Coursework Header Sheet

165149-43

Course RESE1058: Foundations of Scholarsh & Res Course School/Level BU/PG

Coursework The Dissertation Plan Assessment Weight 70.00%
Tutor MJ Ferguson Submission Deadline 15/03/2010

Coursework is receipted on the understanding that it is the student's own work and that it has not,
in whole or part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from
other sources it has been properly acknowledged in accordance with the University's Regulations
regarding Cheating and Plagiarism.

000577617 Pravin Kumar Mani

Tutor's comments

Grade Awarded___________ For Office Use Only__________ Final Grade_________

Moderation required: yes/no Tutor______________________ Date _______________
Contents Page
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................
1.1 A brief history...........................................................................................................
1.2 Importance and objective
1.3 Hypotheses.................................................................................................................
2. Literature .....................................................................................................................
2.1 Motivation Studies.....................................................................................................
2.2 Factors studies............................................................................................................
2.3 Method literature........................................................................................................
3. Glossary .......................................................................................................................
4Appendix AHR questiionaire...........................................................................................
5Bibliography ....................................................................................................................
Introduction:
Curiosity is the basic drive for a lot of things in life. Curiosity over a particular
thing induces interest which in turn induces the human mind to learn more. I have embarked on
this dissertation with such a kind of motive. The topic of my study is “Study of employee
perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life
balance”

A brief insight into what Work- life balance is:

The term “work/life balance” was coined in 1986, although its usage in everyday language was
sporadic for a number of years. Interestingly, work/life programs existed as early as the 1930s.
Before World War II, the W.K. Kellogg Company created four six-hour shifts to replace the
traditional three daily eight-hour shifts, and the new shifts resulted in increased employee morale
and efficiency. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s seminal book (1977), Work and Family in the United
States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy, brought the issue of work/life
balance to the forefront of research and organizations.2 In the 1980s and 1990s, companies
began to offer work/life programs. While the first waves of these programs were primarily to
support women with children, today’s work/life programs are less gender-specific and recognize
other commitments as well as those of the family.

We all play many roles: employee, boss, subordinate, spouse, parent, child, sibling, friend and
community member. Each of these roles imposes demands on us that require time, energy and
commitment to fulfill. Work-family or work-life conflict occurs when the cumulative demands
of these many work and non-work life roles are incompatible in some respect so that
participation in one role is made more difficult by participation in the other role. (Duxbury &
Higgins, Oct 2001)

Work/life balance, in its broadest sense, is defined as a satisfactory level of involvement or ‘fit’
between the multiple roles in a person’s life. Although definitions and explanations vary,
work/life balance is generally associated with equilibrium, or maintaining an overall sense of
harmony in life. The study of work/life balance involves the examination of people’s ability to
manage simultaneously the multi-faceted demands of life. Although work/life balance has
traditionally been assumed to involve the devotion of equal amounts of time to paid work and
non-work roles, more recently the concept has been recognized as more complex. There exists
three basic aspects of work life balance

• Time balance, which concerns the amount of time given to work and non-work roles.
• Involvement balance, meaning the level of psychological involvement in, or
commitment to, work and non-work roles.
• Satisfaction balance, or the level of satisfaction with work and non-work roles.
This model of work/life balance, with time, involvement and satisfaction components, enables a
broader and more inclusive picture to emerge. For example, someone who works two days a
week and spends the rest of the week with his or her family may be unbalanced in terms of time
(i.e. equal measures of work and life), but may be equally committed to the work and non-work
roles (balanced involvement) and may also be highly satisfied with the level of involvement in
both work and family (balanced satisfaction). Someone who works 60 hours a week might be
perceived as not having work/life balance in terms of time. However, like the person who works
only a few hours a week, this individual would also be unbalanced in terms of time, but may be
quite content with this greater involvement in paid work (balanced satisfaction). Alternatively,
someone who works 36 hours a week, doesn’t enjoy his or her job and spends the rest of the time
pursuing preferred outside activities may be time-balanced but unbalanced in terms of
involvement and satisfaction. Thus, achieving balance needs to be considered from multiple
perspectives. (Hudson).

The meaning of work/life balance has chameleon characteristics. It means different things to
different groups, and the meaning often depends on the context of the conversation and the
speaker’s viewpoint.

