Occupational Medicine 2013;63:373–376Advance Access publication 29 May 2013 doi:10.1093/occmed/kqt053

© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Family to work conflict and the usefulness of workplace support

F. Hancock1 and F. Page2

1Crown Technology, Wantage, Oxfordshire OX12 9BP, UK, 2Occupational Health Department, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital, Crumpsall, Manchester M8 5RL, UK.

Correspondence to: F. Hancock, Crown Technology, Downsview Road, Wantage, Oxfordshire OX12 9BP, UK. E-mail: drfhancock@googlemail.com

Background While much is known about the effect of work stress on an employee’s home life, less is known about the opposite effect, that of domestic worries upon work performance.

Aims To investigate employee perceptions about the effect of family to work conflict (FWC) on work.

Methods An online anonymous survey tool was developed and sent to all employees reporting to a single onsite human resources (HR) department at a UK research and development plant. FWC included family and other domestic stressors. Work effects studied included those on business travel, work performance and the awareness and usefulness of work-provided support.

Results The sample size was 286 and response rate was 58%. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported requiring time away from work for domestic reasons in the previous 5 years. The role of domestic stressors not related to care giving was significant. Support from line-managers and col-leagues was important, and the perceived usefulness of in-house occupational health (OH) by busi-ness travellers was significant. Only 53% of the workforce said they knew of the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), although 70% of users found it beneficial and usage was higher in females.

Conclusions All forms of FWC affected work performance, including when on business travel. FWC arose from caring responsibilities but also from financial and relationship problems, which are potentially ame-nable to help from EAPs. Line-managers and colleagues were the primary sources of workplace sup-port. The in-house OH service and the EAP were underutilized and they may require popularizing with employees.

Key words Business traveller health; continuity of care; domestic stress; EAP; in-house OH; presenteeism; workplace support.

Introduction

The effects of work stress on an employee’s home life or work to family conflict (WFC) are well investigated, but less is known of the effect of family to work con-flict (FWC) on work where FWC includes family and other domestic stressors not related to care giving such as financial, relationship, legal and housing issues [1,2].

Demerouti postulated that time is required to recover from work activities. If this does not happen at home, fatigue accumulates reducing concentration and increas-ing anxiety [3]. Employers cannot eliminate domes-tic stressors, but could they help employees to cope to mutual advantage [4]? Is an employee assistance pro-gramme (EAP) effective in these circumstances?

Home or work social support reduces stress in all domains [5], with workplace supervisors, an import-ant factor [1]. Workplace support may also come from human resources (HR), occupational health (OH) and EAPs. This study investigated how these were perceived by a workforce, many of whom were business travellers.

Methods

All employees at a UK private sector research and development plant were surveyed using an anonymized online questionnaire. The company provided in-house OH and access for employees and their families to an external EAP, covering personal, financial, legal and work issues. The University of Manchester provided ethics

Short report

at University of M

anchester on September 2, 2013

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

374 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE

Table 1. Perceptions of workplace support in terms of FWC

Perceived helpfulness of support from

Have problems at home ever required you to cancel or curtail a business trip?

Do you feel that problems at home have ever impacted on your work performance when on business travel?

Within the last year, do you feel that stress at home has impacted on your work performance?

Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total

Work colleagues Yes 10 57 67 25 42 67 37 48 85No 5 26 31 5 26 31 12 24 36Do not know 2 32 34 6 28 34 14 27 41Total 17 115 132 36 96 132 63 99 162

Pearson chi-square NS <0.05 NSLine-managers Yes 10 70 80 28 52 80 40 55 95

No 6 29 35 6 29 35 20 25 45Do not know 1 17 18 2 16 18 5 19 24Total 17 116 133 36 97 133 65 99 164

Pearson chi-square NS <0.05 NSHR Yes 3 16 19 8 11 19 13 10 23

No 8 62 70 20 50 70 32 55 87Do not know 5 35 40 6 34 40 17 32 49Total 16 113 129 34 95 129 62 97 159

Pearson chi-square NS NS NSEAP Yes 4 14 18 9 9 18 15 9 24

No 4 31 35 8 27 35 13 24 37Do not know 8 68 76 17 59 76 33 64 97Total 16 113 129 34 95 129 61 97 158

Pearson chi-square NS <0.05 <0.05OH Yes 9 30 39 19 20 39 25 25 50

No 5 29 34 10 24 34 16 22 38Do not know 3 54 57 7 50 57 23 50 73Total 17 113 130 36 94 130 64 97 161

Pearson chi-square <0.05 <0.01 NS

committee approval and Statistical Package for Social Scientists version 16 software. The questionnaire (trialled in a separate population) covered demographic details, work, business travel and the employee’s perception of FWC and their perceptions of the EAP.

Results

There were 165 respondents (response rate 58%) of whom 78% were male. Respondents were representative of the study population (n = 286) in regards to age and gender and similar to the background population regard-ing caring responsibilities but not gender or education [6]. Overall 37% of men and 49% of women reported FWC affecting work performance within the previous year, with fatigue, irritability, reduced concentration and decision making. The effect was strongest in those with non-care-giving related stressors (P < 0.05). FWC had caused absence from work during the previous 5 years in 64% of men and 72% of women. Overall, absences were ascribed to holiday entitlement (34%), flexitime (24%), compassionate leave (20%), sick leave (12%), unpaid

