Chapter - 5

Family Related Variables and Work Life Balance

129

CHAPTER 5

FAMILY RELATED VARIABLES AND WORK LIFE

BALANCE

5.1. INTRODUCTION

The relationship between family related variables and work life balance, and the

differences in work life balance of working professionals at varied levels of family

related variables are discussed in this chapter. Descriptive statistics - mean, median,

standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis were calculated to study the nature of

distribution of scores for family related variables (household responsibility, spouse

support and parental demands). Pearson product moment correlations were computed to

study the correlations between family related variables (household responsibility,

spouse support and parental demands) and work life balance and its dimensions. For the

variable of parental demands (number of children) point biserial correlation was

calculated. In addition, one way analysis of variance was used to study the significance

of differences among the high, average and low groups (categorized on the basis of

M±0.5σ) on each of the family variables with respect to the work life balance and its

three dimensions namely work interference with personal life, personal life interference

with work and work/personal life enhancement. Wherever F-values were found to be

significant, t-test was applied to study the significance of differences between means of

various groups.

5.2 NATURE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Tables 5.1 shows the descriptive statistics - mean, median, standard deviation,

skewness and kurtosis for family related variables. The distribution of scores on

130

household responsibility (HHR) were found to be significantly positively skewed

(Sk=.87) at .01 level of significance. The kurtosis (Ku=1.13) was also found to be

significant at .01 level. Thus, the curve was found to be platykurtic.

Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for family related variables

Statistics

Family related variables HHR

(N=308) SS

(N=147) PD

(N=102) Mean 14.06 20.10 18.04 Median 14.00 20.00 18.00 Std. Deviation 4.79 4.97 4.61 Skewness 0.87 -0.02 -0.56 Std. Error of Skewness 0.14 0.20 0.24 Kurtosis 1.13 -0.82 0.86 Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.28 0.40 0.47 Minimum 6 9 4 Maximum 30 28 30

HHR SS PD Sk Significant at 0.01 level ± .359 ± .516 ± .617 Ku Significant at 0.01 level - 0.452 to .978 - 0.761 to 1.287 - 0.960 to 1.486

The scores on spouse support (SS) ranged between 9 and 28.The mean and

median were found to be 20.10 and 20.00 respectively. The value of skewness

(Sk=-.02) for the score on spouse support was found to be insignificant at .01 level and

the distribution of scores was thus found to be normal. The value of kurtosis (Ku= -.82)

was found to be significant at .01 level. The curve was thus found to be leptokurtic.

The distribution of scores on parental demands (PD) was found to be normal

and within limits at .01 level (Sk=-.56). The value of kurtosis (Ku =.86) was found to be

insignificant at .01 level.

131

5.3 HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITY (HHR) AND WORK LIFE

BALANCE

The correlation between household responsibility and work life balance and its

dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels

of household responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed

below.

(a) Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance and

its dimensions

The variable of House hold responsibility (HHR) was found to be negatively

correlated (Table 5.2) with WLB Total and its three dimensions namely, WIPL, PLIW

and WPLE. However, the correlations were not significant either at .05 or at .01 level.

Table 5.2: Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance and its dimensions

Work Life Balance Correlation with HHR ( N=308)

WIPL1 -0.01

PLIW1 -0.05

WPLE -0.05

WLB Total -0.04 * Significant at the 0.05 level . ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference.

The results indicate that household responsibility is not related to work life

balance. Hence, Hypothesis HFa(i) that “there will be significant correlation between the

132

household responsibility and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working

professionals in IT and ITES industry” stands rejected.

(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of

household responsibility

Insignificant F-values (Table 5.3) show that there were no significant

differences among IT and ITES working professionals with low, average and high

household responsibility (HHR) on the dimensions of WIPL (F= .10), PLIW (F=1.36),

WPLE (F= 2.82) and on WLB Total (F = .62).

