1

Reservation policy and its impact on alienation and work family conflict:

An empirical study of male and female managers

2

Reservation policy and its impact on Alienation and WFC:

An empirical study of male and female managers

Caste based quota system prevalent in India is a well known policy

implemented by the Indian Government for the upliftment of the backward

class. It is a form of affirmative action taken up to provide justice to the people

belonging to the subjugated castes that were devoid of various social and

economic benefits due to long prevailing caste system. The policy was initially

applicable for a period of 10 years, but after discussions and suggestions has

been extended periodically. At present the total reservation at the central level

is 49.5%. For SC it is 15%, ST 7.5% and OBC 27%, it varies in states.

One area where its implementation is often a food for thought and

discussion is in the employment of the public/govt. sector employees. It has

brought tremendous change in the composition of the workforce of these

organisations. As there are certain seats reserved and other unreserved, there is

an increase in diverse people working together belonging to different

backgrounds in terms of castes, education, economic status etc. Resultant

diversity thus is often perceived as forced and results in certain psychological

outcomes for the employees while working together.

These outcomes could be impacting the work life as well as the family

life of the employees. The present study attempts to study two resultant

psychological consequences of the presence of such diversity in the

public/govt. organisations due to caste based quota system. They have been

studied in terms of experienced Work Alienation and Work family conflict.

3

Experience in terms of both the variables has been assessed for General as

well as Reserved category employees (consisting of both males and females)

using a mixed methodology.

Work Alienation and Work-family conflict

Alienation is a much disputed concern of contemporary society in

general and modern sociological inquiry in particular. There is, for instance, a

division between those who consider alienation, within its variety of

definitions, a phenomenon typical of mass urbanized industrial societies

(Josephson & Josephson, 1962; Fromm, 1955; Pappenheim, 1959; Fischer,

1973) and those who suggest that alienation is a universal and timeless

phenomenon typical of all human society (Berger & Pullberg, 1965). And for

some others, alienation becomes merely a metaphor for the frustration

humans’ encounter in varying social situations (Feuer, 1969).

Yet, the "nature of alienation" continues to intrigue scholars and serves

as a source of much conceptual analysis and research (Lystad, 1972). The

variety of perspectives associated with alienation creates a concept which is

multidimensional, particularly within various contexts of study (Pearlin, 1962;

McClosky & Schaar, 1965; Neal & Rettig, 1967; Holian, 1972; Neal & Groat,

1974).

Seeman (1959, 1967, 1972) proposed five aspects of alienation relating

to socio-psychological differences in situations viz. powerlessness,

meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation, and self-estrangement. He

4

developed this perspective to provide the concept with more researchable

statement of meaning.

In recent times, few more definitions have emerged for Work

Alienation which focus majorly on an employees’ felt separation from work.

Kanungo (1979) defined Work Alienation as Generalized cognitive (or belief)

state of psychological separation from work insofar as work is perceived to

lack the potentiality for satisfying one’s salient needs and expectations.

Hirschfeld & Feild (2000) believe work alienation to be representing the

extent to which a person is disengaged from the world of work.

In the present research, experience of work alienation has been

analysed as a social process. The way an individual views himself in his

definition of the present situation, nature of work, the interaction among

workers, the nature of the community, union and management and so forth.

The process of alienation is initiated if man interprets himself at loss in terms

of control or emergence of negative interpretation of self. Such view towards

self is both cause and consequence of poor social interaction.

When the focus is on the resultant social interaction it is not only

confined to work settings but also incorporates family roles and

responsibilities. Thus, the present study also examines the Work family

conflict experienced by the various groups of employees in the same sample.

In general the subjective quality of the experiences an individual has in

both work and family roles is a critical determinant of psychological well

being (Frone et.al., 1992) For example, work experienced as demanding or not

5

rewarding may increase the chances of work-family strain, whereas work that

is more rewarding may reduce the chances of strain. In addition, work and

family experience may have reciprocal effects so that perceptions and

behaviour in one role are affected to some degree by experiences in the other

(Williams & Alliger, 1994).

In the present study, assessed employees are categorized into four

groups, women and men belonging to reserved and general categories. Results

for each category are also discussed in light of these three phases.

Method

To assess Work Alienation, ‘Alienation from Work Questionnaire’

developed by Shepard (1972) has been employed. Using Seeman’s (1959)

analysis, he operationalized five uses of the term alienation with respect to

work, which are the five dimensions under study in the present questionnaire.

