Management of work life conflicts among working couples [www.writekraft.com]

Writekraft Research & Publications LLP
(All Rights Reserved)
(Regd. No. AAI-1261)
Corporate Office: 67, UGF, Ganges Nagar (SRGP), 365 Hairis Ganj, Tatmill Chauraha, Kanpur, 208004
Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Email: info@writekraft.com
Web: www.writekraft.com
MANAGEMENT OF
WORK LIFE
CONFLICTS
AMONG WORKING
COUPLES

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
ntroduction
Chapter-1
Introduction
Families and employing organizations throughout the industrialized world
are changing fundamentally and rapidly, both in terms of structure and in terms of
expectations. However, employment policies, family policies, practices within
systems and wider societies, and the values and assumptions which support them are
changing more slowly. The failure to reflect and build upon rapid social change
poses threats to occupational health and has far reaching implications for human
resource management.
Further, organizations are becoming more diverse. The future human
resource will include an increased number of women employees, more minorities,
variety of ethnic backgrounds, more ageing workers, disabled, and people with
different lifestyles. The extent to which these shifts are effectively and efficiently
managed will have an impingement on the competitive and economic operation of
the business organizations (Kundu, 2003).
Therefore, workforce-employing pattern is changing as both women and men
are entering into the organizations. This makes the concept of working couples, i.e.
the couples in which both husband and wife possess a professional, managerial or
administrative job. When wife and husband both are earning, it may be possible that
they are in same as well as in different profession(s) or organizations or doing the

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
business collectively or by separately. Both spouses have to dedicate most of the
time in their careers so as to carry out the office assignments. But with the same
time, they too have to maintain personal home life.
There are many professional stressors like heavy work load as well as family
life and societal stresses that are arising pressure among the working couples. So, in
order to reduce such stresses and conflicts one has to maintain balance between
work and family life.
1.1 HRM and Diversity
Throughout the world women usually have fewer rights and a lower social
status than men. The traditional role of a married woman and mother dominates and
1

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
most women’s lives revolve about their homes. Hence, women the world over, are
still demanding for equality and justice because of the widespread discrimination
they face in all walkways of life (Dagar, 1998). These demands are closely studied
because the future of the company in terms of its management and pace is dependent
on this query. Consequently, many policies and programs are being outlined with
some consciousness of their marginalized status (Dagar, 1998). Today, gender
analyst must pay extra attention to the wide- ranging frameworks regarding the
perspective, approach and strategies advocated at different forums for understanding
and combating women’s unfavorable placement in the society if we have to obtain
rid of gender discrimination (Dagar, 1998).
In late years there has been a rising stake in the combination of work and family,
or more broadly, the integration of work and household life. One of the primary causes
for this growing interest is the increased participation of adult females in professional
employment, a vogue which has radically altered traditional family structures and
gender functions. Greater access to and participation in education and improved career
opportunities for women has run to a more diversified working population and the
ascent of the dual-worker family (Smith, 1992). The dual-career couples refers to a
specific case of dual-worker family in which both members pursue a professional career
and simultaneously keep a family life together (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1976). The
dual-career phenomenon has received notable research attention since the pioneering
studies by Rapoport and Rapoport (1976) and since then, various surveys have
demonstrated that the postures and conduct of dual-career employees deviate
considerably from established societal norms in family, matrimonial, career and gender
roles (Cherpas, 1985; Elloy and Smith, 2003; Green and Zenisek, 1983; Falkenberg and
Monachello, 1990; Harvey, 1995; Lee, 1980). Most of these works, nevertheless, have
focused on the folk side of dual-career couples’ lives, and in those studies where
problems and solutions were examined, they usually centered around adjustments that
the match, instead than the constitution, may need to make (Pierce and Delahaye, 1996).

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
These days, everyone is going to emphasize the importance of appropriate employer
responses to dual-career issues (Gorissen, 2009).
It is remarked that women have been in the labor market in most developed and
developing nations for more than 20 years, while the estimate of women in senior
management, for instance, in the UK, remains at 5 per cent (Burke and Nelson, 2002),
2

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
and in Malaysia (2006) it is at 5.4 per cent. Women employees today constitute a
major part of the work force. In India alone, over 400 million are engaged in various
streams due to a compounding of factors like:
Women’s emancipation
Growing economic needs
Greater equality of sexes
Increased literacy rate
Suitability for certain soft jobs (public relations, telephone operations,
reception counter, HR managers, etc.) (Rao, 2008).
Albertsen et.al. (2010) found that the globalization of economic exchanges
has created a 24-hour economy that has significantly impacted on the way work is
organized and regulated (Major and Germano, 2006). Indeed, during the last
century, Denmark, as well as many other industrialized countries, has undergone
several large transitions of working life (Näswall et.al., 2008). These transitions
have involved a high level of organizational changes, reorganizations, downsizing,
and changes in ownership (Olsen et.al., 2008). Moreover, production organizations
have switched out from manufacturing jobs toward more service-oriented businesses
and tasks involving the interchange of knowledge (Burr et.al., 2003; Major and
Germano, 2006). As an overall concept referring to this “new” working life, the
concept of boundaryless work has been introduced (Allvin, 2008).
1.2 Diversityand Work-Life Related Issues
Recent decades have witnessed unprecedented changes both in the world
economy and in the composition of workforces internationally, resulting in women’s

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
economic activity rates increasing dramatically since the 1970s. Agreeing to a recent
story from the International Labor Organization (ILO), more women today play role
outside the family than ever earlier. In 2003, 1.1 billion of the world’s 2.8 billion
workers, or 40 percent, were women, standing for a worldwide growth of about 200
million women in employment in the past 10 years (ILO, 2004). In the USA women
now stand for about half of the working population (Cooper and Jackson, 1997),
while in the UK women constitute just over 50 per cent of the entire workforce
(Davidson and Cooper, 1983). Despite this rapid increase in female participation in
the paid labor power, considerable evidence has been gathered that documented
3

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
dearth of women in executive level positions globally. Women’s increased
involvement in the task force, nevertheless, is not paralleled within the management
levels of systems (Davidson and Cooper, 1983).
In dual-life history, relationships, traditional household functions, specifying
stereotype role behaviours are challenged in a rudimentary way (Elloy and Smith, 2003).
In the traditional family model, the male is seen as the principal ‘breadwinner’ and
assures that the household owns a sufficient quantity of financial means to survive. His
breadwinner role, limits his aptitude to engage in family responsibilities and hence, the
female manages the home, performs all domestic tasks, takes attention of the minors and
provides emotional support to the husband. Despite the substantial historical value, the
number of households that fit this traditional mould of the male as the sole wage earner
and female as the primary housekeeper and caregiver is coming down drastically (Elloy
and Smith, 2003). Elements such as equal opportunity legislation, economic necessity,
growth in white-collar employment and the impact of the female emancipation/ the
women’s movement (Smith, 1992) have contributed to an increment in the number of
non-traditional (i.e. Dual-worker and dual-career) families. These factors, amongst
others, have caused women to hold up employment in the marketplace and pursued
professional careers analogous to those pursued by their male counterparts. Dual-career
couples are thus likely to suit a more prevalent phenomenon in the near future. Authors
like Crompton (1999) pointed out that the question of work-life-balance was relatively
unproblematic until the concluding decades of the twentieth century because of two
commonly accepted assumptions: (a) the standard worker was full-time and most of the
times always a male, and (b) women were assigned to unpaid labour of caring and
domestic projects. Consequently, finding the proper equilibrium between work and
family was comparatively easy in this era, due to the domestication of women matched
with their exclusion from professional employment (Gorissen, 2009).