The following are working definitions of terms used regarding work/life balance; some
definitions overlap and some are continuing to evolve.
Work/family: a term more frequently used in the past than today. The current trend is to use
titles that include the phrase work/life, giving a broader work/life connotation or labeling
referring to specific areas of support (e.g., quality of life, flexible work options, life balance, etc.)

Work/family conflict: the push and pull between work and family responsibilities.

Work/life balance from the employee viewpoint: the dilemma of managing work obligations
and personal/family responsibilities.

Work/life balance from the employer viewpoint: the challenge of creating a supportive
company culture where employees can focus on their jobs while at work.

Family-friendly benefits: benefits that offer employees the latitude to address their personal and
Family commitments, while at the same time not compromising their work responsibilities.

Work/life programs: programs (often financial or time-related) established by an employer that

offer employees options to address work and personal responsibilities.

Work/life initiatives: policies and procedures established by an organization with the goal to
Enable employees to get their jobs done and at the same time provide flexibility to handle
personal/family concerns.

Work/family culture: the extent to which an organization’s culture acknowledges and respects
the family responsibilities and obligations of its employees and encourages management and
employees to work together to meet their personal and work needs.
A brief history:

During the 1960s and 1970s, employers considered work-life mainly an issue for working
mothers who struggled with the demands of their jobs and raising children. Throughout this
period and into the mid-1980s, the U. S. government had the major impact in the field, as
reflected by the Presidential Conference on Families, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the
Quality of Employment Survey.

During the 1980s, recognizing the value and needs of their women contributors, pioneering
organizations such as Merck, Deloitte & Touche, and IBM began to change their internal
workplace policies, procedures, and benefits. The changes included maternity leave, employee
assistance programs (EAPs), flextime, home-based work, and child-care referral. During the
1980s men also began voicing work-life concerns. The term ‘work-life Balance’ was first coined
in 1986 in reaction to the unhealthy choices that many Americans were making in favor of the
work place, as they opted to neglect family, friends and leisure activities in the pursuit of
corporate goals. Articles of the time suggested a sharp increase in the working hours of the
Americans. This had started to affect their families and individual heath. Work life balance
slowly was gaining grounds in the various organizations. By the end of the decade, work-life
balance was seen as more than just a women’s issue, affecting men, families, organizations and
cultures.

The 1990s solidified the recognition of work-life balance as a vital issue for everyone--women,
men, parents and non-parents, singles, and couples. The 1990s saw a rise in the number of
working women and the dual-income families. A second family configuration, the lone parent
household also became prevalent in the 1990s. the labor force experienced considerable
challenges in balancing the work and family responsibilities. This growing awareness of the
central importance of the issue resulted in major growth in attempted work-life solutions during
this decade. Numerous studies showed that the generations from baby boomers to new college
graduates were making job choices based on their own work-life issues and employers’ cultures.
Unfortunately, although companies were adopting family-friendly policies, employees and
managers were not implementing them. Many of the policies put into place in the 1980s failed to
have a significant impact on most managers’ and employees’ real-world work-life-balance
results. Americans still reported feeling even more overworked and out of touch with their non-
work lives much of the time. (Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001)

It can also be argued that much of the above discussion is no longer relevant to our discussion on
work-life conflict due to labour market changes that occurred in the late 1990s and beyond.
Proponents of this view contend that organizations have made significant progress with respect
to work-life balance in recent years. They attribute increase in corporate awareness to two issues:
the greater need to recruit and retain workers, and changing attitudes toward work. Such
changes, they argue, have provided a power impetus for companies to turn to more flexible,
family friendly workplaces as a means of retraining and energizing key employees and meeting
strategic objectives.

Arnold Deutsche, in his book entitled The Human Resource Revolution: Communicate or
Litigate noted that today’s “knowledge workers” hold work attitudes that differ in many ways
from those of the “factory and production” workers that preceded them. Key differences include
rising expectations for a more rewarding career, more humane working experiences and a greater
“democratization” of the workplace. Today’s employees are more likely to want a career not
“just a job” and a meaningful life outside of work. Many have high expectations about gaining
satisfaction from their work now and in the future, and want a say in decisions affecting their
jobs and their employment. Researchers are also seeing a different set of attitudes in individuals
just entering the workplace.