These five dimensions are Powerlessness, Meaninglessness, Normlessness,

Instrumental Work Orientation (IWO) and Self Evaluative Involvement (SEI).

Powerlessness refers to perceived lack of freedom and personal control on the

job, where the worker feels that he or she is dominated by other people or a

technological system. Meaninglessness refers to an inability to understand the

events in which one is engaged, for example how one’s work activities relate

to other jobs and the larger organisation. Normlessness is the expectation that

culturally accepted goals (such as upward mobility in the company) can only

be achieved through illegitimate means. Instrumental Work Orientation is a

specific case of “self-estrangement”, when activities are undertaken solely for

6

anticipated future rewards and not for any intrinsic value. Working merely for

money is cited as an example for the occupational setting. Self evaluative

Involvement refers to the degree to which a person tests his or her self esteem

through involvement in a particular role, for example as a worker. In this

specific sense it has similarities with the concept of Work Involvement.

Work Family Conflict was assessed through, ‘Work Interference with

Family and Family Interference with Work Questionnaire’ developed by

Gutek, Searle & Klepa (1991). The original measure used eight items to

describe the extent to which an employee’s work demands interfere with

family responsibilities (four items) and the extent to which family demands

interfere with work responsibilities (four items). Two additional items were

added to each of these subscales by Carlson and Perrewe (1999). The

responses are obtained using a five-point Likert type scale where one refers to

strong agreement and five to strong disagreement. A higher score depicts

lower work family Conflict.

For the present study, a pilot run was conducted for both the

questionnaires to validate that they can be used with Indian population. Thus,

Cronbach alpha was computed which came out to be 0.79 and 0.85

respectively.

Qualitative method has also been employed along with the

questionnaires for validation of quantitative results and for observations

beyond the questionnaires’ limitations. Semi-structured interviews have been

conducted on 30% of the sample. Data collected has been analysed by

7

employing descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, thematic analysis

and content analysis.

Sample

The sample comprised of employees chosen randomly from large

public sector organizations. The sample size was 300 participants that had

been divided into four groups, namely, general category men (GCM, 123

participants), general category women (GCW, 90 participants), reserved

category men (RCM, 66 participants) and reserved category women (RCW, 21

participants). Employees in the reserved category (both men and women)

belonged to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes.

Employees in all managerial strata (low, middle and high) were parts of the

sample. All the respondents had an educational qualification of at least

graduation. All the respondents were within the age group of 25 to 55 years.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 1: There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Work Alienation.

Hypothesis 1(a): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Powerlessness at work.

8

Hypothesis 1(b): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Meaninglessness at work.

Hypothesis 1(c): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Normlessness at work.

Hypothesis 1(d): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Instrumental work orientation.

Hypothesis 1(e): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of Self evaluative involvement at work.

Hypothesis 2: There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in their

extent of experienced Work family conflict.

Hypothesis 2(a): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in the extent

to which they experience Work interference with family.

Hypothesis 2(b): There would be a significant difference between the

four groups based on differing genders and reservation categories in the extent

to which they experience Family interference with work.

9

Hypothesis 3: There would be a relationship between experienced

Work Alienation with its various dimensions and experienced Work Family

conflict with its various dimensions across the groups.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection began with filling of the questionnaires which were

administered personally by the researcher. Confidentiality of individual

responses was assured to all respondents. Once three quarters of the sample

had filled the questionnaire, interviews were initiated. Interviewees were

chosen randomly from the existing pool of respondents. During the interviews,

they were asked to narrate personal experiences, if any, of experiencing work

alienation majorly in terms of powerlessness and meaninglessness at work.

Also any incidents that made it difficult to balance work and family roles.

Comparisons between employees of the two categories, reserved and

general, as well as between employees of the two genders, women and men,

were made on their experience of Work Alienation and Work-Family Conflict.

An interaction effect between the two factors (Gender × Category) was also

analyzed using two way analysis of variance. Pearson’s Correlation was found

between various dimensions on Alienation and WFC for the total sample.

Regression analysis was employed between the dimensions of the two

variables for different groups.

Result and Discussion

Table I presents the values of mean and standard deviation of scores

for Work Alienation and its five dimensions separately for the four groups.