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
1.3 High Performance Work Practices
The impact of human resource management (HRM) on the employee as well
as organization’s performance has emerged as the dominant research issue in the
personnel/HRM field, and some of the initial solutions have been promising as well
(Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Dyer and Reeves, 1995; Guest, 1997, Fey et.al., 2010).
With this opportunity in mind, we can study the effects of certain human resource
4

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
management practices associated with assorted models of ‘high-performance’ or
‘high-commitment’ management (e.g. Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995;Wood and
de Menezes, 1998; Appelbaum et.al., 2000) on work-family conflict of dual career
couples. Equally, there is a lack of consensus about this terminology, in this study
we adopt the convention of citing to these practices as high-performance work
practices (HPWPs). Furthermore, there is evidence (e.g. Appelbaum et.al., 2000;
Appelbaum and Berg, 2001) which indicates that these practices of human resource
management/work organization commonly serve to obtain greater discretionary
effort from employees.
Although different HRM authors have emphasized slightly different features and
management practices in describing high performance work systems (HPWSs), the
essential characteristics are the seven key dimensions identified by Jeffrey Pfeffer in
“The Human Equation” (Pfeffer, 1998). These are: (1) employment security (2)
selective hiring of new personnel (3) self-managed teams and decentralization of
decision making as the basic principles of organizational design (4) comparatively high
compensation contingent on organizational performance (5) extensive training
(6) reducdstatusdistinctisandbarriers,includingdress,language,office
arrangements,andwage differencesacrosslevels(7) extensive sharingof
financial andperformance informationthroughoutthe organization.According
to Boselie et.al.(2005),HPWSs are bundlesof well-integratedHPWPs.The five
keyHPWPsthat are usedto buildanHPWS froman analysisof 104 prominent
journal articlesinstrategicHRMare: (1) selective recruitmentandselection(2)
compensationandperformance relatedpay(3) appraisal andperformance
management(4) traininganddevelopmentand(5) employee involvement.
BasicallygoodHRMis all aboutselectingthe rightpersonatrighttime,
developingthemtodotheirjobwell,evaluatingthemona regularbasisforthe
achievementof organizational goals,rewardingthemforexcellence,and
involvingthemindecisionmaking(PaauweandBoselie,2007).Many studies
have focusedonwhole HRsysteminan efforttodetermine the firm
performance andemployee performances.Pfeffer(1994) has recommended16
HR practicesi.e.selectivehiring,highpay,payperformance linkages,employee
ownership,informationsharing,empowerment,anemphasisonteamstructures
and training,andpromotionsfromwithin Introduction

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
of financial performance (Ichnniowski, 1990; Huselid, 1995; Huselid and Becker,
1996a, 1996b; Boselie, 2011).
White et.al. (2003) have also studied the effects of selected high performance
practices and working hours on work-life balance of British employees in 1992 and
2002. Chou and Cheung (2013) have found in their study that employers who are
providing family-friendly employment programs in reaction to the fact that today
participation of women and number of dual-earner couples are increasing than single
parents in the workforce (Goodstein,1994; Bond, et.al., 2002; Golden, 2006), and all
these employees are using more of these programs to help them cope with family
demands which helps to reduce work family conflict. On the other hand, White et.al.
(2003) found a conflict between high performance work practices and work-life
balance policies. White et.al. (2003) also found that fairness or unfairness of the
supervisor was an importance influences on negative spill over. Working hours
allotted to employees above the optimal level increased work-family conflict
(Clarkberg and Meon, 2001; Hofacker and Konig, 2013).
1.4 Work-Life Conflict/ Work-Family Conflict and Balance
Work-family conflict (WFC) is defined as “a form of interrole conflict in
which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutually incompatible
in some respect” (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Research suggests that WFC is
related to organizational commitment (Lyness and Thompson, 1997; Netemeyer
et.al., 1996), job performance (Frone et.al., 1997), and turnover (Greenhaus et.al.,
1997). WFC also relates to non-work outcomes such as life satisfaction (Kossek and
Ozeki, 1998), family involvement (Frone et.al., 1992a), and marital satisfaction
(Coverman, 1989). Thus, WFC has implications for both organizations and
employees. WFC can occur in two directions: work can interfere with family (WIF)
and family can interfere with work (FIW). Research has shown that WIF, but not
FIW, predicts job dissatisfaction and organizational commitment (Casper et al.,

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
2007; Lyness and Thompson, 1997). WIF is also more prevalent than FIW
(McElwain et.al., 2005; Frone et.al., 1992b). Finally, we focus on both WIF and
FIW because it is appropriate for examining couple agreement for managing work
and family. A spouse/partner has the opportunity to experience and observe when
his or her partner’s work interferes with family, but may not have the opportunity to
observe when family interferes with work (Streich et.al., 2008).
6

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
Carlson et.al. (2000) found that work–family conflict is a source of stress
that many individuals experience. Research on work–family conflict has found that
this variable influences a number of outcomes, including psychological distress, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and life satisfaction (Frone et.al.,
1992a; Higgins et.al., 1992). Thus, work–family conflict has become a much
investigated topic in today’s organizational behaviour research.
Gorissen (2009) also studied that, although dual-careers provide couples with
considerable psychological and financial benefits, a number of studies point out that
multiple roles may lead to stress, which in turn generates strain and work discord
(Cooke and Rosseau, 1984; Green and Zenisek, 1983; Lewis and Cooper, 1988),
particularly when work and family demands interfere (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985;
Sekaran, 1986). Equally it has been remarked by Falkenberg and Monachello (1990),
dual-career couples face great difficulties in balancing the multiple requirements of
work and family as a result of both partners exhibiting a firm loyalty to their life
histories. Many authors furthermore point out that stress in the family or work domain is
not induced by events in another, however results from interaction between both areas.
This dynamic interplay between employment and family responsibilities complicates the
achievement of a healthy work-life balance which may be essential for the effective
performance of the employee. Kanter (1977) emphasized that work should not be
considered as an isolated relationship between an actor and an activity. “Families
operate as social organizations, with an interrelationship between work and non-work
roles, so that stresses in one are inevitable transferred to the other” (Elloy and Smith,
2003). Furthermore, Elloy and Smith (2003) argue that disputes and stresses arising
from multiple demands have a de-motivating effect on employees, increase the chances
of absenteeism and represent a danger to the quality of organizations. Hence, the
inherent difficulties of the dual-career lifestyle are expected to have important direct
consequences for dual-career employees’ employing organizations. Therefore, the
burgeoning literature on dual-career couples has more recently emphasized the
importance of appropriate employer responses to dual-career issues and dual-careers

