-emotional assistance, respect for
individuality, reciprocity, trust, openness and honesty (Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973).
According to Bertrand (1992) support needs to be demonstrated within supervisory
relationships making them both helpful and caring in nature. Supervisor support refers to
the support that is provided by one’s supervisor. (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999) and
other researchers, too, have included supervisor support as an important determinant of
QWL (Boumans et al.,, 2004; Gellis and Chun Kim, 2004). Wai Chai Tai and Robinson
(1998) in their study of 42 Texas dialysis facilities found the impact of reduced
supervisor support on turnover. Hawkins and Shohet (2000) also stated that a good
supervisor can also help one to use one’s resources better, manage one’s workload and
challenge inappropriate patterned ways of coping. Thomas and Ganster (1995) found that
support from the supervisor reduced work/family conflict directly, as well as indirectly,
through the increased sense of control over areas of work and family. Scaife and Walsh
(2001) also support the inclusion of supervisory support, describing how supervision can
provide an opportunity for dealing with the effects of organizational climate and
professional relationships. Thus, support from within the work environment impacts on
employee wellbeing and reduces work-related outcomes for employees such as stress,
mental health and job dissatisfaction. Potentially then, work-based support from
supervisors and co-workers may influence the quality of work/life of employees.
3.2.2.6. Recognition for Achievement
Recognition for achievement is defined by Kotze (2008) as the recognition for
achievements by management, colleagues, subordinates and clients. Closely related to
task significance is feedback. Feedback refers to the necessity of organizations to
61
speedily provide employees with information and accurate knowledge regarding their
performance and its wider organizational impact (Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973).
Constructive feedback not only helps employees do their work more effectively but also
improves communication between supervisors and employees. When specific and
accurate information is provided in a constructive way, both employees and supervisors
can improve or change their performance. All employees who perform well should
receive frequent praise and encouragement, whereas those who are not performing at the
expected level should be informed of any problems and coached on how to improve.
Appraising employees of good performance helps maintain their motivation and signals
them to continue in this direction (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Communicating with
employees in a positive manner when they need to improve their performance will help
prevent work problems and minimize surprises during the performance review. Adequate
feedback reduces the tendency to worry at home about work-related issues (Bakker et
al.,, 2005).
3.2.2.7. Meaningful and Significant Work
Meaningful according to Orpen, (1981) relates to the fact that the duties and tasks
that define a particular job, should make sense to the person who has to perform that job,
in that he feels that doing the job well or poorly will make a difference to himself and to
others in the organization. Research on meaningful work has increased in recent years
(Chalofsky, 2003; Dolet, 2003). Thomas (2000), highlighting the role of meaningfulness
identifies the four critical intrinsic reward motivators as a sense of meaning and purpose,
a sense of choice, a sense of competence and a sense of progress. Therefore according to
Grady and McCarthy (2008) meaningful work is influenced by an inclusiveness of all the
aspects of one’s life beyond that of paid employment which can lead to an integrated
wholeness for the individual. According to Wrezesniewski et al., (2003), the meaning
people make of their work is tied to their attitudes about the work they do and their
overall wellbeing. Hackman and Oldham (1976) stated that when an individual
understands that the results of his work may have a significant effect on his well-being
the meaningfulness of that work is usually enhanced.
3.2.2.8. Work Pressure
62
Nordqvist, Hovmark and Zika-Viktorsson (2004) found that deadlines and time
pressures are important regulators for how work is planned and practiced. Deadlines
regulate and help structure the work through the breakdown of projects into interim
goals, different courses of action and time anchoring. Part of the employee’s
expectations that constitute the psychological contract may concern working hours and
work pressure and the anticipated returns that are associated with this. If the
psychological contract is breached in this regard, because individuals have to work
longer hours than they had expected, then work/non-work conflict may be exacerbated
(Guest, 1998). The tension between working long hours and a desire for Work/Life
Balance is supported by the findings of the qualitative study on working graduates by
Sturges and Guest (2004). However, research (De Dreu, 2003; Durham et al.,, 2000;
Kelly and Loving, 2004) has also shown that time pressures can lead to a variety of
consequences viz., faster rate of working, deteriorated quality of work (Van der Kleij et
al.,, 2008) and significantly lowered critical probing (Kelly and Loving, 2004), at the
individual and organisational levels.
3.2.2.9. Autonomy and Control
Autonomy relates to the degree of independence and discretion in terms of
discharging duties (Orpen, 1981). Quality of Work/Life has been linked with ability of
an individual to influence his/her working environment (Stein, 1983; Newell, 2002). Jobs
that lack autonomy result in low Quality of Work/Life (Kerce and Booth-Kewley, 1993;
Herman and Hulin, 1972; Loscocco, 1990) as greater autonomy provides better
opportunities to cope with stressful situations (Jenkins, 1991; Karasek, 1998). Studies
have revealed that in certain cases autonomy acts as a buffer against work overload and
time pressure (Van der Doef and Maes, 1999).
3.2.2.10. Work Load
Overload French and Caplan (1974) differentiate the concept of overload in terms
of qualitative and quantitative overload. Quantitative refers to having “too much to do”,
while qualitative means work is too difficult. It has been found that overload often results
in breakdown (Miller, 1960; Terryberry, 1968) and is strongly linked with cigarette
smoking (French and Caplan, 1970), coronary heart diseases (Russek and Zohman,
63
1958) and stress (Morgan et al.,, 2002). Furthermore, Brulin et al.,, (2000) and Morgan
et al.,, (2002) have reported that heavier workloads lead to increased time pressure
among nursing staff, resulting in higher stress levels. While quite a few studies have
highlighted the negative consequences of work overload (Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003;
Zika-Viktorsson, 2002), there are others which indicate that workload can at times
provide for increased learning and rich work content (Noboeka, 1995; Lindkvist, 2001).
Professional competence and skills can thus, be developed and shaped in daily work.
3.2.2.11. Role Ambiguity (Job Ambiguity)
Role ambiguity refers to not knowing what one’s tasks are and also not knowing
what is expected from oneself (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Kleynhans et al.,,
2006).This may lead to stress when the individual does not do certain tasks as the
employer expects or when he or she does tasks that are part of another person’s job. All
of the above-mentioned will then result in low QWL. The clarity with which individuals
perceive their work roles has been linked to several important organizational outcomes,
including job performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tubre and
Collins, 2000). Work role ambiguity may result from unclear articulations of expected
role activities, performance contingencies and work methods. A logical extension is that
increased ambiguity is very likely to impact on perceptions of the specific requirements
necessary for successfully enacting one’s work role (Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007). Tubre
and Collins (2000) found that a condition of high ambiguity is associated with a lack of
knowledge regarding what role activities are critical to the job. Therefore an ambiguous
role would make it more difficult for an individual to judge exactly what is important or
central to his or her job, and how often he or she may perform a particular activity
(Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007), leading to reduced task significance.
Kahn et al., (1964) found in their study that men who suffered from role
for an examination of how work and personal life can be blended together (Jackson,
2002). Imbalance, it was felt, arouses high levels of stress, detracting from quality of
65
life and ultimately reducing the individual’s effectiveness at work. According to Kotze
(2005) work-family balance enhances an individual’s QWL, as involvement in multiple
roles protects or buffers individuals from the effects of negative experiences in any one
role. Beyond this buffering effect, work-family balance is thought to promote well-being
in a more direct manner. Balanced individuals experience low levels of stress when
enacting roles, presumably as they are participating in role activities that are salient to
them.
However, Greenhaus, et al (pp.525, 2003) concluded from their research that
‘When individuals invest relatively little of their time or involvement in their combined
work and family roles, or when they derive little satisfaction from their combined roles,
work–family balance is unrelated to quality of life. Under these conditions, there is little
time, involvement, or satisfaction to allocate between roles’. These findings are not
supported by Kofodimos (1993) whose findings suggest that imbalance arouses high
levels of stress, detracts from quality of life, and ultimately reduces individual’s
effectiveness at work. How Work/Family or Work/Life Balance contributes to or
facilitates Quality of Life or Quality of Work/Life has been variously explained by
researchers.
Barnett and Hyde (2001) maintain the involvement in multiple roles tends to
protect the individual from the effects of negative experiences in any one role. In a way,
it provides a cushion that absorbs the impact, thus, equipping the balanced individual to
better cope with the exigency. According to Mark and MacDermid (1996, pg. 421) the
balanced individuals are ‘‘primed to seize the moment’’ when confronted with a role
demand because no role is seen as ‘‘less worthy of one’s alertness than any other.’’
This, they suggest stems from the balanced individual’s supposed participation in role
activities salient to them, leading to less role overload and depression in comparison to
their imbalanced counterparts (ibid). Thus, it can be said that, a balanced engagement in
work and life roles is expected to be associated with individual well-being because such
balance reduces work–family conflict, which detracts from well-being (Frone et al.,,
1992).
66
3.3 Performance
3.3.1. Introduction and Definition
The word “performance” is utilised extensively in all fields of management.
However, despite its frequent usage, the precise meaning of the word has rarely been
explicitly defined. The word can be interpreted variously as effectiveness and efficiency
(Neely et al.,, 1995), contribution (Thorndike, 1949), intelligence (Berger and
Humphrey, 1992) and, hence, it is important to look at its meaning in the context in
which it is being used. It is a relative concept defined in context with some
organisational referent point (Corvellec, 1995).
3.3.1.1. Definitions
Performance is the execution or accomplishment of work, tasks or goals to a
certain level of desired satisfaction (Aluko, 2003). The employee performance can
alternatively be defined as the echelon of productivity of an individual employee, as
compared to his or her colleges of similar level on numerous job-related behaviors and
outcomes (Babin and Boles, 1996).
The past few decades have been quite trying for the organisations as external
environmental variables have exerted pressures, influencing performance. in response to
the greater competition in the global marketplace, most of the organisations have
streamlined their operations (Collis and Montgomery, 1995) and increasingly realised
that to ‘remain competitive in such an environment, a organisation needs to get the most
out of its assets, especially the human assets’ (Hayward, 2005, pg. 10). Employees, it is
felt can provide the much needed competitive advantage, thus, contributing to
organisational performance (Collis and Montgomery, 1995). Employee performance has
been shown to have a significant positive effect on organisational performance (ibid).
With the contribution of human resource in gaining competitive advantage being
empirically established (Brewster et al.,, 2003), performance management and
67
measurement of this valuable asset has been pushed to the fore (Bartlett and Ghoshal,
1995).
In recent years, there is an increased pressure on the managers to improve the
organisational performance (Holloway, 1999). Every employee’s performance has an
impact on the organisation’s wider success (Hayward, 2005) as; it is the cumulative
effect of individual performances that translates into organisational performance
(Armstrong and Baron, 1998). Performance management is, thus, an ongoing and joint
process where the employee, with the assistance of the employer, “strives to improve the
employee’s individual performance and his contribution to the organisation’s wider
objectives” (Hellriegel, et al.,, 2004, pg.249). Since, this contributes to the productivity
of the work place, performance forms an area of interest for the organisations (Hunter
and Hunter, 1984). Murphy (1989) stressed that performance definitions should also
focus on behaviours rather than just focussing on outcomes as exclusive focus on
outcomes can encourage employees to find the easiest way to achieve the desired
outcomes. In the long run, this can be detrimental for the well being of the organisation
as exclusive focus on results might be at the cost of other important behaviours (Cook,
2008). Campbell et al.,, (1990) emphasise that job performance consists of observable
behaviours of individuals that are relevant to the goals of the organisation. However, it is
not just the behaviour which is under consideration; it is behaviour with an evaluative
aspect (Motowidlo et al.,, 1997) as can be seen in frequently used measures of job
performance, viz., performance ratings from supervisors and peers (Newman et al.,,
2004). Job performance has, thus, become one of the significant indicators in measuring
organizational performance in many studies (Wall et al., 2004).
Thorndike (1949) defined job performance as the sum of all contributions that an
individual makes to the workplace (in Borman, 1991)
Alternatively, job performance has been defined on the basis of intelligence as
‘the set of learned behaviours comprised of knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics considered to be intellective.’ (Berger and Humphrey, 1992, pg.254)
68
Further, the literature on performance (Katz and Kahn, 1978) makes a distinction
between in-role and extra-role performance. Extra-role performance is regarded as
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (Smith et al.,, 1983) and as another similar
concept termed Contextual Performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). The concept of
Organisation Citizenship Behaviour was first mooted by Organ (1988, pg. 4) as
‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization.’ Task Performance or the in-role performance, focuses on the activities that
form the technical core of the organisation, are formally a part of the employees’ job and
effectiveness with which these are performed (Cook, 2008). On the other hand,
contextual performance refers to such behaviours and activities which, though not task
related, contribute to the social and psychological aspects of the organisation (Borman
and Motowidlo, 1993). Thus, contextual performance can be such behaviours as helping,
cooperating with others, and volunteering, which are not formally part of the job but can
be important for all jobs. Although this distinction does exist, the current study focuses
on task, or in-role, performance.
3.3.2. Performance MeasurementPerformance, is very often measured in financial terms. However, it can be
measured equally well through a combination of expected behaviour and task-related
aspects (Motowidlo, 2003). Performance based on absolute value or relative judgement
is taken to reflect the overall organisational performance (Wall et al., 2004; Gomez,
2007). Since, job analysis specifies work behaviours and knowledge, skills, abilities and
other characteristics required from the person performing the job; it can be used for
developing performance standards required of each employee (Heneman and Judge,
2005). Job performance can be divided into ‘will-do’ (implying the individuals’ KSAOs
required for the performance of a particular job) and ‘can-do’ (referring to the motivation
level of the individuals in performing their work) (Motowidlo, 2003). In keeping with
this Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) suggested that performance construct consists of
task performance and contextual performance. there are different factors which influence
task performance and contextual performance. while the individual’s personality type
determines the contextual performance, it is job related experience which determines the
69
task performance (ibid). The job-related behaviours provide support to the task
performance (Williams, 2002).
