Influences on Work Non Work Conflict

7/31/2019 Influences on Work Non Work Conflict

1/22

http://jos.sagepub.com

Journal of Sociology

DOI: 10.1177/14407833070801042007; 43; 219Journal of Sociology

Cameron Allan, Rebecca Loudoun and David PeetzInfluences on work/ non-work conflict

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/3/219The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Australian Sociological Association

can be found at:Journal of SociologyAdditional services and information for

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/219Citations

by Cristina Cristina on April 12, 2009http://jos.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.tasa.org.au/http://www.tasa.org.au/http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/219http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/219http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tasa.org.au/


2/22

Influences on work/non-work conflict

Cameron Allan, Rebecca Loudoun and David PeetzDepartment of Industrial Relations, Griffith University

Ideological, political, economic and social developments have led tochanges in the structure of the labour market and the industrial landscapemore generally over the last few decades. In turn, these changes haveresulted in reforms at the workplace level that have long raised concernamongst individuals, families and researchers. Until recently, governmentsand private and public sector organizations have shown little concern aboutthe impact of changes at the workplace level on employees. The limitedinterest that has been shown has focused on relatively objective measures ofwage rates, earnings dispersions, employment status changes and institu-tional protection levels.

Recently, however, assessments of workplace change are being made usingbroader, more subjective terms of outcomes for workers. In particular the

Journal of Sociology 2007 The Australian Sociological Association, Volume 43(3): 219239

DOI:10.1177/1440783307080104 www.sagepublications.com

AbstractWork/non-work conflict is important because it tells us about the well-being of

individuals and more generally of a particular workplace or organization.

Important progress has been made in research literature on the importance of

structural policies designed to assist workers to meet competing demands to

be at work and at home. More information is needed into organizational influ-

ences on the emotional aspects of work/non-work conflict. Based on a survey

of over 900 employees, we use factor, correlation and multiple regression

analyses to find that exacerbation in work/non-work conflict is a result of high

workload pressure, long working hours, unsupportive management and weak

employee control, especially control over workload and when employees can

take time off.

Keywords: employee control, work pressure, work/life balance, work/life col-

lision, work/non-work conflict, working time

http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/http://jos.sagepub.com/


3/22

work/home divide is receiving growing attention as a measure of workplacerelations although, to date, attention has largely focused upon family-friendlyworkplace changes at the expense of the family unfriendliness of otherchanges (Pocock, 2001). There is a growing body of literature indicating a rela-

tionship between work/non-work conflict and diminished physical and psy-chological health (Duxbury, 2003; Loudoun and Bohle, 1997; National Centrefor Epidemiology and Population Health [NCEPH], 2003). Research onwork/non-work conflict is also particularly timely given the hyperbole sur-rounding family-friendly policies in contemporary public debate.

Current research on work/non-work conflict in Australia generally con-centrates on traditional, formal work/family policies and benefit packages.Researchers have recognized only recently that the nature of jobs and theworkplace environment may be the key variable determining workers abil-ity to reconcile their work and non-work lives. At present, however,although there are compelling arguments about the influence on work/non-work conflict of variables that relate to the organizational context, there islimited empirical evidence available to assess their importance (Berg et al.,2003). This article addresses this shortcoming by using data from a large-scale survey of male and female employees in Queensland to assess theinfluence of work pressure, management support and control at work onwork/non-work conflict. The article is divided into three sections. The firstreviews the relevant literature and establishes the research question in moredetail. A detailed discussion of the method used and results found from the

study is then presented. The last section discusses the findings.

Perceptions of work/non-work conflict: somefindings from the literatureWork/non-work conflict is generally defined in the literature as occurringwhen the emotional and behavioural demands of work and non-work rolesare incompatible, such that participation in one role is made more difficultby virtue of participation in the other (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). The

main model guiding current research on work/non-work conflict is thespillover model (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991). In this model, a positiverelationship is proposed between work and non-work roles to the extentthat satisfaction or dissatisfaction in one role spills over into the other(Bond et al., 1998).

Studies highlighting the link between work/non-work conflict and fatigue,stress, burnout, psychological well-being, depressed mood and physicalsymptoms are well documented in the research literature (Barton andFolkard, 1991; Bohle and Tilley, 1989; Duxbury, 2003; Loudoun and

Bohle, 1997; NCEPH, 2003). Work/non-work conflict has also been foundto influence the health and well-being of workers family members such aspartners and children. For example Pococks (2006) qualitative research

220 Journal of Sociology 43(3)



4/22

found a link from bad jobs and unmet parental time-use preferences tonegative spillover in family relationships, while a recent Australian epidemi-ological study found that children of parents who work consistently longhours or come home stressed were more likely to develop psychological

problems and physical illness (NCEPH, 2003). In Canada, Duxbury (2003)found that work/non-work conflict affects workers ability to enjoy and nur-ture their family, resulting in lower levels of family well-being and stability.

While ethically these findings alone should be sufficient reason to makework/non-work conflict an important area of investigation, there is anotherreason researchers are interested in work/non-work conflict. Evidence indi-cates that policies designed to assist work/non-work conflict can promoteemployee behaviour that is beneficial to the firm. For example, researchershave found that family-friendly policies can result in improvements inreturn to work after childbirth (Squirchuk and Bourke, 1999), retentionrates (Squirchuk and Bourke, 1999), morale and productivity (McCampbell,1996) and absenteeism (Kossek and Nichol, 1992).