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
have become a key area of interest for human resource managers (Rapoport and
Rapoport, 1971, 1980; Sekaran, 1986; Nicholson and West, 1988; Scase and Goffee,
1989; Smith, 1994; Scandura and Lankau, 1997).
7

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
Lockwood (2003) cited that an employer’s commitment to exercise/life
initiatives is influenced by the perception of whether or not such initiatives have a
positive return on investment. In late years, employers increasingly realize that the
character of an employee’s personal and family life impacts work quality and that
there are concrete business reasons to promote employment and family integration.
While some companies may view diversity and work/life balance as separate
functions, the business case for managing diversity is, in large part, the same for
work/life equilibrium (Lockwood, 2003). Both variety and workplace/life initiatives
promote employee loyalty, improve productivity, lower turnover, result in fewer
employee relations challenges, and lessen the likelihood of unethical business
practices. Diversity and work/life initiatives can be found at the center of the new
social contract being negotiated between employers and employees (Lockwood,
2003). “The basic scheme of the social contract, as it has come out during the past
several years, calls for workers to give their best contributions and greatest energies
to the job in return for interesting study, respectful treatment, developmental
opportunities, and an environment that reacts to individual demands. Where those
provisions conflict (e.g., the level of commitment and energy required by employers
versus the flexibility needed by employees), the expertise of both diversity
management and workplace/life professionals will be critical to find win-win
solutions” (Lockwood, 2003).
“Juggling competing demands are tiring if not stressful and brings lower
productivity, illness, and absenteeism, so work/life balance is an issue for all
employees and all organizations.” (Swift, 2002).
1.5 Relevance of the Study
Human Resource Management is an emerging arena of work as it changes fast in
changing environment under globalization. With the passing of time and due to the

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
globalization of the occupation, including Human Resources, various contemporary
issues in HR have come forth. One of such an issue, which has obtained large attention
from researchers, is Workforce Diversity. With the independence of the women, their
focal point towards their career leads them to the corporate world. With the entrance of
women in a job, management of both male and female became more complex. While
managing career, working couples found difficulty in managing family. This
phenomenon caused work-family conflict among working couples.
8

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
Further, in a country like India where in traditional family model, the male is
regarded as the principal ‘breadwinner’ and assures that the family has a sufficient
amount of financial means to live. His breadwinner role, limits his aptitude to
engage in household responsibilities and hence, the female manages the household,
performs all domestic chores, takes care of the children and provides emotional
support to the husband. Despite of these strong historical values, the number of
families that fit this traditional mould of the male as sole wage earner and female as
the primary housekeeper and care-giver is falling drastically and the concept of dual
career couples/working couples is emerging (Elloy and Smith, 2003).
Moreover, granting to the norms of our traditional society, females are still
bound with more feminine tasks and household duties and males are remaining as
breadwinners for the folk. Further, increasing responsibilities and job tasks add to
their stress and this ultimately leads to family and life disputes. This attracted an
attention of both employees and organizations towards work-life balance. Work-
family conflict has direct bearing on efficiency and productivity of both employees
and organizations. Still large number of Indian organizations are not assessing such
conflicts and also not implementing work-life balance strategies. It has become
essential to study the Work-life conflicts among working couples and suggesting
strategies to manage work-life conflicts. So, the present study is proposed.
1.6 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to manage the work-life conflicts among
working couples in India. To accomplish this objective, the following are set as sub
objectives:
To assess the problems and work-life conflict/ work-family conflict of the
working couples working in the same and different organizations.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
To assess the problems and work-life conflict/ work-family conflict of the
working couples working in Indian and Multinational Companies (MNCs).
To assess the work-life conflict/ work-family conflict of the working
couples working in Manufacturing and Service Companies.
To assess the effect of High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs) on
work-life conflict /work-family conflict.
9

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Introduction
To examine the coping strategies adopted by organizations and working
couples to resolve conflicts and to establish work-life balance/ work-family
balance.
To suggest policy recommendations for the corporate sector and general
suggestions for working couples to achieve work-life balance/ work-family
balance.*
*1) Working couples and dual career couples were used interchangeably in this study.
2) Work-life conflict/ balance and work-family conflict/ balance were
used interchangeably in this study.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Strategies to Manage Work-Life Conflict: Results and Discussion-5
Chapter 9
Strategies to Manage Work-Life Conflict:
Results and Discussion-5
This chapter shows the effect of various strategies to manage work-family
conflict among dual career couples. The statements representing strategies can be
seen through Appendix- 2. Multiple regression was used to bring out the results.
9.1 Results and Discussion
The data gathered was subjected to multiple regression. Multiple regressions
were applied for final analysis (see Table 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4). First, regression was
applied to find the impact of dependent care policies on work-family conflict (Table
9.1). Next regression was done to find out the impact of flexible scheduling
practices on work-family conflict (Table 9.2). Further regression was applied to find
the impact of career development benefits on work-family conflict (Table 9.3) and
finally regression was done to find the impact of flexible technology use practices
on work-family conflict of dual career couples (Table 9.4).
Table 9.1 showed that all regression models showing the impact of
dependent care policies on work-family conflict were statistically significant i.e.
overall work-family conflict (MODEL-1; F=2.869, p≤ 0.001), work to family

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
conflict (MODEL-2; F=2.519, p≤ 0.006), family to work conflict (MODEL-3;
F=6.847, p≤ 0.000), strain-based work to family conflict (MODEL-5; F=1.803, p≤
0.058), behaviour-based work to family conflict (MODEL-6; F=5.332, p≤ 0.000),
time-based family to work conflict (MODEL-7; F=3.724, p≤ 0.000), strain-based
family to work conflict (MODEL-8; F=7.235, p≤ 0.000), and behaviour-based
family to work conflict (MODEL-9; F=3.610, p≤ 0.000) except time-based work to
family conflict (MODEL-4; F= -0.898, p≤ 0.535).
Couples who had an access to parenting seminars and assistance (counseling)
faced more time-based family to work conflict (β=0.106, p≤0.066) than those who did
not had an access of the same. This implies that these seminars were cutting down
family time of employees. So, employer had to focus on redesigning/modification of
parenting seminars and assistance (counseling) service and timing of such service in
order to made it effective and saving the time of family so that it will have reducing
107