As Conger (1998, p. 21) notes:

• In a nutshell, they distrust hierarchy. They prefer more informal arrangements. They
prefer to judge on merit rather than on status. They are far less loyal to their companies.
They are the first generation to be raised on a heavy diet of workplace participation and
teamwork. They know computers inside and out. They like money but they also say they
want balance in their lives.
Research also indicates that this group wants choice, flexibility and increased control over both
their jobs and the work-life interface (Conger, 1998). Individuals who are now entering the
workforce tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs. While these individuals enefited
from the extra family income being in a dual-income family entailed, many felt that they were
deprived of their parents’ company, a situation aggravated by the fact that a very high percent
were the children of divorce (Conger, 1998). Many in this new generation of workers say that
they do not want the sort of lives their parents led. Rather, they want to spend more time with
and be more available to their families (Conger, 1998). This increased desire and quest for a
“real balance between work and private life” has major implications for today’s workplace,
especially with respect to recruiting and retaining this cohort. This generation can be expected to
insist that organizations find more flexible ways to integrate time for family and private lives
into demanding careers (Conger, 1998). The business practices that motivated the homogeneous,
male breadwinning workforce of the past, therefore, may simply not work for this group of
employees. Conger (1998) also suggests that this yearning for life balance may increase conflict
for this new generation of workers as their value for interesting work, which is often
accompanied by longer hours and greater demands, conflicts with their desire for happy
marriages, meaningful family time and weekends they can call their own.( Duxbury & Higgins,
Oct 2001)
1.2 Importance and Objective:

A work/life balance survey conducted in 2002 by TrueCareers states that 70% of more than
1,500 respondents said they don’t have a healthy balance between their personal and work
lives.“Holding a Job, Having a Life: Strategies for Change” 2001 study by the Work Institute of
America points out that employee-driven solutions help reduce overtime, stress, and workloads,
and increase flexibility and family and leisure time. Scientists agree that in moderate amounts
stress can be benign, even beneficial, and most people are equipped to deal with it. However,
increasing levels of stress can rapidly lead to low employee morale, poor productivity, and
decreasing job satisfaction. Some of the specific symptoms that relate directly to productivity in
the work environment are abuse of sick time, cheating, chronic absenteeism, distrust,
embezzlement, organizational sabotage, tardiness, task avoidance, and violence in the workplace.
Other serious repercussions are depression, alcohol and drug abuse, marital and financial
problems, compulsive eating disorders, and employee burnout. Dr. Bruce S. McEwen, director of
the neuro endocrinology laboratory at Rockefeller University, has been studying stress for more
than three decades. As he notes, “blaring car alarms, controlling bosses, two-career marriages,
six mile traffic jams, and rude salesclerks were simply not part of the plan.” Employee
Assistance Programs (EAPs), offered by many employers, are an excellent resource for
employees under stress. EAPs provide a myriad of services, from drug and alcohol abuse
counseling to addressing family and marriage problems, financial and legal difficulties, and
stress-related problems. In addition, in line with the times and the increasing stress levels in our
society, a new profession has emerged: work/life professionals. The concept of work/life
professionals originally developed as an extension of wellness programs (established as early as
1933) and EAPs (created in the 1940s). Diversity and work/life initiatives can be found at the
core of the new social contract being negotiated between employers and employees. “The basic
outline of the social contract, as it has emerged during the past several years, calls for workers to
commit their best contributions and greatest energies to the job in return for interesting work,
respectful treatment, developmental opportunities, and an environment that responds to
individual needs. Where those provisions conflict (e.g., the degree of commitment and energy
expected by employers versus the flexibility required by employees), the expertise of both
diversity management and work/life professionals will be critical to find win-win solutions.”
Why Should Employers Care about Employees’ Work-Life Balance?

Many organizations feel that helping employees balance competing work and non-work demands
is not their responsibility. Rather, they subscribe to a somewhat outdated view called the “myth
of separate worlds” that is based on the premise that work is work and life is life and that the
domains do not overlap. Such organizations argue that “it was the employee’s choice to have a
family so balancing competing demands is their problem not ours.” Such organizations also note
that they are “in the business” of increasing shareholder value and serving customers and not
helping employees cope with stress.

In other organizations, employees without dependent care responsibilities interpret “family

friendly” as favoritism and complain that they are being “unfairly” or inequitably treated. Such
employees feel that their colleagues with childcare or eldercare responsibilities are “getting away
with less work” and that the needs of childless employees are being ignored. This backlash
against “family friendly” makes it harder for organizations who wish to address the issue.

