Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

The recent past is a witness to major changes in Indian workplace and families. An

increasing number of women, participating in the workplace have brought about

diversity in the workforce and consequently a greater need for balancing the work and

life of employees belonging to both the genders (Bharat, 2003; Ramu, 1989; Sekharan,

1992; Komarraju, 1997; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000). There was a time when

work and home were separate domains and employees had fixed working hours or rather

a 9 to 5 job from Monday to Saturday (Bharat, 2008). Gradually this boundary became

blurred and then disappeared as the wave of privatisation, liberalisation and globalisation

swept through the country. Instead of a 7 or 8 hour working day, people started spending

as much as 12 to 16 hours working in the office (Ibid). The result is reduction in the time

available for family and personal life related activities. The technological blessings –

internet, mobile and laptops began invading the personal space of the individuals. Along

with this came the incessant pressures of achieving targets, meeting deadlines and

surpassing competition. The public sector banking in India, which till now had been

ensconced in Government protection was suddenly exposed to the strategies of

technology savvy and nimble private and foreign sector entrants’ post 1991.

Intensification of work demands on employees reflects in growing reports of stress and

work imbalance (Bhagwagar, 2009).

Traditionally, Indian banks had offered mass banking products such as Savings Bank,

Current Account, Term Deposit and lending products at rates fixed by the Reserve Bank

of India and remittance instruments in the form of Drafts, Bankers Cheques, Internal

Transfer of funds and Telegraphic Transfers. However, the developments of 1990s

changed the entire structure. The banking sector was deregulated, new players stiffened

competition and the Information Technology revolution eased customer operations. The

information explosion caused by access to internet, resulted in both individual and

corporate customers demanding a wider variety of products and better services. On one

hand it resulted in faster communication, easy access to information and on the other it

led to tighter schedules and ever-escalating corporate targets. The market focus was

1

shifting from mass banking products to class banking with introduction of value added

and customised products. While even the private sector has seen changes in the past few

years, these changes have been more pronounced and comprehensive in case of the

public sector banks. To be able to cope with the ever increasing competition, the public

sector banks were forced to match steps with the private sector banks and this meant an

attitudinal change for the public sector employees. This has not been a simple situation

for the public sector employees, who have been faced with new pressures and realities

coupled with a huge pile of inconsistencies. This study was undertaken how the current

realities have affected the personnel of the public and private banking sector in the

country.

Chapter two traces the history of banking in India , throwing light on factors

contributing to the differences in the culture of public and private sector banking and

hence, their inherent outlook towards profit making and customer service. It was seen

that Private and Foreign banks were better and stronger performers than the Public sector

banks (IBA, 2008). The Private banks had been more successful vis-à-vis Public sector

banks in implementing Total Quality Management initiatives related to customer dealing,

human resource management, and top management commitment (Selvaraj, 2009). There

were other factors as well that emerged from sharper differences between the structure

and philosophy of the Public and Private sector banks. These differences were due to

their respective background which was reflected in their work culture. Public sector

banks had been formed on the concept of socio-economic responsibility with profit as a

secondary motive. On the other hand, for a Private sector bank, profit formed the primary

focus. This was an important factor in shaping the work culture of Public and Private

bank and is deemed in turn to influence the Quality of Work/Life, Work/Life Balance

and Job Performance of the employees. Since, these would eventually influence the

growth and profitability of the bank; it makes for an interesting and important study.

Furthermore, it was observed that public and private sector banks differ with respect to

their compensation pattern. Public sector banks structure compensation in a way such

that there are lower pay differentials between the employees, long-term tenure is

rewarded and there is a high base pay, whereas in the private sector banks, there are

2

larger pay differentials, fewer rewards for tenure, and pay for performance (D'Souza,

2002). In addition, the working environment in private sector banks has been found as

growth driven, technologically advanced, and devoid of bureaucracy, where employees'

promotions are highly contingent on their performance and merit (Jha et al.,, 2008; Singh

and Kohli, 2006; Thakur, 2007). This has an influence on the Quality of Work/Life of

the employee and consequently on his Work/Life Balance.

Since, Work/Life Balance comes out as a dominant issue for the banking sector, given

the changing social set-up and the increased competition at work, extensive literature

review was undertaken in chapter three to understand issues facilitating and inhibiting it

in detail. It was seen that the issues related to Work/Life were compounded due to the

significant shifts in the societal patterns in India. Joint families, which formed the

backbone of the Indian society, are fast disappearing, to be replaced by nuclear families

(Patel 2005). In a joint family system, one had had to care for elders and they, in turn,

would nurture and take care of the other younger members of the family. Today, the

nuclear families with both the partners working at having a career have created a new

dynamics that has become emotionally demanding for the individual. Financial and

social obligations have assumed a different level of significance today. At the same time,

in spite of more women going out to work, there has been little change in patterns of

household responsibilities (Singh 2004). This coupled with the needs of the organisation,

creates havoc with the work and life balance of a person. Work/Life Balance has, indeed,

become a hot topic of discussion and its importance can be gauged from the studies and

surveys conducted all over the world by government bodies, organisations and

researchers (Pocock et al., 2007; Pocock, 2008; Duxbury and Higgins, 2003; Hurst et al.,

2008; Arthur, 2002; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Craig, 2006). With an

increasing number of singles grappling with work-life issues, concepts like part-time and

temporary work have become an everyday phenomenon. There is a lot of diversity in the

twentieth century workforce which needs to be explored and there are dimensions that

influence the quality of work-life balance an individual can forge. Then, Work/Life also

seems to have linkages with Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance of an individual.

Hence, this angle was included in the literature review to arrive at a complete picture.

3

Thus, the research study was undertaken with the following objectives in mind:

a) To understand the status of Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank

employees.

b) To understand the status of Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector

bank employees.

c) To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and the Quality of

Work/Life of an employee.

d) To explore the relationship between work-life balance and employees’ perception

of his job performance.

e) To identify workplace factors that have an impact on Work/Life Balance

Chapter four dealt with the methodology adopted for the research, discussing the

research design, research instruments, the data collection process and the statistical tools

used for the analysis. A mixed research design was adopted where the initial part of the

study had exploratory research design followed up by descriptive research design.

Reserve Bank of India divides banking operations in the India into 6 regions – Eastern,

Western, Northern, North-Eastern, Southern and Central. Of these two zones, Northern

and Central were randomly selected (RBI, 2009). Further, from each of these, one city

was selected randomly, resulting in Jaipur, Lucknow and Delhi. A total of 6 banks, viz.

3 public sector (State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Union Bank) and 3

private sector (HDFC, ICICI and Axis bank) were selected (RBI, 2010).

The study was divided into pilot and final study. The sample size was 610 bank

employees (out of which data of 573 respondents was analysed). The data type was

primary and the data were primarily collected by the administration of structured

questionnaire (with responses measured on a seven point Likert scale) and interview

method. The data collected through the structured questionnaire were subject to

computations in the form of table which made the calculations and analysis easy. After

the analysis of surveys, in-depth interviews of bank employees were conducted to

understand the reasons behind the initial results. Various statistical tools and techniques,

independent samples t-test, ANOVA, factor analysis, correlation, regression and

structural equation modelling, were utilised to analyse the data.

4

The findings, descriptive and inferential analysis of data are given in chapter 5. The data

had a fair representation of female bank employees (27.2%), though; it definitely was

dominated by male employees (72.8%). This was in keeping with the actual population

of women employees in banks, which is in the range of 27-30% for metropolitan cities.

The age of the respondents ranged from 21 years to 59 years, with a mean age of 35.30

years. Such and other sample characteristics, like marital status, working status of

spouse, family size, family type, and number of children were looked into as were the

work-related variables viz., service tenure, average hours worked per week, income,

nature of duties and the city of posting.