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
impact on work-family conflict. Employees who were using child care centers
reported more overall work-family conflict (β=0.222, p≤0.000), work to family
conflict (β=0.181, p≤0.002), family to work conflict (β=0.234, p≤0.000), strain-
based work to family conflict (β=0.174, p≤0.003), behaviour-based work to family
conflict (β=0.239, p≤0.000), time-based family to work conflict (β=0.203, p≤0.000),
strain-based family to work conflict (β=0.237, p≤0.000), and behaviour-based
family to work conflict (β=0.128, p≤0.026) as compared to those who were not used
the same. This shows that employees who were using these centers had a continuous
botheration in their minds to meet and check their child’s comfort at centers, which
led to improper and lesser focus on their work and thus work-family conflict might
occurred.
Couples who were not using sick child care center services faced more
overall work-family conflict (β= -0.295, p≤0.000), work to family conflict (β= -
0.189, p≤0.004), family to work conflict (β= -0.357, p≤0.000), strain-based work to
family conflict (β= -0.113, p≤0.089), behaviour-based work to family conflict (β= -
0.301, p≤0.000), time-based family to work conflict (β= -0.310, p≤0.000), strain-
based family to work conflict (β= -0.265, p≤0.000), and behaviour-based family to
work conflict (β= -0.307, p≤0.000) than those who were using the same. This
implies that this strategy was working well and thus, this strategy must be
encouraged and strengthen in order to keep a check on work-family conflict.
Respondents who had taken child care subsidies/loan reported more family to work
conflict (β=0.110, p≤0.061) and stain-based family to work conflict (β=0.100,
p≤0.088) as compared to others who had not taken these subsidies/loan. This shows
that taking subsidies induced financial stress among dual career couples. So, there is
a need of modification in form of soft loans where refund installments would be
devised according to paying capacity of the employees. However, beta value of
dependent care referral services did not show any significant impact on work-family
conflict. In view of the above results, H1, H1a, and H1b were partially accepted.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Batt and Valcour (2003) described that employer’s approach towards finding
solutions to work-family conflict had focused heavily on specific work-family
policies and practices. The solutions those helped to reduce work-family conflict
were child care services which included information and referral services, financing
of child care or elder care, etc. and flexible scheduling e.g. flexible schedules that
permit flexible starting and quitting times, telecommuting, compressed workweeks,
job sharing, etc (Batt and Valcour, 2003).
108

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Table 9.1 Summary results of multiple Regression (N=393) showing the impact of dependent care policies on work-life conflict
Independent Dependent Variables
Variables WFC WF FW T_WF S_WF B_WF T_FW S_FW B_FW
( M1) ( M2) (M3) ( M4) ( M5) (M6) (M7) (M8) (M 9)
DCP1 0.075 0.074 0.068 0.038 0.025 0.064 0.081 0.025 0.066
DCP2
(0.226) (0.248) (0.263) (0.177) (0.703) (0.297) (0.199) (0.684) (0.296)
0.070 0.040 0.090 0.022 0.001 0.071 0.106* 0.055 0.064
DCP3
(0.214) (0.496) (0.103) (0.709) (0.988) (0.209) (0.066) (0.317) (0.267)
0.222*** 0.181*** 0.234*** 0.010 0.174*** 0.239*** 0.203*** 0.237*** 0.128**
DCP4
(0.000) (0.002) (0.000) (0.864) (0.003) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.026)
-0.295*** -0.189*** -0.357*** -0.030 -0.113* -0.301*** -0.310*** -0.265*** -0.307***
DCP5
(0.000) (0.004) (0.000) (0.661) (0.089) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
0.088 0.053 0.110** 0.041 0.088 -0.004 0.082 0.100* 0.088
Gender
(0.143) (0.391) (0.061) (0.515) (0.159) (0.952) (0.181) (0.088) (0.150)
0.053 0.058 0.043 0.072 0.006 0.061 0.017 0.067 0.017
Org_S (0.271) (0.246) (0.365) (0.156) (0.907) (0.204) (0.736) (0.155) (0.728)

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
0.077 0.024 0.116** 0.047 0.038 0.063 0.035 0.176*** 0.062
Org_diff
(0.139) (0.647) (0.022) (0.384) (0.477) (0.220) (0.502) (0.001) (0.240)
-0.101** -0.102** -0.088* -0.047 -0.031 -0.165*** -0.068 -0.058 -0.093*
Family
(0.051) (0.054) (0.082) (0.389) (0.564) (0.001) (0.192) (0.252) (0.078)
0.073 0.044 0.092** -0.006 0.039 0.069 0.031 0.110** 0.080
Type
(0.137) (0.388) (0.057) (0.901) (0.441) (0.162) (0.519) (0.023) (0.111)
0.039 0.044 0.030 0.029 0.025 0.051 -0.004 0.057 0.017
Adj. R²
(0.446) (0.406) (0.548) (0.593) (0.644) (0.322) (0.940) (0.258) (0.742)
0.070 0.037 0.130 -0.003 0.020 0.100 0.065 0.137 0.062
Total F 2.869*** 2.519** 6.847*** -0.898 1.803*** 5.332*** 3.724*** 7.235*** 3.610***
N
(0.001) (0.006) (0.000) (0.535) (0.058) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Source:Primary Survey
Notes:M1-M9= Models; DCP1=Dependent care referralservices ; DCP2=Parenting seminars andassistance;DCP3= Child care center; DCP4= Sick child care center;
DCP5= Child care subsidies;WFC=OverallWork-Family Conflict; WF= Workto Family Conflict; FW=Family to Work Conflict; T_WF=Time-based Workto Family
Conflict; S_WF=Strain-basedWorkto Family Conflict; B_WF=Behaviour-based Workto Family Conflict; T_FW=Time-based Family to WorkConflict; S_FW=Strain-
based Family to WorkConflict; B_FW=Behaviour-based Family to WorkConflict
***p≤.01, ** p≤.05, * p≤.10
Figures in the first ten rows are standardized beta coefficients