Table 5.3: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility

Work Life Balance Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean

Square F

WIPL Between Groups 8.62 2 4.31 0.10 Within Groups 13479.46 305 44.20 Total 13488.08 307

PLIW Between Groups 40.02 2 20.01 1.36 Within Groups 4487.55 305 14.71 Total 4527.57 307

WPLE Between Groups 118.16 2 59.08 2.82 Within Groups 6394.81 305 20.97 Total 6512.97 307

WLB Total

Between Groups 151.24 2 75.62 0.62 Within Groups 37069.93 305 121.54 Total 37221.17 307

df 2, 305 F significant at .05 * .01 ** 3.03 4.68

133

Further, Table 5.4 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES

working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility.

Table 5.4: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility

Work Life Balance HHR N Mean Std. Deviation

WIPL

Low 97 30.44 6.82 Average 128 30.82 6.72 High 83 30.77 6.32 Total 308 30.69 6.63

PLIW

Low 97 21.68 3.92 Average 128 21.86 3.70 High 83 20.99 3.94 Total 308 21.57 3.84

WPLE

Low 97 19.41 4.72 Average 128 18.19 4.79 High 83 17.95 4.05 Total 308 18.51 4.61

TOTAL WLB

Low 97 71.54 11.22 Average 128 70.87 10.98 High 83 69.71 10.87 Total 308 70.77 11.01

The findings of the earlier studies (Aryee, 1992; Hyman et al., 2003) lend

support to the findings of the present study. Aryee (1992) did not find any significant

effect of household chores responsibility on job-homemaker conflict and explained this

by the fact that most respondents had hired help to take care of domestic chores.

Hyman et al. (2003) found that household responsibility had no effect on any of the

intangible indicators of extension of work into household and family life. The results of

the present study too may be explained by the fact that in India domestic helpers are

easily available at an affordable price and most of the families hire them, hence the

134

household work does not result in any interference of personal life with work or

interference of work with personal life.

Hence, Hypothesis HFa(ii) that “there will be significant differences among the

mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household

responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions” is rejected.

5.4 SPOUSE SUPPORT AND WORK LIFE BALANCE

The correlation between spouse support and work life balance and its

dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels

of spouse support on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed below.

(a) Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its

dimensions

Spouse support was found to be significantly positively correlated with the

dimensions of PLIW (r=.29, Table 5.5) and WPLE (r=.33) and with WLB Total

(r=.24).

Table 5.5: Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its dimensions

Work Life Balance Correlation with SS ( N=147 )

WIPL1 -0.01

PLIW1 0.29(**)

WPLE 0.33(**)

WLB Total 0.24(**) * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference.

135

The findings indicate that higher the spouse support, higher is the overall work

life balance and lesser is the interference of personal life with work and higher is the

work/personal life enhancement and vice versa. The IT and ITES working professionals

with high spouse support in terms of household work, emotional support, child care

and positive attitude towards spouse’s work tend to have less interference of personal

life with work, high work/personal life enhancement and high overall work life

balance.

The findings of the earlier studies by Frone et al. (1992), Aryee (1992), Frone et

al. (1997), Aryee et al. (1999) and Kim and Ling (2001) lend support to findings of the

present study. Frone et al. (1992) found lack of spouse support to be positively related

with family to work conflict. Aryee (1992) reported a negative relation between spouse

support and job spouse conflict. Frone et al. (1997) reported that family related support

(spouse and other family members) may reduce family to work conflict by reducing

family distress and parental overload. Aryee et al. (1999) found spouse support to be a

negative predictor of work family conflict. Kim and Ling (2001) found emotional and

attitudinal support of the spouse to be negatively related to job spouse conflict. The

results of the present study are also consistent with the findings of Suchet and Barling

(1986).

Hence, Hypothesis HFb(i) that “there will be significant correlation between the

spouse support and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working

professionals in IT and ITES industry” is accepted for the dimensions of personal life

interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life

balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal

life.

136

(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of

spouse support

From the Table 5.6, it is evident that F-values were found to be significant for

the dimensions of personal life interference with work (PLIW; F=6.20) work/personal

life enhancement (WPLE; F=7.90), and for overall work life balance (WLB Total;

F=5.02) indicating that there were significant differences among IT and ITES working

professionals with low, average and high spouse support on the two dimensions,

namely PLIW and WPLE and on WLB Total.