The instrument used for measuring Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and

Employee Job Performance was developed by the researcher. There were three scales

which were developed – one for measuring the Work/Life Balance scores, another for

measuring the Quality of Work/Life of the bank employees and the third for measuring

the perceived Job Performance of the employee. The tool used for data collection was a

structured questionnaire with items measured on a seven point Likert scale. The validity

and reliability of these were checked and found to be within acceptable range.

The collected data was cleaned, coded and analysed for the comparison of mean score on

Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank employees; comparison of mean

scores on Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector bank employees;

significance of demographic and work-related variables for Work/Life Balance;

significance of demographic and work-related variables for Quality of Work/Life as also

separate analysis of the demographic and work-related variables for public and private

sector banks. Further, the relationship between Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life

Balance and relationship between Work/Life Balance and Job Performance, too, was

explored. Factors having an impact on Work/Life Balance were identified as was the

relationship between Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance

studied through Structural Equation Modelling. The hypothesised model was then tested

separately for public and private sector bank samples to gauge the similarities/differences

between the two samples and to identify the underlying structure.

5

The analysed results for Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life scores for public

and private sector bank staff were discussed in chapter 6. The mean WLB score for

public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a moderate Work/Life

Balance in general for the banking sector employees. However, the mean score for WLB

for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is 4.38. In this case the

employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance as compared to the

employees of public sector banks. The findings of the research, thus, were quite

interesting. A further analysis was done to understand the patterns of Work/Life Balance

that emerged from the sub-scales of the Work/Life Balance scale. These results revealed

that there was a significant difference in the Work Spillover in Personal Life (public

sector mean = 3.95; private sector mean = 4.37), Personal Life Spillover in Work (public

sector mean = 4.39; private sector mean = 4.92) and Work/Life Balance Constrainers

(public sector mean = 3.47; private sector mean = 3.65) for public and private sector

bank employees. In each of these sub-scales, the mean scores of public sector bank

employees was lower than the mean scores of private sector bank employees, clearly

hinting at private sector offering a better Work/Life Balance to the employee compared

to the public sector banks.

The findings of the present study revealed that the Work/Life Balance of male and

female bank employees differed from each other (p = 0.021). The next comparison was

based on the age groups of the employees. In the current study, it was found that there

was a significant relationship between Work/Life Balance and age of the employee.

Comparisons of the Work/Life Balance score between the public and private sector bank

employees with respect to age shows there was a significant difference in the WLB score

for the younger age group of 20-29 years and 30-39 years but not so in case of the older

age groups of 40-49 years as well as for the age group of 50-59 years working in public

and private sector banks. With respect to educational qualifications and Work/Life

Balance between public and private sector banks employees, the results show that there

are significant differences for graduates but not so for post-graduates and professionals.

Further, the current study revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB

scores for staff having nuclear family structure in public sector (M = 4.05) and private

6

sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.000) and also for staff having joint family structure in

public sector (M = 3.94) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), (p = 0.028). In both cases,

it can be seen that private sector staff has a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of

the public sector staff. Family size has acted variously as a facilitator and impeder for

maintaining balance in work and life. Exploring the family size – Work/Life Balance

equation, the current study, however, found that there were no significant differences in

the Work/Life Balance scores of individuals belonging to different family sizes, F (3,569) =

1.841, p = .139.

The current study indicates that there are significant differences in the Work/Life

Balance perception based on the service tenure of the employee, F (3, 569) = 12.076, p =

.000. Scheffe’s test revealed that there are significant differences between employees

with service tenure of 0-9 years and employees have longer service tenures of 10-19 and

20-29 years respectively. It seems that ‘the initial desire for a secure public sector job,

gives way to enjoying the better structured work culture in the private sector bank’

(interview with K Vinay Raj, HDFC, Hazratganj, Lucknow). It is this initial period,

when a private sector entrant is simultaneously preparing for public sector examinations,

that his work/life balance is skewed.

The mean working hours for public sector employees came out to be 48.41 hours per

week, while the mean for private sector bank employees was higher at 56.92 hours on an

average per week. These findings show that Work/Life Balance scores are similar for

both public and private sector employees working up to and including 48 hours per

week. These start showing a significant difference as the working hours go up over 48

hours per week. Even when the hours of work are longer at private sector, it has a better

Work/Life Balance compared to public sector. The difference in the Work/Life Balance

scores with varying hours of work in public and private sector is tied up with the reward-

performance linkage. Private sector rewards for the output which results from the longer

hours of work put it while in the public sector this linkage is not very clear.

Data analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff

performing managerial duties in public sector (M=3.92) and private sector banks

7

(M=4.32,), ( p=0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for staff performing non-

managerial duties in public sector (M=4.38) and private sector banks (M=4.52),

(p=0.266) was not significant. While studies in this respect could not be found,

interviews conducted with the public and private sector bank employees revealed that in

the case of public sector banks, the staff with non-managerial positions has lesser

decision making and responsibilities on them, leading to lower work pressures and

workloads and therefore, a better work/life balance.

Some studies have explored the relationship between WLB and income in context of the

family responsibilities of the employee and the results have indicated that higher income

works in mitigating work/life (im)balance situations, as Duxbury and Higgins (2001)

argue that, “while money cannot buy happiness, it can sure help people cope with work-

life conflict” (p. 61). The same is supported by the current study, where results imply

that as the income of the individual improves, he/she can opt for support services that

make coping with work/life issues easier for him/her. Where incomes are lower, private

sector (M = 3.76) employee show a lower Work/Life Balance as compared to the better

Work/Life Balance scores of the public sector (M = 4.25) bank employees.

The perception of quality of work/life among public and private sector bank employees

differs significantly. This difference in QWL cannot be attributed to the organisational

commitment of employees, supervisory support, rewards and promotion opportunities,

task and capability significance and job ambiguity, which have been perceived as similar

in cases of both public and private sector bank staff. Two major contributors to this

difference in perception are work load and work pressure. The QWL mean value for

public sector bank employees is 3.58, which is higher than 3.51, the mean value for the

QWL scores of private sector bank staff. This implies that the quality of work/life of

private sector bank employees is better than the quality of work/life of public sector bank

employees.

The current study supports a strong link between work/life balance and job performance.

This relationship emerges very strong in the absence of Quality of Work/Life as a

moderating variable (r = 0.91).

8

Based on the findings in chapter 5 and the discussion in chapter 6, certain suggestion

were made to the banking industry, especially to the public sector banks, in chapter 7.

1. Ensure an eclectic mix in age and skill in the personnel

Public sector has suffered to the wide gap in the age groups working with them. An

almost complete stop on recruitments during 1999-2008, there are very few staff

members in the age bracket of 34-39. With almost a complete generation missing in the

public sector banks, there is an increased burden of mentoring freshers who are entering

the system. This has led to additional stress on the officers higher up in the hierarchy.

2. Extend the option of family friendly policies to all employees

Work/Life Balance is an issue which needs to be looked into for everyone, be it single or

married, young or old, men or women, graduate or professional. However, it is this very

diversity in the workforce that calls for extending the benefit of family friendly policies

to all staff member rather than to certain categories.

3. Design cafeteria style benefit plans

Linking with the above suggestion, it would be best if a bouquet of benefit plans could

be designed and the employees helped to make the most relevant choice depending on

their gender, family life cycle, type of care giving responsibilities, income and support

network.

4. Identify and Check Work Standards often

Banking sector is under continuous change and workflows are more quickly dated and

are in need of continuous reviews. Job ambiguity and unreasonable work load need to be

checked and managed. The greater the clarity, the more is accomplished, the more all of

the employees will become aware of opportunities to save time, save energy and save

money.