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
109

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Two early studies showed that availability of day care (Youngblood and
Chambers-Cook, 1984) and utilization of day care (Milkovich and Gomez, 1976)
increased retention rates of employees in the short term which in turn helped them to
manage work-family conflict, but these studies did not explore long-term attachment
to the firm. Other researchers concluded that there is no credible research linking
employer-sponsored child care to lower work-family conflict, absenteeism or
turnover, or higher productivity (Goff et.al., 1990; Miller, 1984). Similarly, Thomas
and Ganster (1995) in their study of employees with access to dependent care
services also found no significant relationship between the availability of those
services and work-family outcomes or absenteeism. But, a much larger body of
research like Baltes et.al. (1999) etc. had examined outcomes associated with
flexible work arrangements, and it had documented significant positive outcomes for
employees (Batt and Valcour, 2003).
Demographics/control variables used along with dependent care practices
were also having impact on work-family conflict. The findings revealed that couples
who were employed in same organization and had an access of dependent care
policies faced comparatively more family to work conflict (β=0.116, p≤0.022) than
those who were employed in different organizations. Couples who were working in
different cities and had an access of dependent care policies faced comparatively
more overall work-family conflict (β= -0.101, p≤0.051), work to family conflict (β=
-0.102, p≤0.054), family to work conflict (β= -0.088, p≤0.082), behaviour-based
work to family conflict (β= -0.165, p≤0.001), and behaviour-based family to work
conflict (β= -0.093, p≤0.078) than those who were working in same city. Couples
who lived in nuclear families and had an access to dependent care policies faced
more family to work (β=0.092, p≤0.057) and strain- based family to work conflict
(β=0.110, p≤0.023) than those who lived in joint families.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
However, findings indicated that beta vales of gender and type of company
had no significant impact on work-family conflict. Further, perusal of Table 9.1
showed that as males and employees who were working in MNCs who had an
access of dependent care policies had positive relationship with overall work-family
conflict than females and employees who were working in Indian companies.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Table 9.2 showed that all regression models showing the impact of flexible
scheduling practices on work-family conflict were statistically significant i.e. overall
work-family conflict (MODEL-1; F=2.693, p≤ 0.003), work to family conflict
(MODEL-2; F=1.600, p≤ 0.003), family to work conflict (MODEL-3; F=3.633, p≤
family conflict (MODEL-4; F=0.820, p≤ 0.610) and strain-based work to family
conflict (MODEL-5; F=0.864, p≤ 0.567) .
Couples who had taken personal/dependent care time (small increments of
time off during work hours to attend personal or family needs) faced more time-
based family to work conflict (β=0.131, p≤0.025) as compared to those who had not
taken the same. This implies that work of employees who used this service was
affected from family responsibilities because of constant mental pressure of work
and family. Others, who were not using the same faced lesser conflicts might had
some sort of help and thus, there was no need to take personal/dependent care time.
Employees who used flexi time facility reported more behaviour-based work to
family conflict (β=0.100, p≤0.060) than those who had not used flexi time. This
shows that those employees who used flexi time facility might have to devote more
in managing unpredictable work schedules. Couples who did not had an access of
telecommuting faced more overall work-family conflict (β= -0.134, p≤0.024),
family to work conflict (β= -0.171, p≤0.004), behaviour-based work to family
conflict (β= -0.182, p≤0.002), time-based family to work conflict (β= -0.127,
p≤0.035), strain-based family to work conflict (β= -0.181, p≤0.002), and behaviour-
based family to work conflict (β= - 0.105, p≤0.080) in comparison to those who had
accessed the same. This shows that telecommuting helped employees to manage
work-family conflict. Also employee who had not used time-off volunteering
service faced more time-based work to family conflict (β= -0.115, p≤0.060) than

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
those who used the same. However, beta value of paid family leave service did not
show any significant impact on work-family conflict. Above mentioned results
supported partially H2 and H2b. Further, H2a was rejected.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Table 9.2 Summary results of multiple regression (N=393) showing the impact of flexible scheduling practices on work-life conflict
( M1) ( M2) (M3) ( M4) ( M5) (M6) (M7) (M8) (M 9)
FSP1 -0.015 -0.017 -0.011 -0.022 -0.007 -0.012 -0.060 -0.048 0.087
FSP2
(0.774) (0.745) (0.829) (0.681) (0.895) (0.811) (0.265) (0.352) (0.101)
0.067 0.062 0.064 0.055 0.082 0.011 0.131** 0.088 -0.072
FSP3
(0.246) (0.287) (0.266) (0.354) (0.166) (0.846) (0.025) (0.116) (0.217)
0.059 0.057 0.055 -0.005 0.037 0.100* 0.057 0.053 0.023
FSP4
(0.271) (0.299) (0.303) (0.921) (0.498) (0.060) (0.296) (0.311) (0.667)
-0.134** -0.078 -0.171*** 0.058 -0.055 -0.182*** -0.127** -0.181*** -0.105*
FSP5
(0.024) (0.193) (0.004) (0.344) (0.363) (0.002) (0.035) (0.002) (0.080)
-0.048 -0.084 -0.009 -0.115** -0.060 -0.027 -0.072 0.026 0.022
Gender
(0.424) (0.165) (0.882) (0.060) (0.326) (0.646) (0.230) (0.653) (0.721)
0.050 0.053 0.041 0.070 0.002 0.056 0.011 0.063 0.022
Org_S (0.322) (0.298) (0.409) (0.173) (0.976) (0.260) (0.828) (0.192) (0.666)

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
0.135** 0.070 0.179*** -0.031 0.085 0.109** 0.083 0.232*** 0.113**
Org_diff
(0.009) (0.177) (0.000) (0.555) (0.108) (0.033) (0.110) (0.000) (0.030)
-0.109** -0.117** -0.090* -0.068 -0.039 -0.170*** -0.077 -0.055 -0.091*
Family
(0.040) (0.030) (0.089) (0.210) (0.471) (0.001) (0.153) (0.282) (0.090)
0.086* 0.049 0.111** -0.003 0.040 0.077 0.051 0.121** 0.096**
Type
(0.087) (0.336) (0.027) (0.952) (0.433) (0.122) (0.315) (0.014) (0.058)
0.071 0.065 0.067 0.039 0.037 0.079 0.035 0.089* 0.036
Adj. R²
(0.187) (0.228) (0.203) (0.479) (0.4499) (0.135) (0.519) (0.084) (0.506)
0.041 0.015 0.063 -0.005 -0.003 0.063 0.022 0.101 0.025
Total F 2.693*** 1.600*** 3.633*** 0.820 0.864 3.642*** 1.884** 5.396*** 2.002**
N
(0.003) (0.003) (0.000) (0.610) (0.567) (0.000) (0.046) (0.000) (0.032)
393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Notes: M1- M9= Models;FSP1=Paid family leave ; FSP2=Personal/ dependent care time; FSP3= Flextime; FSP4= Telecommuting; FSP5= Time off for volunteering
;WFC=Overall Work-Family Conflict; WF=Workto Family Conflict; FW=Family to WorkConflict; T_WF=Time-based Workto Family Conflict; S_WF=Strain-based
Workto Family Conflict; B_WF=Behaviour-basedWorkto Family Conflict; T_FW=Time-based Family to WorkConflict; S_FW=Strain-basedFamily to WorkConflict;
B_FW=Behaviour-basedFamily to WorkConflict
***p≤.01, ** p≤.05, * p≤.10
Figures in the first ten rows are standardized beta coefficients