Table 3.5: Literature related to performanceCharacteristic/Dimension
Literature on Performance No. of articles
Performance Thorndike, 1949; Berger and Humphrey, 1992; Corvellec, 1995; Aluko, 2003; Babin and Boles, 1996; Collis and Montgomery, 1995; Hayward, 2005; Brewster et al.,, 2003; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995; Holloway, 1999; Armstrong and Baron, 1998; Hellriegel, et al.,, 2004; Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Murphy, 1989; Cook, 2008; Campbell et al.,, 1990; Motowidlo et al.,, 1997; Newman et al.,, 2004; Wall et al., 2004; Borman, 1991; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Smith et al.,, 1983; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988.
25
Expected behaviour Motowidlo, 2003 1Task related Motowidlo, 2003; Motowidlo and Van Scotter,
1994; Williams, 2002; Lusch and Serpkenci, 1990.
4
Organisational performance
Wall et al., 2004; Gomez, 2007 2
Job analysis Heneman and Judge, 2005 1Efficiency and effectiveness
Armstrong, 1994; Heinrich, 2002; Neely et al., 1995 3
Self-report measures Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996; Kessler et al., 2003; Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel and Wheaton, 1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003; Heneman, 1974; Stathakopoulos, 1998.
10
Performance and Work/Life Balance
Green, 2001; Millward et al.,, 2000; Perrons, 2003; Simpson, 2000; White et al.,, 2003; Kinnunen et al.,, 2006; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Boyar et al.,, 2003; Prince et al.,, 2003; Judge and Watanabe, 1994; Engle and Prince, 2005; Elloy and Smith, 2003; Netemeyer et al.,, 1996
13
Armstrong (1994, p. 93) argues that the criteria for assessing performance should
be balanced between “achievements in relation to objectives, behaviour on the job as it
relates to performance (competencies) and day-to-day effectiveness”. Heinrich (2002, p.
721) goes on to explain that, “performance measures will be indicators, at best, and not
highly accurate gauges of actual performance.” Neely et al., (1995) defined performance
70
measurement as the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action.
Neely went on to identify the activities required to measure performance by defining a
performance measurement system as consisting of three inter-related elements:
- Individual measures that quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of actions.
- A set of measures that combine to assess the performance of an organisation as a
whole.
- A supporting infrastructure that enables data to be acquired, collated, sorted, analysed,
interpreted and disseminated.
Importantly this identifies that performance is multidimensional (requiring a number of
measures to assess) and an infrastructure to measure and manage.
Lusch and Serpkenci (1990) argued that the overall performance measures of the
organization unit (e.g. market share, sales ratios) should not be used to assess individual
performance, since the unit’s performance is a function of multiple factors including
individual manager performance, performance of other employees, the strategy pursued
by the organization unit and the market conditions. Therefore, the focus should be on the
job tasks and actions that relate to individual-level performance.
Work performance is also assessed by means of objective performance based
assessment rather than self-report. Many employers have developed assessments of this
sort for at least some of their workers (Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996). However, these
systems vary enormously in coverage as well as in sophistication, making them
impossible to use in broad-based studies of health and work performance (Kessler et al.,
2003). A comprehensive review of the literature found a number of useful self-report
measures of work performance (Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel
and Wheaton, 1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003). Most of these,
however, focused on single occupations and included questions that were tailored to the
unique demands of those occupations. The measure for this study was required to assess
performance of bank employees based on their perception of linkages between their
Work/Life Balance and performance. Hence, it was felt that developing self-report
measures was the most feasible tool for the purpose. Additionally, as noted by Heneman
(1974), self-ratings may be more accurate and precise than superiors’ ratings. The reason
71
is that superiors are typically less well-informed and more subject to halo effects.
However, self-ratings of one’s own performance are expected to be biased (i.e. to over-
report performance level) (Stathakopoulos, 1998).
3.3.3. Performance and Work/Life Balance
Work-life balance has emerged as a major theme during the last two decades,
which witnessed a substantial intensification of work caused by economic uncertainty,
organisational restructuring, and increase in business competition (Green, 2001;
Millward et al.,, 2000). To respond to the new conditions, organisations demand higher
performance and commitment from their employees, which is translated into
expectations for working longer and for prioritising work over personal life (Perrons,
2003, pp. 68-72; Simpson, 2000; White et al.,, 2003).
Employee performance has been the focus of organizational behavioral
researchers since long. Among other antecedents of employee performance, one that has
surfaced lately is conflict in personal and work life of employees. That is, to balance the
work and life responsibilities, whereas any incompatibility and misbalance of work and
life activities, is called work-life conflict and have stern effects on work performance
(Kinnunen et al.,, 2006; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006).
There is significant research support from various countries, such as United
States (Boyar et al.,, 2003; Prince et al.,, 2003; Judge and Watanabe, 1994), Canada
(Engle and Prince, 2005), Australia (Elloy and Smith, 2003), Puerto Rico and Romania
(Netemeyer et al.,, 1996) that reveals that role strain, role conflict, role ambiguity and
work/life imbalance all have a significant impact on the job performance, job satisfaction
and life satisfaction of people. Work/Life Balance has been studied in different ways as
Work/Life Conflict or as Work/Family Balance or Work/Family Conflict and results
have emphasised the significant relationship between WLB, its allied concepts and
employee performance. For instance Frone et al., (1997) examined the impact of work-
life conflict on performance using a self-report scale to assess job performance and
reported a significant relationship. Aryee (1992) reported that performance is related to
job-parent conflict but not to job-spouse conflict in his study. Blackhurst et al., (1998)
72
found that organizational commitment is negatively related to family life of the
individuals leading to low performance and consequent high work-life conflict.
Studies undertaken by Jackson and Schuler (1985) and Aven (1988) revealed that
there was a bi-directional relationship between job and personal life of employees and
high job commitment led to work-life conflict, ultimately reducing the employee
performance. The same was investigated by Allen and Meyer (1990). Contrary to this,
Ali and Baloch (1999) said in their study that loss of commitment had a negative impact
on performance which infact led to work/family conflict. Work to family conflict has a
negative impact on performance of people and when work affects the family adversely,
the performance at job decreases (Lee and Hui, 1999). Netemeyer et al., (2005), in their
study on customer service employees, customers and supervisors, found direct and
indirect effects between work-family conflict and employee performance where the
performances are rated by supervisor. Relationship between work-family conflict and
performance on the basis of gender has been studied by Butler and Skattebo (2004)
where there was a significant difference in the performance of men experiencing
work/family conflict but this was not the case for women. There was no difference in the
overall performance ratings given to women who experienced the work-life conflict and
women who did not.
While there are studies supporting the relationship between work-family conflict
and job performance, there are others that did not. Bhuian et al.,, (2005) found no
noteworthy relationship between work-family conflict and job performance. Similar
findings were documented by Netemeyer et al.,, (1996). According to Aminah (2008) the
work-family conflict is directly negatively related to the level of employees’ job
performance. Further, she states that work-family conflict increases employees’
emotional exhaustion and hence, job performance is reduced. Work-family conflict
reduces employees’ job satisfaction which in turn decreases the level of job performance
(Anwar and Shahzad, 2011).
Exploring from the angle of spillover, literature provides evidence that work to
family spillover produces fatigue which in turn impacts performance (Williams and
73
Alliger, 1994). Since, workload results in work to home interference, the associated
negative spillover adversely affect the performance of the employee (Geurts et al.,,
2003). Similar findings were reported by Beehr et al.,, (2000) in their study of 198 door
to door book salesmen, where psychological strain had an adverse impact on
performance.
Further, Work/Life Balance policies have been found to have an impact on
performance. Better Work/Life Balance policies have been known to help attract better
recruits, improve staff retention rates and enhancing productivity (Yasbek, 2004). There
are different theories about the link between work-life balance and productivity. Some
argue that policies will decrease negative spillovers from workers’ lives, leading to
productivity gains. Policies can also reduce extended hours and fatigue, which have a
negative effect on productivity (ibid).
3.3.4. Performance and Quality of Work/Life
Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance are both organisationally based
factors. While job performance relates to both the individual and the organisation,
Quality of Work/Life influences performance. Writings and research in management,
HR, and OD often link QWL and job-related outcomes to organizational performance
(e.g., Cascio, 1998; Cummings and Worley, 2005; Dess et al.,, 2007; Lau and May,
Further, there was one question each asking the respondent about his perception of his
quality of work/life and Work/Life Balance.
5.2.1 WLB Scale Construction
The concept of work/life conflict and work/family conflict were developed in the West
and has been studied quite vigorously in Western countries (Greenhaus, and Beutell,
1985; Frone, 2000; Frone et al, 1997; Thomas and Ganster, 1995, Higgins, and Duxbury,
2001; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Gutek, Searle, and Klepa, 1991) (Table 5.2). However,
there is a notable lack of information on the concept in Eastern countries (Wesley and
Muthuswamy, 2005) and whatever studies have been undertaken in the area of
Work/Life Balance and work/life conflict in India, are characterised by a glaring and
distinct lack of focus (Rajadhyaksha and Smita, 2004). It is noted that issues of
111
interdependence and encroachment of work family domains on each other are not
confined to western countries like USA and Canada alone (Lewis et al, 1992), there is a
need to explore it in other countries as well. The differences in attitudes, values and
behaviours between the employees in west and those belonging to the countries in the
East is very much evident (Black and Porter, 1991; Ralston et al, 1993), making it
imperative to study the work/family constructs from the point of view of emerging
economies like India, where the institution of family is very strong and where of late
women participation in professional sphere is on the rise (Chandra, 2010).
Table 5.2: Work/Life scales reviewed for the WLB instrument
WLB Study Factors
Bacharach et al.,, 1991. 4 items work-home inter-role conflictBohen, and Viveros-Long, 1981. 19 items measuring role strain
Boyar et al.,, 2007. Perceived Work Demand and Perceived Family Demand
Carlson, and Perrewe, 1999. 4 additional items added to Gutek et al.,, scale.Carlson et al.,, 2006. 18 item Family-Work Enrichment Carlson et al.,, 1998. 6 dimensions, 18 items, 3 per dimensionFrone et al.,, 1992. 4 items – work-family and family-work interference Gutek et al.,, 1991. 8 Items – work-family and family-work interference
Hanson et al.,, 2006. Behavior-based instrumental positive spillover, Value-based instrumental positive spillover, and Affective positive spillover.
Holbrook, 2005. Work-Family facilitationKopelman et al.,, 1983. 8 items inter-role conflict between work and familyNetemeyer et al.,, 1996. WFC, 5 items and FWC, 5 itemsSmall and Riley, 1990. 20 items SpilloverStephens and Sommer, 1996. 14 items Time, Strain and Behaviour Based conflict
Studies in India as well as in neighbouring countries have primarily depended upon
foreign scales for evaluating work/life conflict and Work/Life Balance. Bhargava and
Baral (2009) in their study on the ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Work-Family
Enrichment among Indian Managers’ and Rajadhyaksha and Velgach (2000), for their
study ‘Gender, Gender Role Ideology and Work Family Conflict in India’ have used
items from the Carlson et al., (2000) measure on Work-to-Family Enrichment and
Family-to-Work Enrichment to ascertain work/family conflict. Similarly, Noor and Maad
112
(2008) in their study of Work Life Conflict, Stress and Turnover Intentions among
Marketing Executives in Pakistan, Ahmad’s 1998 on Gender Differences in the
Boundary Permeability between Work and Family Roles and Malhotra and Sachdeva
(2005) for Social Roles and Role Conflict: An Inter-professional Study among Women,
have all used scales developed and validated outside India. Hence, it was felt that a scale
measuring Work/Life Balance in context with the Indian perceptions and setting was
much needed. The authors have come across just one scale measuring Work/Life
Balance constructed in Indian setting post liberalisation and globalisation of the Indian
economy. Wesley and Muthuswamy, (2005) developed a Work-Family Conflict scale
with five items each for Work Family Conflict and Family Work Conflict. Their
population for study was teaching faculty at self-financing engineering colleges in
Coimbatore, India. The study concentrated on work interference with life and life
interference with work and does not include the Behavioural component that is included
in the present scale.
The gaps identified above necessitated undertaking the present study on Work/Life
Balance. The study examines a bi-directional work/life construct in the Indian context.
After completing the literature review, an empirical study was undertaken aimed at
developing and validating a scale for measuring Work/Life Balance among professionals
working in India.
5.2.1.1 Scale construction
Item Generation
The constructs for forming a scale measuring Work/Life Balance were identified by
conducting focussed group discussions as well as through literature review (Bihen and
Viveros-Long, 1981; Kopelman et al.,, 1983; Small and Riley, 1990; Gutek, et al.,, 1991;
Adams, et al.,, 1996; Ahmad, 1996; Netemeyer et al.,, 1996; Aryee, et al.,, 1998;
Bedeian et al.,, 1988; Holbrook, 2005; Carlson et al.,, 2006; Hanson, et al.,, 2006; Boyar
et al.,, 2007; Brough et al.,, 2009) (table 5.3).
113
Table 5.3: Items included in the pilot of the WLB instrumentSl.