5. Sustain Quality by Ensuring Staff is well-trained and retained

Bankers who are better trained and have a higher task capability are likely to accomplish

more and be more satisfied than others. Since satisfaction in a particular sphere goes

hand-in-hand with enhancing Work/Life Balance, employees with a better Work/Life

9

Balance are likely to be more committed to the job as well. What is needed is managers,

who are trained in operations forecasting, capacity planning and strategic planning that

will readily identify the line’s or the individual worker’s potential to produce – anywhere

in the bank. Good workers are not just found, they have to be trained, invested in and

retained. Employees who know the quality performance values of their bank should be

treated as real resources.

6. There are significant differences in the work/life scores of managerial and non-

managerial cadres. While both managerial and non-managerial tasks are taken care of by

officers in banks, quite a few non-managerial tasks are allotted to clerical staff. Public

sector has a surplus of clerical cadre, who are neither efficient nor eager to perform

routine or additional duties. Public sector should strive to reduce the numbers in the

clerical role and create more posts in the officer grade.

7. Job security in private sector banks

A recurring theme throughout the interview with private sector bank employees was the

lack of job security in private sector setting. These banks need to work upon providing

better job security, especially in light of the findings that the younger age group in the

private sector keep on exploring options of moving to the public sector due to this very

reason.

To conclude, while the public sector banks have remained oblivious to the family-

friendly policies, private sector banks have taken the initiative to incorporate such

policies into their Human Resource agenda. Further, the philosophy of the people

heading the private sector banks has time and again stressed the need and importance of

having Work/Life Balance as an integral part of working culture. Public sector bank

employees have not been provided the same benefits and the sector needs to explore

ways of improving its manpower management beyond providing just job security.

10

Chapter 2

BANKING SECTOR

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO INDIAN BANKING SECTOR

2.1.1 Evolution of Banking in India

2.1.2 Definition of Bank

2.1.3 Banking Structure in India

2.2 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT IN BANKS

2.3 BANK AND WORK/LIFE BALANCE

2.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

11

Chapter 2

BANKING SECTOR

2.1 Introduction

The year 1991 unleashed the potential of the Indian economy through major policy

changes popularly known as, Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG

model). A series of reforms were undertaken to make India globally competitive and

efficient, targeting the industrial, trade and financial sectors, shaking off the isolation,

inward looking restrictive governance and a hitherto conservative attitude that had been

embraced since independence in 1947. The financial sector reforms set in motion in 1991

and 1998 (Narsimhan Committee I – 1991; Narsimhan Committee II - 1998) had far

reaching results for the Indian banking sector, which moved gradually from a strictly

regulated environment to a deregulated, dynamic market economy. While the market

reforms brought in powerful, demanding and discerning customers on one hand, they

also introduced a new mix of competing players comprising public sector banks, private

banks and foreign banks. These changes were further fuelled by technological

developments acting as catalytic forces for introducing new products, adopting

innovative delivery mechanisms and in general re-writing the rules of working. The

Indian banking system proved resilient and a quick learner, adapting to the new

environment and coping with challenges ranging from WTO and Basel II to Free Trade

Agreements and sub-prime crises. Of special import were the organisational challenges,

requiring banks to re-orient their resources to capitalise on the opportunities being

presented before them. Tapping these meant re-organising branch networks, reducing

establishment cost, attracting and retaining talented staff pool as well as honing their

skills to perfection. The Indian banking sector, thus, poised at an exciting point in its

evolution shall crown those players as winners who can gauge customer expectations,

achieve high levels of customer retention, leverage technology and manpower, thereby

delivering value to all stakeholders.

12

2.1.1. Evolution of Banking in India

Banks and allied activities are not new in India. There is ample evidence in ancient

Indian texts of banks, bankers and investment activities. Vedas, the Manusmriti,

Kautalya’s Arthashastra suggested maximum and minimum interest rate. Manu, the

ancient Indian law-giver, discusses ways of earning wealth (Prasad, 1977) while the

Aitreya Brahman and Taitreya Samhita mention bank as an institution dealing with

money, which ‘like a magnet draws surplus money from the people who are not using it

at the time, and that deposited money is lent to those who are in a position to use it for

productive purposes’ (Prasad, 1977, pg.177). The circular flow of money was supposed

to increase the capital of a banker, who was called Sethi (Prasad, 1977). The system

survives even today in the villages in the form of Sahukaars lending money with very

little documentation and charging exorbitant rates of interests compounded on even

shorter Intervals.

In modern India, the earliest banks were established in the last decades of the 18th

century. Looking closely, the journey of Indian banking can be divided into four distinct

phases from 1770 till date. These are:

• Phase I: Early Historical and Formative Era: 1770 to 1905

• Phase II: Pre-independence Era: 1906 to 1946

• Phase III: Post-independence Regulated Era: 1947 to 1991

• Phase IV: Post-independence Deregulated Era: 1991 onwards.

Phase I: Early Historical and Formative Era: 1770 to 1905

The two prominent banks from this phase are the General Bank of India in 1786 and the

Bank of Hindustan in 1770. Established in the last decades of 18th century, both these

banks are defunct now (Rajpal, 2011). However, the first phase saw a large number of

banks fail mainly due to deficiency of capital, speculative tendencies, war and

uncertainty in Europe and policy of laissez faire, destroying public confidence in banking

system for quite some time to come.

13

Phase II: Pre-independence Era: 1906 to 1946

Banking on modern lines started with the establishment of the three presidency banks -

Bank of Calcutta, Bank of Bombay and Bank of Madras. Bank of Calcutta, which today

survives as the State Bank of India, was set up in Calcutta on 2 June 1806. It was later re-

christened as the Bank of Bengal in 1809 upon receiving its charter. Bank of Bengal was

followed by the setting up of the Bank of Bombay (15 April 1840) and the Bank of

Madras (1 July 1843). The Presidency Bank’s Act of 1876 first brought the three banks

under a common statute and later on 27th January 1921 effected the merger of the Banks

of Bombay and Madras with the Bank of Bengal to form the Imperial Bank of India. The

new bank took on the triple role of a commercial bank, a banker's bank and a banker to

the government. The quasi-central banking role of the Imperial Bank of India came to an

end in 1935 with the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India as the Central Bank of

the country. Instead, it now started functioning as the agent for transacting government

business on behalf of the Reserve Bank at centres where the latter was not yet

established. This period also saw the establishment of some of the leading public sector

banks of today, viz., Allahabad Bank (1865), Punjab National Bank (1894), Canara Bank

(1906), Indian Bank (1907), Bank of Baroda (1908), Central Bank of India (1911) and

Union Bank of India (1922). ttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24487141/History-of-Banking-

in-India)

Phase III: Post-independence Regulated Era: 1947 to 1991

Independence ushered major reforms in the banking sector, with the first significant step

being nationalisation of the Reserve Bank in 1949 and of the Imperial Bank in 1955. Post

independence, the launching of the First Five Year Plan in 1951 saw another change for

the Imperial Bank of India. There was a lot of emphasis on developing rural areas and

the existing commercial banks were found ill-equipped to deal with the rural

regeneration exercise. Keeping this in mind the All India Rural Credit Survey Committee

recommended the creation of a state-partnered and state-sponsored bank by taking over

the Imperial Bank of India. Thus, the State Bank of India was constituted on 1st July

1955 by passing an act in the Parliament in May 1955. Later, the State Bank of India

(Subsidiary Banks) Act was passed in 1959 which enabled the State Bank of India to

take over eight former State-associated banks as its subsidiaries. Today these constitute

14

the State Bank Group viz. the State Bank of India and its five associate banks, State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, State Bank of Hyderabad , State Bank of Mysore, State

Bank of Patiala and State Bank of Travancore. State Bank of Sourashtra and the State

Bank of Indore later merged with the State Bank of India (www.statebankofindia.com).