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
112

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Thomas and Ganster (1995) found that employees with access to flexible
scheduling had more control over managing their work and family simultaneously
(Batt and Valcour, 2003). Other studies also have found limited or no support for the
relationship between flexible scheduling practices and turnover or organizational
commitment (Christensen and Staines, 1990; Dunham et.al., 1987; Pierce and
Newstrom, 1983; Pierce et.al., 1989; Batt and Valcour, 2003) which was one of the
outcomes of work family conflict. Scandura and Lankau (1997) found that workers
with flexible work hours had higher organizational commitment and thus had fewer
conflicts. Batt and Valcour (2003) stated in their study that the literature on work-
family policies suggested that flexible scheduling policies and supervisor support
had little but systematic relationship to work-family outcomes or turnover. Findings
of Swanberg and Simmons (2008) showed that popularity of flexible work options
as a strategy for managing work-life issues was growing. Other researches also
demonstrated that the importance of workplace flexibility was growing for
employees like in one study, 79 percent of employees reported that they would like
to have more flexible work options (Bond et.al., 2002). However, workplace
flexibility is not equally accessible to all employee populations (Golden, 2005;
Swanberg, 2005; MacDermid and Taug, 2006). According to Voydanoff (2005)
there are two types of adaptive strategies: increasing resources (e.g., hire household
services) and decreasing demands (e.g., cut paid work hours) and both might had an
increasing impact on work-family balance. Two other studies had also empirically
tested linkages between adaptive strategies and work-family balance (Keene and
Quadagno, 2004; Milkie and Peltola, 1999). De-gendered role responsibilities were
identified as one of the key success factors in dual-earner couples’ attempts to
balance work and family (Haddock et.al., 2001).
Demographics/control variables used along with flexible scheduling practices
who were employed in same organization and had an access of flexible scheduling

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
practices faced comparatively more overall work-family conflict (β=0.135, p≤0.009),
family to work conflict (β=0.179, p≤0.000), behaviour-based work to family conflict
(β=0.109, p≤0.033), strain-ased family to work conflict (β=0.232, p≤0.000), and
behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.113, p≤0.030) than those who were
employed in different organizations. Couples who were working in different cities and

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
had an access of flexible scheduling practices faced comparatively more overall
work-family conflict (β= -0.109, p≤0.040), work to family conflict (β= -0.117,
p≤0.030), family to work conflict (β= -0.090, p≤0.089), behaviour-based work to
family conflict (β= -0.170, p≤0.001), and behaviour-based family to work conflict
(β= -0.091, p≤0.090) than those who were working in same city. Couples who lived
in nuclear families and had an access to flexible scheduling practices faced more
overall work-family conflict (β=0.086, p≤0.087), family to work conflict (β=0.111,
p≤0.027), and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.096, p≤0.058) than
those who lived in joint families.
However, findings indicated that beta vales of gender and type of company
showed that as males and employees who were working in MNCs who had an
access of flexible scheduling practices had positive relationship with overall work-
family conflict than females and employees who were working in Indian companies.
Table 9.3 showed that all regression models showing the impact of career
development benefits on work-family conflict were statistically significant i.e.
overall work-family conflict (MODEL-1; F=3.583, p≤ 0.001), work to family
conflict (MODEL-2; F=2.266, p≤ 0.022), family to work conflict (MODEL-3;
F=4.788, p≤ 0.000), strain-based work to family conflict (MODEL-5; F=1.150, p≤
family conflict (MODEL-4; F=1.136, p≤ 0.338).
Couples who were not using education and training facility faced more overall
work-family conflict (β= -0.158, p≤0.003), work to family conflict (β= -0.145,

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
p≤0.007), family to work conflict (β= -0.152 p≤0.004), time-based work to family
conflict (β= -0.117, p≤0.030), strain-based work to family conflict (β= -0.104,
p≤0.053), behaviour-based work to family conflict (β= -0 .124, p≤0.019), time-
based family to work conflict (β= -0.190, p≤0.000), and strain-based family to work
conflict (β= -0 .114, p≤0.026) than those who were using the same. This implies that
this strategy was working well and must be encouraged in order to keep a check on
work-family conflict by imparting training. Respondents who had an access to
career 114

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
development services and plans reported more family to work conflict (β=0.103,
p≤0.050), time-based family to work conflict (β=0.089, p≤0.097), and stain-based
family to work conflict (β=0.121, p≤0.019) as compared to others who had not
accessed the same. This implies that this service had increased responsibilities and
reduced family time and also induced strain among dual career couples. However,
beta value of tuition reimbursement provisions did not show any significant impact
on work-family conflict. So, H3, H3a, and H3b were partially accepted.
Batt and Valcour (2003) stated that career development opportunities would
create an environment in which parents viewed the employer as supportive and not
in conflict with family needs and demands. In a study of dual career couples in small
and medium-sized cities, organizationally-based employment security and career
opportunities were particularly important because these couples must find two good
jobs in a relatively small labor market for the fulfillment of their needs (Batt and
Valcour, 2003). Some prior studies have demonstrated the negative spillover of
downsizing on families (Larson et.al., 1994; Voydanoff, 1990), and researches
suggested that the insecurity from downsizing did spill over and negatively affect
family stability. Batt and Valcour (2003) found that career development benefits had
no impact on work-family conflict.
Demographics/control variables used along with career development benefits
who were employed in same organization and had an access of career development
benefits faced comparatively more overall work-family conflict (β=0.143, p≤0.005),
work to family conflict (β=0.086, p≤0.094), family to work conflict (β=0.179, p≤0.000),
strain-based work to family (β=0.097, p≤0.062), behaviour-based work to family
conflict (β=0.130, p≤0.011), time-based family to work conflict (β=0.091, p≤0.077),
strain-based family to work conflict (β=0.230, p≤0.000), and behaviour-based family to
work conflict (β=0.109, p≤0.035) than those who were employed in different

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
organizations. Couples who were working in different cities and had an access of career
development benefits faced comparatively more overall work-family conflict (β= -
0.113, p≤0.034) , work to family conflict (β= -0.124, p≤0.021) , family to work conflict
(β= -0.089, p≤0.088), behaviour-based work to family conflict (β= - 0.177, p≤0.001),
and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β= -0.095, p≤0.077)

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Table 9.3 Summary results of multiple regression (N=393) showing the impact of career development benefits on work-life conflict
( M1) ( M2) (M3) ( M4) ( M5) (M6) (M7) (M8) (M 9)
CDB1 -0.158*** -0.145** -0.152*** -0.117** -0.104** -0.124** -0.190*** -0.114** -0.068
CDB2
(0.003) (0.007) (0.004) (0.030) (0.053) (0.019) (0.000) (0.026) (0.201)
0.028 0.008 0.043 0.007 0.041 -0.029 0.064 0.071 -0.035
CDB3
(0.608) (0.889) (0.422) (0.906) (0.467) (0.590) (0.243) (0.182) (0.523)
0.059 0.004 0.103** 0.016 -0.014 0.008 0.089* 0.121** 0.037
Gender
(0.267) (0.945) (0.050) (0.767) (0.792) (0.880) (0.097) (0.019) (0.494)
0.038 0.047 0.025 0.069 -0.005 0.050 -0.002 0.049 0.012
Org_S
(0.443) (0.349) (0.606) (0.177) (0.920) (0.311) (0.969) (0.315) (0.817)
0.143*** 0.086* 0.179*** -0.028 0.097** 0.130** 0.091* 0.230*** 0.109**
Org_diff
(0.005) (0.094) (0.000) (0.594) (0.062) (0.011) (0.077) (0.000) (0.035)
-0.113** -0.124** -0.089* -0.068 -0.048 -0.177*** -0.077 -0.051 -0.095*