Item Study
1 Personal work interferes with responsibilities at work. (reworded)
Gutek, Searle and Klepa, 1991
2 Put off things at work due to family demands on time. Group discussion3 Family related strain interferes with job related duties. Netemeyer et al.,, 19964 The demands of family or spouse/partner interfere with
work-related activities.Netemeyer et al.,, 1996
5 The things that make one effective at work also help in being a better parent and spouse
Stephens and Sommer, 1996
6 What works at home seems to be effective at work as well and vice-versa
Stephens and Sommer, 1996
7 The problem solving approach used in job is equally effective in resolving problems at home
Group discussion
8 Behaviour effective at work is counter-productive at home
Stephens and Sommer, 1996
9 The response to interpersonal problems at work and home is different from each other.
Group discussion
10 It is not possible to act similarly at home as at work Group discussion11 Due to work related duties, I have to make changes to my
plans for family activitiesNetemeyer et al.,, 1996
12 My spouse/partner and I have different goals Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007
13 I know what my family responsibilities are Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007
14 I am given a lot of work to do. Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007
15 I meet my standards regarding expertise in taking care of my child (parental efficacy)
Cinamon et al.,, 2007
16 I believe that my partner thinks that I am competent in the accomplishment of various housekeeping tasks
Clarke et al.,, 2004
17 My friends/family dislike how often I am preoccupied with my work while I’m at home.
Kopelman, Greenhaus and Connely(1983)
18 I feel physically drained when I get home from work. Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981)
19 The amount of travel requires by my job interferes with my family life.
Pleck, 1979
20 My job or career keeps me from spending the amount of time I would like to spend with my family
Carlson and Perrewe, 1999
21 My home life keeps me from spending the amount of time I would like to spend on job or career-related
Carlson and Perrewe, 1999
114
activities22 My work schedule often conflicts with my family life Kopelman, et al.,, 198323 Because I am tired after work, I don't see friends as much
as I would like toSmall and Riley (1990)
24 Time spent at home energises me for work Group discussion25 I have greater confidence at work if I have a better day at
homeGroup discussion
26 My workplace provides contacts which help me in my personal/family performance
Group discussion
27 I believe that my partner thinks I am competent in my role of parent
Clarke et al.,, 2004
28 Talking with someone at work helps me deal with personal/family related challenges
Group discussion
29 Work demands interfere with personal life (reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199630 Work keeps one away from family more than liked. Stephens and Sommer,
199631 Rushed in doing the job Bacharach et al.,, 199132 Time taken by job makes it difficult to fulfil family
obligations (reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199633 Work takes up time meant to be spent with family. Cinamon et al.,, 200734 Personal chores cannot be done due to job demands
(reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199635 Job duties force changes in plans for family activities. Group discussion36 Job related strain leads to changes in family activities.
(reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199637 There is no time to finish job Bacharach et al.,, 199138 The strain of attempting to balance responsibilities at
work and home is often feltStephens and Sommer, 1996
39 Work makes me too tired or irritable to enjoy personal life.
Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981)
40 The tension of balancing responsibilities at home and work often result in feeling emotionally drained.
Stephens and Sommer, 1996
41 Job demands make it difficult to maintain the kind of relationship with spouse and children/ family as one would like
Stephens and Sommer, 1996
42 Official work cannot be completed due to family demands. Group discussion
The study focuses on understanding the work/life related issues for working
professionals. Thus, focused group discussions were held with randomly chosen
employees drawn from four areas, viz. 10 managerial level employees of a private sector
company, 12 academicians, 7 social sector professionals and 15 public sector employees
to identify factors considered relevant to Work/Life Balance by professionals working in
115
the city of Lucknow, India. Each focussed group lasted for an average of 60 minutes and
yielded a list of about 100 variables which were thought to impact Work/Life Balance.
This list was subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth discussions
with Human Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of 45 items
was constructed, constituting the WLB dimensions. A posteriori the choice of factors
seemed pretty similar to those proposed in writings on Work/Life Balance.
Sampling
As the population of professionals is infinite, purposeful sampling (Yin 1994) was used.
The study was conducted in North India and the sample was drawn from five sectors
namely, banking, insurance, education, public health and telecommunications by non
probability convenience sampling based on sampling strategies described by Patton (Pg.
169-186; 1990). 4 banks, 3 insurance firms, 5 educational institutions, 1 public health
research organisation and 2 telecommunications firms, all in North India, were covered.
A deliberate attempt was made to represent different age groups as also to include
respondents from different vocations, both public and private sector undertakings as well
as full and part-time work status, so as to reduce systematic bias in sampling, the other
aim being to enhance the generalisability of results (Young, 1993).
A total of 250 questionnaires were personally administered and of these 228 were found
fit for analysis as they were complete in all respects. The entire sample, thus, represents
.738 **I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)
3.75 1.69
Public Sector Banks (N = 360)
.755**WLB score 4.02 1.03I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)
3.62 1.67
Private Sector Banks (N = 213) .705**WLB score 4.38 .92I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in 3.95 1.70
122
my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
This was separately tested for public and private sector bank staff. The results are
reported in table 5.7. This revealed that the responses of public sector and private sector
bank employees to the question ‘I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fulfil my
potential in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life’ correlated quite
well with the summated score of the Work/Life Balance scale. While public sector
correlation stood at .755, the private sector, too, showed a high correlation value at .705.
The convergent and discriminant validity of the scale was also tested and found to be
5.2.2 QWL Scale ConstructionLiterature on quality of work/life in India is not systematic (Saklani, 2010) making it
difficult to comprehend the meaning of QWL in Indian context (Gani and Ahmad, 1995).
Published QWL studies and literature from ASEAN countries are not much and a major
part of QWL literature is contributed by the first world countries (Bagtasos, 2011).
Studies have been attempted in India to gauge the quality of work life of employees in
both public as well as private sector but the emphasis has been the manufacturing sector
123
and have been conducted prior to the opening up of the Indian economy (Ganguli and
Joseph, 1976; Monga and Maggu, 1981; Sanyal and Sinh, 1982; Kalra and Ghosh, 1983;
Rahman, 1984; Singh, 1984; Chakraborthy, 1990). Since, these studies have been
concentrated in the period before the Indian economy was liberalised, they fail to capture
the impact of post liberalisation work environment of 1991. After liberalisation and
globalisation of India’s economy, the country’s services sector has been pivotal in
realizing the overall economic growth in the country and has been growing rapidly for
the past few years. In the current year 2009-2010, the services sector is expected to
record a comfortable growth of more than 10 per cent (Central Statistical Organisation of
India). Service providing industries like health care, tourism and hotels, communication,
trade and retail, banking financial services, transportation and logistics etc. form the
main stay of the Indian economy today (Marwaha et al.,, 2010). This sector, providing
employment to 23% of the work force, has propelled the demand for educated workers.
The focus on service sector and its contribution merits a closer examination of the
quality of work life of its professionals. Therefore it necessitates that a measure be
developed to study the factors impacting the quality of work life of employees in the post
liberalisation India. Further, studies in Indian organisations reveal that, in contrast to
Western countries, relational and environmental factors have greater importance with
regard to QWL, here (Saklani, 2010). There are few studies from the service sector with
the available literature dealing more with industrial sector (Bagtasos, 2011). Hence, the
need was felt to develop a measure for studying Quality of Work Life.
Literature review undertaken and purposive conversations with service sector
professionals from banking and insurance helped in drawing inferences on factors and
issues influencing quality of work life. 5 focused group discussions were conducted by
asking the respondents open ended questions about factors in their professional life that
increase or decrease their quality of work life. These interactions with banking service
professionals provided valuable insights regarding issues related to QWL and helped in
compiling a list of about 60 variables that can influence the quality of working life of an
individual. This list was subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth
discussions with Human Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of
124
28 items was constructed, constituting the QWL dimensions. A posteriori the choice of
factors seemed similar to those proposed in writings on quality of work life (Van Laar
and Easton, 2007; Sirgy et al.,, 2001; Ellis and Pompli, 2002; Baba and Jamal, 1991;
Mirvis and Lawler, 1984; Taylor, 1979; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Walton, 1973,
1975; Orpen, 1981; Stein, 1983; Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Saklani, 2010) (Table
5.9).
Table 5.9: QWL literature reviewed for scale constructionSl.
QWLStudy Dimensions/characteristics
1Van Laar and Easton, 2007
Job and Career Satisfaction; Working Conditions; General Well-Being; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at Work
2Sirgy et al.,, 2001
Need satisfaction based on job requirements; need satisfaction based on work environment; need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour; need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes; organizational commitment.
3Ellis and Pompli, 2002
Poor working environments; resident aggression; workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred; balance of work and family; shiftwork; lack of involvement in decision making; professional isolation; lack of recognition; poor relationships with supervisor/peers; role conflict; lack of opportunity to learn new skills.
4Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999
Skill discretion; decision authority; task control; work time pressure; role ambiguity; physical exertion; hazardous exposure; job insecurity; lack of meaningfulness; social support supervisor; social support colleagues
5Baba and Jamal, 1991
Job satisfaction; job involvement; work role ambiguity; work role conflict; work role overload; job stress; organisational commitment and turn-over intentions
6Mirvis and Lawler, 1984
Safe work environment; equitable wages; equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement.
7 Stein, 1983Compensation; working environment; autonomy and control; skill variety; decision discretion;
8 Orpen, 1981Job responsibility; intricacy of decision-making and harmfulness ofworking conditions
9 Taylor, 1979 Individual power; employee participation in the management; fairness and equity; social support; use of one’s present skills; self development; a meaningful future at work; social relevance of the
Adequate and fair compensation; safe and healthy working conditions; immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities; opportunity for continued growth and security; social integration in the work organization; constitutionalism in the work organization; work and total life space and social relevance of work life
5.2.2.1 Scale Construction
Item Generation
Based on the item pool of the shortlisted 28 variables, a structured questionnaire was
framed and a pilot study conducted. These 28 items were pretested on a sample size of
40 service professionals for clarity and relevance of the items. Wherever the need to
restate or to reword was felt, it was done. 2 items were omitted as they had low
concurrence (factor loading less than 0.4) yielding 26 items for further tests. The
research instrument had two sections. Section A recorded pertinent demographic
information such as age, gender, marital status, educational qualification, organisation
and employment type, working hours, nature of duties and caring responsibilities at
home. Section B had 26 items related to quality of work life and 10 items related to self-
reported measure of performance. The constructs were written in simple English and a
seven point Likert scale was used with labels ranging from ‘strongly disagree = 1’ to
‘strongly agree’ = 7 for 17 out of 26 positively worded items and the remaining
negatively worded 9 items were reverse coded, with ‘strongly disagree = 7’ and ‘strongly
agree=1’. Out of 10 items, 8 items pertaining to performance were positively worded,
while 2 were negatively worded (reverse coded) and coded on a seven point-Likert scale.
Sampling
Owing to the infinite nature of the population of professionals, purposeful sampling
(Yin, 1994) was used. The study was conducted in select states of North India and the
sample was drawn from banking and insurance sector by non probability convenience
sampling based on sampling strategies described by Patton (1990). 6 banks, (3 private
sector and 3 public sector) from North India, were covered. A deliberate attempt was
126
made to represent different age groups as also to include respondents from different
vocations, both public and private sector undertakings as well as full and part-time work
status, so as to reduce systematic bias in sampling, the other aim being to enhance the
generalisability of results (Young, 1993). A total of 450 questionnaires were
administered, 372 were received back and of these 360 were found fit for analysis as
they were complete in all respects. The entire sample, thus, represents 228 employees
from public sector banks and 132 professionals from private sector banks. Post data
collection, it was cross checked for double entries and missing responses, a master chart
prepared and fed into Excel sheets. It was further prepared for analysis by coding and
analysed using SPSS 19.0. The demographic profile of respondents is given in table 5.10.
Table 5.10: Demographic profile of respondents (QWL scale development and Employee Performance measure)Variable N=360 PercentageGender Male Female
233127
64.735.3
Marital Status Single Married Divorcee/Widowed
1042542
28.870.60.6
Educational Status Graduate Post Graduate Professional/Doctorate
67178115
18.649.432.0
Type of Organisation Private sector Public sector
164196
45.654.4
Work status Full time Part-time
31545
87.512.5
Data Reduction
To develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring the quality of work life, the
underlying factors were identified using Factor Analysis. The constructs for forming the
scale were identified by conducting focussed group discussions as well as through
literature review. For establishing the appropriateness of data for factor analysis, the
sampling adequacy test was performed through Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic.
Table 5.12 provides the SPSS output of data for factor analysis. Since, KMO values
127
greater than 0.6 is considered as adequate (Kaiser and Rice, 1974), the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy with value of 0.818 was acceptable. Barlett's Test
of Sphericity (5752.745, df. 378, Sig.0.00) show that the values are significant and
hence, acceptable implying that non-zero correlations existed at the significance level of
0.000, it provided an adequate basis for proceeding with the factor analysis. The
Principle Components method for extraction was employed with the Varimax Rotation
with Kaiser Normalisation. The rotation converged in seven iterations, and factors with
Eigen values greater than one were retained (Hair et al.,, 2009). The communalities were
all relatively large (greater than 0.5, falling in range 0.57 to 0.84), suggesting that the
data set is appropriate (Stewart, 1981). This final version having twenty six items was
finalised for the scale. It has three items which were reverse scored during data
interpretation. To interpret the factors and construct the final version, only those
variables having a loading at least 0.50 on a single factor were considered (Hair et al.,,
2009). The screening test extracted seven factors with Eigen values greater than 1
ranging from 1.13 to 7.43, which shows the importance of each factor and their relative
explanatory power. These seven factors accounted for 70.09 percent of the total variance.
5.2.2.2 Constructs
The constructs which finally make up the Quality of Work/life Scale are described in
detail in this section. These are Factor I (Organisational Commitment) 6 items dealing
with pride in belonging to the organisation, being glad of working in the organisation,
and enjoying a healthy working environment. Factor II (Supervisor Support) 5 items
consisting of constructive feedback from the supervisor, supportive supervisor, sharing
information and expectations and giving a patient hearing. Factor III (Rewards and
Promotion opportunity) with 3 items having satisfaction with rewards and compensation,
opportunities for promotion and satisfaction with present working situation as part of it.
Factor IV (Task Capability and Significance) 3 items includes expertise in performing
assigned tasks and duties, response quality to customer queries and resource availability
and usage.