Given the strong links found between work/non-work conflict andhealth of workers and their family members, and the links betweenwork/non-work conflict and organizational performance, it is likely to bean area of growing interest in the future. Indeed, some argue that it is oneof the most pressing social problems facing most developed economies(Zetlin and Whitehouse, 1998). Although much is known about the struc-tural causes of work/non-work conflict for specific groups of workers

such as mothers with young children, we argue that more discussion isneeded about the impact of work/non-work conflict arising from organi-zational variables on a broader range of workers. These variables includethe approach of management, the control exercisable by employees andthe pressure of workload. We argue this view for three reasons.

First, looking at organizational variables, the bulk of research to date onwork/family interactions has been completed by psychologists using jobstress as an underpinning framework. This means that much of the researchhas focused on the individual level, at the expense of considering organiza-

tional influences. This shortcoming is paralleled in stress managementresearch where the focus is predominantly on individual mechanisms andstrategies people can develop to cope with stress (see Kahn and Byosiere,1992; Topf, 1992). This leaves the responsibility to cope with work/non-work firmly upon the individual worker. It suggests that if the workershows the appropriate amount of commitment then their problems will beovercome. It assumes that individuals can choose their response to stimulior change the nature of the stimuli by acting on their environment.Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

There is strong evidence indicating that individual coping is difficult andrelatively ineffective in dealing with complex stressors (Menaghan and Mervis,1984; Shinn et al., 1984). Indeed, Parker and DeCotiis (1983) concluded that,

Allan et al.: Influences on work/non-work conflict 221



5/22

at best, individual differences have a mediating effect on reactions topotentially stressful situations and, consequently, individual differences arenot the most appropriate perspective from which to study stress in organiza-tions. They argue that in work settings, the organizational perspective deserves

more theoretical and empirical attention. In a similar vein, Menaghan andMervis (1984) argue that collective efforts to solve work-related problems aremore effective than relying on individual coping strategies.

The lack of information on organizational variables is particularlyconcerning in Australia, given the trend towards deciding on working con-ditions at the enterprise level. Roman and Blum (1993) and Quinlan (1993)argue that the responsibilities of organizations to acknowledge that charac-teristics of the work environment exacerbate problems have not been fullyexplored or reinforced. If workplaces are expected to decide on work issues,then it is imperative that decisions are made in light of sound empiricalknowledge.

Second, looking at the sample populations used in research to date, atten-tion has largely focused on formal organizational policies designed to assistparticular groups of workers such as women with children. This is notsurprising given that there is considerable evidence indicating thatwork/non-work conflict is most acute for female workers (Charles andBrown, 1981; Gadbois, 1981) as they usually perform an uneven distribu-tion of family and household duties (Gutek et al., 1988; Leslie et al., 1991;Loudoun and Bohle, 1997; Robson and Wedderburn, 1990). However, it is

important to know the factors affecting work/non-work conflict for a widerrange of workers. For example, more Australian children live in one-parentfamilies than ever before and the majority of children do not have a stay-at-home resident parent (ABS, 2000; Buchanan and Thornwaite, 2001),while people with care-giving responsibilities for elderly parents or familymembers with disabilities are also likely to experience work/non-work con-flict. Dempster (2003), in particular, argues that work/non-work conflictshould be promoted as an issue that affects workers in an ongoing way atdifferent ages and at different stages of their life. She cautions against single-

issue debates that focus on one aspect of family-friendly work arrangementssuch as paid maternity leave, as this approach narrows discussion aboutpossible workplace strategies to alleviate work/non-work conflict.

Third, looking at different forms of work/non-work conflict, most stud-ies to date have focused on structural conflict, which arises from the con-flicting demands for time in work and family roles (Voydanoff, 1988).Work and family duties usually cannot be performed simultaneously, aproblem that is aggravated for many workers because the increasing spanof workers hours means that work frequently conflicts with the most val-

ued times for family activities weekends and evenings (Staines and Pleck,1984). Given this dilemma, the structural interventions considered in muchof the literature to date on work/non-work conflict provide valuable




6/22

assistance designed to assist workers to meet their competing demands(Berg et al., 2003). These schemes include paid maternity leave, paternityleave and the option to buy out work-time. At the same time, however,there is limited research on emotional interference resulting from time spent

recovering on rest days (Jackson et al., 1985). The evidence suggests thatemotional interference reduces both the quantity and quality of family con-tact time because workers do not feel capable of participating in familyactivities (Pisarski et al., 1998).

In summary, work/non-work conflict is important because it tells usabout the well-being of individuals and, more generally, of a particularworkplace or organization. Important progress has been made to dateabout the importance of structural policies designed to assist workers tomeet competing demands to be at work and at home. More research isneeded, however, about organizational influences on work/non-work con-flict. If these work process variables influence workers health, or if thelabour market and workplace relations system more broadly allow or evenencourage work practices that inhibit the ability of workers to balancetheir work/non-work lives, then it is an area that should concern bothresearchers and those involved in policy development. The next sectionoutlines the conceptual model used to examine work/non-work conflict inthe present study.

The model of high-demand jobsIn this article we present the results of an analysis of the question: do workerswith high-demand jobs experience high work/non-work conflict? There aremany ways to measure job demand. There are also many terms used in theliterature to categorize job demand, including job strain, high-performancejobs and high-commitment jobs (see for example Berg et al., 2003; DSouzaet al., 2003; Janssen and Nijhuis, 2004). Although it is worthwhile to beaware of these conflicting interpretations, we argue that more progress will bemade by focusing on relationships between the variables rather than the terms

used to categorize the job dimensions. In this study we draw on Theorell andKaraseks (2000) influential demand-control model to argue that high-demand jobs can result in lower-quality family interactions as the worker isrecovering from time spent at work and thus emotionally unavailable for theirfamily. Consistent with the model, we use four work variables to measurejob demands: working hours, management support, employee control andworkload pressure.