10

Table III gives results of analysis of calculated variance (ANOVA) of Work

Alienation and its five dimensions between gender and category.

From calculated analysis of variance, it is observed that Total amount

of experienced work alienation significantly differs among the two categories

of employees irrespective of their gender (F= 9.307 significant at 0.01 level).

Similarly a significant difference among the two categories of employees

unaffected by their gender is also found in three dimensions of work

alienation, namely, Powerlessness (F= 8.415 significant at 0.01 level),

Meaninglessness (F= 4.911 significant at 0.05 level) and Self evaluative

Involvement (F= 4.031 significant at 0.05 level). Another dimension, namely

Normlessness has been found to be significantly different among the two

genders irrespective of their belongingness to a particular category (F= 4.805

significant at 0.05 level). Instrumental work orientation is the sole dimension

on which no significant difference was found among the four groups under

study in any which way. Thus, hypothesis 1, 1a, 1b, 1c and 1e are partially

accepted as there have been found differences among employees in terms of

either their category or gender, but not based on the interaction of both

category and gender. Hypothesis 1d based on Instrumental work orientation

has been rejected as there was no difference found among the four groups.

Based on the above findings and then examining the mean values in

Table I, it can be said that overall work alienation is higher for the general

category as compared to reserved category employees, keeping in mind that in

the present results a higher mean value depicts lower work alienation. General

11

category employees are also experiencing higher Powerlessness,

Meaninglessness and poor self evaluative involvement as compared to the

reserved category employees. The Normlessness is greater among the males as

compared to the females.

Table II presents the values of mean and standard deviation of scores

for Work Family Conflict and its two dimensions separately for the four

groups. Table IV gives results of analysis of calculated variance (ANOVA) of

Work Family Conflict and its two dimensions between gender and category.

The values for calculated variance depict that there is no significant

difference between the four groups in their experience of Overall Work

Family conflict. Also no significant difference has been found in the

dimension, Work interference with family for the four groups under study.

Thus, hypotheses 2 and 2a have been rejected. But, in the second dimension of

Work family Conflict, namely, Family interference with Work., a significant

difference has been found among the employees belonging to two differing

genders irrespective of their categories (F= 6.763 significant at 0.01 level) as

well as among the employees of different categories independent of their

gender (F= 4.264 significant at 0.05 level) partially accepting hypothesis 2b.

Looking at the mean values for Family interference with work in Table

II, it can be observed that women are experiencing higher conflict in this

dimension with lower mean values as compared to the male sample. Also the

Reserved category employees are suffering more as compared to the General

category employees.

12

Further, multiple correlations (Table V) were found out between the

various dimensions of the two variables and later step wise regression analysis

was employed to understand the cause-effect relationship between them

(Tables VI, VII and VIII).

Based on Tables VI, VII and VIII, hypothesis 3 has been partially

accepted. As for three groups out of four, multiple significant relationships

have been found between the dimensions of two variables under study. No

significant relationship has been found for the Reserved category Women

group.

Table IX is a list of observed themes and sub-themes for individual

groups based on interview on related issues. Although a significant difference

in the experience of Work Alienation of the two categories is observed, both

garner major grievances with the present diversity in their organizations and

believe it to be one of the potent reasons for their suffering of Work Alienation

as well as Work family conflict.

Following is a group-wise discussion on the obtained results.

General Category Men

The ANOVA results along with the mean values (Tables III and I

respectively) show that the men of General category suffer from highest Work

Alienation as compared to other three groups under study. The themes that

emerged from the interview (Table IX) depict that a major reason for their

experience of Alienation is related to their poor perception of the diversity

created by the caste based quota system. They have expressed their

13

discontentment with the organisational policies in analysing the competency

utilization at work especially of reserved category employees as depicted in

the theme ‘Poor Competency Utilization by Reserved category employees’

(sub themes: Unwilling to work, Lack of initiative, Lack of ambition,

mismatch of capability with job requirement). They are also feeling alienated

as a result of extra legal support provided to the reserved category employees

which is often misused, as depicted in the theme ‘Unethical activities by

reserved categories’ (sub themes: Irrational legal support, forging of

certificates). They seem to believe that their own future is in danger as can be

seen in the theme ‘Insecurity of own future’ (sub themes: Promotional bias,

Overseeing of merit, Selection bias).