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Family
(0.034) (0.021) (0.088) (0.208) (0.377) (0.001) (0.149) (0.326) (0.077)
0.088* 0.052 0.112** -0.004 0.042 0.083* 0.051 0.121** 0.099*
Type
(0.077) (0.308) (0.024) (0.936) (0.415) (0.099) (0.309) (0.013) (0.051)
0.087 0.088 0.076 0.045 0.057 0.106** 0.043 0.084 0.056
Adj. R²
(0.100) (0.100) (0.147) (0.404) (0.294) (0.045) (0.423) (0.100) (0.296)
0.050 0.025 0.072 0.003 0.003 0.050 0.035 0.104 0.018
Total F 3.583*** 2.266** 4.788*** 1.136 1.150*** 3.557*** 2.800*** 6.680*** 1.905***
N
(0.001) (0.022) (0.000) (0.338) (0.329) (0.001) (0.005) (0.000) (0.058)
393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Notes: M1- M9= Models;CDB1= Education and training facilities ; CDB2=Tuition reimbursement provisions; CDB3=Career development services andplans; WFC=
Overall Work-Family Conflict; WF=Workto Family Conflict; FW=Family to WorkConflict; T_WF=Time-based Workto Family Conflict; S_WF=Strain-basedWorkto
Family Conflict; B_WF=Behaviour-basedWorkto Family Conflict; T_FW=Time-based Family to WorkConflict; S_FW=Strain-basedFamily to WorkConflict; B_FW=
Behaviour-basedFamily to WorkConflict
***p≤.01, ** p≤.05, * p≤.10
Figures in the first eight rows are standardized beta coefficients

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
116

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
than those who were working in same city. Couples who lived in nuclear families and
had an access to career development benefits faced more overall work-family conflict
(β=0.088, p≤0.077), family to work conflict (β=0.112, p≤0.024), behaviour-based work
to family conflict (β=0.083, p≤0.099), stain-based family to work conflict (β=0.121,
p≤0.013), and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.099, p≤0.051) than those
who lived in joint families. Also, employees working in MNCs and had an access to
career development benefits faced more behaviour-based work to family conflict
(β=0.106, p≤0.045) than those who were employed in Indian companies.
However, findings indicated that beta values of gender had no significant
impact on work-family conflict. Further, perusal of Table 9.3 showed that as males
who had an access of career development benefits had positive relationship with
overall work-family conflict than females. This implies that males as compared to
females faced more conflicts.
Table 9.4 showed that six out of all regression models showing the impact of
flexible technology use practices on work-family conflict were statistically significant
i.e. overall work-family conflict (MODEL-1; F=2.869, p≤ 0.001), work to family
conflict (MODEL-2; F=1.761, p≤ 0.059), family to work conflict (MODEL-3; F=3.752,
p≤ 0.000), behaviour-based work to family conflict (MODEL-6; F=3.764, p≤ 0.000),
strain-based family to work conflict (MODEL-8; F=4.661, p≤ 0.000), and behaviour-
based family to work conflict (MODEL-9; F=3.301, p≤ 0.000).
Results showed that respondents who used beepers faced more overall work-
family conflict (β=0.102, p≤0.095), family to work conflict (β=0.107, p≤0.075), and
behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.123, p≤0.043) than those who did not
used the same. This implies that beepers disturbed employees at their work and at home.
Couples who had an access of cellular phones faced more behaviour-based work to
family conflict (β=0.103, p≤0.040) and behaviour-based family to work conflict
(β=0.108, p≤0.031) in comparison to those who had no access of the same. This shows
that cellular phones continuously keep on disturbing employee’s work and family lives.

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Employees who did not have an access of fax machines reported more family to work
conflict (β= -0.124, p≤0.046), behaviour-based work to family conflict (β= -0.115,
p≤0.065), and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β= -0.120, p≤0.055) as
compared to those who had an access of fax machines. This shows that unavailability of
fax machines imposed behavioural stress over dual career couples. Respondents who
had no access of portable computers faced more behaviour-based family to work
conflict (β= -0.120, p≤0.055) than those who used portable computers.
117

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Employees who had no access of home computer faced more overall work-family
conflict (β= -0.113, p≤0.062), family to work conflict (β= -0.118, p≤0.048), strain-
based work to family conflict (β= -0.121, p≤0.048), stain-based family to work
conflict (β= -0.134, p≤0.023), and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β= -
0.099, p≤0.097) as compared to those who used home computers. Thus, portable
and home computers helped employees to deal with conflicts. However, beta value
of use of emails did not show any significant impact on work-family conflict.
Therefore, H4 and H4b were partially accepted and H4a was rejected.
Work design was rapidly changing by the use of information technology at
home and at work, and this might had an impact on work and family integration.
Because technology allowed employees to bring work at home more easily, this
might have effects that were similar to those of telecommuting (Batt and Valcour,
2003). However, previous researches found mixed outcomes as increasing
flexibilityand telecommuting also allowed work to interfere or spill over into home
life more. Hill and colleagues (1998) failed to demonstrate a consistent relationship
between telecommuting and work/life balance in their study in which they used a
combination of qualitative and quantitative data to compare the experiences of 157
teleworkers and 89 traditional office workers. Similarly, on the one hand, the use of
faxes, email, or computers at home for work-related activity could increase
efficiency and allowed employees to perform some tasks from home that they would
otherwise have to do at work or through meetings. On the other hand, this ability to
integrate work into the home might create a work atmosphere at home that was
disruptive of family life which in turn became a cause of conflicts among dual career
couples (Batt and Valcour, 2003).
Demographics/control variables used along with flexible technology use were
also having impact on work-family conflict. The findings revealed that couples who
were employed in same organization and had an access of flexible technology use faced
comparatively more overall work-family conflict (β=0.151, p≤0.003), family to work
conflict (β=0.198, p≤0.000), strain-based work to family conflict (β=0.100, p≤0.055),

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
behaviour-based work to family conflict (β=0.127, p≤0.012), time-based family to work
conflict (β=0.107, p≤0.041), strain-based family to work conflict (β=0.257, p≤0.000),
and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.109, p≤0.032) than those who were
employed in different organizations. Couples who were working in different cities and
had an access of flexible technology use faced comparatively