Table 5.6: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support

Work Life Balance

Sources of Variance

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F

WIPL Between Groups 156.44 2 78.22 2.43

Within Groups 4632.46 144 32.17 Total 4788.90 146

PLIW Between Groups 171.09 2 85.55 6.20(**)

Within Groups 1988.19 144 13.81 Total 2159.28 146

WPLE Between Groups 242.77 2 121.39 7.90(**)

Within Groups 2212.98 144 15.37 Total 2455.76 146

WLB Total

Between Groups 981.16 2 490.58 5.02(**)

Within Groups 14087.30 144 97.83 Total 15068.46 146

df 2, 144 F significant at .05 * .01 ** 3.06 4.75

137

Table 5.7 shows the results of the t-ratios calculated to find out the significance

of differences between means. Significant differences were observed between IT and

ITES working professionals with low and high spouse support on the dimensions of

PLIW (ML=19.83, MH=22.56, t=3.47, p=.01), WPLE (ML=17.51, MH=20.73, t= 4.11,

p=.01) and on WLB Total (ML=68.57, MH =74.42, t=2.85, p=.01).

Table 5.7: Significance of differences among mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support

Work Life Balance

SS N Mean Std. Deviation

Group differences t-ratios

WIPL

Low 47 31.23 5.24 Low-average Not applicable

Average 55 29.05 6.27 Low-high Not applicable

High 45 31.13 5.33 Average-high Not applicable

Total 147 30.39 5.73

PLIW

Low 47 19.83 3.87 Low-average 1.92

Average 55 21.25 3.62 Low-high 3.47(**)

High 45 22.56 3.67 Average-high 1.78

Total 147 21.20 3.85

WPLE

Low 47 17.51 3.36 Low-average 1.63

Average 55 18.75 4.18 Low-high 4.11(**)

High 45 20.73 4.14 Average-high 2.38(*)

Total 147 18.96 4.10

WLB Total

LOW 47 68.57 9.53 Low-average 0.25

AVERAGE 55 69.05 9.95 Low-high 2.85(**)

HIGH 45 74.42 10.19 Average-high 2.66(**)

Total 147 70.54 10.16

t significant at .05 * .01 ** df 100 1.98 2.63 df 98 1.98 2.63 df 90 1.99 2.63

138

Significant differences were also observed between professionals with average

and high spouse support on the dimensions of WPLE (MA=18.75, MH=20.73, t= 2.38,

p=.05) and on WLB Total (MA=69.05, MH=74.42, t=2.66, p=.01 level). However, no

significant differences were found between professionals with low and average spouse

support on any of the dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (ML=31.23,

MA=29.05), PLIW (ML=19.83, MA=21.25), WPLE (ML=17.51, MA=18.75) and on

WLB Total (ML=68.57, MA= 69.05).

The mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals with high spouse

support were significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with low spouse

support on the dimensions of PLIW, WPLE and on WLB Total and were also

significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with average spouse support

on the dimension of WPLE and on WLB Total. The results thus showed that the IT and

ITES working professionals with high spouse support had less interference of personal

life with work as compared to IT and ITES working professionals with low spouse

support and also had higher work/personal life enhancement and higher overall work

life balance than the IT and ITES working professionals with low and with average

spouse support.

From the results, it can be concluded that in case of professionals having high

spouse support in terms of household work, childcare, positive attitude towards work,

there is lesser interference of personal life with work and both work and personal life

complement each other and as a result, there is high level of work life balance as

compared to those, who have low spouse support.

139

Hence, Hypothesis HFb(ii) that “there will be significant differences among the

mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support on

work life balance and its dimensions” is accepted for the dimensions of personal life

interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life

balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal

life.