1969 witnessed the nationalisation of 14 major banks (Central Bank of India, Bank of

Maharashtra, Dena Bank, Punjab National Bank, Syndicate Bank, Canara Bank, Indian

Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank, Allahabad Bank, United

Bank of India, UCO Bank and Bank of India) and the 1980 nationalisation of seven more

banks brought 80% of the banking segment in India under Government ownership

(www.banknetindia.com). Banking initiatives of the Government of India were aimed at

providing banking coverage to all sections of the society and every sector of the

economy. This phase was particularly important in restoring the faith and confidence of

the people in the banking system.

Phase IV: Post-independence Deregulated Era: 1991 onwards.

The current phase in the banking history began with the opening up of the Indian

economy in 1991. This phase of technology savvy, new generation banks was marked by

two important events – Narasimhan Committee and Economic Liberalisation. The

Committee on Banking Sector Reforms headed by Mr. M. Narasimhan worked out

financial sector reforms required to strengthen the Indian financial system and to make it

internationally competitive. The economic reforms of 1991 were a direct consequence of

the Balance of Payments crises of 1991 that had pushed the country to the brink of

bankruptcy. Controls were gradually dismantled, tariffs and duties lowered, private

sector encouraged, state monopolies broken and globalisation was slowly embraced. The

unshackling of the Indian banking sector witnessed new generation private banks viz.,

Oriental Bank of Commerce, ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank and Axis Bank (earlier UTI

Bank) setting base. In the next stage Foreign Direct Investment to the tune of 10% was

introduced, which at present has reached up to 74% in certain cases with some

restrictions. The reforms affected in this phase resulted in revitalising the sector and

brought about rapid growth and strong contribution from all the three segments, namely,

government banks, private banks and foreign banks.

15

2.1.2. Definition of Bank

The Oxford dictionary defines bank as, “An establishment for the custody of money,

which it pays out, on a customer’s order.”

According to Whitehead, “A bank as an institution which collects surplus funds from the

public, safeguards them and makes them available to the true owner when required and

also lends sums of their true owners to those who are in need of funds and can provide

security.” (Singla, 2006)

Banking Companies Act 1949, defines ‘banking’ as “accepting, for the purpose of

lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or

otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise” and a ‘banking

company’ as “One which transacts the business which means accepting, for the purpose

of lending or investment of the deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand,

or otherwise and withdraw able be cheque, draft, order or otherwise.”

2.1.3. Banking Structure in India

Commercial Banks in India can be classified into Scheduled and Un-scheduled banks.

Scheduled Banks are those which are included in the Second Schedule of Reserve Bank

of India (RBI) Act, 1934 and satisfy the criteria laid down vide section 42(6) ( a ) of the

Act. The Scheduled Commercial Banks are further classified as State Bank of India and

its associates, Nationalised Banks, Private Sector Banks, Foreign Banks, Co-operative

Banks and Regional Rural Banks. "Scheduled banks in India" means the State Bank of

India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), a subsidiary bank

as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), a

corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or under section 3 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of

1980), or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), but does not include a co-operative bank".

16

"Non-scheduled bank in India" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of

section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled

bank".

The Reserve Bank of India classifies the banks as Public Sector Banks, Old Private

Sector Banks, New Private Sector Banks and Foreign Banks for all purposes of

performance assessment (www.rbi.org.in) (Figure 2.1).

Furthermore, based on the banks balance sheet size (total assets), Dun and Bradstreet has

classified that banks as large sized banks, medium sized banks and small sized banks

using the 80:15:5 principle. Adopting the same logic, Business World stratified banks for

the business world survey as Large-size banks (with balance sheet size more than Rs

1,00,000 crore), Medium-size banks (with balance sheet size between Rs 30,000 and Rs

1,00,000 crore) and Small-size banks (with balance sheet size less than ` 30,000crore).

The Large Size Banks included State Bank of India, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of

India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, ICICI Bank, Union Bank of India,

Citibank, Canara Bank, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Syndicate Bank, Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Central Bank of India and UCO Bank.

The Medium Size Banks include Corporation Bank, Indian Bank, Hongkong and

Shanghai Banking Corpn., Federal Bank, Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, State Bank of

Travancore, Standard Chartered Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Jammu and Kashmir

Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, State Bank of Indore,

State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala, Bank of Maharashtra, Vijaya Bank, United

Bank of India, Dena Bank, ING Vysya Bank and ABN Amro Bank.

While Small Size Banks with a balance Sheet size of less than Rs 30,000 crore included

Deutsche Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Yes Bank, Karur Vysya Bank, Barclays Bank,

Bank of America, South Indian Bank, Development Bank of Singapore, Bank of Nova

Scotia, City Union Bank, BNP Paribas, Karnataka Bank, Calyon Bank, Dhanalakshmi

17

Regional Rural Banks

Nationalised Banks

State Bank of India & Associates

Foreign Banks

Indian Private Banks

Figure 2.1 Structure of Indian Banking

Commercial Banks Co-operative Credit Institutions

Scheduled Commercial Banks Non-Scheduled Commercial Banks: Local Area Banks

Public Sector Banks Private Sector Banks

Source: http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/78903.pdf

Bank, IndusInd Bank, Bank of Rajasthan, Development Credit Bank, Lakshmi Vilas

Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank (Business World, 2009).

18

2.2. Manpower Management in Banks

The banking reforms and liberal economic policies post 1991 completely shook the

working ethos of the public sector employees, who till then had been used to functioning

according to the 4-6-4 method (in banking parlance Borrow at 4%; Lend at 6%; Go home

at 4pm). Efficient, technology savvy working of private banks made the public sector

banks sit up and take notice.

Between 2004 and 2007, India’s new private banks have grown their

assets by 38% and their employee strength by 43%; for foreign banks,

the assets have grown 27% and employee strength 22%. During this

period, Indian public sector banks have seen their assets growing by

17% while the employee strength has actually gone down by 1%.

According to an estimate of Indian Banks’ Association, the country’s

premier banker body, between now and 2010 more than 63,000 public

sector bank employees will retire and bulk of them are officers. Public

sector banks, which collectively employ about 710,000 employees, need

500,000 new employees in next five years to maintain their growth.

(Goyal, 2007, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-01-02/news/28448432_1_work-life-balance-meritocracy-wrong-lessons accessed on 3rd March 2008)

Till recent past the human resource policies in public sector banks had been guided by

the philosophy of permanent jobs, stability and certainty of benefits. There is a glaring

difference in the efficiency of public and private sector bank employees. The average age

of a public sector banker is close to 50 while the average age of a private sector banker is

closer to 30 (Goyal, 2007). It is noteworthy that while ICICI Bank Ltd. (India’s largest

private sector bank) recorded ` 11.54crore business per employee in 2009, State Bank of

India (India’s largest commercial lender and the largest public sector bank) could garner

just ` 5.56crore worth of business per employee for the same period. SBI lagged behind

the industry average of ` 7.5crore per employee business generated (www.rbi.org.in).

With varying intensity the story is repeated across the number of private and public

sector banks operating in the country. Public sector banks have gained in terms of market

19

share in the previous decade, are rapidly catching up in product innovation, technology

implementation and marketing strategies but have failed to attract the right talent (Bhoir,

2010).

