Chapter - 5 Family Related Variables and Work Life Balance
CHAPTER 5 FAMILY RELATED VARIABLES AND WORK LIFE BALANCE 5.1. INTRODUCTION The relationship between family related variables and work life balance, and the differences in work life balance of working professionals at varied levels of family related variables are discussed in this chapter. Descriptive statistics - mean, median, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis were calculated to study the nature of distribution of scores for family related variables (household responsibility, spouse support and parental demands). Pearson product moment correlations were computed to study the correlations between family related variables (household responsibility, spouse support and parental demands) and work life balance and its dimensions. For the variable of parental demands (number of children) point biserial correlation was calculated. In addition, one way analysis of variance was used to study the significance of differences among the high, average and low groups (categorized on the basis of M±0.5σ) on each of the family variables with respect to the work life balance and its three dimensions namely work interference with personal life, personal life interference with work and work/personal life enhancement. Wherever F-values were found to be significant, t-test was applied to study the significance of differences between means of various groups. 5.2 NATURE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES Tables 5.1 shows the descriptive statistics - mean, median, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for family related variables. The distribution of scores on 129
household responsibility (HHR) were found to be significantly positively skewed (S k =.87) at.01 level of significance. The kurtosis (K u =1.13) was also found to be significant at.01 level. Thus, the curve was found to be platykurtic. Statistics Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for family related variables HHR (N=308) Family related variables SS (N=147) PD (N=102) Mean 14.06 20.10 18.04 Median 14.00 20.00 18.00 Std. Deviation 4.79 4.97 4.61 Skewness 0.87-0.02-0.56 Std. Error of Skewness 0.14 0.20 0.24 Kurtosis 1.13-0.82 0.86 Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.28 0.40 0.47 Minimum 6 9 4 Maximum 30 28 30 HHR SS PD S k Significant at 0.01 level ±.359 ±.516 ±.617 K u Significant at 0.01 level - 0.452 to.978-0.761 to 1.287-0.960 to 1.486 The scores on spouse support (SS) ranged between 9 and 28.The mean and median were found to be 20.10 and 20.00 respectively. The value of skewness (S k =-.02) for the score on spouse support was found to be insignificant at.01 level and the distribution of scores was thus found to be normal. The value of kurtosis (K u = -.82) was found to be significant at.01 level. The curve was thus found to be leptokurtic. The distribution of scores on parental demands (PD) was found to be normal and within limits at.01 level (S k =-.56). The value of kurtosis (K u =.86) was found to be insignificant at.01 level. 130
5.3 HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITY (HHR) AND WORK LIFE BALANCE The correlation between household responsibility and work life balance and its dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed below. (a) Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance and its dimensions The variable of House hold responsibility (HHR) was found to be negatively correlated (Table 5.2) with WLB Total and its three dimensions namely, WIPL, PLIW and WPLE. However, the correlations were not significant either at.05 or at.01 level. Table 5.2: Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance and its dimensions Work Life Balance Correlation with HHR ( N=308) WIPL 1-0.01 PLIW 1-0.05 WPLE -0.05 WLB Total -0.04 * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference. The results indicate that household responsibility is not related to work life balance. Hence, Hypothesis H Fa(i) that there will be significant correlation between the 131
household responsibility and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry stands rejected. (b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility Insignificant F-values (Table 5.3) show that there were no significant differences among IT and ITES working professionals with low, average and high household responsibility (HHR) on the dimensions of WIPL (F=.10), PLIW (F=1.36), WPLE (F= 2.82) and on WLB Total (F =.62). Table 5.3: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility Work Life Balance WIPL PLIW WPLE WLB Total Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups 8.62 2 4.31 0.10 Within Groups 13479.46 305 44.20 Total 13488.08 307 Between Groups 40.02 2 20.01 1.36 Within Groups 4487.55 305 14.71 Total 4527.57 307 Between Groups 118.16 2 59.08 2.82 Within Groups 6394.81 305 20.97 Total 6512.97 307 Between Groups 151.24 2 75.62 0.62 Within Groups 37069.93 305 121.54 Total 37221.17 307 F df 2, 305 F significant at.05 *.01 ** 3.03 4.68 132