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Table 9.4 Summary results of multiple regression (N=393) showing the impact of flexible technology uses on work -life conflict
Independent DependentVariables
( M1) ( M2) (M3) ( M4) ( M5) (M6) (M7) (M8) (M 9)
FTU1 -0.046 -0.079 -0.010 -0.080 -0.088 -0.021 -0.046 0.013 0.008
FTU2
(0.40 4) (0.155) (0.859) (0.15 5) (0.117) (0.697) (0.41 1) (0.81 3) (0.88 9)
0.102* 0.083 0.107 * 0.096 0.091 0.012 0.057 0.085 0.123**
FTU3
(0.09 5) (0.180) (0.075) (0.12 6) (0.144) (0.841) (0.35 7) (0.15 3) (0.04 3)
0.025 0.018 0.028 -0.013 -0.047 0.103** -0.030 -0.004 0.108**
FTU4
(0.62 4) (0.720) (0.579) (0.80 5) (0.360) (0.040) (0.56 4) (0.93 0) (0.03 1)
-0.092 -0.045 -0.124** 0.051 -0.038 -0.115 ** -0.096 -0.091 -0.120 **
FTU5
(0.14 6) (0.482) (0.046) (0.43 1) (0.551) (0.065) (0.13 7) (0.14 0) (0.05 5)
-0.036 -0.026 -0.041 0.006 0.016 -0.084 0.006 0.005 -0.120 **
FTU6
(0.55 9) (0.678) (0.501) (0.92 1) (0.794) (0.172) (0.92 3) (0.93 7) (0.05 2)
-0.113 ** -0.093 -0.118** -0.029 -0.121** -0.066 -0.052 -0.134 ** -0.099 *
Gender
(0.06 2) (0.130) (0.048) (0.63 6) (0.048) (0.265) (0.39 7) (0.02 3) (0.09 7)
0.071 0.072 0.062 0.074 0.021 0.079 0.032 0.078 0.039

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
Org_S
(0.15 6) (0.156) (0.212) (0.15 4) (0.689) (0.112) (0.53 4) (0.11 2) (0.44 0)
0.151*** 0.081 0.198*** -0.040 0.100 ** 0.127** 0.107** 0.257*** 0.109**
Org_diff
(0.00 3) (0.117) (0.000) (0.44 7) (0.055) (0.012) (0.04 1) (0.00 0) (0.03 2)
-0.129 ** -0.129 ** -0.114** -0.060 -0.057 -0.18 7* ** -0.089 -0.079 -0.116 **
Family
(0.01 5) (0.017) (0.029) (0.26 9) (0.287) (0.000) (0.10 2) (0.12 6) (0.02 8)
0.088* 0.054 0.109 ** 0.000 0.037 0.089 * 0.045 0.112** 0.108**
Type
(0.08 2) (0.292) (0.029) (0.99 6) (0.470) (0.074) (0.37 9) (0.02 4) (0.03 2)
0.070 0.077 0.056 0.050 0.050 0.084 0.039 0.070 0.024
Adj. R²
(0.19 7) (0.162) (0.302) (0.37 1) (0.372) (0.121) (0.48 2) (0.19 2) (0.65 5)
0.050 0.021 0.072 0.001 0.015 0.072 0.005 0.093 0.061
Total F 2.869*** 1.761** 3.752*** 1.024 1.554 3.764*** 1.163 4.661*** 3.301***
N
(0.00 1) (0.059) (0.000) (0.42 4) (0.110) (0.000) (0.31 1) (0.00 0) (0.00 0)
393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Notes: M1- M9= Models;FTU1=Use ofemail ; FTU2= Use of beepers; FTU3=Use ofcellular phones; FTU4=Use offax machines ;FTU5=Use ofportable computer
;FTU6= Use of home computerto do workh ;WFC=Overall Work-Family Conflict; WF= Workto Family Conflict; FW=Family to WorkConflict; T_WF=Time-based
Workto Family Conflict; S_WF=Strain-based Workto Family Conflict; B_WF=Behaviour-based Workto Family Conflict; T_FW=Time-based Family to WorkConflict;
S_FW=Strain-basedFamily to WorkConflict; B_FW= Behaviour-based Family to WorkConflict ***p≤.01, ** p≤.05, * p≤.10
Figures in the first eleven rows are standardized beta coefficients

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
more overall work-family conflict (β= -0.129, p≤0.015) , work to family conflict (β=
- 0.129, p≤0.017) , family to work conflict (β= -0.114, p≤0.029), behaviour-based
work to family conflict (β= -0.187, p≤0.000), and behaviour-based family to work
conflict (β= -0.116, p≤0.028) than those who were working in same city. Couples
who lived in nuclear families and had an access to flexible technology use faced
more family to work conflict (β=0.109, p≤0.029), behaviour-based work to family
conflict (β=0.089, p≤0.074), stain-based family to work conflict (β=0.112, p≤0.024),
and behaviour-based family to work conflict (β=0.108, p≤0.032) than those who
lived in joint families.
However, findings indicated that beta values of gender and type of company
showed that as males and employees who were working in MNCs with an access of
flexible technology had positive relationship with overall work-family conflict than
females and employees who were working in Indian companies.
Exhibit 9.1: Summary of results and hypotheses (H1 to H4b)
Hypothesis Significant Results Accepted
Difference /Rejected
H1 Yes, Two dependent care practices did significantly impact Partially
partially overallwork-family conflict. accepted
H1a Yes, Two dependent care practices did significantly impact Partially
partially work to family conflict. accepted

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
H1b Yes, Three dependent care practices did significantly Partially
partially impact family to work conflict. accepted
H2 Yes, One flexible scheduling practicedid significantly Partially
partially impact overallwork-family conflict. accepted
H2a No Flexible scheduling practices did not significantly Rejected
impact work to family conflict.
H2b Yes, One flexible scheduling practicedid significantly Partially
H3 Yes, One career development benefit did significantly Partially
partially impact overallwork-family conflict. accepted
H3a Yes, One career development benefit did significantly Partially
partially impact work to family conflict. accepted
H3b Yes, Two careerdevelopment benefits did significantly Partially
H4 Yes, Two flexible technology uses did significantly impact Partially
partially overallwork-family conflict. accepted
H4a No Flexible technologyuses did not significantly impact Rejected
work to family conflict.
H4b Yes, Three flexible technologyuses did significantly impact Partially
partially family to work conflict. accepted
120

Phone: 0512-2328181
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084
To Order Full/Complete PhD Thesis
1 Thesis (Qualitative/Quantitative Study with SPSS) & PPT with Turnitin Plagiarism
Report (<10% Plagiarism)
In Just Rs. 45000 INR*
Contact@
Mobile: 7753818181, 9838033084

Management of work life conflicts among working couples [www.writekraft.com]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Management of work life conflicts among working couples [www.writekraft.com]

Similar to Management of work life conflicts among working couples [www.writekraft.com] (20)

More from WriteKraft Dissertations

More from WriteKraft Dissertations (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Management of work life conflicts among working couples [www.writekraft.com]