According to the Khandelwal Committee, ‘HR issues have suddenly come to the centre-

stage… (With) HR issues … as the new risk factor in the banking industry’ (Dhanorkar,

2010, http://www.moneylife.in/article/4/6981.html). Banking in a people oriented

business, which needs to be process-driven yet innovative, stable yet flexible and

responsive to change. Since, almost 65 to 70 percent of the total operating costs in banks

accounts for establishment expenses, making rationalisation of manpower in the industry

imperative. Keeping this in mind, the public sector banks had initiated the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme resulting in almost 12percent of the workforce seeking retirement

(Ravichandra in Kamath et al., 2003). VRS changed the nature of the workforce in the

public sector banks with many experienced, skilled and senior people opting for it. Since

banking is a knowledge-based industry, it is necessary to retain employees that can

provide a competitive edge to the bank. The crux of the solution lies in realising and

working towards making human capital the finest asset of the banking system. In recent

years several HR issues have come to the fore in the banking sector. The most prominent

and pertinent ones being:

Increased workloads: While on one hand technology has improved the pace of working

and has facilitated handling of complex, repetitive tasks with simplicity, computerisation

has increased the pressure of work and the responsibility attached to it. Newer

technology has seen most employees in the insurance and banking industry experiencing

serious strain and heavy work-loads (Ravichandra in Kamath et al., 2003). Further,

working for recovery of loans from companies and individuals, trying to attract

customers, rushing against deadlines are all impacting the mental health of Branch

Manager, Marketing Manager, Sales and Customer Care Executives etc. ASSOCHAM

has even suggested that there should be rooms for resting and employees be taught

various relaxation techniques (e.g. meditation, biofeedback, deep breathing or yoga) to

20

reduce stress during work hours. (Banks among top 10 high stress workplaces) retrieved

from http://www.banknetindia.com/banking/70518.htm r

Changes in Job Content: Work methods have seen changes in execution brought about

by computerisation. This has also had an impact on the skills required by the employees.

Routine transactions have seen skills of a mechanical nature on the rise. All the same

these require just as much or even higher degrees of concentration and attention, though

not as much mental effort as before. In contrast, in the area of customer services,

computerization offers potential for an increase in both the necessary range and level of

skills, for example, searching for, extracting and assimilating relevant information in

response to a request. Product innovations have generally led to an increase in the

importance of formal skills. The informal skills, learned on the job that characterized

work are no longer seen as important. With professional and technical jobs increasing in

number and importance, formal theoretical knowledge is becoming more important for

employees in the banking sector (Tremblay, 1991).

2.3. Bank and Work/Life Balance

Work/Life Balance of employees working in the banking sector has been the focus of

very few studies in India. However, there is a need to understand the factors which are

peculiar to the Indian scenario especially in light of the reforms that have been brought

about in the banking industry post globalisation and liberalisation. With the entry of

foreign banks and proliferation of private banks, there is increased competition for the

public sector banks and there is a steady change in the way banks have been functioning

in the country. In the recent past the services offered by Indian public and private sector

banks have undergone a paradigm shift. Customers now have greater choices available to

them and advancements in technology have geared up the competition manifold. Banks

are seeking to simplify the services offered and to reduce the operation times for

customers.

While all of these work in favour of the banks external customers, it is the internal

customer – the employee, who has to deliver the goods. Refurbishing the bank services

21

means an extended load on the bank employee, with longer hours at work, fewer

holidays and greater stress. It also means that the public sector bank employees can no

longer take it easy believing that they have a monopoly in the banking and finance

sector. Further, the foreign banks which have set up shop in India already have

Work/Life Balance on their Human Resource agenda and private sector banks were

quick to follow suit. While private sector banks do mention Work/Life Balance in their

HR policies, they do not necessarily follow it in practice. This is reflected in a rather

poor record of Work/Life Balance, even amongst the best employers (Bhattacharya,

2008).

Till a few years back, working hours used to be more or less fixed from 9am to 5pm or

10am to 5pm from Monday to Saturday or from Monday to Friday in case of five days a

week. For the banking sector, this privilege has faded with globalisation and instead of 7

or 8 hours working; bank employees are spending as much as 12 to 16 hours every day in

the office. The few studies conducted in Indian banks (Ghosh et al.,, 2010; Anbalgan and

Gowry, 2011) have shown that there is a considerable amount of occupational stress

among the employees of both nationalised and other banks. Role overload, role conflict

and lack of senior level support have been identified as the major contributors to stress

(Kumar, 2006). Occupational stress is fast emerging as a major problem for public sector

banks. Jayashree (2010) in her study on 100 public sector bank employees working in

Chennai found that they were faced with severe work pressures, expected to handle

multiple roles and responsibilities leading to time-based strain created due to real or

imaginary deadlines.

The All India Bank Officers’ Confederation (AIBOC) has categorically stated in its

charter of demands (AIBOC, 2007) that ‘Work/Life Balance is sadly missing in the case

of officers in Public Sector Banks’. The increasing shortage of staff due to VRS and Exit

policies has resulted in a tremendous pressure on the existing officers’ leading to

unlimited working hours and, appalling working conditions. The charter demands that

banks should introduce the concept of flexi-time and flexi-place and regulate the

working hours for employees in order to prevent building up of fatigue and the

consequent loss of health. Lady employees are at a distinct disadvantage as there is no

22

Creche facility for the benefit of their children and lack of other facilities like 6 months

maternity leave (banks at present have 90 days maternity leave rule).

Large state-owned banks in India have HR policies and practices similar

to those prevailing in government organisations, and have been slow to

appreciate the pragmatic and market driven HR policies and practices

required to compete with the new generation companies.

(Krishnamurthy and Ambegaoker, 2010.

Http://Www.Watsonwyatt.Com/Asia-Pacific/Pubs/Apinsurance/Showarticle.Asp?Articleid=19283)

While public sector banks are still to fully appreciate the benefits of Quality of

Work/Life and Work/Life Balance for their employees, the private sector and foreign

banks have taken a lead in this area as can be seen by the HR mandates issued by HDFC,

ICICI and Standard Chartered Banks. ICICI offers "flexitime" and "buddy systems" at

work for its women employees and has family friendly HR policies including health-

related benefits, day care and rest room facilities, maternity leave, pick-up and drop

facilities addressing security concerns and provides the options for going on sabbaticals,

thus, taking care of quite a few Work/Life related issues (Wakhlu, 2008). Standard

Chartered recognised that Work/Life Balance was necessary for high productivity and

hence, began practices like offering flexible working hours, work from home and a 6-

month maternity leave. Further, counselling service was made available for employees

struggling with Work/Life conflict issues that could impact their performance (Standard

Chartered Bank, Annual Report, 2009-10). Though the private sector banks have family

friendly policies in place, these are not always practised in spirit.

2.4. Summary and Conclusion

Though, the human interaction in banking services has been decreasing due the increased

use of technology, banking still remains by and large a people oriented business at its

core. Banks are into the business of handling the money of the people, by the people and

23

for the people. The specific dimensions of service sector, intangibility, variability and

perishability of service processes along with the volatile customer expectations, make it

particularly vital for banking organisations (Hodson and Roscigno, 2004) to ensure the

Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life of their employees. This is especially

relevant in light of the fact that technology can be easily replicated and there is very little

differentiation offered by it in the long run. Ultimately, it is the quality of services

rendered by the human resource that can make all the difference and the quality of

services and organisational commitment of an employee are likely to be adversely

affected in case of low Work/Life Balance and reduced Quality of Work/Life (Von de

Looi, 1995 cited in Kandaswamy, 2009). Human resource and its humane touch is the

only remaining resource which cannot be replicated by competitors (Francisco, 2006).

Therefore, it is important to understand those factors that operate in an ‘internal

customer’s work and life that can impact his delivery in the service sector.