Further, Table 5.4 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility. Table 5.4: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility Work Life Balance HHR N Mean Std. Deviation WIPL PLIW WPLE TOTAL WLB Low 97 30.44 6.82 Average 128 30.82 6.72 High 83 30.77 6.32 Total 308 30.69 6.63 Low 97 21.68 3.92 Average 128 21.86 3.70 High 83 20.99 3.94 Total 308 21.57 3.84 Low 97 19.41 4.72 Average 128 18.19 4.79 High 83 17.95 4.05 Total 308 18.51 4.61 Low 97 71.54 11.22 Average 128 70.87 10.98 High 83 69.71 10.87 Total 308 70.77 11.01 The findings of the earlier studies (Aryee, 1992; Hyman et al., 2003) lend support to the findings of the present study. Aryee (1992) did not find any significant effect of household chores responsibility on job-homemaker conflict and explained this by the fact that most respondents had hired help to take care of domestic chores. Hyman et al. (2003) found that household responsibility had no effect on any of the intangible indicators of extension of work into household and family life. The results of the present study too may be explained by the fact that in India domestic helpers are easily available at an affordable price and most of the families hire them, hence the 133
household work does not result in any interference of personal life with work or interference of work with personal life. Hence, Hypothesis H Fa(ii) that there will be significant differences among the mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions is rejected. 5.4 SPOUSE SUPPORT AND WORK LIFE BALANCE The correlation between spouse support and work life balance and its dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed below. (a) Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its dimensions Spouse support was found to be significantly positively correlated with the dimensions of PLIW (r=.29, Table 5.5) and WPLE (r=.33) and with WLB Total (r=.24). Table 5.5: Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its dimensions Work Life Balance Correlation with SS ( N=147 ) WIPL 1-0.01 PLIW 1 0.29(**) WPLE 0.33(**) WLB Total 0.24(**) * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference. 134
The findings indicate that higher the spouse support, higher is the overall work life balance and lesser is the interference of personal life with work and higher is the work/personal life enhancement and vice versa. The IT and ITES working professionals with high spouse support in terms of household work, emotional support, child care and positive attitude towards spouse s work tend to have less interference of personal life with work, high work/personal life enhancement and high overall work life balance. The findings of the earlier studies by Frone et al. (1992), Aryee (1992), Frone et al. (1997), Aryee et al. (1999) and Kim and Ling (2001) lend support to findings of the present study. Frone et al. (1992) found lack of spouse support to be positively related with family to work conflict. Aryee (1992) reported a negative relation between spouse support and job spouse conflict. Frone et al. (1997) reported that family related support (spouse and other family members) may reduce family to work conflict by reducing family distress and parental overload. Aryee et al. (1999) found spouse support to be a negative predictor of work family conflict. Kim and Ling (2001) found emotional and attitudinal support of the spouse to be negatively related to job spouse conflict. The results of the present study are also consistent with the findings of Suchet and Barling (1986). Hence, Hypothesis H Fb(i) that there will be significant correlation between the spouse support and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal life. 135
(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support From the Table 5.6, it is evident that F-values were found to be significant for the dimensions of personal life interference with work (PLIW; F=6.20) work/personal life enhancement (WPLE; F=7.90), and for overall work life balance (WLB Total; F=5.02) indicating that there were significant differences among IT and ITES working professionals with low, average and high spouse support on the two dimensions, namely PLIW and WPLE and on WLB Total. Table 5.6: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support Work Life Balance Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square WIPL Between Groups 156.44 2 78.22 2.43 Within Groups 4632.46 144 32.17 Total 4788.90 146 PLIW Between Groups 171.09 2 85.55 6.20(**) Within Groups 1988.19 144 13.81 Total 2159.28 146 WPLE Between Groups 242.77 2 121.39 7.90(**) WLB Total Within Groups 2212.98 144 15.37 Total 2455.76 146 Between Groups 981.16 2 490.58 5.02(**) Within Groups 14087.30 144 97.83 Total 15068.46 146 F df 2, 144 F significant at.05 *.01 ** 3.06 4.75 136
Table 5.7 shows the results of the t-ratios calculated to find out the significance of differences between means. Significant differences were observed between IT and ITES working professionals with low and high spouse support on the dimensions of PLIW (M L =19.83, M H =22.56, t=3.47, p=.01), WPLE (M L =17.51, M H =20.73, t= 4.11, p=.01) and on WLB Total (M L =68.57, M H =74.42, t=2.85, p=.01). Table 5.7: Significance of differences among mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support Work Life Balance WIPL PLIW WPLE WLB Total SS N Mean Std. Deviation Group differences t-ratios Low 47 31.23 5.24 Low-average Not applicable Average 55 29.05 6.27 Low-high Not applicable High 45 31.13 5.33 Average-high Not applicable Total 147 30.39 5.73 Low 47 19.83 3.87 Low-average 1.92 Average 55 21.25 3.62 Low-high 3.47(**) High 45 22.56 3.67 Average-high 1.78 Total 147 21.20 3.85 Low 47 17.51 3.36 Low-average 1.63 Average 55 18.75 4.18 Low-high 4.11(**) High 45 20.73 4.14 Average-high 2.38(*) Total 147 18.96 4.10 LOW 47 68.57 9.53 Low-average 0.25 AVERAGE 55 69.05 9.95 Low-high 2.85(**) HIGH 45 74.42 10.19 Average-high 2.66(**) Total 147 70.54 10.16 t significant at.05 *.01 ** df 100 1.98 2.63 df 98 1.98 2.63 df 90 1.99 2.63 137