128
Factor V (Work load) with 3 items relating to workload and expectations at work. Factor
VI (Job ambiguity) items 3 items comprising lack of clarity on roles and responsibility as
well as about existing opportunities for advancements and promotions. Factor VII (Work
pressure) having 3 items dealing with unreasonable pressure for performance, conflicting
roles and working with inadequate material and resources. All seven factors were used to
constitute the subscales and analysed. In factor III, one item, B14 was dropped as it was
cross loading on Factor II as well (Table 5.11).
TABLE 5.11: Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for Quality of Work Life Measurement Scale.
ComponentConstructs/Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Organisational Commitment Proud of belonging to the organisation .796 .094 -.061 .225 -.021 -.016 -.053 Organisation inspires best in job performance .776 .050 .127 .217 -.061 .038 -.073 Care about the fate of this organization .752 .029 -.195 .222 .006 .001 -.054 Happy to have chosen the current organisation over others .745 .185 .103 .099 .007 -.004 -.062 Best possible organisation to work in .701 .108 .410 -.053 -.018 -.191 -.001 Good healthy working environment. .650 .148 .017 -.018 .062 -.340 -.038
Supervisor Support Supervisor provides constructive feedback .304 .836 -.053 .040 -.082 -.083 -.034 Supervisor shares information and makes expectations clear .349 .812 .002 .098 -.065 -.031 .001 Immediate supervisor is supportive -.120 .754 .364 .199 .142 -.149 -.016 Immediate supervisor gives patient hearing -.021 .742 .360 .318 .171 -.178 .014 Supervisory support to decisions .284 .509 .110 .424 -.221 .101 -.061 Supervisory recognition for job done well* .420 .479 .214 .296 -.180 .027 .086
Rewards and Promotion Opportunity Recognition for job done .156 .090 .850 .197 -.018 -.057 -.049 Satisfaction with benefits and compensation -.041 .010 .797 .162 .063 .045 -.026 Good opportunities for promotion. .149 .279 .732 .058 -.041 -.146 -.035 Colleagues can be relied on -.127 .463 .509 .111 .046 -.271 -.067
Task Capability and Significance Enjoy doing the job and take pride in it .218 .183 .186 .826 .127 .035 -.118 Respond quickly and courteously to customer queries, needs .221 .208 .151 .819 .059 -.095 -.091
Well versed in the assigned tasks and duties .248 .211 .195 .795 -.007 .022 -.220
Work Load Unrealistic work expectations .060 .008 -.004 .110 .825 -.007 .156 Workload more than can be finished in a routine day -.028 -.043 .013 -.105 .815 .114 .083 Amount of work load interferes with quality of performance -.048 .006 .038 .094 .807 .002 .060
Job Ambiguity Lack of clarity on scope and responsibilities of job -.031 -.090 -.023 -.039 .024 .869 .073
129
Feeling of insecurity and vulnerability at times at workplace. -.090 -.084 -.061 .194 -.069 .775 -.032 Too little authority to carry out the assigned responsibilities. -.142 -.067 -.174 -.241 .264 .688 .020
Work Pressure Often involved in situations with conflicting requirements -.062 .026 -.093 -.014 .111 -.008 .800 Inadequate resources and materials to execute assignments -.024 -.003 .012 -.128 .003 .138 .774 Unreasonable pressures for better performance -.101 -.058 -.024 -.156 .197 -.075 .734Eigen value of the factor 7.426 3.031 2.474 2.237 1.805 1.522 1.130Percentage of variance explained by the factor before rotation 26.52 37.34 46.18 54.17 60.62 66.05 70.09Percentage of variance explained by the factor after rotation 14.39 26.87 37.06 47.12 55.33 63.20 70.09
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. ; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.; * Removed from final scale due to cross loading on Factor 1 and Factor 2
5.2.2.3 Reliability and Validity
Reliability of the Quality of Work Life scale and the constituent subscales was estimated
by analyses of internal consistency and Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach 1951).
The scale reliability is fairly good at 0. 813, with subscale reliability of 0.86 for subscale
Factor I, 0.86 for subscale Factor II, 0.79 for subscale Factor III, 0.91 for subscale Factor
IV, 0.79 for subscale Factor V, 0.75 for subscale Factor VI and 0.70 for subscale Factor
VII. For a measure to be acceptable, coefficient alpha should be above 0.70 (Nunnally
1978). Hence, the reliability of the scale comes out to be quite good and with acceptable
values. The reliability coefficient for the subscales ranges from 0.70 to 0.91, the seven
subscales are found to be of good reliability (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12: Description and reliability analysis of sub-scales for QWL scaleQWL Scale reliability = 0.80
Factor I – Organisational Commitment; Factor II – Supervisor Support; Factor III – Rewards, Promotions; Factor IV – Task Capability and Significance; Factor V – Workload; Factor VI – Job ambiguity; Factor VII – Work pressure
130
Validity of the scale were analysed through two methods viz. Factor loadings and
average variance extracted. Factor Loadings are important criteria while checking out the
validity of the constructs. The factor loadings for the 26 items making up the scale range
from 0.509 to 0.869, which is a good indication of the validity of the factors. While 0.5 is
considered as acceptable factor loading, loadings above 0.70 are recommended (Hair et
al, 2009). The study has 23 items, i.e. 88.5% items, with factor loadings above 0.70.
Convergent and discriminant validity are both considered to be subcategories on
construct validity, ideally thought of as two interlocking propositions. According to
Zikmund (2010) correlations between theoretically similar measures should be high,
showing convergence whereas correlations between theoretically dissimilar measures
should be low, showing discrimination. Discriminant validity was tested using the
Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria that discriminant validity is established if the square
root of the average variance extracted from each construct is greater than the correlation
between the construct and the other constructs. Correlation for each construct, square
root of correlation and the square root of the average variance extracted for the
constructs is given in Table 5.13) and clearly establishes discriminant validity of the
scale.
Convergent validity
Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed three procedures to assess the convergent validity
of a set of measurement items in relation to their corresponding constructs. These are (1)
item reliability of each measure, (2) composite reliability of each construct and (3) the
average variance extracted. The item reliability of an item was assessed by its factor
loading onto the underlying construct. Hair et al., (2009) suggested that an item is
significant if its factor loading is greater than 0.50. As shown in table 5.11, the Eigen
values of all constructs exceeded 1.00 and the percent of cumulative variance explained
by these three constructs was 70.09%. The factor loadings of all the items in the measure
ranged from 0.509 to 0.869. This exceeds the threshold set by Hair et al., (2009) and
demonstrates convergent validity at the item level. The composite reliability of each
construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis
(2003) suggested that an alpha value of .70 should be considered acceptable. As shown
131
in table 5.12, the reliabilities of all the constructs range from 0.91 to 0.70 and is within
the range suggested by Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis (2003). The final indicator
of convergent validity, average variance extracted, is a more conservative test of
convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). It measures the amount of variance
captured by the construct in relation to the amount of variance attributable to
measurement error. Convergent validity is judged to be adequate when average variance
extracted equals or exceeds 0.50 (i.e. when the variance captured by the construct
exceeds the variance due to measurement error). As shown in Table 5.13), the
convergent validity for the proposed constructs of the research model is adequate.
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is assessed to measure the extent to which constructs are different.
At the item level, Barclay et al., (1995) suggested that discriminant validity is present
when an item correlates more highly with items in the construct it intends to measure
than with items belonging to other constructs. In this study, an acceptable level of
discriminant validity at the item level was found. At the construct level, discriminant
validity is considered adequate when the variance shared between a construct and any
other construct in the model is less than the variance that construct shares with its
measures (Fornell et al., 1982). The variance shared by any two constructs is obtained by
squaring the correlation between the two constructs. The variance shared between a
construct and its measures corresponds to average variance extracted. Discriminant
validity was assessed by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted for
a given construct with the correlations between that construct and all other constructs.
Table 5.13 shows the correlation matrix for the constructs. The diagonal elements have
been replaced by the square roots of the average variance extracted. For discriminant
validity to be judged adequate, these diagonal elements should be greater than the off-
diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. Discriminant validity appears
satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs. This indicates that each
construct shared more variance with its items than it does with other constructs. Having
achieved discriminant validity at both the item and construct levels, the constructs in the
proposed research model are deemed to be adequate.
Work pressure -.05** -.09 -.12* -.27** .22** .08 .770
Correlations between constructs (below the diagonal), squared correlations between constructs (above the diagonal) and the Square root of Average Variance Extracted as the diagonal element** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)* correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
To test the predictive validity of the QWL scale, the respondents were asked a question
in section C which captured their perception of their Quality of Work/Life in a straight
forward manner. The correlation between the QWL scale scores and the question
reporting quality of work/life experienced by the respondents was significant and
moderately high at 0.559. The correlation between the QWL scale scores and the
question was again tested separately for public and private sector bank employees. The
results are reported in table 5.14. In case of both the public sector and private sector
banks the positive correlation between QWL scale scores and the independent question
related to QWL was moderately high (r = 0.534, p < .01 for public sector; r = 0.596, p <
0.01 for private sector), indicating that the scale had predictive validity.
Table 5.14 Correlation between QWL scores and question on QWL.Mean Std. Deviation Correlation
Overall (N = 573)QWL score 3.56 0.36
0.559 **I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.78 1.39Public Sector Banks (N = 360)
0.534 **QWL score 3.59 0.35I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.81 1.28Private Sector Banks (N = 213)
0.596 **QWL score 3.50 0.37I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.72 1.56
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
133
5.2.3 Employee Job Performance Scale Construction
Many employers have developed assessments for measuring performance for at least
some of their workers (Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996). However, these systems vary
enormously in coverage as well as in sophistication, making them impossible to use in
broad-based studies of health and work performance (Kessler et al., 2003). A
comprehensive review of the literature found a number of useful self-report measures of
work performance (Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel and Wheaton,
1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003). Most of these, however, focused
on single occupations and included questions that were tailored to the unique demands of
those occupations. The measure for this study was required to assess performance of
bank employees based on their perception of linkages between their Work/Life Balance
and performance. Hence, it was felt that developing self-report measures was the most
feasible tool for the purpose. Additionally, as noted by Heneman (1974), self-ratings may
be more accurate and precise than superiors’ ratings. The reason is that superiors are
typically less well-informed and more subject to halo effects.
Table 5.15: Employee Job Performance factors
Factors/dimensions Literature on Job Performance No. of
articles
Employee retention;
Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Paul and Anantharam, 2003 2
Product/service quality
Parasuraman et al.,, 1985; Tzafrir, 2005; Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Paul and Anantharam, 2003 4
Employee turnover
Richard and Johnson, 2001 1
Task performance
Werner,1994; Borman and Motowildo, 1997; Whiting et al.,, 2008; Dalal, 2005; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Sackett, 2002.
7
Customer satisfaction
DunlopandLee,2004;Koys,2001; Podsakoff et al.,,1997;PodsakoffandMacKenzie,1994;WalzandNiehoff,1996; Tzafrir, 2005; Khandekar and Sharma 2005.
7
134
Profitability DunlopandLee,2004;Koys,2001; Podsakoff et al.,,1997; PodsakoffandMacKenzie,1994;WalzandNiehoff,1996; Tzafrir, 2005. 6
Interpersonal Skills
Skarlicki and Latham, 1995; Chughtai, 2006 2
Achievement/Goal orientation
Porath and Bateman, 2006; Stephens et al.,, (1998); Greenhaus et al.,, (1990) 3
Citizenship performance
Dalal, 2005; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Sackett, 2002. 4
Employee productivity
Richard and Johnson, 2001. 1
5.2.3.1 Scale construction
Literature review undertaken and purposive conversations with service sector
professionals from banking and insurance helped in drawing inferences on factors and
issues influencing performance. 3 focused group discussions were conducted by asking
the respondents open ended questions about factors that identify performance of an
indiviual. These interactions with bank professionals provided valuable insights
regarding issues related to performance and helped in compiling a list of about 45
variables that could be used for assessing self-reported job performance. This list was
subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth discussions with Human
Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of 23 items was
constructed, constituting the self-report measure of performance.
The demographic profile of the respondents was the same as that for the Quality of
Work/Life questionnaire as the Employee Performance self-assessment instrument was
appended to the Quality of Work/Life questionnaire for the piloting. The respondent
profile is given in table 5.10. The instrument developed for measuring performance
focussed on understanding job performance from the point of view of the employee as
Work/Life Balance of the same indiviudal was hypothesised to have a bearing on his/her
performance. Factors/characteristics of job performance culled out from literature is
summarised in table 5.15.
5.2.3.2 Constructs
135
Post piloting factor analysis was used for data reduction and scale refinement. The final
job performance scale has ten self-assessment questions were asked from the employees
to ascertain their perception of their performance. Out of the 450 administered
questionnaires, 360 questionnaires were finally used for analysis. Factor analysis was
performed on the items, yielding 0.779 as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample
adequacy and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (1482.238, df = 45) was significant and
the communalities ranged from 0.519 to 0.721. The variables explained 61.208per cent
of variance (Table 5.16). Three factors, namely, Task Achievement Orientation (TAO),
Resource Trust Orientation (RTO) and Learning Involvement Orientation (LIO) with
five items, three items and two items respectively, emerged.
Table 5.16: Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for Employee Performance Measure
Construct Component1 2 3
Task Achievement Orientation Make rigorous attempts to achieve objectives and targets at work 0.750 Find my work challenging and exciting 0.690 I take full responsibility for my work 0.682 I work long hours when necessary 0.664 I am aware of and fulfil organisational expectations 0.581Resource Trust Orientation Superior recognises and appreciates the work I do 0.782 Adequate resources to perform work 0.755 Colleagues at work can rely on me when things get tough at work 0.695Learning Involvement Orientation Often feel tired of upgrading skills to improve performance 0.817 Involvement in my organisation is limited to my work 0.798
Eigen value of the factor 3.495 1.443 1.183Percentage of variance explained by the factor before rotation
34.953 49.379 61.208
Percentage of variance explained by the factor after rotation
25.106 45.410 61.208
Reliability (of the scale = .783) 0.757 0.694 0.631
Table 5.18: Inter-construct correlation matrix* for Employee Job Performance scaleFactor TAO RTO LIOTAO (.71)RTO .451 (.75)LIO .285 .174 (.81)* = p < .01; Diagonal in parantheses: square root of average variance extracted from observed variables (items); Off-diagonal: correlation between constructs.