The working environment of an organisation has a major role to play in deciding the

quality of Work/Life of its employees. It is naturally assumed that the work culture of

public sector and private sector banks would be different, given the difference in their

origin and early operational philosophy framing their objectives. Public sector banks

were formed on the concept of social economy, where profitability was secondary. Funds

from public sector banks have time and again been diverted by the government for

financing various social sector schemes like poverty alleviation and special employment

programmes to further the social welfare initiatives. Private sector banks, on the other

hand, have worked for profits since their inception. Post 1991 liberalisation and

globalisation public sector was forced to change its working style to be able to compete

with the new generation private sector banks and foreign sector banks. Hence, there is a

pressing need to examine the Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank

employees and verify whether there is a difference in their perception of their Work/Life

Balance and quality of Work/Life experienced by them. The study aims to answer this

question.

24

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF WORK/LIFE 3.1.1. Defining Work/Life Balance

3.1.1.1. Concepts related to Work/Life Balance3.1.1.2. Concepts related to Work/Life Conflict

3.1.1.2.1. Strain Based Conflict3.1.1.2.2. Time Based Conflict3.1.1.2.3. Behaviour Based Conflict

3.1.1.2.3.1. Role Overload3.1.1.2.3.2. Role Ambiguity3.1.1.2.3.3. Role Conflict

3.1.1.3. Linkages between work and life domains3.1.1.3.1. Accommodation model3.1.1.3.2. Compensation model3.1.1.3.3. Conflict (Interference) model3.1.1.3.4. Enrichment model3.1.1.3.5. Instrumental model3.1.1.3.6. Segmentation model3.1.1.3.7. Spillover model

3.1.2. Moderators of work-life balance3.1.2.1. Gender3.1.2.2. Caregiver Strain3.1.2.3. Life Cycle Stage3.1.2.4. Generational Cohort3.1.2.5. Individual Personality Traits

3.1.2.5.1. Locus of Control3.1.2.5.2. Self-efficacy3.1.2.5.3. Positive/Negative effect

3.1.2.6. Support Network3.1.2.6.1. Family

25

3.1.2.6.2. Work Associates3.1.2.7. Resource Quality and Accessibility

3.1.2.7.1. PIE barriers3.1.3. Consequences of work-life imbalance

3.1.3.1. Individual Outcomes3.1.3.2. Organisational Outcomes

3.2. QUALITY OF WORK/LIFE 3.2.1. Introduction and History

3.2.1.1. Definition; 3.2.2. Quality of Work/Life Constructs

3.2.2.1. Compensation and Rewards3.2.2.2. Opportunity to Develop and Use Human Capabilities3.2.2.3. Opportunity for Continued Growth, Rewards and

Promotions3.2.2.4. Task Significance3.2.2.5. Social Interaction in the Work Organisation3.2.2.6. Recognition for Achievement3.2.2.7. Meaningful and Significant Work3.2.2.8. Work Pressure3.2.2.9. Autonomy and Control3.2.2.10. Work Load3.2.2.11. Role Ambiguity3.2.2.12. Social Support

3.2.3. Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance

3.3. PERFORMANCE3.3.1. Introduction and definition3.3.2. Performance measurement 3.3.3. Performance and Work/Life Balance3.3.4. Performance and Quality of Work/Life3.3.5. Performance in Banks

3.4. SUMMARY

26

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Introduction to the Concept of Work/LifeReconciling the competing demands of work and family has taken the centre

stage in today’s conversations. The issue of striking work-life balance is increasingly

surfacing for both working men and women (Aryee et al, 2005; Eagle et al, 1998). The

concept of work-life existed as early as 1930s, however, the term ‘Work/Life Balance’

was coined in 1986 in USA. Before World War II, the W.K. Kellogg Company created

four six-hour shifts to replace the traditional three daily eight-hour shifts, and the new

shifts resulted in increased employee morale and efficiency. Kanter (1977), in her work

titled Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for

Research and Policy, brought the issue of Work/Life Balance to the forefront of

research and organizations. Around this time, the National Framework Committee for

the Promotion of Work-Life Balance, USA defined Work/Life Balance as a “balance

between an individual’s work and their life outside work.” It was in 1980s and 1990s

that companies initiated work/life programs with the primary focus of supporting

women with children. Compared to these, the current work/life programs are less

gender specific and tend to recognise other commitments, other than those of family, as

well.

3.1.1 Defining Work/Life BalanceWork/Life Balance is a term that has evolved around the idea of balancing work,

life and family responsibilities. The term in itself is a misnomer as work is an integral

part of life. However, researchers and thinkers on the issue have chosen to delineate

between the two. Work-life balance has variously been defined as:

‘Work life balance is about people having a measure of control

over when, where and how they work. It is achieved when an

individual’s right to a fulfilled life inside and outside paid

27

work is accepted and respected as the norm to the mutual

benefit of the individual, business and society’.

The Work Foundation: www.employersforworklifebalance.org.uk

Another way of looking at Work/Life Balance is from the perspective of an

equal emphasis on achievement and enjoyment of work as well as of the other three

quadrants (family, society and friends, self) of one’s life. Work/Life Balance in the real

sense translates into a “meaningful achievement and enjoyment in everyday life.” (Bird,

2003).

It is only in the recent years that the term ‘Work/Life Balance’ has replaced the

term ‘Work/Family Balance’ which was in use earlier. The term work/life now extends

to include other life activities like study, exercise, community work, hobbies, care of

elderly as well and not just care of dependent children as was recognised under the term

work-family. At the same time the concept of family has broadened to encompass

extended families, shared parenting, single parent families and a wide range of social

and support networks and communities.

The term Work/Life Balance has three vital components – ‘work’, ‘life’ and

‘balance’. In simple terms, “work” is normally conceived of in this context as including

‘paid employment’ while “life” includes activities outside work. Defining work as ‘paid

employment’, however, fails to take into account the extra unpaid work, commuting

time and the time spent on work related issues while away from work. Further, for those

working from home, the boundary differentiating home and work is very porous.

Technology is increasingly playing a role in blurring the border between home and work

and contributing to stresses and strains in the life of working men and women. Similarly

when looking at ‘life’ most researchers restrict themselves to a narrow definition

whereby life comes to relate with ‘family’, and their research centres around the

spillover of work into the domain of family or vice-versa. However, family is just one

aspect of life outside work. Life outside work would also include free time, self-time

and the time spent with friends, community and engaging in other activities.

28

The term ‘balance’ too, lends itself to a variety of meanings. Clark (2000) refers

to balance as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum

of role conflict” (pg.751). A simplistic definition of balance may be “sufficient time to

meet commitments at both home and work” (Guest, 2002, pg. 256). Therefore, there is a

lot of subjectivity that ‘Work/Life Balance’ incorporates in it. For an individual it may

be a perceived balance between work and the rest of life. This perceived balance would

have different connotations for different people, due to their personal choice, career

stage, family life cycle stage, nature of work and the likes. Thus, for some the preference

may be to spend long hours at work, either because of the career stage or because of a

limited life outside work, while for others, the perceived balance would exist where

work is subordinated to the demands of home. Thus, implying that if individuals do not

feel they have a ‘good’ mix and integration of work and non-work roles, they may

experience negative or conflicting outcomes (Frone et al, 1997). According to

Greenhaus and Beutell, (1985) Work/Life Balance is out of kilter when “the

simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with

one would make more difficult compliance with the other” (pg. 77).

Studies on Work/Life Conflict treat it as a bi-directional relationship where work can

interfere with non-work responsibilities (work/life conflict) and vice versa (life/work

conflict). Implying that a conflict between work and life will force one to forgo rewards

in one sphere for obtaining rewards in the other. The phenomena has been defined as “a

form of inter-role conflict in which work and family demands are mutually incompatible

so that meeting demands in one domain makes it difficult to meet demands in the other”

(Higgins et al.,, 2008, pg 1). Thus, one can distinguish between two types of WFC, each

with its own unique domain-specific antecedents work interfering with family and

family interfering with work (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Conceptual models and

empirical research that support them indicate that the role-related causes of

Work/Family Conflict and Family/Work Conflict reside in the work and family

domains, respectively. The same concept, albeit with the slightly different nomenclature

of ‘Work Interference with Personal Life’ and ‘Personal Life Interference with Work’

has been discussed by Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003) while discussing the scale for

measuring Work/Life Balance.