Significant differences were also observed between professionals with average and high spouse support on the dimensions of WPLE (M A =18.75, M H =20.73, t= 2.38, p=.05) and on WLB Total (M A =69.05, M H =74.42, t=2.66, p=.01 level). However, no significant differences were found between professionals with low and average spouse support on any of the dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (M L =31.23, M A =29.05), PLIW (M L =19.83, M A =21.25), WPLE (M L =17.51, M A =18.75) and on WLB Total (M L =68.57, M A = 69.05). The mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals with high spouse support were significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with low spouse support on the dimensions of PLIW, WPLE and on WLB Total and were also significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with average spouse support on the dimension of WPLE and on WLB Total. The results thus showed that the IT and ITES working professionals with high spouse support had less interference of personal life with work as compared to IT and ITES working professionals with low spouse support and also had higher work/personal life enhancement and higher overall work life balance than the IT and ITES working professionals with low and with average spouse support. From the results, it can be concluded that in case of professionals having high spouse support in terms of household work, childcare, positive attitude towards work, there is lesser interference of personal life with work and both work and personal life complement each other and as a result, there is high level of work life balance as compared to those, who have low spouse support. 138
Hence, Hypothesis H Fb(ii) that there will be significant differences among the mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support on work life balance and its dimensions is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal life. 5.5 PARENTAL DEMANDS AND WORK LIFE BALANCE Parental demands were measured by the number of children and by the responsibility of taking care of children. The correlation between parental demands and work life balance and its dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed below. (i)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions To compute the correlation between parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions, the IT and ITES working professionals with and without children were coded as 1 and 0 respectively. No significant correlations (Table 5.8) were found between parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions. The results thus indicate that there is no relationship between parental demands and work life balance. 139
Table 5.8: Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions Work Life Balance Correlation with PD 2 ( N=147) WIPL 1.07 PLIW 1 -.10 WPLE.08 WLB Total.04 * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference 2 With children coded as 1, Without children coded as 0 The findings of the study are in contradiction to the findings of an earlier study by Pleck et al. (1980). The survey study of workers suggested that substantial minority of workers living in families experienced conflict between work and family life and parents reported more conflict than other couples. Hypothesis H Fc(i) that there will be significant correlation between the parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry is thus rejected. (i)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children Table 5.9 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (F=0.91), PLIW (F=0.63), WPLE (F=0.62) and for WLB Total (F=0.91). 140
Table 5.9: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children Work Life Balance Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Between Groups 59.51 2 29.75 0.91 WIPL Within Groups 4729.39 144 32.84 Total 4788.90 146 Between Groups 18.71 2 9.36 0.63 PLIW Within Groups 2140.57 144 14.87 Total 2159.28 146 Between Groups 21.07 2 10.54 0.62 WPLE Within Groups 2434.69 144 16.91 Total 2455.76 146 WLB Total Between Groups 94.58 2 47.29 0.46 Within Groups 14973.88 144 103.99 Total 15068.46 146 df 2, 144 F significant at.05 *.01 ** 3.06 4.75 The results showed that there were no significant differences among IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children either on overall work life balance or on any of its dimensions. Table 5.10 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children. 141
Table 5.10: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children Work Life Balance WIPL 0 PD (number of children) N Mean Std. Deviation 1 68 30.22 5.71 2 or more 34 31.50 4.12 Total 147 30.39 5.73 PLIW 0 45 21.73 4.09 1 68 20.94 3.81 2 or more 34 21.00 3.62 Total 147 21.20 3.85 WPLE 0 45 18.47 4.12 TOTAL WLB 1 68 19.01 4.38 2 or more 34 19.50 3.50 Total 147 18.96 4.10 0 45 70.00 10.82 1 68 70.18 9.96 2 or more 34 72.00 9.81 Total 147 70.54 10.16 Hence, Hypothesis H Fc(ii) that there will be significant differences among the mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands (in terms of number of children) on work life balance and its dimensions is rejected. (ii)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) and work life balance and its dimensions Insignificant correlations (Table 5.11) were found between parental demands and work life balance and its dimensions, thus indicating that parental demands are not related to work life balance. 142