Our research debunks the above preconceptions and supports that the inability to balance work
and family is “everyone’s problem.” High work-life conflict negatively impacts the employer,
the employees’ colleagues, the employee, the employees’ family, and society as a whole. From
the employer’s perspective, the inability to balance work and family demands has been linked to
reduced work performance, increased absenteeism, higher turnover, lower commitment and
poorer morale. Work-life conflict has also been linked to productivity decreases associated with
lateness, unscheduled days off, emergency time off, excessive use of the telephone, missed
meetings, and difficulty concentrating on the job. Conflict between work and family demands is
also a problem for employees and their families. (Duxbury & Higgins, Oct 2001) Work-life
balance strategies are used as solutions to reduce these growing work life conflicts.

All the above mentioned facts address the fact that Work life balance welfare measures influence
the overall loyalty of an employee towards his/her organization. Now in our study we are going
to do a detailed study of the above fact by dividing work life balance into subsections and
studying the effect welfare measures related to the same on the employee’s performance level.
1.3 Hypothesis
The null hypothesis for the first part of the study, is that organizational understanding improves
work life balance for the employee
The hypothesis is that organizational understanding does not improve work life balance for the
employee.
The null hypothesis for the second part of the study, is that flexible work schedule improves
work life balance for the employee
The hypothesis is that flexible work schedules do not improve work life balance for the
employee.

The null hypothesis for the third part of the study, is that child care practices improve work life
balance for the employee
The hypothesis is that child care practices do not improve work life balance for the employee.

.
2. Literature:

An evaluation of the literature sources pointed out online management journals like JSTOR and
search engines like Google scholar to be the best of source points for collection of previous
reviews. So, most of my literature review is from the above mentioned sources.

2.1 Motivation studies

The article which majorly inspired me to take up this study on work / life balance measures
effectiveness is the article named “The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: a
review of the literature” by Philippa Yasbek. This article enumerated the numerous benefits of
work life balance measures. They are the following

• Reduced staff turnover rates (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life Balance,2003;
Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001; Galinsky and Johnson,1998; Eaton,
2001)
• Less loss of knowledge workers to competitors (Dex and Scheibl, 1999)
• Lower recruitment and training costs, associated with reduced turnover (Dex and Scheibl,
1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001; Eaton, 2001)
• Becoming a good employer or an employer of choice (Dex and Scheibl, 2001;Center for
Ethical Business Cultures, 1997)
• Broader recruitment pool (Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans, 2001)
• Improved quality of applicants (Dex and Scheibl, 1999)
• Increased return on investment in training as employees stay longer (Dex and Scheibl, 1999)
• Reduced absenteeism (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life Balance, 2003;Center for
Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources Development Canada,2002; Galinsky and
Johnson, 1998; Comfort, Johnson, and Wallace, 2003)
• Reduced use of sick leave (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business
Cultures, 1997)
• Reductions in worker’s stress levels (Evans, 2001)
• Reduced liability for stress under the Health and Safety in Employment Act
• Increased return rate from parental leave (Managing Work/Life Balance, 2003)
• Reduction in worker stress from conflicts between work and family roles (Evans,
2001; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998;
White, et al. 2003)
• Improved morale or satisfaction (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Managing Work/Life
Balance, 2003; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources
Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Comfort, Johnson, and
Wallace, 2003)
• Greater staff loyalty and commitment (Dex and Scheibl, 2001; Center for Ethical
Business Cultures, 1997; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002; Galinsky and Johnson,
1998; Eaton, 2001)
• Greater flexibility in deploying staff such as an ability to offer extended hours of
business to customers (Evans, 2001; Human Resources Development Canada, 2002)
• Improved corporate image, which can lead to greater sales or improved stock price of ethical
investment choice (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures, 1997; Evans,
2001)
• Improved productivity (Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Center for Ethical Business Cultures,1997;
Galinsky and Johnson, 1998; Eaton, 2001)
2.2 Factor studies

Since the article had references to all its point a detailed study into all the uses urged me to do a
more subdivided study on the Work life balance measures. This lead me to examine articles
which studied the extent to which various family friendly measures influenced an individual’s
performance. This article cited here, “Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of
Family friendly policies on Altitudes of Federal Government Employees”. I have quoted the
article so as to provide a better understanding.