These four variables, measured by self-report, are included in the analy-ses. This approach was chosen because it is less invasive than so-called

objective indices of the variables of interest. Although it is important to rec-ognize that data using self-report measures can be influenced by factors suchas personality, researchers have found similar results using self-report and




7/22

alternative measures (see Sparks et al., 1997 for a review of these studies).The next section briefly considers relationships between the four variables ofinterest and work/non-work conflict.

Working hours

The amount of time that people spend at work will have a strong influenceon worklife balance. The more time spent at work the less time availablefor participation in non-working life. Long working hours reduces oppor-tunities for socially productive leisure by restricting time available forbeing an effective marriage partner, parent and citizen (Golden and Figart,2000: 26). Therefore, in our study, we measured respondents weeklyworking hours so we could gauge the effect of hours worked on worklifeconflict.

Existing research indicates that long weekly hours and involuntary over-time have a negative effect on worklife balance (Berg et al., 2003) as itreduces the quality and quantity of workers participation in family andsocial life (Pocock, 2001; Pocock and Clarke, 2004). People working longhours report lower levels of satisfaction with their hours of work and theirworklife balance than other workers (Watson et al., 2003: 87). In thisstudy, we aim to extend these research findings by examining the interac-tion between worklife balance and employee control over such issues ashours worked, workload pressure and management support.

Workload pressureWorkload pressure encompasses the amount and pace of work. In essencethis variable is important because if someone spends more time doing onething, then they must find that time by spending less on something else orthey must do it at a faster pace. Accordingly, we asked questions about theamount of time workers have to rest during breaks, whether they work totight deadlines, leave on time, take work home, have adequate employeesto complete the jobs, have a backlog of work if they are sick and whetherworking late taken is taken for granted at their workplace.

There is considerable research examining these aspects of work pressureusing case study research (Allan, 1998; White and Bray, 2003; Willis,2002), but limited research that draws them together using a large sample.For example Pocock (2003) found that workers who reported work inten-sification also reported exhaustion, frustration and guilt over their inabilityto meet parental and spousal expectations. Although such studies providevaluable insight into the changing nature of modern workplaces and theoutcomes for families, a focussed, large-scale study is also needed.

Management support

There is considerable research examining the importance of managementsupport for workers but limited research that focuses directly on work/




8/22

non-work conflict. Peetz et al. (2003), for example, found that managementsupport is particularly important for counteracting pressures to work longerhours. Their results show that workplaces policies to prevent overwork andincreased safety risks from extended working hours are ineffective if managers

do not support and monitor the policy. In a recent longitudinal study, Janssenand Nijhuis (2004) also highlighted the importance of management supportfor workers when they found that positive changes in perceived support frommanagers and co-workers are associated with reductions in emotional exhaus-tion and fatigue.

Research that examines work/non-work conflict more narrowly definedtends to be limited to narrow groups of workers such as shiftworkers. Forexample Pisarski et al. (1998) extended preliminary work by Loudoun andBohle (1997), who found a positive relationship between supervisor sup-port and work/non-work conflict amongst nurses. Pisarski et al. (1998)found that supervisor support was most important for allowing workerssufficient control over shifts to diminish structural conflict. Although thesestudies contribute to our understanding of work/non-work conflict, it isimportant to see whether the findings extend to workers in different indus-tries and workers on more standard work hours.

Employee control

Consistent with Karasek and Theorell (2000), we use employee controlto refer to an employees ability to make decisions about how and when

they perform their work, as well as the extent to which their job entailsusing and developing their skills. However, we diverge from Karaseksand Theorell model in the sense that we have used the more recentapproach of asking employees about their perceptions of control at workrather than specific issues over which they were allowed to exercise dis-cretion (Berg et al., 2003; Duxbury, 2003). Accordingly, we asked ques-tions about how much control employees have over the number andtiming of hours they worked each week, including overtime, meal breaksand holidays, as well as their workload.

MethodThe data reported in this article are drawn from a broader study into thetypes and effects of work-time change in Queensland. The broader studycomprised case studies in 17 organizations and a survey of 15 organiza-tions. The survey research was conducted in a wide range of organizations,including a retail outlet, a theme park, a public utility, a construction firm,a public sector department, two manufacturing firms, a mine, a hospital, a

law firm, a community organization, a bank, a repair company, an educa-tional institution and a public-sector enforcement agency. While the samplewas not intended to be fully representative of the Queensland population,




9/22

it was designed to include organizations in most of the key sectors ofQueensland industry. The study was also designed to include a balance offemale-dominated, male-dominated and mixed-gender workplaces, and amixture of strongly, weakly and non-unionized workplaces. While the

study included a blend of small, medium and large organizations, the latterwere over-represented in the sample. Hence, while the findings are not gen-eralizable to the entire population, they do provide interesting insights intoworkplace phenomena, particularly in larger, often unionized workplaceswhere management systems and procedures are well developed.

We selected case study organizations in a number of ways. First, weselected some case studies from a database of enterprise agreements involv-ing work-time change in Queensland, commissioned from the AustralianCentre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT). Onlysome of the firms we selected from this database agreed to participate in ourstudy. Second, we approached organizations that were known to be exper-imenting with work-time change. We found out about these organizationsby approaching personal contacts in industry, unions, employers bodiesand the Queensland Government and asking them to recommend to usorganizations they knew to be experimenting with work-time change. Wealso made contact directly with some organizations at conferences andindustry functions. Third, after exhausting these two methods, we exam-ined the composition of our cases and identified that segments of theQueensland economy were under-represented. We then elected to specifi-

cally recruit organizations in nominated industry sectors. We directly con-tacted prominent organizations in these sectors and asked them toparticipate in our study.