Table 5.11: Correlations between parental demands and work life balance and its dimensions Work Life Balance Correlation with PD ( N=102) WIPL 1-0.18 PLIW 1-0.15 WPLE 0.12 WLB Total -0.10 * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference. These findings are in contradiction to the findings of the earlier studies by Keene and Quadagno (2004), Frye and Breaugh (2004) and Luk and Shaffer (2005). Keene and Quadagno (2004) found that greater responsibility for childcare predicts less balance. Frye and Breaugh (2004) found that having child care responsibility was predictive of family-work conflict. Luk and Shaffer (2005) found parental demands to be positive predictor of both work interference with family and family interference with work. Aryee, 1992 and Aryee et al., 1999 also reported similar findings. Hence, Hypothesis H Fd(i) that there will be significant correlation between the parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry is rejected. (ii)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) Table 5.12 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the dimensions, namely, WIPL (F=2.84), PLIW (F=3.03), WPLE (F=0.30) and for WLB Total (F=2.09). 143
Table 5.12: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands Work Life Balance Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square WIPL Between Groups 151.07 2 75.53 2.84 Within Groups 2634.23 99 26.61 Total 2785.29 101 PLIW Between Groups 81.13 2 40.56 3.03 Within Groups 1324.72 99 13.38 Total 1405.84 101 WPLE Between Groups 10.28 2 5.14 0.30 Within Groups 1682.54 99 17.00 Total 1692.82 101 WLB Total Between Groups 400.79 2 200.39 2.09 Within Groups 9502.47 99 95.99 Total 9903.26 101 df 2, 99 F significant at.05 *.01 ** 3.09 4.82 F The results thus indicate that there were no significant differences among IT and ITES working professionals with low, average and high parental demands on overall work life balance or on any of its dimensions. Further, trend of mean scores (Table 5.13) showed that IT and ITES working professionals with low parental demands had lesser work interference with personal life (WIPL; M H =29.72, M A =30.13, M L =32.76), lesser personal life interference with work (PLIW; M H =19.69, M A =21.33, M L =21.92) and higher overall work life balance (WLB Total; M H =68.28, M A =71.00, M L =73.60) than the professionals with high and with average parental demands. 144
Table 5.13: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands Work Life Balance PD (Responsibility of children) N Mean Std. Deviation WIPL Low 25 32.76 3.97 Average 45 30.13 5.85 High 32 29.72 4.91 Total 102 30.65 5.25 PLIW Low 25 21.92 4.18 Average 45 21.33 3.54 High 32 19.69 3.38 Total 102 20.96 3.73 WPLE Low 25 18.92 5.31 Average 45 19.53 4.08 High 32 18.88 2.97 Total 102 19.18 4.09 TOTAL WLB Low 25 73.60 9.90 Average 45 71.00 10.29 High 32 68.28 8.96 Total 102 70.78 9.90 The plausible reason for the differences not being significant might be that in India, joint family system is still prevalent in many households and childcare responsibilities are taken over by grand parents and other members who might be at home. Even for nuclear families, paid helpers are available at affordable prices to look after the children. Thus, Hypothesis H Fd(ii) that there will be significant differences among the mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) on work life balance and its dimensions is rejected. 145
To Conclude, Hypotheses H Fa(i) and H Fa(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life balance. Hypothesis H Fb(i) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal life. Hypothesis H Fb(ii) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal life. Hypotheses H Fc(i) and H Fc(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance. Hypotheses H Fd(i) and H Fd(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life balance. 146
REFERENCES Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45(8), 813-835. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict and well being: the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259-278. Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78. Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., & Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. Frye, N.K., & Breaugh, J.A. (2004). Family friendly policies, supervisor support, workfamily conflict and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197-219. Hyman, J., Baldry, C., Scholarios, D., & Bunzel, D. (2003). Work-life imbalance in the new service sector economy. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 215-239. Keene, J.R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance: Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociological Perspectives. 47(1), 1-23. Kim Siew Lee Fean & Ling Seow Choo (2001). Work-Family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16(5), 204-221. 147
Luk, D.M., & Shaffer M.A. (2005). Work and family domain stressors and support: within- and cross-domain influences on work-family conflict. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 489-508. Pleck, J.H., Staines, G.L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29-32. Suchet, M., & Barling, J. (1986). Working mothers: Interrole conflict, spouse support and marital functioning. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 167-178. 148