leave (7%) and other (3%). Those reporting high levels of home stress (27% of women and 17% of men) were more likely to respond positively to the question ‘Do you ever come to work for a rest?’ (P < 0.01). Within the respondents, 86% of men and 65% of women were busi-ness travellers, of whom 27% of men and 11% of women travelled frequently (>10 trips/year). FWC had caused a business trip curtailment in 13% of both sexes and 29% of men and 17% of women felt FWC had affected their work performance while travelling. Those reporting FWC affecting work performance were more likely to be frequent travellers (P  <  0.05). Perceived support from managers and colleagues was consistent across WFC and FWC. Supervisor support was helpful to 58%, with 52% citing colleague support, 31% OH, 15% EAP and 14% HR. Travellers with FWC affecting work performance found colleague (P < 0.05), line-manager (P < 0.05) and OH (p<0.01) support helpful. For those who had had to curtail business travel OH was also helpful (P < 0.05) (Table 1). Only 53% knew of the EAP, 19% had used it personally, (58% of whom were female) and 2% knew relatives who had used it. 30% of all females had sought

at University of M

anchester on September 2, 2013

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

F. HANCOCK AND F. PAGE: FAMILY TO WORK CONFLICT AND USEFULNESS OF WORKPLACE SUPPORT 375

advice from the EAP versus 6% of men (P  <  0.01) (Table 2). Of EAP users 53% sought legal advice, 32% counselling, 11% financial advice and 11% ‘other’ and 70% found the EAP helpful.

Discussion

This study found that domestic stressors affected performance and absence particularly among busi-ness travellers. The link between frequency of travel and the effect of FWC was statistically significant. Unexpectedly, non-care-giving stressors were found to have a significant effect in this group. Line managers and colleagues were the leading sources of support. OH and the EAP were underutilized. There was a correla-tion between increasing personal FWC and the use of work as a respite.

Limitations of the study include its small size, lack of a validated questionnaire and the confounding effect of stress caused by business travel. However a good response rate (58%) was obtained. This study supports previous research findings that domestic stress was high-est in non-travellers; however, frequent travellers were the group most affected by it [7,8]. The gender differ-ence in EAP usage is compatible with previous research [9]. The concept of ‘good work being good for you’ [10] is supported by the study findings; however it does raise the question of presenteeism.

EAPs are ideally placed to assist employees with non-care-giving domestic stressors, e.g. financial, housing and relationships. There is a reluctance to discuss these with colleagues and managers and the impact on work ability may be a hidden problem. Striker et al. [8], have suggested methods to help business travellers including the use of travel medicine specialists. This study sug-gests that both an in house OH department and EAP may be worthy of promoting in this role. The use of the EAP by family members may be helpful in allevi-ating stressors in employees while travelling. The study raises a number of questions including the effect that domestic stressors have on an employee’s performance and the importance or otherwise of presenteeism and if there is additional value to the employee and employer of a holistic approach to business travel health and well-being. Family to work conflict is a hidden problem

particularly among business travellers which is worthy of further attention to minimize the effect that this has on performance at work.

Key points

• This study found that domestic stressors, espe-cially those not related to care giving roles, had an effect on reported performance especially in busi-ness travellers.

• The main support for workers came from line-managers and colleagues but employee assistance programmes and in-house occupational health have the potential to offer professional holistic independent help with all aspects of family to work conflict.

• The question ‘Do you ever come to work for a rest?’ has the potential to be a simple screening tool for family to work conflict.

Funding

Crown Packaging (MSc), but the research itself was self-funded by F.H.

Acknowledgements

Professor Christopher Roberts (University of Manchester Department of Medical Statistics), Dr Michael Gibson and Dr Pat Fletcher (educational supervisors), Mrs Denise Davies (occupational health nurse), Mr Ivan Kerley (human resources manager).

Conflicts of interest

F.H. is the site medical officer at the work site where the research took place; there are no other possible conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kossek EE, Pichler S, Bodner T, Hammer LB. Workplace social support and work-family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-spe-cific supervisor and organizational support. Pers Psychol 2011;64:289–313.

Table 2. Relationship of EAP knowledge and usage to gender

Have you heard of the EAP before? Have you personally used the EAP?

Yes No Do not know Total Yes No Total

Gender Male Count 67 50 11 128 8 70 78Female Count 20 13 4 37 11 13 24Total Count n (%) 87 (53) 63 (38) 15 (9) 165 19 83 102

Pearson chi-square two-sided asymptotic NS Fisher’s Exact Test P < 0.01

at University of M

anchester on September 2, 2013

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

376 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE

2. Valcour M. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satis-faction with work-family balance. J Appl Psychol 2007;92:1512–1523.

3. Demerouti E, Taris TW, Bakker AB. Need for recovery, home–work interference and performance: Is lack of con-centration the link? J Voc Behav 2007;71:204–220.

4. Alker LP, Cooper CS, Clarke SS. University of Manchester. Manchester Business S. Evaluation of the Benefits of Employee Assistance Programmes as a Mechanism for Supporting the Organisation’s Workforce. Manchester: University of Manchester, 2005.

5. Michel JS, Kotrba LM, Mitchelson JK, Clark MA, Baltes BB. Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. J Organ Behav 2011;32:689–725.

6. Health and Social Care Information Centre. Survey of Carers in Households–2009/10. http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/carersurvey0910 (9 April 2013, date last accessed).

7. Patel D. Occupational travel. Occup Med (Lond) 2011; 61:6–18.

8. Striker J, Dimberg L, Liese BH. Stress and business travel: Individual, managerial, and corporate concerns. J Organ Excel 2000;20:3–10.

9. Department of Health. The Gender and Access to Health Services Study. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107 105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_092042 (9 May 2013, date last accessed).

10. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is Work Good for Your Health and Well-being? London: The Stationery Office, 2006.

at University of M

anchester on September 2, 2013

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from