“We are concerned with both the direct and indirect effects of family-friendly policies on job
satisfaction. Flextime, for instance, may increase job satisfaction directly by enhancing an
employee's perceptions of his/her working conditions and benefits. At the same time, it might
prove helpful in abating work-family conflicts for those with significant family demands, thus
improving their sense of satisfaction with work-family balance and, in turn, their job satisfaction.
Further, previous research suggests that direct and indirect effects may sometimes be inverse to
one another, with a particular policy having a positive direct effect on job satisfaction, for
example, but having a negative impact on satisfaction with work-family balance and thus a
negative indirect effect on job satisfaction. Therefore, we examine the effects of these family-
friendly policies on both satisfactions with work-family balance and job satisfaction.

Organizational Understanding: our findings show that organizational understanding has more
impact on both satisfaction with work-family balance and job satisfaction than all family-friendly
policies examined here, for the overall sample and for most subpopulations. Even where specific
policies are significantly related to satisfaction; the actual impact of perceived organizational
understanding outweighs those effects by a factor of six or sevenfold in most cases (betas not
shown). Indeed, for young single men, men in traditional households, and unmarried fathers,
organizational understanding is the only family-friendly factor with a significant effect on
satisfaction with work-family balance. These findings are consistent with earlier research
showing that adopting family-friendly policies in the absence of a supportive organizational
culture may encounter resistance from both employees and management (Ford Foundation 1997;
Friedman and Galinsky 1992; Hochschild 1997; Vincola 1998). More importantly, in
unsupportive organizations, work-family concerns may not be recognized as legitimate human
resource issues and may not be integrated into the organizational culture. As a result, managers
may effectively penalize workers who use or express an interest in using family-friendly policies,
viewing them as less committed to their jobs and less deserving of job advancement or resources
needed to perform their jobs (Daddy Trap 1998; Ford Foundation 1997; Hall 1990; Hochschild
1997). Because managers and organizational cultures can do so much on an informal basis to
either undercut or advance official policies, we should not be surprised to find organizational
understanding to be as significant, or even more significant, than use of specific family-friendly
policies in predicting satisfaction with work-family balance and job satisfaction. At the same
time, because our (and most other researchers') measure of organizational understanding of
family needs is a subjective indicator of respondents' perceptions, we can-not be sure whether the
demonstrated impact is indeed a function of actual organizational understanding or whether we
have found simply that employees who are positive about their jobs are likely to be more positive
about their employers' response to family needs as well as more positive about their own ability
to achieve a desirable balance between work and family.

Flexible Schedules: Flexible scheduling is the most commonly used family-friendly policy
examined here; it may also be the most evenly dispersed among various subpopulations.
Consistent with an early study of flextime in federal employment (Bohen and Viveros-Long
1981), but contrary to other research (Winett and Neale 1980; Winett, Neale, and Williams
1982), use of flexible schedules in our entire sample demonstrates a small negative effect on job
satisfaction and shows no significant impact on satisfaction with work-family balance. Further,
reliance on flexible scheduling has no significant impact on either work-family balance or job
satisfaction for most of our subpopulation groups. However, for reasons that are not clear, older
unmarried men relying on flexible schedules (nearly half do, demonstrating the highest usage
rate of cohorts examined) are significantly less satisfied with their work-family balance than
their counterparts who do not use flexible schedules. Yet unmarried mothers using flexible
scheduling are significantly more satisfied with theirs, as might be expected in light of their
difficult role as single parents and the way that flexible schedules might help them meet those
responsibilities. Flexible schedules might be a desirable benefit for reasons other than clear-cut
family ones, evidenced by the significant positive relationship between flexible schedules and
job satisfaction among young women in dual-income households with no children present; use of
such schedules has no impact on work-family balance, but it is the only family-friendly policy
linked to job satisfaction for this cohort.
Child Care

Again consistent with previous research (Ezra and Deckman 1996), we do not find use of the
specific child care options provided by the government to have a significant impact on levels of
satisfaction with work-family balance for either the sample as a whole or for any of the
subpopulations examined. However, we do find that use of any of these child care programs has
a direct positive effect on job satisfaction, both for the sample as a whole and for specific
subpopulations. For mothers in dual-income households, unmarried fathers (but not unmarried
mothers), and married men aged 60 or older (perhaps with a second family or care of a
grandchild), use of any of the child care resources available is directly associated with greater
levels of job satisfaction. Indeed, it is noteworthy that for unmarried fathers and older married
men, child care is the only specific family-friendly policy, outside of organizational
understanding, to exert a direct influence on job satisfaction.”