29

3.1.1.1 Concepts Related To Work-Life Balance

Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003), have described Work/Life Balance in terms of the

three dimensions, namely:

Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL) / Work Interference with Family

(WIF): – The concept of WIPL is almost the same as the one put forth by Greenhouse

and Beutell (1985) as work interfering with family, though it has wider scope in terms

of encompassing the other spheres of life as well. Both refer to a type of role conflict

which occurs when work demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfil

family role responsibilities (i.e. long hours in paid work prevent attendance at a child's

sporting event, preoccupation with the work role prevents an active enjoyment of

family life, work induced stress spills over into the home environment and increases

conflict with the family).

Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW) / Family Interference with Work

(FIW): – The same applies here as well and PLIW is similar to ‘Family interfering with

work’ given by Greenhouse and Beutell (1985) albeit with wider connotations. This

type of role conflict occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more

difficult to fulfil work role responsibilities. (i.e. a child's illness prevents attendance at

work; conflict at home makes concentration at work difficult).

Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE) – this relates to the extent to which

one’s personal life is enhanced by work and vice-versa.

Both FIW and WIF are often clubbed under the head of Role Interference,

which occurs when incompatible demands make it difficult, if not impossible, for an

employee to perform all their roles well. According to this, the different roles essayed

by an individual compete for both time and energy and work/life tends to get

unbalanced whenever there is some sort of conflict or stress in one or the other area of

life or work. The stress could be as much a result of feeling of guilt about the choices

made (Quick et al., 2004) as due to a spillover resulting from worries carried over to

work from issues at life or vice-versa. Hence, while a lot has been researched from the

angle of work-life conflict, there has been hardly any work done with respect to

30

measuring Work/Life Balance. The exceptions to this statement are the studies

undertaken by Fisher-McAuley et al., (2003) and validated by Hayman (2005).

3.1.1.2 Concepts Related To Work-Life Conflict

Work/Life Balance has more often been studied from the angle of work/life

conflict and hence, the concept of work/life conflict and its related dimensions need a

detailed discussion. Work/Family Conflict is a form of inter- role conflict arising

because the pressures emanating from one role are incompatible with those from

another (Stoner, et al 1990, Green house and et al 1950) i.e. Work/Family Conflict is a

form of inter-role conflict that arises when role pressures from the work and family

domains become mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).

When exploring the antecedents of Work-life conflict, the oft cited article by Greenhaus

and Beutell (1985) is of special relevance. Herein are identified the three main factors

leading to work-life conflict – strain based conflict, time based conflict and behaviour

based conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Thus, Work-life conflict broadly

conceptualises to include:

3.1.1.2.1 Strain Based Conflict: This occurs when the strain generated in

one sphere makes it difficult to meet the demands in another sphere due to a reduction

in the coping abilities of the individual. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) have

characterised strain as fatigue, anxiety, irritability and tension. Edwards and Rothbard

(2000) point out that this effect of strain on the abilities may be direct or indirect, as in

case of physical exhaustion. Strain based conflict is more related with psychological

factors and is ‘actualised when employees have difficulty leaving the pressures of work

behind when transitioning to their personal roles’ (Messersmith, 2007, pg. 435). The

strain experienced by the individual causes adverse psychological and physical impact

and this often spills over to the other areas of an individual’s life (Edwards and

Rothbard, 2000).

Technology has contributed in a big way to strain based conflict. Even though

technology has brought greater flexibility to people, it has also lead to employees

31

spending greater number of hours working even when at home, than engaging in non-

work responsibilities. A case in point is working women in India. Indian women have

traditionally been accorded a status lower than that of men in the family. They are

supposed to be ‘self-sacrificing, self-effacing’ and their ‘enabler role gets precedence

over the performer role’ (Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000, pg. 486). Working

mothers bear the burden of guilt of not being able to do justice with their roles of wife,

mother and nurturer. Since the Indian society is a complex combination of custom,

functionality and religious belief (Chitnis, 1988) where individuals live by their

‘ascribed’ rather than ‘achieved’ status (Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000) it

magnifies the strain based conflict for women.

3.1.1.2.2. Time Based Conflict: Time based conflict refers to the simple idea that

additional time spent in one domain (e.g. work) precludes individuals from investing

that time in another domain (e.g. home) (Messersmith, 2007). One of the main

contributors to time-based conflict is work or role overload. Role overload occurs when

the employee’s task demands exceed available time, often leading to higher levels of

stress (Frone et al.,, 1992) and if not addressed, to burnout (Jackson et al.,, 1886). One

of the main contributors to time based conflict is work or role overload, Moore (2000),

when competing roles’ demands exceeds the available time. This is best seen in the case

of women employees. Women are saddled with the primary responsibility for

household work; structural changes in family patterns (joint to nuclear) and the

demands of modern working make reconciliation of time required for work and family

as a key issue. Women assuming multiple roles results in work – family conflict

because time and energy is shared, clubbed and extended across the two spheres of

activity. Increased levels of conflict from the two domains of family and work result in

higher absenteeism, burn-out and reduced work performance for women (Frone et al.,

(1992).  Sinclair (1998), Bakker (2000) have described work- life balance as double life

perspective between career and children. Role overload is quite often the result of

domestic contingencies and unpredictable extensions in work schedules.

3.1.1.2.3. Behaviour Based Conflict: The third type of conflict postulated by

Greenhaus and Beutell is behaviour based conflict occurring when behaviours exhibited

32

in one domain are incompatible with the behaviour demands in the other domain. The

conflict is the result of the difficulty experienced by an individual in adapting his

behaviour pattern while traversing from one domain to another. For example, the work

role might require skills that promote aggressiveness, which would be in conflict with

the family role requiring skills fostering understanding and nurturing. Literature on

work-life conflict states that ‘when individuals are expected to behave in an impersonal

or emotionally reserved manner at work but are then asked to be emotionally open ... at

home’, (Messersmith, 2007, pg. 432) it results in behaviour based conflict.

Behaviour based conflict can be an issue for working women who are expected

to behave as hard core, tough professionals and decision makers at their work places

and are then expected to be sensitive, submissive and decision takers as they transit into

their family roles. The same woman who is expected to deftly handle problems in her

professional life and be twice as good as her male counterparts to be appreciated, is

expected to transform into the ideal home-maker and adjust to the patriarchal diktats

once back home. This accounts for severe behaviour based conflict. According to

Duxbury and Higgins (1991) women who are highly involved in their work role have

more work-life conflict due to the increased anxiety and guilt felt by them linked with

their views regarding their ability to perform traditional family roles.

3.1.1.2.3.1. Role Overload:

This form of work-life conflict occurs when the total demands on time and

energy associated with the prescribed activities of multiple roles are too great to

perform the roles adequately or comfortably. It means having too much to do and

too little time to do it in.

3.1.1.2.3.2. Role Ambiguity:

Role ambiguity has been described by Kahn et al., (1964) as the single or

multiple roles that confront an individual, which may not be clearly articulated

(communicated) in terms of behaviours (the role activities or tasks/priorities) or

performance levels (the criteria that the role incumbent will be judged by). It

denotes uncertainty about the expectations, behaviours, and consequences

associated with a particular role and may result from either organizational factors

33

(e.g., rapidly changing organizational structures, job feedback systems) and/or

individual factors (e.g., information processing biases).