In their experience of Work Family conflict, although the ANOVA

values (Table IV) show that there is no significant difference between them

and other groups in experiencing WFC. But the crude mean values depict that

in comparison to the other groups they are suffering from lowest Work Family

conflict. It is important to note that as the present study is a comparative study,

it doesn’t mean that the conflict is absent in this group. The results are a

depiction of their comparative position on the variable in regard to other

groups under study and thus doesn’t provide with their absolute state.

On the basis of regression analysis (Table VI), it seems that the high

extent of work alienation is making them seek alternate focus in order to re-

establish a sense of control over activities and a positive definition of self. And

to achieve that they have started focussing and spending more time outside

14

work, especially with family. This is leading to mild but some extent of WFC

among them and specifically FIW conflict (Tables II and IV). Because they

are trying to find a positive sense of self in the family in order to overcome

work alienation and specifically meaninglessness at workplace, at times they

feel their family is interfering with their job responsibilities. This confused

state of weather the family is helping them over come or is creating further

hindrance in their work is creating additional stress intensifying the alienation

for them.

Thus, both work alienation and WFC are having a bi directional

relationship (Tables VI and VIII). But both are a consequence to the poor

perception held toward the caste based quota system implemented and

managed by their organisation.

General Category Women

Results from ANOVA and the mean values (Tables I and III) depict

that women from the general category stand second in comparison to the rest

of the three groups in experiencing Work Alienation. Similar to the males of

the general category, the themes that emerged from the interview (Table IX)

depict that the reason for this suffering from alienation is their poor perception

towards the implementation and management of the quota system. But the

women have even a worse perception towards the quota system and the

diversity created by it as compared to men of the same category as can be seen

in emerging themes. These women don’t find Reserved category employees

efficient enough to be a part of the work force and feel that they don’t utilise

15

their competence to their best capacities, as can be seen in themes such as

‘Poor efficiency of Reserved category employees’ (sub themes: Low IQ, Poor

qualifications, Poor capability, Feeling of privilege, Lack of knowledge, Poor

contribution, Negative contribution, Getting work concessions), ‘Poor

Competency Utilization’ (sub themes: Unwilling to work, Lack of initiative,

Lack of ambition). Similar to males from the general category they also

perceive that reserved category employees have unnecessary legal support

which they often misuse, as can be seen in the theme ‘Unethical activities by

reserved category’ (sub themes: Irrational legal support, Forging of

certificates, Conversion to reserved category for privilege). These women

have also expressed fears related to their as well as their children’s future

which keep them mentally occupied and thus leave them feeling alienated at

work, as depicted in themes ‘Insecurity of future’ (sub themes: Promotional

bias, Overseeing of merit, Selection bias, children’s future) and ‘Personal

Affect’ (sub themes: Disappointment, Snatching away of opportunities,

Depression).

In the experience of Work Family Conflict they are suffering from

Family Interference with work conflict as can be seen from significant value

of ANOVA. Also they are suffering from it more than the male employees of

the organisation (Table IV). Looking at the mean values they stand second in

their suffering of the overall Work family conflict as well as its two

dimensions.

16

Regression analysis depicts experience of Work alienation is leading to

Work-Family conflict and more specifically Family interference with work

(Tables VI and VII). Through qualitative data analysis (Table IX) it can be

assumed that many of them are mentally withdrawing from the workplace in

order to establish new relations which offer the opportunity for control and

meaning. But many others who are experiencing more intensified alienation

are experiencing social isolation. It is impacting their relation with their job,

relations they hold with other employees and even their social relationships in

other realms of life.

As they are unhappy at the workplace due to poor perception towards

the diversity climate, they are not being able to focus well on their family

roles. Adding to that, thus as they are not fulfilling their family roles it is in

turn leading to grave dissatisfaction at work. They have got stuck in a vicious

circle where their poor perception towards the diversity created by quota

system is leading to work alienation in them, which in turn is hampering their

performance both at work and family levels. The hampered family role is

increasing their difficulty of focussing well on the work role (Tables VI and

VII).