5.5 PARENTAL DEMANDS AND WORK LIFE BALANCE

Parental demands were measured by the number of children and by the

responsibility of taking care of children. The correlation between parental demands and

work life balance and its dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working

professionals at varied levels of parental demands on work life balance and its

dimensions are discussed below.

(i)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of children)

and work life balance and its dimensions

To compute the correlation between parental demands (in terms of number of

children) and work life balance and its dimensions, the IT and ITES working

professionals with and without children were coded as 1 and 0 respectively.

No significant correlations (Table 5.8) were found between parental demands

(in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions. The results

thus indicate that there is no relationship between parental demands and work life

balance.

140

Table 5.8: Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions

Work Life Balance Correlation with PD2 ( N=147)

WIPL1 .07

PLIW1 -.10

WPLE .08

WLB Total .04 * Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference 2With children coded as 1, Without children coded as 0

The findings of the study are in contradiction to the findings of an earlier study

by Pleck et al. (1980). The survey study of workers suggested that substantial minority

of workers living in families experienced conflict between work and family life and

parents reported more conflict than other couples.

Hypothesis HFc(i) that “there will be significant correlation between the parental

demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance (including its

dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry” is thus rejected.

(i)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or

more children

Table 5.9 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the

dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (F=0.91), PLIW (F=0.63), WPLE

(F=0.62) and for WLB Total (F=0.91).

141

Table 5.9: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children

Work Life Balance

Sources of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean

Square F

WIPL

Between Groups 59.51 2 29.75 0.91

Within Groups 4729.39 144 32.84

Total 4788.90 146

PLIW

Between Groups 18.71 2 9.36 0.63

Within Groups 2140.57 144 14.87

Total 2159.28 146

WPLE

Between Groups 21.07 2 10.54 0.62

Within Groups 2434.69 144 16.91

Total 2455.76 146

WLB Total

Between Groups 94.58 2 47.29 0.46

Within Groups 14973.88 144 103.99

Total 15068.46 146 df 2, 144 F significant at .05 * .01 ** 3.06 4.75

The results showed that there were no significant differences among IT and

ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children either on overall work life

balance or on any of its dimensions.

Table 5.10 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working

professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children.

142

Table 5.10: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children

Work Life Balance

PD (number of children)

N Mean Std. Deviation

WIPL 0

1 68 30.22 5.71

2 or more 34 31.50 4.12

Total 147 30.39 5.73

PLIW 0 45 21.73 4.09

1 68 20.94 3.81

2 or more 34 21.00 3.62

Total 147 21.20 3.85

WPLE 0 45 18.47 4.12

1 68 19.01 4.38

2 or more 34 19.50 3.50

Total 147 18.96 4.10

TOTAL WLB

0 45 70.00 10.82

1 68 70.18 9.96

2 or more 34 72.00 9.81

Total 147 70.54 10.16

Hence, Hypothesis HFc(ii) that “there will be significant differences among the

mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands

(in terms of number of children) on work life balance and its dimensions” is rejected.

(ii)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of responsibility of

children) and work life balance and its dimensions

Insignificant correlations (Table 5.11) were found between parental demands

and work life balance and its dimensions, thus indicating that parental demands are not

related to work life balance.

143

Table 5.11: Correlations between parental demands and work life balance and its dimensions

Work Life Balance Correlation with PD ( N=102)WIPL1 -0.18 PLIW1 -0.15 WPLE 0.12 WLB Total -0.10

* Significant at the 0.05 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. 1 Higher score means lesser interference.

These findings are in contradiction to the findings of the earlier studies by

Keene and Quadagno (2004), Frye and Breaugh (2004) and Luk and Shaffer (2005).

Keene and Quadagno (2004) found that greater responsibility for childcare predicts less

balance. Frye and Breaugh (2004) found that having child care responsibility was

predictive of family-work conflict. Luk and Shaffer (2005) found parental demands to

be positive predictor of both work interference with family and family interference with

work. Aryee, 1992 and Aryee et al., 1999 also reported similar findings.

Hence, Hypothesis HFd(i) that “there will be significant correlation between the

parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) and work life balance

(including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry” is

rejected.