5.3 Analysis of Work
The analysis was divided into descriptive and inferential analysis. Descriptive analyses
were done to detect any missing values and revealed very few missing values, which
were subsequently verified from the original answers given in the questionnaires and
rectified. Before using the parametric statistical techniques, the assumption of normality
was tested. The data did not violate the normality assumption. To test the hypotheses of
this study, independent samples t-test, ANOVA and linear regression analyses have been
used. The analysis is presented in line with the proposed objectives of the study.
5.3.1 Comparison of mean scores on WLB: public and private sector
bank employees
Objective: To understand the status of Work/Life Balance of public and private sector
bank employees.
Independent samples t-test was used for comparing the mean scores on Work/Life
Balance and its sub-scales between public and private sector bank employees. The null
hypothesis (H1) that there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance of the
139
employees of public and private banks in India, was not accepted at 0.05% level of
significance. There is a significant difference between the Work/Life Balance of public
and private sector bank employees (Table 5.19). While the summated Work/Life
Balance score is 99.72, the summated WLB score for public sector banks in 96.46 which
is less than the summated score for private sector bank employees at 105.22.
The mean WLB score for public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a
moderate Work/Life Balance in general for the banking sector employees. The mean
score for WLB for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is 4.38. In
this case the employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance as
compared to the employees of public sector banks.
Table 5.19: WLB scores for bank employees
N ValidMissing
5730
Summated scoreStandard DeviationMinimumMaximum
99.72 24.05 48141
Work/Life Balance 24 to 71 (Low) 106 (18.50%)72 to 120 (Moderate) 324 (56.54%)121 to 168 (High) 143 (24.96%)
The null hypothesis was broken down further into sub-hypotheses, which were examined
for greater insights into factor wise perceptions of the public sector and private sector
bank employees. The sub-scales of Work/Life Balance, Work Spillover in Personal Life,
Personal Life Spillover in Work, Work/Life Balance Enhancers and Work/Life Balance
Constrainers were examined using independent samples t-test to understand the factors
which have a greater contribution to maintaining balance between the spheres of work
and life of public and private sector bank employees. The results of the test are shown in
table 5.20.
140
The hypothesis (H1a) that there is no difference in the perception of Work Spillover in
Personal Life (WSPL) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India
was not accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean score of public sector bank
employees, 3.95 for WSPL is less than the mean score of 4.37 for private sector
employees, which signifies that there is greater work spillover in personal life in case of
public sector banks than in case of private sector banks.
The hypothesis (H1b) that there is no difference in the perception of Personal Life
Spillover in Work (PLSW) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in
India, is not accepted at 5% level of significance. The implication is that there is a
difference in the perception of personal life spillover in work in the case of public and
private sector bank employees. the mean scores reflect that this spillover perception is
greater in the case of public employees as compared to the private sector bank
employees. The mean score for PLSW for public sector and private sector bank
employees is 4.39 and 4.92 respectively.
On the other hand the hypothesis (H1c) that there is no difference in the perception of
Work/Life Balance Enhancers (WLBE) of the employees of public and private
commercial banks in India has been accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean
scores for public and private sector bank employees are very close at 4.28 and 4.29
respectively, signifying that factors that work for public sector bank employees in
ameliorating work/life (im)balance are similarly perceived by the private sector bank
employees as well.
The fourth sub-scale, Work/Life Balance Constrainers (WLBC) again shows a
significant difference in the scores for public and private sector bank employees. The
hypothesis (H1d) that there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance
Constrainers of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is not
accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean scores of 3.47 and 3.65 for the public and
private sector bank employees respectively, points to greater constraints perceived by the
public sector bank employees as compared to the private sector bank employees.
Table 5.20: Comparison of mean scores on Work/Life Balance and its sub-scales between public and private sector bank employees
Family Type Nuclear = 399 4.199 1.012 -1.601 0.110>0.05 Joint = 174 4.054 .975
Marital Status Single = 133 4.112 1.083 3.341 0.001<0.05*Married = 438 3.762 .964
* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Table 5.23b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores – demographic variables.
Variable Total sample F value ‘p’ value
Age 12.528 .000*Educational Qualification 33.322 .000*Family size 1.841 .139Number of Children in family 4.960 .007*Caring responsibilities 12.517 .000*Working status of spouse 2.093 .124
146
5.3.4 Significance of work related variables for WLB scoresThe statistical significance of demographic variables for the Work/Life Balance scores
was tested using t-test (in case of two categories) and ANOVA (in case of more than two
categories). The results are reported in tables 5.24 a) and b). It was revealed that length
of service (H2j), long working hours (H2k), nature of duties (H2l), income (H2m) and city
of posting (H2n) all had significant impact on the Work/Life Balance scores.
Table 5.24a): Significance of nature of duties for Work/Life Balance (independent samples t-test results)
Variable CategoryMean WLB score
Std. Deviation
Total sample
t - value ‘p’ value
Nature of Duties Managerial = 436 4.064 1.059 3.941 .000*Non-managerial = 137 4.446 .723* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Table 5.24b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores on length of service, income, working hours and city of work on bank employees
Variable Total sample F value ‘p’ value
Length of Service 12.076 .000*Income 9.961 .000*Long hours of work (Average working hours per week) 4.506 .011*
City of posting 39.530 .000*
The data was further analysed with respect to public and private sector bank employees
to ascertain whether there were significant differences based on the type of bank an
individual worked with. The results of this are reported in table 5.25a) and b); 5.26a) and
b) for public sector and 5.27a) and b); 5.28a) and b) for private sector.
5.3.5 Significance of demographic variables for WLB scores (public sector banks)
Table 5.25 a): Significance of gender, family type and marital status for Work/Life Balance of Public sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)
Marital Status Single = 64 4.613 1.086 16.059 .000*Married = 295 3.843 .964
Family Type – Nuclear vs Joint
Nuclear = 243 3.943 1.052-1.011 .313
Joint = 117 4.059 .976* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Table 5.25 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Public sector bank employees on demographic variables
VariablePublic Sector
F value ‘p’ valueAge 12.751 .000*Educational Qualification 32.441 .000*Family size 1.697 .167Number of Children in family 7.354 .001*Caring responsibilities 13.157 .000*Working status of spouse 1.761 .173* Significant at 0.05% level of significanceWhen testing for differences with respect to gender (H3a), family type (H3e), family size
(H3f) and working status of spouse (H3i), it was seen that in Public sector the Work/Life
Balance mean scores did not differ significantly (table 5.25 a and b). However, the
Work/Life Balance scores with respect to age (H3b), educational qualification (H3c),
marital status (H3d), number of children in the family (H3g) and caring responsibilities
(H3h) had significant differences in case of Public sector bank employees.
5.3.6 Significance of work related variables for WLB scores (Public sector banks)
Table 5.26 a): Significance of nature of duties for Work/Life Balance of Public sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)
Table 5.26 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Public sector bank employees on work-related variables
VariablePublic Sector
F value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 15.451 .000*Income 8.310 .000*Average working hours per week 1.992 .138Location of work – posting city 40.893 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Exploring for the differences in mean Work/Life Balance scores in public sector bank
employees with respect to work related variables, it was seen that nature of duties (H3l),
length of service (H3j), income (H3m) and city of posting (H3n) all had significant
differences. Only the average working hours per week (H3k), measuring whether long
hours worked had an impact on Work/Life Balance scores, accepted the null hypothesis
of no significant difference.
5.3.7 Significance of demographic variables for WLB scores (private sector banks)
Table 5.27 a): Significance of gender, family type, marital status and nature of duties for Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)
Testing for differences with respect to marital status (H4d), family type (H4e), family size
(H4f), number of children in the family (H4g) and caring responsibilities (H4h) and
working status of spouse (H4i), it was seen that in Private sector the Work/Life Balance
mean scores did not differ significantly (table 5.27 a and b). However, the Work/Life
149
Balance scores with respect to gender (H4a), age (H4b) and educational qualification (H4c)
had significant differences in case of Private sector bank employees.
Table 5.27 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees on demographic variables
VariablePrivate Sector
F - value ‘p’ valueAge 2.711 .046*Educational Qualification 6.622 .002*Family size .321 .726Number of Children in family 1.850 .160Caring responsibilities 2.389 .070Working status of spouse .337 .714* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
5.3.8 Significance of work related variables for WLB scores (Private sector banks)
Exploring for the differences in mean Work/Life Balance scores in private sector bank
employees with respect to work related variables, it was seen that nature of duties (H4l),
income (H4m) and average working hours per week (H4k) all had no significant
differences.
Table 5.28 a): Significance of gender, family type, marital status and nature of duties for Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)
Table 5.28 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees on demographic variables
VariablePrivate Sector
F - value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 6.294 .002*Income 1.494 .227Average working hours per week .788 .456Location of work – posting city 13.138 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Thus, is was seen that Analysis of Variance tests on Work/Life Balance scores with
respect to age, qualification, tenure, income, working hours, family size, number of
children in family, city of work for Public and Private sector bank employees show that
there are significant differences within groups in case of age, educational qualifications,
service length and location of posting for both Public sector as well as Private sector
bank employees. As far as intra-group comparisons for average working hours, family
size and the working status of spouse is concerned, neither Public sector nor Private
sector had a significant difference for the Work/Life Balance scores. However, exploring
for income, number of children in the family and caring responsibilities, the Public
sector showed significant differences within the respective groups but Private sector did
not have a significant difference for the Work/Life Balance scores within these groups.
5.3.9 Significance of demographic variables for Work/Life Balance scores intra-category comparisons between public and private sector banks.The differences between Public and Private sector were explored in-depth for each group
of demographic and organisational factors. Table 5.29 a) gives the results for a
comparative of public and private sector bank employees’ Work/Life Balance scores
with respect to the demographic factors and Table 5.29 b) discusses the comparisons
with respect to the organisational variables. Results revealed differences exist in case of
gender, age, educational qualification, length of service, etc. However, these differences
are present for some sub-categories of the major categories. Thus, first conducting
gender based comparisons, it was seen that there was a significant difference in the WLB
scores for men (H5a) working in Public sector (M=4.02, SD=1.05) and men working in
151
private sector banks (M=4.26, SD=.95) conditions; t(415)= 2.202, p = 0.028 as well as
for WLB scores for women (H5b) working in Public sector (M=4.01, SD=.93) and
women working in private sector banks (M=4.57, SD=.83) conditions; t(154)= 3.981, p =
0.023.
Table 5.29 a): Comparison of Work/Life Balance scores between public and private sector bank employees for demographic variables (intra-category comparisons).
Variable Category Bank type N Mea
n
Std. Deviatio
nt
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Gender
MalePublic 289 4.02 1.05 -
2.202 .028*Private 128 4.26 .95
FemalePublic 71 4.01 .93 -
3.981 .023*Private 85 4.57 .83
Age
20-29 years
Public 82 4.09 .99 -
2.067 .040*Private 99 4.37 .87
30-39 yearsPublic 147 3.66 1.08 -
4.023 .000*Private 82 4.25 1.00
40-49 yearsPublic 68 4.43 .84 -
1.625 .108Private 24 4.74 .66
50-59 yearsPublic 63 4.33 .85 -
1.785 .079Private 8 4.89 .77
Educational Qualification Graduate
Public 163 4.20 1.02
4.459 .000*Private 67 3.52 1.07
Post Graduate
Public 119 4.59 .70 -
1.617 .108Private 51 4.77 .65
ProfessionalPublic 76 4.20 .85
-.778 .438Private 95 4.30 .90
OthersPublic 2 4.21 .00
a.Private 0a . .
Marital Status Single
Public 65 3.38 1.08 -5.728 .000*Privat
e 70 4.35 .85
Married
Public 295 4.15 .96 -
2.519 .012*Private
143 4.40 .94
152
Family Type
Nuclear
Public 243 4.05 1.05 -
3.543 .000*Private
156 4.41 .90
Joint
Public 117 3.94 .97 -
2.217 .028*Private 57 4.28 .94
Family size
1-5 members
Public 160 3.96 .96 -
3.505 .001*Private
124 4.36 .92
6-10 members
Public 183 4.01 1.09 -
2.546
.011*Private 75 4.38 .89
11-15 membersPublic 15 4.45 .75
-.351 .728Private 14 4.57 .97
16-20 membersPublic 2 5.02 .20
a.Private 0a . .
Number of Children in family No children in
family
Public 53 3.58 1.07 -4.551 .000*Privat
e 48 4.47 .86
One Child
Public 252 4.04 1.02 -
2.111 .035*Private
121 4.28 .99
More than one child
Public 55 4.31 .84 -1.521 .132Privat
e 44 4.56 .70
Caring responsibilities Elderly
Public 49 4.64 .77.119 .906Privat
e 53 4.62 .94
DisabledPublic 7 4.18 .76
-.525 .608Private 8 4.41 .91
SickPublic 37 4.51 .81
2.144 .036*Private 24 4.05 .82
Working status of spouse Working Full-time
Public 53 4.21 .99 -.843 .401Privat
e 51 4.38 .99
Working Part-timePublic 27 4.19 .86 -
1.377 .177Private 12 4.59 .77
In case of age groups, the results revealed a significant difference in the WLB scores for
age group of 20-29 years (H5c) working in Public sector (M=4.09, SD=.99) and private
sector banks (M=4.37, SD=.87) conditions; t(179)= - 2.067, p = 0.040 and for the age
group of 30-39 years (H5d) working in Public sector (M=3.66, SD=1.08) and private
153
sector banks (M=4.25, SD=1.0) conditions; t(227)= - 4.023, p = 0.000. However, for the
older age groups of 40-49 years (H5e) working in Public sector (M=4.43, SD=.84) and
private sector banks (M=4.74, SD=.66) conditions; t(90)= - 1.625, p = 0.108 and 50-59
years (H5f) working in Public sector (M=4.33, SD=.85) and private sector banks
(M=4.98, SD=.77) conditions; t(69)= - 1.785, p = 0.079, the difference did not come out
as significant.