The survey was administered between March and May 2002. The studysite usually corresponded to either a whole workplace or the entire organi-zation. However, in a small number of cases, a division of an organizationwas surveyed rather than a single workplace. In one organization, only aparticular occupation was surveyed. At study sites with fewer than 200employees, all workers were surveyed. At study sites with more than 200

employees, a sample of 200 employees was selected using systematic ran-dom sampling. In total, 963 usable questionnaires were returned, an over-all response rate of 42 per cent. For this particular article, we draw on theresponses of a sample of some 886 respondents that includes only those per-sons who answered all the questions used for this analysis of work/non-work conflict. The data are unweighted.

We provide details about the demographic characteristics of our sam-ple in Table 1. As can be seen, the bulk of respondents were in the agerange 20 to 49. Our case study firms included a considerable number of

large organizations and several of them were professional organizations a public sector department, a hospital, a law firm and an educationalinstitution and a public sector enforcement agency. As a result, our




10/22

sample included a high proportion of professionals and associate profes-sionals, and a relatively low proportion of blue-collar workers. This dis-tribution of occupations is likely to have arisen due to case selection, plus

the greater preparedness of white-collar workers to participate inresearch of this type. As can also be seen in Table 1, we captured fewcasual workers in our study with the overwhelming majority of respon-dents being employed on a permanent basis. Casual employment com-prises about a third of employment in Queensland and, as such, oursample clearly under-represents this important segment of the labourmarket. Our sample also includes a high proportion of trade union mem-bers: about double the national average. Again, this is due to our selec-tion of large organizations, where union density is higher than in smaller

workplaces.In addition to the questions about the demographic characteristics ofrespondents, the survey instrument also elicited respondents views about


Table 1: Demographic features of the total sample (n = 963)

Item Total (%)

Age

< = 19 32029 213039 314049 285059 1560+ 2

OccupationManagers 7Professionals 27Associate professionals 14

Tradespersons 15Clerical sales and service 31Intermediate transport and production 4Labourers and related workers 2

Employment statusPermanent 88Casual 7Fixed-term contract 5Total 100

Gender

Men 50Women 50

Union membershipYes 50No 50



11/22

a range of workplace matters such as work-time arrangements, work/non-work conflict, perceptions of management, work culture, workload issuesand other features of work. These items were measured on two five-pointLikert scales and one four-point scale. One of the former ranged from

strongly agree to strongly disagree, the second from very satisfied tovery dissatisfied. The four-point scale, used for measures of employeeinfluence, ranged from none to a great deal. We used some of thesequestions to construct scales of work/non-work conflict, employee con-trol, supportive management and workload pressure.

Factor analysisWe used exploratory factor analysis to delineate the four main constructsin this study: work/non-work conflict, employee control, supportivemanagement and workload pressure. As we included the dependent andindependent variables in our factor analysis, we expected the constructsto be correlated. Accordingly, we used oblique rotation with principalaxis factoring. We commenced the factor analysis using 27 items we con-sidered were components of the main constructs. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.89 indicating that the itemswere factorable. We checked the sampling adequacy of the individualvariables.

The initial examination of the scree plot suggested a four- or five-factor

solution. The four-factor solution was chosen because of theoretical inter-pretability and because it had a more clearly defined, simple structure. Weeliminated items that loaded at below 0.4. The analysis included some 866cases although the n was reduced due to missing values. As a cross-check,a separate factor analysis was run using means instead of missing values.The same four-factor solution loading on identical variables was derived,indicating that the missing data, due to missing values, did not affect theoutcome of the factor analysis.

The four factors accounted for some 51 per cent of the total variance and

43 per cent of the common variance. The mean, standard deviation andCronbachs alpha for each factor and factor intercorrelations for each fac-


Table 2: Means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alpha and factor intercorrelationsfor main factors

Factor M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4

1. Work/non-work conflict 3.10 0.86 0.65 1 .217 .456 .5102. Employee control 2.37 0.78 0.82 1 .251 .043

3. Management support 2.88 0.86 0.81 1 .1134. Workload pressure 2.92 0.82 0.84 1



12/22

Table3:Factorloadings

Factorb

Work/non-work

Employee

Management

Workload

conflict

control

support

pressure

Itema

1

2

3

4

Ileave

ontimemostdays[reversed

]

0.1

42

0.0

04

0.0

43

0.4

94

Longh

ourstakenforgranted

0.1

76

0.0

31

0.1

29

0.4

21

Ioften

takeworkhome

0.0

30

0.1

27

0.2

33

0.6

14

Ifyoutaketimeofforgetsick,you

rworkjustbuildsup

0.0

26

0.1

49

0.0

22

0.5

44

whiley

oureaway

Perform

ancetargetssetbymanagementarereasonable

0.0

15

0.1

49

0.4

62

0.1

27

Employeesaretreatedwithequalfairness

0.0

98

0.0

28

0.5

89

0.0

34

Manag

ementcanbetrustedtotellthingsthewaytheyare

0.0

06

0.0

67

0.8

17

0.0

82

Manag

ementtriestocooperatewithemployees

0.0

20

0.0

22

0.8

34

0.0

75

Employeesherehaveenoughsayif

aproblemarises

0.0

11

0.0

38

0.6

96

0.0

80

withm

anagement

[Howmuchsayover]howmanyhoursyouworkaweek?

0.0

58

0.6

43

0.0

10

0.0

47

[Howmuchsayover]yourstarting

andfinishingtimes?

0.0

02

0.7

85

0.0

43

0.1

92

[Howmuchsayover]whenyouha

veamealbreak?

0.0

27

0.7

53

0.0

00

0.0

11

[Howmuchsayover]whenyoutaketimeoff(e.g.

holidays,

0.0

13

0.7

10

0.0

98

0.1

50

appoin

tments)?