If closely observed the above cited article presents a different weightage to different factors. This
made me ponder upon reexamining these in addition to assessing the total impact and also
finding out any additional factors. An in addition to these articles the reference cited in these
articles and sub articles were also reviewed to underline the above mentioned conceptualizations.
2.3 Literature for methodology

METHOD
Research Design
The research design for this study is descriptive and had utilized a multi-method approach.
Quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods have been employed. This design was
chosen as it is a way to collect data in order to answer questions about the employee perceptions
about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance.The
study also identified and described the worklife balance of the employees in the company and
how it affects the organizational commitment of employee perceptions about the welfare
measures adapted by their company with respect to work life balance.The research methods
selected are survey and interviews; as such research instruments employed included a survey
questionnaire and follow-up interviews guide, with the former being carried out first. ANOVA
and Correlation tests were done to test the significance of worklife balance on organizational
commitment. The survey questionnaire will be conducted within the company employees as
respondents. Interviews will be conducted to enrich and verify information ought to be gathered
regarding Worklife Balance and Organizational from the survey questionnaires. These interviews
will help to place the data gathered into context which aided interpretation.
Subjects and sampling procedure
The organization selected for this study was PRIMARK. It is a chain of retail stores across uk
with minimum of 50 employees in each store . The rationale behind the selection was that there
is a mix of employees from different ethnic origin and other diversity which exists among the
employees currently working for it. As mentioned, this study aimed to explore about the
employee perceptions about the welfare measures adapted by their company with respect to work
life balance. The study which will be a purposive sampling method in selecting the respondents
from the official list of employees provided by the firm’s human resource representative, the
researcher will select those who fall under the definition of highly diversified group. .
Research Instruments
There were three (3) instruments which will be used for the study. The first instrument,
developed by the researcher, will be the interview guide for the semi-structured interviews with
the human resources representatives of the organization. This was accompanied by a letter of
request to the general manager to accommodate the group (which is a requirement and prevails
as a constraint). The second instrument was the survey questionnaire for the employees, which
started with items on their basic information. The questionnaire was composed of two scales,
namely the Worklife Balance Scale , and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire . The
third instrument was the interview guide for the semi-structured interviews with employees. The
purpose of these interviews was to expound on the data that will be obtained from the survey
questionnaires. Questions were based from the review of literature as well as the survey
questionnaire. Follow-up questions were asked to probe for more information and clarification
from the interviewees. However, the interview guide was only tentative as the questions could
vary depending on the answers of the respondents in the survey questionnaire. Also, an audio
recording device will be utilized to document both the interviews with human resource
department representatives and employees for data analysis.