Reserved Category Men

The ANOVA results as well as the mean values (Tables I and III)

depict that the men from the reserved category stand third in comparison to

other groups in their experience of work alienation. Although quantitatively it

was found that they were suffering from lower levels of work alienation as

17

compared to the General category employees but their reasons for

experiencing alienation were similar to the general category employees,

related to their poor perception and experiences in the organisation due to

caste based quota system. The themes that emerged provided a very

discouraging picture of the experiences they are having, as they disclosed

facing difficulties in various ways, as can be seen in themes such as, ‘Facing

stereotypes and biases’ (sub themes: Inefficiency due to availability heuristic,

Not recognized for good work, Non verbal insults, Not chosen for leadership

activities, Regional bias, Making issue of petty things), ‘Feeling Targeted’

(sub themes: Name calling, Harassments, Insults). They described how these

misbehaviours are discouraging them in the theme ‘Diversity created

inefficiency’ (sub themes: De-motivation, Killing creativity, Slow learning,

Lack of interest in work).

In respect with Work Family conflict, based on the significant

ANOVA values (Table IV), Reserved category employees are suffering from

higher Family interference with work as compared to General category

employees. Looking at the mean values (Table II) they stand third in their

suffering of the overall Work family conflict as well as its two dimensions.

Regression results show that it is the experience of work Alienation

that is further enhancing the suffering of WFC. Due to various difficulties they

are facing in the organisations as expressed during interviews (Table IX), it

seems they have not been able to settle well in the organisation till now. This

is also apparent in their indulgence into Normlessness (Tables I and III) which

18

shows that they have been unable to meet the norms of the organisations such

as work procedures, policies, rules etc. because they are still trying to adjust to

the workplace and fighting hard to make their place in the organisation where

they are facing many biases and instances of humiliation.

They take this frustration back home due to which they are facing WIF

conflict. And the additional family responsibilities due to migration to cities

lead to FIW conflict (Tables VI and VII).

Reserved Category Women

With respect to ANOVA and mean values, women of reserved

category experience least work alienation in comparison to other three groups

understudy (Tables I and III). When analysing the themes that emerged from

the qualitative data, it was seen that their perception towards the

implementation of caste based quota system was quite less negative as

compared to the other groups. Similar to the men of the reserved category they

also had bad experiences, but they were rare and less intense as can be seen in

the theme ‘Facing stereotypes/biases’ (sub themes: Inferiority complex,

Generalization, Poor promotion, Not revealing quota for self and children) but

there were many who also appreciated the system and felt contended at work

as depicted in the theme ‘Self Advancement’ (sub themes: Creation of entry

opportunities, Promotional opportunities)

For the variable Work-Family conflict, although there has been no

significant difference found between the four groups for overall WFC. But

there was found a significant difference between them in Family Interference

19

with work dimension. The women from the reserved category have been found

to be experiencing the highest Family interference with work conflict (Table II

and IV).

No significant regression values have been found for this group. Thus,

it is difficult to predict that either of the variables are impacting each other.

Still it can be seen that they are suffering from high WIF conflict and even

higher FIW conflict (Tables II and IV). The reasons for the suffering could be

that since ages RCW have been indulged into their traditional roles of being a

homemaker. Thus, it is a major shift in roles for them as well as for their

families. Now because they have to come to the workplace, they have to

compromise with the time spent with their families, which is leading to WIF

conflict. At the same time as the organisations give them challenging tasks and

expect them to perform, they are not able to meet the expectations as they still

focus more on their family roles which is leading to FIW conflict.

The present findings support, ‘Alienation as a social process Model’

given by James E. Twining (1980). This model is divided into three phases

providing an integrated view of alienation. The three phases broadly talk about

the perception of an employee towards the situationally specific conditions in

the organisation and society at large. Based on these perceptions the

employees either positively or negatively define the situation. If positively

defined, there is no experience of alienation. But if negatively defined, he/she

may suffer from partial alienation, fundamental alienation or a strong conflict

20

response. As a result they would respond accordingly in terms of their revised

definition of self and extent of social interaction.

In the present study, the first phase of Twining’s model i.e. of defining

self in correspondence to the workplace is mediated by the diversity created by

the quota system. All the employees of the public/government sector

irrespective of their category or gender know the reason behind the affirmative

action. They all understand that there has been a historical reason; caste based

discrimination, due to which the quota system is in place. But, they all have a

different opinion towards the policy’s implementation and usefulness. This

opinion has been found to be impacting their work as well as family roles and

responsibilities.

In model’s understanding, General category Men, defining the present

situation at work place negatively in terms of quota system are suffering from

‘Partial Alienation’ i.e. work has become intrinsically meaningless for them

but is still producing some positive gain in reference to the larger social

setting. This denotes that they are working for the sake of money, status and

need fulfilment but for them the intrinsic value of work has and is diminishing.