[Howmuchsayover]yourworkload?

0.0

71

0.5

25

0.1

23

0.0

35

Iwork

morehourseachweekthan

Iwouldlike

0.6

50

-0.0

83

0.0

43

0.0

34

[Satisfa

ctionwith]balancebetween

yourworkand

0.7

97

0.0

14

0.0

89

0.0

97

personallife[reversed]

(continued)




13/22

Table3:(continued)

Factorb

Work/non-work

Employee

Manage-ment

Workload

conflict

control

support

pressure

Itema

1

2

3

4

Igetto

ldathomethatIamworkin

gtoomuch

0.5

60

0.0

15

0.0

86

0.2

84

Mywo

rkresponsibilitiesinterferew

ithmysocial

0.7

83

0.0

47

0.0

31

0.0

76

lifemorethantheyshould

Iamoftentootiredtoproperlyenjoymytimeawayfromwork

0.6

38

0.0

17

0.0

99

0.0

16

Note

aThew

ordingonsomequestionshasbeenabbreviatedslightly.

bFactor

1=Work/non-workconflict;factor2=Employeecontrol;factor3=Managementsupport;fa

ctor4=Workloadpressure.




14/22

tor are presented in Table 2. The final items used in the four derived factorsare shown in the factor loading table (Table 3).

Regression analysisTo explore the relationship between work/non-work conflict and othervariables, we conducted multiple regression. The number of observationsfor the regression was slightly lower (n = 793) than the factor analysis dueto a missing value problem at one of our case study organizations (where,at managements direction, we were unable to ask the full range of ques-tions). Our principal method of analysis was ordinary least squares (OLS)regression. We devised the following equation:

WORK/NON-WORK CONFLICT = b0 + b1WORKLOAD PRESSURE + b2SUP-

PORTIVE MANAGEMENT+

b3EMPLOYEE CONTROL+

b4HOURSWORKED IN WEEK + b5NUMBER OF CHILDREN + b6COHABIT WITHEMPLOYED PARTNER + b7TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP + b8CASUALEMPLOYMENT + b9FIXED-TERM CONTRACT + b10SEX + b11AGE +b12OCCUPATION + e

Work/non-work conflict was the dependent variable. The independentvariables included the three scales we constructed using factor analysis:workload pressure, supportive management and employee control.Only items with a loading above a threshold of 0.4 (shown in the shadedsections of Table 3) were included in the factors. To control for othercharacteristics, we included in the equation dummy variables for coha-bitation with employed partner, casual employment, fixed-terms con-tract, age, occupation, sex and trade union membership. We alsoincluded in the equation two numeric variables: hours worked per weekand number of children. The results of the regression analysis are shownin Table 4.

Consistent with our expectations, the results of the regression analysisindicated that work/non-work conflict was negatively correlated with sup-portive management and employee control, and positively correlated with

workload pressure. The results also showed a statistically significant rela-tionship between work/non-work conflict and hours worked and numberof children.

To check to see if our model had equal salience for men and women weran the same regression equation separately for men only and women only(results not shown). These two separate equations showed the same statis-tically significant pattern of association of work/non-work conflict withsupportive management, employee control, workload pressure and hoursworked. The variable for number of children was significant for women

and men.




15/22

DiscussionThe most important factor influencing work/non-work conflict in Table 4is workload pressure. When employees are in organizations where workinglong hours is taken for granted, they do not leave on time, they often takework home and work builds up while they are away, they are likely to showthe signs of work/non-work conflict: they are more dissatisfied with the bal-ance between their work and personal lives, are often too tired to properlyenjoy their time away from work, get told at home they are working toomuch, find their work responsibilities interfering with their social life, and

would prefer to be working fewer hours.As might be expected, the more hours people work, the more likely they are

to experience work/non-work conflict. But hours worked is less important, in


Table 4: Regression of work/non-work conflict

Unstandardizedcoefficients B t-stat. Sig.

(Constant) 3.503 11.870 0.000Workload pressure 0.462 14.158 0.000Supportive management 0.244 8.065 0.000Employee control 0.170 5.194 0.000Hours worked in week 0.018 6.826 0.000Number of children 0.056 2.234 0.026Cohabit with employed partner 0.083 1.715 0.087Trade union status 0.023 0.461 0.645Casual employment 0.025 0.186 0.853Fixed-term contract 0.041 0.390 0.697Sex 0.058 1.012 0.312

Age 2024 0.201 1.211 0.226Age 2529 0.227 1.408 0.160Age 3034 0.241 1.502 0.133Age 3539 0.260 1.596 0.111Age 4044 0.245 1.507 0.132Age 4549 0.140 0.856 0.393Age 5054 0.207 1.247 0.213Age 5559 0.204 1.165 0.244Age 60+ 0.148 0.715 0.475Professionals 0.073 0.752 0.452Assoc. professionals 0.074 0.727 0.467Tradespersons 0.070 0.644 0.520Advanced clerical and service 0.070 0.536 0.592Intermediate clerical, sales and service 0.097 0.903 0.367Intermediate transport and production 0.334 1.911 0.056Elementary clerical, sales and service 0.131 0.739 0.460Labourers and related workers 0.189 1.087 0.277

Adjusted R2 = 0.45; N= 793.