In the case of educational qualifications, there was a significant difference in the WLB
scores for graduates (H5g) working in public sector (M=4.20, SD=1.02) and private
sector banks (M=3.52, SD=1.07) conditions; t(228)= 4.459, p = 0.000 but there was no
significant difference in the WLB scores for post-graduates (H5h) working in Public
5.3.10 Significance of work related variables for Work/Life Balance scores intra-category comparisons between public and private sector banks.
Analysis for organisational factors was next undertaken. The results of this are included
in table 5.29b). The WLB scores for staff with length of service between 0-9 years (H6a)
in Public sector (M=4.27, SD=.94)) and private sector banks (M=3.68, SD=1.07
conditions; t(348)= 5.424, p = 0.000 as well as for staff with length of service between
10-19 years (H6b) in Public sector (M=4.22, SD=.89) and private sector banks (M=4.75,
SD=.58) conditions; t(100)= 2.731, p = 0.007 showed a significant difference. At the
same time, there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff with length of
service between 20-29 years (H6c) in Public sector (M=4.53, SD=.81) and private sector
banks (M=4.88, SD=.70) conditions; t(90)= 1.678, p = 0.097.
Testing for income, it was revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB
scores for income group ` 10,000 to 50,000/- (H6d)working in Public sector (M=4.35,
SD=.90) and private sector banks (M=3.93, SD=1.04) conditions; t(426)= 4.119, p =
0.000, while there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for income group ` 50,000 to 100,000/- (H6e) working in Public sector (M=4.50, SD=.89) and private sector
banks (M=4.53, SD=.93) conditions; t(109)= 0.119, p = 0.906 and for income group of ` 100,000 and above (H6f) working in Public sector (M=3.76, SD=.76) and private sector
banks (M=4.08, SD=.94) conditions; t(32)= 1.109, p = 0.275.
There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours upto
and including 48 hours per week (H6g) for staff in Public sector (M=3.97, SD=1.0) and
private sector banks (M=4.20, SD=.79) conditions; t (235)= 1.260, p = 0.209 but this
became a significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours more than
48 hours and upto and including 60 hours per week (H6h) for staff in Public sector
(M=4.12, SD=1.07) and private sector banks (M=4.41, SD=.93) conditions; t (278)=
156
2.409, p = 0.017 and for average working hours above 60 hours per week (H6i) for staff
working in Public sector (M=3.65, SD=.89) and private sector banks (M=4.42, SD=.93)
conditions; t(54)= 2.857, p = 0.006. Similarly, while there was a significant difference in
the WLB scores with respect to the nature of duties performed. Thus, for staff
performing managerial duties (H6j) in Public sector (M=3.92, SD=1.08) and private
sector banks (M=4.32, SD=.96) conditions; t (434)= 3.880, p = 0.000, there were
significant differences. However, in the case of staff performing non-managerial duties
(H6k) in Public sector (M=4.38, SD=.68) and private sector banks (M=4.52, SD=.77)
conditions; t (135) = 1.118, p = 0.266, there was no significant difference revealed.
Table 5.29 b): Comparison of Work/Life Balance scores between public and private sector bank employees for work-related variables (intra-category comparisons).
Variable Category Bank type N Mean
Std. Deviatio
nt
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Length of Service 0-9 years
Public 180
4.27 .94
5.424 .000*Private 170
3.68 1.07
10-19 years Public 78 4.22 .89 -2.731 .007*Private 24 4.75 .58
20-29 years Public 73 4.53 .81 -1.678 .097Private 19 4.88 .70
30 years and above Public 29 4.21 .83 a.Private 0a . .Income
Thus, it can be seen from the results that there are differences in the manner in which the
demographic and organisational variables interact with the Work/Life Balance scores of
public and private sector bank employees. While age, educational qualification, length of
service and location of work (city of posting) have a significant influence on Work/Life
Balance of both public as well as private sector bank employees, it is not so for other
variables.
Income, nature of duties, marital status, number of children and caring responsibilities
have a significant impact on the work/life of public sector bank employees but not on the
private sector bank employees. On the other hand, gender has shown a significant impact
on the Work/Life Balance score of private sector but not on that of the public sector bank
employees. Average working hours per week, though has a significant impact in the
entire sample, this is not reflected when testing separately for public and private sector
respondents.
158
5.3.11 Significance of demographic variables for QWL
The impact of demographic (table 15.30 a and b) and organisational variables (table
15.31 a and b) on the quality of work/life was tested for all bank employees. The results
revealed that there was no significant difference in the quality of work/life as perceived
by either gender (H8a). Even in the case of age groups (H8b) and educational qualification
(H8c) of employees, there were no significant differences between the respective groups.
Table 5.30a): Significance of gender, family type and marital status for QWL.
Variable CategoryMean QWL score
Std. Deviation
Total sample
t - value ‘p’ value
Gender Male = 417 3.569 .330
1.398 .163Female = 156 3.522 .420
Family TypeNuclear = 399 3.547 .332
-.869 .386Joint = 174 3.577 .409
Marital StatusSingle = 133 3.590 .322
1.252 .211Married = 438 3.545 .367
* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Further, the family type (H8e), too, did not have a significant impact on the quality of
working life of the bank employees, while the family size (H8f) did indicate a positive
impact on the quality of work/life of a bank employee.
Table 5.30b): Comparison of mean Quality of Work/Life scores on demographic variables
VariableTotal Sample
F value ‘p’ valueAge .496 .685Educational Qualification 1.443 .229Family Size 2.782 .040*Number of Children in family 1.090 .337Caring responsibilities 13.776 .000*Working status of spouse 4.055 .018** Significant at 0.05% level of significance
159
It was seen that though the size of the family (H8f) did have a significant impact on the
quality of work/life of an employee, the number of children (H8g) did not have a
significant impact on the quality of work/life. At the same time, the caring
responsibilities (H8h) for elderly, sick or disabled showed a significant impact on the
quality of work/life of the bank employees. Working status of one’s spouse (H8i) had a
significant impact on the quality of work/life of the bank employees.
5.3.12 Significance of work related variables for QWL scores
The results (table 5.31a and b) revealed that there was a significant difference in the
Quality of Work/Life scores with regard to the length of service (H8j), income (H8m) and
long work hours (H8k). On the other hand, the nature of duties (H8l), managerial and non-
managerial, did not show a significant impact on the quality of work/life of an
individual.
Table 5.31a): Significance of nature of duties for Quality of Work/Life.
Variable CategoryMean QWL
scoreStd.
DeviationTotal sample t -
value‘p’
valueNature of Duties
Managerial = 436 3.552 .351-0.545 0.586
Non-managerial = 137 3.571 .376* Significant at 0.05% level of significance
Table 5.31b): Comparison of mean Quality of Work/Life scores on work-related variables
VariableTotal Sample
F value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 5.976 .001*Income 10.592 .000*Average working hours per week 5.211 .006*Location of work – posting city 18.223 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance
160
It was seen that the location of the city (H8n) where the person was posted had a
significant impact on the quality of work/life of the bank employees.
5.3.13. Relationship between Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance
Objective: To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and the Quality of Work/Life of an employee.
To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life (H9),
correlation between them was calculated. The results are reported in table 5.32a). A
Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between
Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life. The data showed no violation of normality
or homoscedasticity. There was a high, positive correlation between Work/Life Balance
and Quality of Work/Life, which was statistically significant (r = .817, n = 573, P
< .0005) (Cohen, 1988).
Table 5.32a): Correlation between WLB and QWL.WLB QWL
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run separately for public and private sector
bank employees to understand the differences, if any, in the correlation between
Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life. The results are given in table 5.32b). Both
the public sector and private sector showed a high correlation between Work/Life
Balance and Quality of Work/Life (r = .810, n = 360, P < .0005; public sector) and (r
= .818, n = 213, P < .0005; private sector).
5.3.14. Relationship between WLB and Job Performance
Objective: To find the relationship between Work/Life Balance and employees’ job performance perception.To understand whether there is a relationship between Work/Life Balance and
performance, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was run (table 5.33a). There was a
high, positive correlation between Work/Life Balance and employees’ Performance
perception (Cohen, 1988).
Table 5.33a: Correlation between WLB and job performanceWLB Performance
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 5.33b: Correlation between WLB and job performance of public and private sector bank employees Bank type WLB PerformancePublic WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .715**
Based on the above it can be concluded that the mediating effect of Quality of Work/Life
on Performance is much less as compared to the direct effect of Work/Life Balance on
Job Performance.
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION
175
6.1 STATUS OF WLB OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR BANK EMPLOYEES.
6.2 STATUS OF QWL OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR BANK EMPLOYEES.
6.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB AND QWL.
6.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB AND JOB PERFORMANCE.
6.5 WORKPLACE FACTORS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON WLB
6.6 WLB INITIATIVES
6.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB, QWL AND JOB PERFORMANCE
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION
Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance have, individually been
the subject of various researches. However, the same cannot be said when it comes to
176
exploring their linkages with each other. There have been fewer studies world-wide and
just a handful, in India, which have tried to understand the relationship between
Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance. Further, there are no Indian
studies in the knowledge of the researcher which have compared all the three issues viz.,
Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance together with respect to
public and private sector bank employees. This comparison was sought with the primary
objective of understanding the reasons for the differences, if there were any and for
suggesting remedies for the same.
The first part of the study compares the Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life scores
for public and private sector bank staff, the second part of the study explores the
relationship between these three, wherein, it is seen that there is a direct positive
relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life, Work/Life Balance
and Performance as well as between Quality of Work/Life and Performance.
6.1 Status of WLB of public and private sector bank employees.
The mean WLB score for public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a
moderate Work/Life Balance in general for the banking sector employees. However, the
mean score for WLB for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is
4.38. In this case the employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance
as compared to the employees of public sector banks. The findings of the research, thus,
were quite interesting but surprising for the researcher as contrary to the general
perception that public sector enjoys better Work/Life Balance, it was revealed that the
private sector bank employees enjoy a much better Work/Life Balance. A further
analysis was done understand the patterns of Work/Life Balance that emerged from the
sub-scales of the Work/Life Balance scale. These results revealed that there was a
significant difference in the Work Spillover in Personal Life (public sector mean = 3.95;
private sector mean = 4.37), Personal Life Spillover in Work (public sector mean = 4.39;
private sector mean = 4.92) and Work/Life Balance Contrainers (public sector mean =
3.47; private sector mean = 3.65) for public and private sector bank employees. In each
of these sub-scales, the mean scores of public sector bank employees was lower than the
177
mean scores of private sector bank employees, clearly hinting at private sector offering a
better Work/Life Balance to the employee compared to the public sector banks.
The constrainers, too, showed a difference in the case of public and private sector bank
employees. Interviews revealed that both set of employees had factors which they saw as
constrainers operating in their environment. However, the public sector employees and
private sector employees differed in their views of the factors which adversely impacted
their Work/Life Balance. In case of public sector employees, it was the red tapism,
inequitable distribution of work, absence of linkages between rewards and performance
which worked as constrain variables (interview with Mrs Sadhana Srivastava, Branch
Manager, PNB, Gomti Nagar), in the case of private sector employees, it was the long
hours of working and the constant pressure to perform, which prevented them from
giving their best to their family and personal life (interview with Manish Tripathi,
Regional Debt Manager, ICICI, Hazratganj, Lucknow). However, on the whole, it was
the public sector, which came across as being more disgruntled with the lack of policies
on WLB and the absence of will in working on the issue. This could be due to the private
sector bank employees working within better defined rules and hence, being clear about
the operating boundaries, leading to lower spillover and less constrains. Further, the
above findings are supported by the charter of demands forwarded by the All India Bank
Employees Association where they have specifically mentioned that public sector banks
lack Work/Life Balance while private sector banks have family friendly policies built
into their human resource guidelines. It was only in the case of the third sub-scale,
Work/Life Balance Enhancers, that the null hypothesis ‘there is no difference in the
perception of the WLBE among public and private sector bank employees’, was
accepted. The perception of the employees did not show significant differences on
account of the trade-offs worked out by them. An instance was when during the
interview, the private sector employees talked of ‘flexible working, performance linked
rewards, absence of bureaucratic structures and ample opportunity to explore one’s
potential’ (interview: Deepak Agarwal, Officer, Axis Bank) as enhancers, contrary to
what the public sector staff said in their interviews. For the public sector bank employee,
the enhancers were ‘job security, higher base pay and perquisites offered by the bank’
(interview: R K Seth, Assistant branch manager, PNB, DAV branch).