General Category Women are also defining their sense of self in a

negative way in the present work scenario. They are suffering from

‘Fundamental Work Alienation’ in which they are experiencing a loss of

control and meaning at work. They are acknowledging separateness between

themselves and their work without the motivational purpose of the external

gain. Thus, they are suffering from more intense Work alienation as compared

21

to the GCM, as they are not even being able to focus on work for extrinsic

gains like money, status etc.

Reserved Category Men also have a negative view towards the

management of the quota policy by their organisations. It is leading to the

suffering of ‘Partial alienation’. Even the GCM suffer from Partial alienation

but RCM’s extent of the suffering is lesser as compared to the GCM.

Reserved Category Women have revealed a relatively positive

perception towards the diversity created by quota system in their

organisations, may be because they are so happy by getting the job that they

are neglecting any signs of discomfort on their part or as many said that they

have not revealed the truth of their category to the co-workers, so that they do

not suffer from biases (Table IX) Thus, according to Twining’s model, this

group is defining their sense of self positively in today’s world of work where

there is so much diversity due to quota system. Due to this positive definition

they have been able to substantially integrate themselves in the workplace and

are suffering from least work alienation if any (Tables I and III).

Thus, we could say that RCF are the ones with the best perception

towards the diversity climate and least experience of Work Alienation among

the four groups. They are the only ones who have been able to adjust well to

the diversity created by the quota system. Although as discussed above many

have not disclosed their true identities to the co-workers (Table IX), thus it

could not be said till when they would hold a positive perception in the real

scenario of the work place today, because lies have a short life.

22

Overview

Overall findings suggest that the policy of reservation has not been

able to create a sense of equanimity and justice specially for General category.

However, the major surprise that emerged was Reserved category Men despite

having the advantage of better opportunities are not able to situate themselves

in a comfortable mindset. The women in the Reserved category seem to be

creating a false sense of security due to job opportunity but they are also

undergoing the trauma of the possibility of loss of face which is apparent in

both Work Family Conflict and their feelings exhibited in the interview data.

The findings suggest a change in policy for creating a mindset which will

enhance the positive thinking in both the groups.

23

References

Berger, P. and Stanley, P. (1965). Reification and the sociological critique of

consciousness. History and theory, 4, 196-211.

Feuer, L. (1969).What is alienation: the career of a concept. In David Burrows

and Frederick R. Lapides (eds.), Alienation: A Casebook (pp 89-98).

New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Fischer, C.S. (1973). On urban alienation and anomie: powerlessness and

social isolation. American Sociological Review, 38, 311-26.

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, 65-78.

Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York: Fawcett.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role

explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,

76, 560-568.

Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation:

distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 789-800.

Holian, John, Jr. (1972). Alienation and social awareness among college

students. The Sociological Quarterly, 13, 114-25.

Josephson, Eric and Mary Josephson (eds.). (1962). Man Alone. New York:

Dell.

24

Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited.

Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138.

Lystad, Mary Hanemann. (1972). Social alienation: a review of current

literature. The Sociological Quarterly, 13, 90-113.

McClosky, H. & John H. Schaar. (1965). Psychological dimensions and

anomy. American Sociological Review, 30, 14-40.

Neal, A.G. & Groat, H. Theodore. (1974). Social class correlates of stability

and change in levels of alienation: a longitudinal study. The

Sociological Quarterly, 15, 548-58.

Neal, A. G. and Salomon, R. (1967). On the multidimensionality of alienation.

American Sociological Review, 32, 54-64.

Pappenheim, Fritz. (1959). The Alienation of Modern Man. New York:

Monthly Review Press.

Pearlin, Leonard I. (1962). Alienation from work: a study of nursing

personnel. American Sociological Review, 27, 314-36.

Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of Alienation. American Sociological

Review, 24 783-91.

Seeman, M. (1967). On the personal consequences of alienation in work.

American Sociological Review, 32, 273-85.

Seeman, M. (1972). The signals of ’68: alienation in pre-crisis France.

American Sociological Review, 37, 385-402.

Shepard, Jon M. (1972). Alienation as a process: work as a case in point. The

Sociological Quarterly, 13, 161-73.