Worklife Balance Scale

The worklife balance scale was adapted from the article “Psychometric Assessment of an
Instrument Designed to Measure WorkLife Balance” of Hayman (2005). The chosen scale was
used over other scales because of its relevance for participants who do not have family
responsibilities but still may experience work impinging on their personal life. It assessed if the
participants currently feel that they had a balance between work and life. The article was an
assessment of Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton and Gavin (2003) original scale that was also
used to assess the three dimensions of worklife balance namely: work interference with personal
life (WIPL), personal life interference with work (PLIW), and work/personal life enhancement
(WPLE). The updated scale consisted of 15 items from the original 19 items which had higher
Cronbach alpha values for the three factors of 0.93 for WIPL, 0.85 for PLIW, and .69 for WPLE.
The 15 items was divided into 5 items for each factor. The first five items measured Work
interference with personal life (WIPL), while the next five items
measured personal life interference with work (PLIW) and lastly, the final five items easured
work/personal life enhancement (WPLE). Item number seven was reversed scored. Scores with a
higher score signifies less balance. A 7 point time related scale was used (e.g. 1=Not at all,
4=Sometimes, and 7=All the time). Hayman, (2005) researched that the time based stem is
recommended so that the respondents would have the same time frame for reference while
responding to Worklife Balance and Organizational Commitment of each item. Hayman (2005)
also stated that the scale had acceptable reliability estimates and factor loading patterns for
worklife balance.
Three-component model of Organizational Commitment questionnaire
The three (3) component model of organizational commitment questionnaire, revised by Lee,
Allen and Meyer (2001) is a 15-item questionnaire in a 7-point Likert scale that measures the
three components of commitment namely affective, continuance and normative. With a total of
15 items, each component was confirmed using 5 questions each. The first five items measured
Affective Commitment (AC), whereas items six to ten measured Continuance
Commitment (CC), and the last five items measured Normative commitment (NC). This
questionnaire was chosen over the earlier questionnaire models by Allen and Meyer, 1991, and
Allen and Meyer 1996, because of the reported findings that the questionnaire was mostly
conducted in North America. This questionnaire on the other hand was restructured per item,
tested in emic-etic approach to be a better fit to the data than other competing models (Lee,
Allen, & Meyer, 2001). The test has been adapted for Asian respondents. Compared to the Non-
western questionnaire revision by Ko, Price, and Mueller (1997) of
Cronbach's alphas: ACS=0.86, CCS=0.61, NCS=0.74, the questionnaire by Lee, et al. (2001)
rated Cronbach’s alphas of 0.86 for ACS, 0.76 for CCS, and 0.83 for NCS. The questionnaire has
confirmed good psychometric properties in terms of validity, internal consistency with respect to
turnover intention (Lee, K. et al,(2001).
5.Bibliography:
Nancy R .Lock wood. (2003) Research Quarterly. Work life balance- challenges and
solutions.Society for human research management.
Philippa Yasbek .2004 Labour Market Policy
Group.http://www.futureofwork.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.pdf
Ezzedeen, S. R., & Swiercz, P. M. (2002). Rethinking worklife balance: Development and
validation of the cognitive intrusion of work scale (CIWS)—A dissertation research proposal.
Proceedings of the 2002 Eastern Academy of Management Meeting.
Fineman, M. (1999). Why diversity professionals should care about work/life balance. Mosaics,
5, 6, 6-7.
Fingerman, J. (2003). Tip of the Month for February 2003. Work & Family Connection.
Retrieved February 4, 2003,
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and
strain. New York: Wiley. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—
Allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gottlieg, B. H., Kelloway, E. K., & Barham, E. (1998). Flexible work arrangements: Managing
the work-family boundary. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
In perspective: Use of work/life benefits on the rise. (2002). IOMA’s Report on Managing
Benefits Plans, 02, 8,7-9.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States:A critical review and agenda for
research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Labor project for working families. (2002). Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://ist-
socrates.berkeley.edu/~iir /workfam/home.html
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational
citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 5, 801-815.
Landauer, J. (1997, July). Bottom-line benefits of work/life programs. HR FOCUS, 74, 7, 3-4.
Lee, M. (1997). Fighting back against stress in the workplace.
Minneapolis, MN: Chiron International Publishing.Mack, D. R. (2002). Balancing work and
family. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www.shrm.org/consultants/links/balancing.htm
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause
personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
McCartney, C. (2002). Work/life balance: The role of the
manager. Training, 35.Montague, J. (2001). Redesigned work improves business,
life balance. Control Engineering, 48, 3, 14-15.
The Online EAP Directory, http://www.eap-sap.com/eap/Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H.
(2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human
Resource Management Review, 12, 3, 299-312. Parus, B. (2000). Measuring the ROI of work/life
programs.Workspan, 43, 9, 50-54.
Parus, B. (2002). Recognition: A strategic tool for retaining
talent. Workspan, 45, 11, 14-17.
Raphael, T. (2001). The drive to downshifting. Workforce,
80, 10, 23.
Reynolds, H. B. (1999). It’s not enough to offer work/lifeprograms—you need to promote them.
Benefits Quarterly
Saltzstein, Alan L.; Ting, Yuan; Saltzstein, Grace Hall.2001Work-Family Balance and Job
Satisfaction: The Impact of Family friendly policies on Altitudes of Federal Government
Employees”. Public Administration Review, v61 n4 p452-67.

Web site resource: JSTOR and SAGE journals

WWW.SCRIBD.COM
Gantt wise tabulation.

DURATION(DA
TASKS START DATE YS) END DATE
Collecting data from hr
executives 03/20/2010 5 03/25/2010
Collecting data from
employees 03/25/2010 6 03/31/2010
Analysing the data 03/30/2010 10 04/10/2010
Interpreting 04/05/2010 4 04/14/2010
Post analysis 04/10/2010 8 04/08/2010
Final compilation 04/20/2010 9 04/29/2010