16/22

explaining work/non-work conflict, than workload pressure and hence theextent to which the organization expects employees to do more than can befitted into a working day. Household arrangements are also important. Peoplewho have children or cohabit with partners who are working are also more

likely to experience work/non-work conflict.Work/non-work conflict is also related to employee control, but on thisissue the relationship is more complex. Our index of employee controlrevealed by the factor analysis regresses significantly against the dependentvariable, but when we look inside it we find that some of its five compo-nents do not significantly correlate with most of the components ofwork/non-work conflict. Certainly, employee control over workload, andover when they can take time off, significantly reduces work/non-work con-flict. However, employee control over the number of hours worked eachweek does not significantly correlate with most of the components ofwork/non-work conflict. Employee control over start and finishing times,and over when they can take meal breaks, generally loses significance afterwe hold constant employees ability to control workload or when they cantake leave. Employee control matters for containing the work/non-workconflict, but what particularly matters is the issues over which employeeshave control. Having some control over working hours, or starting and fin-ishing times, is of little value if employees have no control over their work-load or they cannot control when they can take time off for holidays orappointments.

Supportive management was at least as important as the above two fac-tors. Workers were less likely to experience work/non-work conflict ifmanagement could be trusted, tried to get on with employees, set reason-able performance targets and treated all groups of employees with equalfairness.

Our findings indicate the importance of organizational variables inexplaining the ability of workers to balance their work and non-workinglives. Exploring the nature of the relationship between workers and man-agement is vital to explaining the capacity of workers to achieve a greater

work/non-work balance. As Lewis (2001) has observed, while formal orga-nizational policies may have the potential to reduce work/non-work con-flict, such initiatives are often undermined by workplace culture. The roleof management is critical here. Within limits, managers, for the most part,allocate workload and set working hours. The scope of managerial prerog-ative also circumscribes workers ability to exercise control over aspects oftheir working lives. Management style in terms of high-trust or low-trustemployee relations is also important. Supportive high-commitment stylesof management are considerably more likely to provide workers with

opportunities to achieve some work/non-work balance than low-trust man-agement styles (Evans, 2001). Hence the role of management is critical tothe amelioration or attenuation of work/non-work conflict.




17/22

Research indicates that management in some organizations is receptiveto the work/non-work needs of workers. In some cases, management maypromote family-friendly policies on equal opportunities grounds to enablemen and women to make an optimal contribution in both the working and

non-working spheres of their lives. Alternatively, management may seek toreduce work/non-work conflict so as to lower stress and improve workerwell-being (Lewis, 1997). The business case in support of family-friendlypolicies indicates that higher organizational performance may be achieveddue to lower staff turnover, reduced employee stress, attraction and reten-tion of high-quality staff and greater staff satisfaction and commitment(Russell et al., 2000).

However, much research shows that management support for policiesand practices to reduce work/non-work conflict is limited to a small num-ber of organizations. The proportion of firms adopting cutting-edge policiesin this area is very small (Russell et al., 2000). The take-up of such policiestends to be higher in the public sector and within large firms (Evans, 2001).Australian research indicates that the provision of family-friendly policiestends to be restricted to highly skilled staff in managerial and professionalroles (Gray and Tudball, 2002). Thus, while management behaviour playsa vital role in reducing work/non-work conflict, few organizations volun-tarily adopt such policies.

The prospects for improvements in this area appear poor given tworecent developments. First, as Evans (2001) observes, recent trends in

human resource management (HRM) are not favourable to work/non-work balance. There has been a shift towards greater devolution ofhuman resource functions, resulting in a weakening of centralized policiesand an expansion of line management authority in decision-making onsuch matters. Clear policies and centralized support is essential for effec-tive implementation of work/non-work balance. Additionally, changingorganizational structures associated with growing casualization of theworkforce are also a major challenge as an increasingly large proportionof the workforce falls outside the standard employment system. The

growth of a long-hours culture in some organizations is also a majorfamily-hostile development (see Campbell, 2002).

Second, paralleling these negative HRM trends at the workplace level,there has been a growing deregulatory employment relations environment.The current federal government approach has been to reduce regulationand provide a supposed positive climate within which employees andemployers can negotiate family-friendly arrangements that best suit theirneeds (DFCS and DEWR, 2002). However, as Buchanan and Thornthwaite(2001) note, the current policy framework does not work well. Reliance on

voluntary arrangement is inadequate because, in the absence of legal provi-sions, few employers provide satisfactory measures for employees. As aresult, many workers miss out on arrangements that would allow them to




18/22

better balance their working and non-working lives. As Charlesworth et al.have stated: [l]eaving work and family initiative up to individual firms isinsufficient as a basis for public policy that aims at generalizing work/familyrights and benefits to all workers (2002: 19).

While our findings point to the centrality of management in amelio-rating work/non-work conflict, the prognosis for any improvements onthis front looks grim. Our research highlights the importance of contain-ing workload pressure but the problems of work intensification arewidely reported (Watson et al., 2003). Our study points to the negativeeffects of long hours on work/non-work balance, yet there has been amarked growth in the proportions of Australians working long hours(Campbell, 2002). Our findings indicate that supportive managementand increased employee control are important for reducing work/non-work conflict. However, with the decline of union membership and influ-ence, Australian workers are currently in a deregulated industrialrelations environment where the balance of power has shifted markedlyin the employers favour (Group of 151, 2005). The federal governmentsagenda for labour market deregulation appears to be gaining momentumand we can anticipate a reduction rather than enhancement of workerentitlements. Except for workers with labour market status and bargain-ing power, the prospects for an improvement in work/non-work balanceappear slim.

ConclusionHigh-strain jobs with low employee control, low support and high work-load pressure can result in lower-quality family interactions. Emotionalinterference reduces both the quantity and quality of family contact timebecause workers do not feel capable of participating in family activities.Workers are recovering from time spent at work and thus emotionallyunavailable for their family. It is not just an issue of long hours it is alsoan issue of the stress employees endure at work, and the emotional baggage

they bring home.Our research throws some light on this issue. While we need to exercise

some caution, as the results of our survey are not representative fully ofAustralian organizations, the research does highlight that reversing thedeterioration in the worklife balance requires employees to have support-ive management, the genuine capacity to take time off work, and controlover the central source of the problem long working hours and the work-load they endure. Despite the critically important role of managementin this process, few organizations actively pursue policies to ameliorate

work/non-work conflict for their staff. In the deregulated industrialrelations environment, it is likely that the worklife balance of manyemployees will continue to worsen.