178
Work/Life Balance and demographic variables
The findings of the present study revealed that the Work/Life Balance of male and
female bank employees differed from each other (p = 0.021). However, the same cannot
be said about the employees in public sector banks. Though women employees in public
sector had a better work/life mean (3.993) as compared to men (3.977), this difference
was not significant (p = .906). On the contrary, there were significant differences in the
mean scores of male and female employees in private sector banks (p = .016). What was
surprising was that men had a better Work/Life Balance (mean = 3.738) compared to
women (mean = 3.431). Overall the women staff with a mean of 4.569 shows a better
Work/Life Balance as compared to the men staff with a mean of 4.261. These results
reflect the findings of Shoenfeld (2005), wherein he states the possible explanation for
the result as ‘a function of duration the issue has been in the forefront—women have had
more time to develop balancing mechanisms compared with men (Shoenfeld, 2005, pp
6). Tausig and Fenwick, (2001), in their study on 3381 white and blue collar workers in
USA, reported that gender is not correlated with Work/Life Balance. However, Coltrane
(2000), reported that women typically do a greater share of the household labour than
men and that additional work at home partially restricts the time women can spend in
paid work (Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1999; Rothbard and Edwards, 2003), thus,
impacting their Work/Life Balance. Thus, while some researchers have found no
significant differences across gender (Frone et. al, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1997; Grzywacz
2000) other studies (Grzywacz and Marks 2000; Rothbard 2001) have shown that
women report a higher positive emotional reaction from the work-to-family direction
than men. Additionally, work-to-family conflict research has found no significance in
relation to conflict and gender (Frone et al.,, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1997). Therefore, the
findings tend to be inconsistent. Even in the current study, there are differing results
from public and private sector. One probable reason for women employess in private
sector having lower scores links to the role played by them in home and outside.
Traditionally women have shouldered the burden of doing almost the entire household
management and this continues even after they have started building careers. Previous
Indian studies (Singh, 2004; Doble and Supriya, 2010) have highlighted this issue time
179
and again. At the same time work pressures are going up, impacting the Work/Life
Balance of both the genders, but more so of the fair gender in private banks. Public
sector banks have not shown a significant Work/Life Balance difference with respect to
gender as absence of strong reward - performance linkages ensure that women
employees are able to better manage their work responsibilities with the help of their
colleagues. However, when making comparisons between male workers of public and
private sector banks, there were significant differences (p = .028) as was in the case of
female employees of public and private sector banks (p = =.023).
The next comparison was based on the age groups of the employees. In the current study,
it was found that there was a significant relationship between Work/Life Balance and age
of the employee. Comparisons of the Work/Life Balance score between the public and
private sector bank employees with respect to age shows there was a significant
difference in the WLB score for age group of 20-29 years working in public sector
(M=4.09) and private sector banks (M=4.37) (p = 0.040) as well as for the age group of
30-39 years working in public sector (M=3.66) and private sector banks (M=4.25) (p <
0.0005. However, in case of the older age groups, it was revealed that difference in the
WLB scores for age group of 40-49 years working in public sector (M=4.43) and private
sector banks (M=4.74) conditions; (p = 0.108 was not significant. Similarly, there was no
significant difference in the WLB scores for age group of 50-59 years working in public
sector (M=4.33) and private sector banks (M=4.98) (p = 0.079. Implications are that the
younger work force, reflects differences in the Work/Life Balance in public and private
sector which have direct correlations with the policies of the banks. In both the cases the
public sector employee shows a lower Work/Life Balance (mean=4.09 for age group 20-
29 and mean=3.66 for age group 30-39 in public sector vs mean=4.37 for age group 20-
29 and mean = 4.25 for age group 30-39 in private sector). Private sector banks have
stated policies facilitating Work/Life Balance which tends to improve upon scores
reported by private sector employees. On the other hand, the reasons why public sector
bank staff has a lower Work/Life Balance score in the younger age group relates to the
family responsibilities and the stress due to greater competition in the younger age
bracket. Studies exploring the relationship between age and Work/Life Balance have
revealed differences based on gender. Grzywacz and Marks’ (2000) in their research
180
found that younger men experience less positive spillover than older men from both the
work-to-family and family-to-work direction, and that younger women experience
greater positive spillover form the work-to-family direction than older women. It is seen
that age continues to play an important role in perceptions of work-life balance, where
younger men and women have higher scores (meaning better) than older men and
women respectively Shoenfeld (2005), but at the same time, employee age is weakly
though significantly related to work-to-family conflict (Madsen et al.,, 2005). A recent
study in New Zealand (Hughes, 2010), however, supports the findings of the current
study that employees in the age groups of 25-34years and 35-44years have lower
Work/Life Balance compared to those in the age group of 55-64 and 65 and above.
Exploring the differences with respect to educational qualifications and Work/Life
Balance between public and private sector banks employees, the results show that there
are significant differences for graduates working in public sector (M=4.20) and private
sector banks (M=3.52), (p < 0.0005). The reason for this is not far to seek. Indians
traditionally favour public sector banks and hence, as soon as person obtains job in a
public sector bank, the satisfaction of having gained a ‘secure’ job, offsets disadvantages,
if any. On the other hand, those getting a job in private sector, continue to strive for
openings in the public sector and many times are simultaneously appearing for
competitive government sector job exams. This adds on to their burden leading to a
lowered Work/Life Balance. The situation is more common in fresh graduates as they are
still in the early stage of their life where they can afford to give a few more years to
competitive exams before settling down for family life. However, as the educational
qualifications increase, there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for post-
graduates working in Public sector (M=4.59) and private sector banks (M=4.77)
conditions; t(168)= -1.617, p = 0.108 as well as in the case of professionals working in
Public sector (M=4.20, SD=.85) and private sector banks (M=4.30, SD=.90) conditions;
t(169)= -0.778, p = 0.438. Stoddard and Madsen (2007) study shows that educational
qualifications do not have a predictive value for the Work/Life Balance of an individual.
A study on Ayurvedic practitioners in Kerala (Mathew and Panchanatham, 2011a)
reported significant differences in WLB scores based on educational qualifications. This
study conducted on bank employees also shows a significant difference in the WLB
181
scores for different educational groups, F(3, 569) = 33.322, p = .000. This is contrary to the
earlier result obtained by Stoddard and Madsen in their 2007 study on sales employees
from two different branches of a large retail business within the state of Utah but similar
to the results obtained by Mathew and Panchanatham in India.
The present study reports that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for
staff with single status in public sector (M=3.38) and private sector banks (M=4.35); (p <
0.0005) as well as for staff having marital status in public sector (M=4.15) and private
sector banks (M=4.40), (p = 0.012). When analysing without differentiating between the
public and private worker, the difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of single and
married staff still existed with the single staff having a lower Work/Life Balance (mean
= 3.887) as compared to the married staff with a better work/life average score of 4.237.
Exploring reasons behind this surprising result, it was discovered that quite often the
single staff was at a disadvantage in terms of postings, leave grants and work load.
Family friendly policies or even attitudes worked against providing the ‘single’
employee opportunities for taking time off for his/her personal engagements. Poe (2002,
pg. 23) categorically states in his research on American professionals that there is a
gradually growing resentment in singles and child-less ‘fueled by the perception that the
majority of the workforce, those without young children, must cover for the minority,
those with young children’. Similarly the study conducted on Ayurvedic practitioners in
Kerala (Rincy, et al, 2011) revealed significant differences in the WLB of married and
single employees. However, the Stoddard and Madsen (2007) study shows that marital
status of the individual does not have a predictive value for the Work/Life Balance of an
individual. Contrary to both these studies, Tausig and Fenwick (2001), report from their
study of white and blue collar US workers that dual earner couples with no children have
greater work-life balance, while both single and married parents report significantly
lower balance scores compared to single, non-parents.
Further, the current study revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB
scores for staff having nuclear family structure in public sector (M = 4.05) and private
sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.000) and also for staff having joint family structure in
public sector (M = 3.94) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), (p = 0.028). In both cases,
182
it can be seen that private sector staff has a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of
the public sector staff. This reiterates the assertion made by Boles, et al (1997) that
work-family issues are no more limited to married individuals or those with children but
extend to single parents and single individuals as well. Again the reasons for private
sector having a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of the public sector related to
the policies of flexibility built into the HR guidelines of private sector banks. Further,
private sector banks provide their staff with faster clearance of medical bills and
reimbursements, thus, improving their work/life status (interview with Paritosh Joshi,
Regional Manager, Government Loans and Manish Tripathi, ICICI Bank, Lucknow).
Buddhapriya (2009) in the study of women professionals in India, states that women
professionals living in joint families agreed more strongly that ‘career trade-offs” had to
be made to take care of family responsibilities, whereas those living in nuclear families
agreed less on this issue. The current study, however, reports that there were no
significant differences in the Work/Life Balance scores of those having nuclear and joint
family structures (p = .110), with both having a mean score of WLB towards the higher
side. Reasons for this seem to be that while those living in joint family system have to
live up to the greater expectations from family members, those having a nuclear family
face a tough time managing everything on their own. So while the joint family system
provides for a better distribution of responsibilities, it also compels the member to give
greater preference to the family and at times compromise on the work issues, hence,
diluting the benefit derived from having a joint family.
Family size has acted variously as a facilitator and impeder for maintaining balance in
work and life. Exploring the family size – Work/Life Balance equation, the current
study found that there were no significant differences in the Work/Life Balance scores of
individuals belonging to different family sizes, F(3,569) = 1.841, p = .139. However,
when the same was explored for family size of public and private sector banks staff, the
results were different. There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff
having 1-5 family members in public sector (M = 3.96) and private sector banks (M =
4.36), (p = 0.001) as well as for staff having 6-10 family members in public sector (M =
4.01) and private sector banks (M = 4.38), (p = 0.011. On the other hand, the difference
183
was not significant with respect to the WLB scores for staff having 11-15 family
members in public sector (M = 4.45) and private sector banks (M = 4.57), (p = 0.728).
While a larger family size does not show differences between public and private sector,
the WLB score reflects better Work/Life Balance as well. It could be due to the family
support drawn by the individual and the back-up provided due to the presence of a
greater number of family members. Duxbury and Higgins (2008) have found a clear link
between family size and Work/Life Balance of an individual. According to their study of
11,920 full-time knowledge workers in Australia, “a significant number of socio-
economically advantaged men and women in Australia are reducing their family size as a
way to cope with career and work demands” (Duxbury and Higgins, 2008, pg 14).
The findings of this study reveal that there are significant differences between individual
with children and those not with children, F(2, 570) = 4.960, p = .007. In the current study it
was found that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having no
children in the family in public sector (M = 3.58) and private sector banks (M = 4.47), (p
= 0.000) which was also reflected in case of staff having one child in the family in public
sector (M = 4.04) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), ( p = 0.035). However, when
tested for members having more than one child in the family in public sector (M = 4.31)
and private sector banks (M = 4.56), (p = 0.132), the difference in the WLB scores for
staff did not come out to be significant. A possible reason for this could be in cases
where there is more than one child the other children who are older would be able to help
out with the younger children and their tasks, thus, mitigating the pressures on the
parents. Leaving children at day care or home while parents work may result in serious
concerns like safety, health, learning, supervision and nurturance. The findings of Bailyn
et al.,, (2001) suggested that families alone cannot change the structure of careers nor
alter the availability of child care. And when families experience crises, whether
financial or personal, external supports are needed. It is widely believed that workers
with preschool or preparatory school children will be especially interested in reducing
their hours, particularly if they (like many women) are responsible for child care and
household tasks. However, as revealed in several studies, the desire for fewer work hours
184
is only weakly related to having children in the house (Clarkberg and Moen, 2001;
Jacobs and Gerson, 2000).
The current study reveals that there are significant differences in the Work/Life Balance
of caregivers and non-caregivers, (p = .000). Non-caregivers have a better Work/Life
Balance mean (M = 4.504) when compared to that of caregiver (mean = 3.997). Analysis
further revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having
no caring responsibilities in the family in public sector (M = 3.83) and private sector
banks (M = 4.34), (p = 0.000). Many other studies have also revealed that those, who
manage elder care are more likely to experience increased depression, anxiety, poor
health, stress and family interference with work (Gottleib et al.,, 1994; Strawbridge,
Wallhagen et al.,, 1997). In the absence of alternative work arrangements and support
from co-workers, dependent care becomes more complicated, leading to problems in
maintaining Work/Life Balance (Mathew and Panchanatham, 2011b). There was no
significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having caring responsibilities for
elderly in public sector (M = 4.64) and private sector banks (M = 4.62), (p = 0.906) and
for staff having caring responsibilities for disabled in the family in public sector (M =
4.18) and private sector banks (M = 4.41), (p = 0.608). In both the cases, the mean WLB
scores were on the higher side, implying a good Work/Life Balance. This surprising fact
seems to imply that the family support inherent in the Indian society, helps tide over the
emotional and physical strain so frequently associated with caregiving in western
society. Since, there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having
caring responsibilities for sick in public sector (M = 4.51) and private sector banks (M =
4.05), (p = 0.036), the results seem to indicate that caregiving responsibilities attain
greater magnitude when occurring in case of sick dependents rather than old or disabled
dependents.
There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having non-working
spouse in public sector (M = 3.96) and private sector banks (M = 4.36), (p = 0.000).
Again this difference seems to stem from the kind of Family-Friendly policies present in
the bank. Private sector WLB is better as compared to the WLB of Public sector bank
185
staff and the reason was linked with ‘the flexibility that the bank offers’ (Paritosh Joshi,
ICICI Bank, Lucknow). There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff
having a full-time working spouse in public sector (M = 4.21) and private sector banks
(M = 4.38), (p = 0.401) as well as for the WLB scores for staff having a part-time
working spouse in public sector (M = 4.19) and private sector banks (M = 4.59), (p =
0.177). Some studies have focused on the well-being of social systems, including
families (Zubrick et, al., 2000). Workers may desire a reduction in work hours if they
have a partner who is also employed. It is primarily married workers (Jacobs and Gerson,
2000), especially women whose husbands work many hours (45 hours or more a week),
who want to work less (Clarkberg and Moen, 2001). However, the desire for fewer work
hours is only weakly related to having an employed spouse (Jacobs and Gerson, 2000).