(ii)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of

parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children)

Table 5.12 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the

dimensions, namely, WIPL (F=2.84), PLIW (F=3.03), WPLE (F=0.30) and for WLB

Total (F=2.09).

144

Table 5.12: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands

Work Life Balance

Sources of Variance

Sum of Squares df Mean Square

F

WIPL Between Groups 151.07 2 75.53 2.84 Within Groups 2634.23 99 26.61 Total 2785.29 101

PLIW Between Groups 81.13 2 40.56 3.03 Within Groups 1324.72 99 13.38 Total 1405.84 101

WPLE Between Groups 10.28 2 5.14 0.30 Within Groups 1682.54 99 17.00 Total 1692.82 101

WLB Total Between Groups 400.79 2 200.39 2.09 Within Groups 9502.47 99 95.99 Total 9903.26 101

df 2, 99 F significant at .05 * .01 ** 3.09 4.82

The results thus indicate that there were no significant differences among IT and

ITES working professionals with low, average and high parental demands on overall

work life balance or on any of its dimensions.

Further, trend of mean scores (Table 5.13) showed that IT and ITES working

professionals with low parental demands had lesser work interference with personal life

(WIPL; MH=29.72, MA=30.13, ML=32.76), lesser personal life interference with work

(PLIW; MH=19.69, MA=21.33, ML=21.92) and higher overall work life balance (WLB

Total; MH=68.28, MA=71.00, ML=73.60) than the professionals with high and with

average parental demands.

145

Table 5.13: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands

Work Life

Balance PD (Responsibility of

children) N Mean Std. Deviation

WIPL Low 25 32.76 3.97 Average 45 30.13 5.85 High 32 29.72 4.91 Total 102 30.65 5.25

PLIW Low 25 21.92 4.18 Average 45 21.33 3.54 High 32 19.69 3.38 Total 102 20.96 3.73

WPLE Low 25 18.92 5.31

Average 45 19.53 4.08 High 32 18.88 2.97 Total 102 19.18 4.09

TOTAL WLB Low 25 73.60 9.90 Average 45 71.00 10.29 High 32 68.28 8.96 Total 102 70.78 9.90

The plausible reason for the differences not being significant might be that in

India, joint family system is still prevalent in many households and childcare

responsibilities are taken over by grand parents and other members who might be at

home. Even for nuclear families, paid helpers are available at affordable prices to look

after the children.

Thus, Hypothesis HFd(ii) that “there will be significant differences among the

mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands

(in terms of responsibility of children) on work life balance and its dimensions” is

rejected.

146

To Conclude,

• Hypotheses HFa(i) and HFa(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life

balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference

with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life

balance.

• Hypothesis HFb(i) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference

with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.

However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal

life.

• Hypothesis HFb(ii) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference

with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.

However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal

life.

• Hypotheses HFc(i) and HFc(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life

balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference

with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.

• Hypotheses HFd(i) and HFd(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life

balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference

with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life

balance.

147

REFERENCES

Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married

professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45(8),

813-835.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict and

well being: the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors

among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,

259-278.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-

family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78.

Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., & Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an

integrative model of the work family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

50, 145-167.

Frye, N.K., & Breaugh, J.A. (2004). Family friendly policies, supervisor support, work-

family conflict and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197-219.

Hyman, J., Baldry, C., Scholarios, D., & Bunzel, D. (2003). Work-life imbalance in the

new service sector economy. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2),

215-239.

Keene, J.R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance:

Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociological Perspectives. 47(1), 1-23.

Kim Siew Lee Fean & Ling Seow Choo (2001). Work-Family conflict of women

entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16(5), 204-221.

148

Luk, D.M., & Shaffer M.A. (2005). Work and family domain stressors and support:

within- and cross-domain influences on work-family conflict. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 489-508.

Pleck, J.H., Staines, G.L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.

Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29-32.

Suchet, M., & Barling, J. (1986). Working mothers: Interrole conflict, spouse support

and marital functioning. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 167-178.