19/22

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the participants in our study. We would also like toacknowledge the assistance and support of our colleagues, Andra Fox, ChrisHoughton, Bob Russell and Keith Townsend. This project was funded by AustralianResearch Council Grant C00106852 and the Queensland Department of

Employment and Industrial Relations.

ReferencesABS (2000) Labour Force Status and other Characteristics of Families, Catalogue

No. 6224.0, June. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Allan, C. (1998) The Elasticity of Endurance: Work Intensification and Workplace

Flexibility in the Queensland Public Hospital System, New Zealand Journal ofIndustrial Relations 23(3): 13351.

Barton, J. and S. Folkard, S. (1991) The Response of Day and Night Nurses toTheir Work Schedules,Journal of Occupational Psychology 64: 20718.Berg, P., A.L. Kallenberg and E. Appelbaum (2003) Balancing Work and Family: The

Role of High Commitment Environments, Industrial Relations 42(2): 16888.Bohle, P. and A. Tilley (1989) The Impact of Nightwork on Psychological Well-

being, Ergonomics 32: 108999.Bond, J., E. Galiski and I. Swanberg (1998) The 1997 National Study of the

Changing Workplace. New York: Families and Work Initiative.Buchanan, J. and L. Thornwaite (2001) Paid Work and Parenting: Charting a New

Course for Australian Families. Sydney: ACIRRT.Campbell, I. (2002) Extended Working Hours in Australia, Labour and Industry

13(1): 91110.Charles, N. and D. Brown (1981) Women, Shiftwork and the Sexual Division ofLabour, Sociological Review 29: 685704.

Charlesworth, S., I. Campbell, B. Probert, J. Allan and L. Morgan (2002) BalancingWork and Family Responsibilities: Policy Implementation Options, A report forthe Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and Department ofInnovation, Industry and Regional Development. Melbourne: CASR.

Dempster, F. (2003) Family and Work: Issues and Risk across the Life Course,paper presented to 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies conference StepsForward for Families: Research Policy and Practice, Melbourne, February.

DFCS and DEWR (Department of Family and Community Services and Department of

Employment and Workplace Relations) with the assistance of the Work andFamily Life Consortium (2002) OECD Review of Family Friendly Policies: TheReconciliation of Work and Family Life, Australias Background Report. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia.

DSouza, R.M., L. Strazdins, L.L.-Y. Lim, D.H. Broom and B. Rodgers (2003)Work and Health in a Contemporary Society: Demands, Control andInsecurity,Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57: 84954.

Duxbury, L. (2003) WorkLife Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium, TheSydney Papers 15(1): 7897.

Evans, J. (2001) Firms Contribution to the Reconciliation between Work andFamily Life, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers No. 48. Paris:OECD.

Gadbois, C. (1981) Women on Nightwork: Interdependence of Sleep and Off-the-job-Activities, pp. 2237 in A. Reinberg, N. Vieux and P. Andlauer (eds) Nightand Shiftwork: Biological and Social Aspects. Oxford: Pergamon Press.




20/22

Golden, L. and D. Figart (2000) Doing Something about Long Hours, Challenge43(6): 1537.

Gray, M. and J. Tudball. (2002) Family-friendly Work Practices: Differences withinand between Workplaces, Australian Institute of Family Studies, ResearchReport No. 7. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Greenhaus, J.H. and N.J. Beutell (1985) Sources of Conflict between Work andFamily Roles, Academy of Management Review 10: 7688.Group of 151 Australian Industrial Relations, Labour Market, and Legal Academics

(2005) Research Evidence about the Effects of the Work Choices Bill,Submission to the Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Bill 2005, Senate Employment, Education and Workplace RelationsCommittee, Canberra, November.

Gutek, B.A., L. Repetti and D.L. Silver (1988) Non-work Roles and Stress atWork, pp. 14176, in C.L. Cooper and R. Payne (eds) Causes, Coping andConsequences of Stress at Work. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.

Jackson, S.E., S. Zedeck and E. Summers (1985) Family Life Disruptions: Effects of

Job-induced and Emotional Interference, Academy of Management Journal28(3): 57486.Janssen, N. and F. Nijhuis (2004) Associations between Positive Changes in

Perceived Work Characteristics and Change in Fatigue,Journal of Occupationaland Environmental Medicine 46(8): 86675.

Kahn, R.L. and P. Byosiere (1992) Stress in Organisations, pp. 571650 in M.D.Dunnette and L. Hough (eds) Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 2nd edn. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kossek, E.E. and V. Nichol (1992) The Effects of Onsite Childcare on EmployeeAttitudes and Performance, Personnel Psychology 48: 27188.

Leslie, L.A., E.A. Anderson and M.P. Branson (1991) Responsibility for Children:

The Role of Gender and Employment,Journal of Family Issues 12(2): 197210.Lewis, S. (1997) Family Friendly Employment Policies: A Route to ChangingOrganizational Culture or Playing About at the Margins?, Gender, Work andOrganization 4(1): 1323.

Lewis, S. (2001) Restructuring Workplace Cultures: The Ultimate WorkFamilyChallenge?, Women in Management Review 16(1): 219.

Loscocco, K.A. and A.R. Roschelle (1991) Influences on the Quality of Work and Non-work Life: Two Decades in Review,Journal of Vocational Behavior 39: 182225.