25

Twining, J.E. (1980). Alienation as a social process. The Sociological

Quarterly, 21(3), 417-428.

Williams, K.J., & Alliger, G.M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover and

perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of

Management journal, 37, 837-86

26

Table I

Analysis of calculated variance (ANOVA) between Gender and Category groups for Work Alienation and Work Family Conflict

Source Total Work Alienation Powerlessness Meaning-

lessness Normlessness Instrumental Work Orientation

Self Evaluative Involvement

Gender Group (189 Men and 111 Women)

0.278 0.234 1.069 4.805* 0.214 0.809

Category Group(213 General and 87 Reserved)

9.307† 8.415† 4.911* 1.074 0.037 4.031*

Gender×Category 0.139 0.128 1.507 0.138 0.849 2.177

Source Work-Family Conflict Work Interference with Family Family Interference with Work

Gender Group(189 Men and 111 Women)

2.779 0.302 6.763†

Category Group(213 General and 87 Reserved)

1.040 0.000 4.264*

Gender × Category 0.532 0.171 0.802*F value significant to 0.05†F value significant to 0.01

27

Table II

Significant values of step-wise regression analysis

R R2 ΔR2 F P

Independent Variable: Work Alienation, Dependent Variable: Work-Family Conflict

GCM 0.303 0.092 0.085 12.261† 0.001

GCF 0.419 0.175 0.166 18.731† 0.000

RCM 0.373 0.139 0.126 10.358† 0.002

Independent Variable: Work Alienation, Dependent Variable: Work Interference with Family

GCF 0.328 0.107 0.097 10.580† 0.001

RCM 0.361 0.131 0.117 9.613† 0.001

Independent Variable: Work Alienation, Dependent Variable: Family Interference with Work

GCF 0.403 0.163 0.153 17.106† 0.000

RCM 0.245 0.060 0.046 4.102† 0.047

Independent Variable: Normlessness, Dependent Variable: Work Interference with Family

28

RCM 0.289 0.083 0.069 5.823† 0.019

Independent Variable: Work Family Conflict, Dependent Variable: Work Alienation

GCM 0.303 0.092 0.085 12.261† 0.001

Independent Variable: Family Interference with Work , Dependent Variable: Work Alienation

GCM 0.403 0.162 0.155 23.453† 0.000*F value significant to 0.05

†F value significant to 0.001

29

Table III

Themes based on the Qualitative Data (Percentages should not be added as individual respondents have given multiple responses

under single themes)

General Category Reserved Category

Men (n=37) Women (n=27) Men (n=20) Women (n=06)Poor Competency Utilization by Reserved category employees Unwilling to work(25%) Lack of initiative(25%) Lack of ambition(8%) Mismatch of capability with

Job requirements(25%)

Unethical Activities by reserved category Irrational legal support(25%) Forging of certificates(2%)

Insecurity of Own Future Promotion bias(33%) Overseeing of merit(18%)

Poor Efficiency of Reserved Category Employees Low IQ(50%) Poor qualifications(50%) Poor Capability(100%) Feeling of privilege(50%) Lack of knowledge(75%) Poor contribution(25%) Negative contribution(25%) Getting work

concessions(25%)

Poor Competency Utilization Unwilling to work(75%) Lack of initiative(25%) Lack of ambition(25%)Unethical Activities by

Facing Stereotypes/Biases Inefficiency due to

availability heuristic(29%) Not recognized for good

work(29%) Non-verbal insults(14%) Not chosen for leadership

activities(14%) Regional Bias(14%) Making issues of petty

matters(14%)

Being Targeted Name-calling(29%) Harassment(14%) Insults(14%)

Facing Stereotypes/Biases Inferiority Complex(33%) Generalization(6%) Poor Promotions(6%) Not revealing quota for self

and children(28%)

Self-Advancement Creation of Entry

Opportunities(17%) Opportunities for

Promotion(17%)

30

Selection bias(2%) reserved category Irrational legal support(25%) Forging of certificates(50%) Conversion to reserved

category for privileges(25%)

Insecurity of Future Promotion bias(7%) Overseeing of merit(20%) Selection bias(18%) Children(18%)

Personal Affect Discouragement(24%) Snatching away of

opportunities(7%) Depression(2%)

Diversity-created inefficiency Demotivation(14%) Killing creativity(14%) Slow learning(14%) Lack of interest in

work(14%)