WLB and Work related variables
The current study indicates that there are significant differences in the Work/Life
Balance perception based on the service tenure of the employee, F (3, 569) = 12.076, p =
.000. Scheffe’s test revealed that there are significant differences between employees
with service tenure of 0-9 years and employees have longer service tenures of 10-19 and
20-29 years respectively. However, there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life
Balance of those with service tenure between 0-9years and between 30-39 years. The
reason behind this could be the life-cycle stage of the individual and hence the related
pressures at both the work and personal fronts which make striking a balance between
the spheres a difficult task. 53per cent (96 out 180) of those with 0-9 years of service are
single and in the age group of 20-29 years, implying that the responsibilities over them
are less as compared to employees in the other age groups of 30-39. Exploring for public
and private sector bank staff, the results revealed that there was a significant difference
in the WLB scores for staff with length of service between 0-9 years in public sector
(M=4.27) and private sector banks (M=3.68), (p = 0.000) as well as for staff with length
of service between 10-19 years in Public sector (M=4.22,) and private sector banks
(M=4.75), (p=0.007). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the WLB
scores for staff with length of service between 20-29 years in Public sector (M=4.53) and
private sector banks (M=4.88), (p = 0.097). The inference drawn from this is that while
186
private sector bank job are more stressful in the initial period of working, they gradually
improve as workplaces due to the family friendly policies adopted by them as also due to
the acceptance by the private sector employee that he/she would continue with the
private sector. The initial desire for a secure public sector job, gives way to enjoying the
better structured work culture in the private sector bank (interview with K Vinay Raj,
HDFC, Hazratganj, Lucknow). A study by Sturges et al in 2000 suggests that at the
beginning of a career work-life balance issues are important, but as careers advance
dissatisfaction with work-life balance increases.
There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours upto
and including 48 hours per week for staff in Public sector (M=3.97) and private sector
banks (M=4.20), (p = 0.209). There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for
average working hours more than 48 hours and upto and including 60 hours per week for
staff in public sector (M=4.12) and private sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.017). There
was a significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours above 60
hours per week for staff working in Public sector (M=3.65) and private sector banks
(M=4.42), ( p = 0.006). These findings show that Work/Life Balance scores are similar
for both public and private sector employees working upto and including 48 hours per
week. These start showing a significant difference as the working hours go up over 48
hours per week. However, looking at the mean scores, it can be seen that public sector
employee has a lower Work/Life Balance (M=3.97) when he is working 48hours per
week and this in fact improves as his working working hours go up from 48hours to
60hours per week but again worsens with a further increase in working hours beyond 60
hours per week. Similarly, there are significant differences within the private sector as
well when we explore with respect to the hours of work put in. However, the scores for
each of the three bands, (<=48hours per week, 48< to <=60hours per week and >60hours
per week) reflect a better Work/Life Balance in the private sector compared to the public
sector. Thus, it can be concluded that even when the hours of work are longer at private
sector, it has a better Work/Life Balance compared to public sector. The difference in the
Work/Life Balance scores with varing hours of work in public and private sector is tied
up with the reward-performance linkage. Private sector rewards for the output which
187
results from the longer hours of work put it while in the public sector this linkage is not
very clear. In the public sector, linger hours may or may not translate into rewards.
According to Mr. Ramesh Srivastava (Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Lucknow), at
times, the longer hours worked at a public sector sector banks, may even lead to negative
rewards in terms of working piling over an efficient individual. Guest (2001) states that
the number of hours worked are an objective indicator of work-life balance. The more
time an individual puts into one sphere of life, the less time the individual will have for
all other spheres. A possible explanation could be that long working hours reduces
opportunities for socially productive leisure by restricting time available ‘for being an
effective marriage partner, parent and citizen’ (Golden and Figart, 2000, pg. 26), thus,
lowering the satisfaction gained from investing time in the sphere of work. Existing
research indicates that long weekly hours and involuntary overtime have a negative
effect on work–life balance (Berg et al.,, 2003) as it reduces the quality and quantity of
workers’ participation in family and social life (Pocock, 2001; Pocock and Clarke, 2004).
People working long hours report lower levels of satisfaction with their hours of work
and their work–life balance than other workers (Watson et al., 2003: 87).
Data analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff
performing managerial duties in public sector (M=3.92) and private sector banks
(M=4.32,), ( p=0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for staff performing non-
managerial duties in public sector (M=4.38) and private sector banks (M=4.52),
(p=0.266) was not significant. While studies in this respect could not be found,
interviews conducted with the public and private sector bank employees threw light on
the factors that have a bearing on the differences in the Work/Life Balance issues faced
by the employees of managerial and non-managerial levels. Similar findings are reflected
in the study conducted by Kamal (2008) on probationary officers in public sector banks
in the city of Lucknow. There is a lot of pressure on the probationary officers in the
public sector bank and this reflects in the lower Work/Life Balance scores shown by
these staff members. Unlike their counterparts in the private sector, where the work load
is more equitably distributed making the work/life issues easier to handle. Especially in
the case of public sector banks, the staff with non-managerial positions has lesser
188
decision making and responsibilities on them, leading to lower work pressures and
workloads (interviews with Mr. D P Singh, AGM, SBI, Lucknow; Mr. Abhishek Singh,
Probationary Officer, SBI, Kanpur and Mrs. Neha Chaudhary, Probationary Officer,
Bank of Baroda, Lucknow).
The current study reveals that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for
income group ` 10,000 to 50,000/- working in public sector (M=4.35) and private sector
banks (M=3.93), (p = 0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for income group ` 50,000 to 100,000/-working in Public sector (M=4.50, SD=.89) and private sector banks
(M=4.53, SD=.93) conditions; t(109)= 0.119, p = 0.906 and for income group ` 100,000
and above working in Public sector (M=3.76, SD=.76) and private sector banks
(M=4.08, SD=.94) conditions; t(32)= 1.109, p = 0.275 was not significant. The results
imply that as the income of the individual improves, he/she can opt for support services
that make coping with work/life issues easier for him/her. Where incomes are lower,
private sector (M = 3.76) employee show a lower Work/Life Balance as compared to the
better Work/Life Balance scores of the public sector (M = 4.25) bank employees. As
reported in the CIPD study, problems with work-life balance are elevated among well-
paid management positions (Guest, 2001). However, there isn’t a significant correlation
between annual salary and work-life balance. Some studies have explored the
relationship between WLB and income in context of the family responsibilities of the
employee and the results have indicated that higher income works in mitigating work/life
(im)balance situations, as Duxbury and Higgins (2001) argue that, “while money cannot
buy happiness, it can sure help people cope with work-life conflict” (p. 61).
The city of posting has a significant influence on the Work/Life Balance scores as can be
seen from a significant correlation of 0.205 between the city of posting and Work/Life
Balance score. It was seen that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for
staff posted in the city of Delhi in public sector (M=3.67) and private sector banks (M =
4.31), (p=0.000). There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff posted
in the city of Jaipur in public sector (M=4.11) and private sector banks (M=3.98), (p =
189
0.483). There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff posted in the city
of Lucknow in public sector (M=4.76) and private sector banks (M=5.07), (p=0.026).
While Delhi and Lucknow showed a significant difference in the Work/Life Balance
scores of public and private sector bank staff, there was no such difference in the city of
Jaipur. In case of Delhi, which is a metropolitan and Lucknow, which is fast adopting the
metropolitan culture, the public sector bank staff had some pertinent points to make
regarding their working style. According to Mr. D. P. Singh (SBI, Hazratganj, Lucknow)
‘branches of public sector banks in Lucknow have not quite been able to match the
efficiency levels of the private sector banks, leading to increased pressures on the
employees’.
All these factors contribute to the significant difference in the Work/Life Balance of
public and private sector bank employees. Further, in the study, the comparisons for
Quality of Work/Life were made.
6.2. Status of QWL of public and private sector bank employees.
The perception of quality of work/life among public and private sector bank employees
differs significantly. This difference in QWL cannot be attributed to the organisational
commitment of employees, supervisory support, rewards and promotion opportunities,
task and capability significance and job ambiguity, which have been perceived as similar
in cases of both public and private sector bank staff. Two major contributors to this
difference in perception are work load and work pressure. The QWL mean value for
public sector bank employees is 3.58, which is higher than 3.51, the mean value for the
QWL scores of private sector bank staff. This implies that the quality of work/life of
private sector bank employees is better than the quality of work/life of public sector bank
employees. Further, the workload in case of public sector banks employees has a mean
score of 4.23 as compared to a lower workload mean score of 3.84 in case of private
sector bank employees. The reasons for this were explored through in-depth interviews
conducted with both public and private sector bank employees. What came to light was
that as banking reforms gathered speed, it was realised that public sector banks were
overstaffed by roughly 1,00,000 employee (Jain and Shukla, 2002). Since, hiring and
firing happened to be highly unionised in banking sector, after much deliberation and
190
negotiation with the Indian Banks Association, the Government sanctioned the release of
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in November 1999. By March 2001, 1,00,810
employees, constituting 11.7 per cent of public sector bank staff had opted for VRS. The
fallout of implementing VRS in public sector added to the workload and work pressures
of the banking staff.
In some cases, the bank’s managerial employees had to share some clerical functions,
which delayed the clearance process. Irate customers of SBI complained of the increased
waiting time for cheque clearance since there was shortage of manpower. SBI faced flak
not only for customer service but also for interest lost on money transferred from various
branches as delays in remittance of cash snowballed to over five days with SBI too
understaffed to clear transactions in time. In normal cases, the transfer takes place on the
same day or the next day. Further, VRS could have balanced the skill profile vis-à-vis the
employee mix (officer : clerical : subordinate). However, since this did not happen, it
added to the burden of the existing staff as the banks were forced to retrain the remaining
staff to handle new duties at the shortest possible notice. Some banks resorted to
promoting clerks to officer cadre. VRS was supposed to level the age profile. However,
the results were not different from before with 16 per cent below 35 years of age, a
sizeable 45 per cent between 35 and 44 years and 39 per cent between 45 and 60 years
(Jain and Shukla, 2002). This meant that while the private sector banks had a younger,
technology friendly workforce at their disposal, the public sector banks were still saddled
with a sizeable older age group staff which, though retrained in computer skills, was still
struggling to come to grips with the new ways of working till as late as 2008 (interview
excerpts, Mr. D P Singh).
6.3 Relationship between WLB and QWL.
On closely examining the relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of
Work/Life a moderately strong relationship merged between the two. Even when testing
separately for public and private sector banks, the correlation results highlighted the
importance of Quality of Work/Life for maintaining a proper Work/Life Balance. This
correlation was especially significant in case of private sector employees. This implies
191
that banks cannot expect one to exist in the absence of the other. Work/Life Balance has
often been considered as a major component of Quality of Work/Life (Rethinam and
Ismail, 2008). Since the Quality of Work/Life is dependent of supervisor support,
compensation, work load, job ambiguity, social support, task capability, opportunities to
develop ones’ self and recognition of achievements, banks can work at improving these
so that the Work/Life Balance of the employee can be enhanced.
The relationship between QWL and WLB is especially significant in light of the
increasingly competitive environment, where separating home and work life are
becoming almost impossible. Due to the option of being able to work from anywhere and
at any time, the boundaries between work and home are getting blurred by the day. Allen
et al., (2000) emphasized that problems associated with family responsibilities are
additional sources that may diminish QWL among professionals. Hence, employees
today are more likely to express a strong desire to have a harmonious balance among
career, family life and leisure activities. The threat of imbalance in work and non-work
life has implications not only for the employees but also for organizations, governments
and society (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Swanson, Power and Simpson, 1998). The
need for a policy to help balance work and life commitments of individuals has, thus,
been suggested at international level. The International Labour Organisation (ILO)
convention in 1981 emphasised the necessity for organizations to help employees to
balance their work and non-work demands (Lewis, 1997). It has been suggested that the
constantly increasing work demand creates an isolation of the personnel from their
families. Personal and family responsibilities are neglected in the process of securing an
economic prospect; hence, it is the deteriorating quality of interaction with family life
that reduces the QWL.
6.4 Relationship between WLB and Job Performance.
Many banks are learning the hard way that whether it is in their banking operations or on
their frontline teller ranks, performance issues are not always linked to the lack of job
skills but may also be impacted by poor cause identification, inefficient work schedules,
continuous overtime, lack of adequate transportation or other personal issues that spill
over into their workplace and diminish their performance. Additionally when an
192
employee has higher work responsibility there will be more spillover of negative work
outcomes on family life. The demands of managing higher responsibility at work and
home are also a potential source of stress because it allows a spillover to family life thus
creating an imbalance in the working environment and adversely affecting performance.
Studies have shown a direct relationship between job stressors and ill health, which
subsequently lead to a lowered performance amongst employees (Sparks et al.,, 2001;
Caplan, 1985; Parasuraman et al.,, 1981; Pal & Vasudeva, 1989; Ivancevich et al.,,
1982).
Further, it was seen that a number of role based factors such as role ambiguity and role
conflict (Burke, 1988; Nelson and Burke, 2000) can impact performance. Role overload,
lack of supervisory support, lack of growth opportunities and resource inadequacy (all of
which were considered as part of the Quality of Work/Life in the current study) (Kumar,
2006; Singh, 1989; Driscoll, 1994; Sen, 1981; Sharma and Devi, 2008) negatively
impact the Quality of Work/life as well as the Work Spillover to Family. In special
context to employees in the service sector, who are aggressively involved in direct
dealing with the customers, role stress has been found to be very important in
determining their commitment to the organization and satisfaction with supervisor and
their intention to leave the organization (Dubinsky et al.,, 1984). Role stress, role
ambiguity and role conflict all have significant linkages with work/life balance (Duxbury
and Higgins, 1991; Bakker, 2000; Messersmith, 2007). The current study, too, supports a
strong link between work/life balance and job performance. This relationship emerges as
moderately strong in the overall sample (r = 0.697), as also in case of public sector