Loudoun, R.J. and P.L. Bohle (1997) Work/non-work Conflict and Health inShiftwork: Relationship with Marital Status and Social Support, International

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 3(suppl. 2): S71S77.McCampbell, A.S. (1996) Benefits Achieved through Alternative Work Schedules,

Human Resource Planning19(31): 3037.Meneghan, E. and E. Mervis (1984) Coping with Occupational Problems: The

Limits of Individual Efforts,Journal of Health and Social Behavior 25: 40623.National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH) (2003) Health

for Life: Report from the Pilot Study. Canberra: Australian National University.Parker, D.F. and T.A. DeCotiis (1983) Organizational Determinants of Job Stress,

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32: 16077.Peetz, D., K. Townsend, B. Russell, C. Houghton and C. Allan (2003) Race Against

Time: Extended Hours in Australia, Australian Bulletin of Labour 29(2): 12642.Pisarski, A., P. Bohle and V. Callan (1998) Effects of Coping Strategies, Social

Support and Work/non-work Conflict on Shift Workers Health, ScandinavianJournal of Work, Environment and Health 24(suppl. 3): 1416.

Pocock, B. (2001) The Effects of Long Hours on Family and Community Life: ASurvey of Existing Literature. Brisbane: Queensland Department of IndustrialRelations.




21/22

Pocock, B. (2003) The Work/Life Collision. Sydney: The Federation Press.Pocock, B. (2006) The Labour Market Ate My Babies. Sydney: The Federation Press.Pocock B. and Clarke J. (2004) Cant Buy Me Love? Young Australians Views on

Parental Work, Time, and Guilt and their own Consumption, Discussion PaperNo. 61. Canberra: Australia Institute.

Quinlan, M. (1993) The Industrial Relations of Occupational Health and Safety,pp. 14070 in M. Quinlan (ed.) Work and Health. Melbourne: MacmillanEducation Australia.

Robson, M. and A. Wedderburn (1990) Womens Shiftwork and their DomesticCommitments, pp. 13742 in G. Costa, G. Cesana, K. Kogi and A. Wedderburn(eds) Shiftwork: Health, Sleep and Performance. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Roman, P.M. and T.C. Blum (1993) Work Family Conflict and EmployerResponsibility, pp. 299326, in R.T. Golembiewski (ed.) Handbook ofOrganizational Behavior. New York: Mancel Dekker Inc.

Russell, G., P. Hwang and L. Hass (2000) Conclusion, in G. Russell, P. Hwangand G. Hass (eds) Organizational Change and Gender Equity: International

Perspectives on Fathers and Mothers at the Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.Shinn, M., M. Rosario, H. Morch and D.E. Chesnut (1984) Coping with Job Stress

and Burnout in the Human Services, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 46: 86476.

Sparks, K., C. Cooper, Y. Fried and A. Shirom (1997) The Effects of Hours ofWork on Health: A Meta-analytic Review, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology 70(4): 3919.

Squirchuk, R. and J. Bourke (1999) Gender Equity: From Equal Opportunity inEmployment to Family-friendly Policies and Beyond, pp. 11934, in L. Hass,P. Hwang and G. Russell (eds) Organisational Change and Gender Equity:

International Perspective on Fathers and Mothers at the Workplace. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.Staines, G.L. and J.H. Pleck (1984) Nonstandard Work Schedules and Family Life,

Journal of Applied Psychology 69(3): 31523.Theorell, T. and R. Karasek (2000) The Demand-control-support Model and

CVD, pp. 7883 in P.L. Schnall, K. Belki, P. Landsbergis and D. Baker (eds)The Workplace and Cardiovascular Disease, Occupational Medicine: State ofthe Art Reviews 15(1). Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus.

Topf, M. (1992) Stress Effects of Personal Control over Hospital Noise,Behavioral Medicine 18(2): 8494.

Voydanoff, P. (1988) Work Role Characteristics, Family Structure Demands, andWork/family Conflict,Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 74961.

Watson, I., J. Buchanan, I. Campbell and C. Briggs (2003) Fragmented Futures:New Challenges in Working Life. Sydney: The Federation Press.

White, N. and M. Bray (2003) The Changing Role of Nursing Unit Managers: ACase of Work Intensification?, Labour and Industry 14(2): 120.

Willis, E. (2002) Enterprise Bargaining and Work Intensification: An Atypical CaseStudy from the South Australian Public Hospital Sector, New Zealand Journalof Industrial Relations 27(2): 22132.

Zetlin, D. and G. Whitehouse (1998) Balancing Work and Family Commitments:Developments in Innovative Organisations, Australian Journal of EarlyChildhood, 2(3): 913.




22/22

Biographical noteCameron Allan is a senior lecturer in the Department of IndustrialRelations at the Griffith Business School, Griffith University. His researchinterests include non-standard employment, working-time, young people at

work, management strategy and employment relations in the service indus-try. Address: Department of Industrial Relations, Griffith University,Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

Rebecca Loudoun is a lecturer in the Department of Industrial Relations atthe Griffith Business School, Griffith University. She does research in theareas of enterprise bargaining, health and safety at work, work intensifica-tion, working time, employee participation and shift roster scheduling.Address: Department of Industrial Relations, Griffith University, Nathan,QLD 4111, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

David Peetz is a professor in the Department of Industrial Relations at theGriffith Business School, Griffith University. His research interests includeunionism, individual contracting, voting and electoral behaviour, Asianemployment relations, wages policy, work intensification and labour adjust-ment. Address: Department of Industrial Relations, Griffith University,Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia. [email: [email protected]]


Influences on Work Non Work Conflict

Documents

Transcript of Influences on Work Non Work Conflict