3.1.1.2.3.3. Role Conflict:

We all play many roles: employee, boss, subordinate, spouse, parent, child,

sibling, friend, and community member. Each of these roles imposes demands on

us that require time, energy and commitment to fulfil. Role conflict occurs when

an individual occupies two or more roles simultaneously and the expectations

associated with those different roles are incompatible. When conflicts between

these two domains occur its consequences are reflected in both organization and

domestic life.

3.1.1.3 Linkages between Work and Life Domains

A variety of linking mechanisms have been proposed that explain the nature of

the relationship between work and family roles. Zedeck and Mosier (1990) and

O’Driscoll (1996) have identified five models for explaining the linkages between work

and life, which include Segmentation model, Spillover model, Compensation model,

Instrumental model and Conflict model. With slight variations, Edwards and Rothbard,

(2000), too, have identified these linkages as conflict (or interference), accommodation,

enrichment, compensation, and segmentation. Basically these models represent the

different perspectives on how we look at the work and life domains and their linkages.

In all seven models have been identified which explain the linking mechanism between

work and life. These are:

1. Accommodation model,

2. Compensation model,

3. Conflict (or Interference) model

4. Enrichment model,

5. Instrumental model,

6. Segmentation model and

7. Spillover model.

34

3.1.1.3.1 Accommodation refers to the process by which individuals reduce

their involvement in one role to accommodate the demands of the other role (Lambert,

1990). Work-family accommodation can be used as a strategy in response to actual or

anticipated work-family conflict such that individuals reduce their involvement in a role

that is less important to them. The reduction in involvement can take either of two

forms: behavioural (e.g., curtailing the amount of time devoted to a role) or

psychological (e.g., restricting the level of ego attachment to a particular role).

3.1.1.3.2 The Compensation Model proposes that what may be lacking in

one sphere, in terms of demands or satisfactions can be made up in the other. Implying

that in case an individual is dissatisfied in one life domain (e.g. work), he will reduce

the amount of time and energy spent in that domain. This reduction will naturally lead

to increased time and energy dedicated towards the other domain (e.g. family) in an

effort to compensate for the lack of satisfaction in the first domain (i.e. work). The

linking mechanism of work-family compensation represents efforts by individuals to

offset dissatisfaction in one role by seeking satisfaction in another role (Lambert, 1990;

Zedeck, 1992). These efforts can take the form of decreasing involvement in a

dissatisfying role and increasing involvement in a more satisfying role. Alternately,

individuals may respond to dissatisfaction in one role by pursuing rewarding or

fulfilling experiences in the other role. The latter form of compensation can be either

supplemental or reactive in nature (Zedeck, 1992). Supplemental compensation occurs

when individuals shift their pursuits for rewarding experiences from the dissatisfying

role to a potentially more satisfying one. For example, individuals with little autonomy

at work seek more autonomy outside their work role. On the other hand, reactive

compensation represents individuals' efforts to redress negative experiences in one role

by pursuing contrasting experiences in the other role such as engaging in leisure

activities after a fatiguing day at work.

3.1.1.3.3. Conflict (or Interference) Model proposes that with high levels of

demand in all spheres of life, some difficult choices have to be made and some conflicts

and possibly some significant overload on an individual may occur. Meaning each

sphere has multiple demands, thus requiring individuals to prioritize and make choices

35

and that can lead to conflict. Work-life conflict or interference refers to simultaneous

pressures from the work and family domains that are mutually incompatible in some

respect, such that, meeting the demands of one role makes it difficult to meet the

demands of the other role. Sometimes referred to as negative spillover, work-family

conflict can take different forms and can originate either in the work domain or the

family domain. A closely related idea is that of crossover effect, wherein work-family

conflict has been examined from a systems perspective demonstrating that if one

member of a couple experiences work/family conflict it can significantly impact the

other partner's experience of work/family conflict (Hammer et al.,, 1997). Crossover is

a dyadic, inter-individual transmission of stress or strain (Westman, 2001). Crossover

occurs when a stressor or psychological strain experienced by one person affects the

level of stress or strain experienced by another person in the same social environment

due to an empathic reaction. This increases the stress or strain level of this individual.

3.1.1.3.4. The Enrichment Model (Greenhaus, and Powell. 2006) illustrates how

experiences in one role (work or family) can improve the quality of life in the other role

(family or work). The model proposes that high performance and a positive effect can

result in one role (say work) from the resources generated in the other role (say family)

depending upon the role salience, the perceived relevance of the resource to the

benefiting role and the consistency of the resource with the requirements and norms of

this role. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) have identified five types of resources, skills

and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social-capital resources,

flexibility and material resources, that according to them can be generated in a role.

Further the model identifies two types of mechanisms or paths by which resources are

generated – instrumental (direct effect) and affective (positive affect).

3.1.1.3.5. Instrumental Model states activities in one sphere facilitate success in

the other. Implying that one sphere accentuates or emphasises the importance of the

other sphere. An example here is of an instrumental employee working long hours to

maximise earnings, even if it means working in routine jobs, to allow him/her to

purchase house/car for a young family (Coughlan, 2005). Unlike conflict or

interference, work-family enrichment refers to the process by which one role strengthens

36

or enriches the quality of the other role. Work-family enrichment has also been referred

to as work-family enhancement, work-family facilitation, and positive spillover. All of

these terms describe the notion that a variety of resources from work and family roles

have the capacity to provide positive experiences in the other role.

3.1.1.3.6. The Segmentation Model hypothesizes that work and non-work are two

distinct domains of life that are lived quite separately and have no influence on each

other. Thus, being mutually exclusive, they do not impact each other. Work-life

segmentation originally referred to the notion that work and family roles are

independent of one another such that individuals can participate in one role without any

influence on the other role (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). More recently, segmentation has

been viewed as an intentional separation of work and family roles such that the

thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of one role are actively suppressed from affecting the

individual's performance in the other role (Lambert, 1990).

3.1.1.3.7. The Spillover Model in contrast to the segmentation model, hypothesizes

that one world can influence the other in either a positive or negative way. This model

stresses the interdependence of work and life on each other and hence, their influence on

the other domain. The spillover from one domain to the other can be either positive or

negative. Commitment to family concerns need not necessarily be detrimental to

performance in the work domain. Family-to-work spillover in the negative sense is

regarded as family-to-work interference. This negative spillover leads to resource

depletion, conflict and lowered performance and reduced satisfaction in either/or both of

the family and work domains. Family-to-work Interference has been defined as the

occurrence of an inter-role conflict where an individual’s attention to his/her family leads

to counterproductive behaviours at work (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). This could also

imply decreased efforts put in work situations due to reduced time, energy and attention

in the work role (Graves et al., 2007). A negative spillover is associated with

psychological strain, a state where the individual is unhappy and anxious. Increased

interference abets psychological strain, promoting a less favourable view of the

individual’s life and career situations.

37

Table 3.1: Literature related to Work/Life Balance

Characteristics/Dimensions

Work/Life Balance and Work/Life Conflict Literature

Total no. of

articlesDual career couple Eagle et al, 1998; Aryee et al, 2005 2Interference Greenhouse and Beutell, 1985; Fisher-McAuley

et al.,, 2003 2

Work/Life Balance Fisher-McAuley et al.,, 2003 1Scale validation Hayman 2005 1Inter-role conflict Green house and et al 1950; Stoner, et al 1990 2Strain based conflict Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Chitnis, 1988;

Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Messersmith, 2007

5

Time based conflict Jackson et al.,, 1886; Frone et al.,, 1992; Sinclair, 1998; Moore, 2000; Messersmith, 2007 5

Behaviour based conflict

Duxbury and Higgins, 1991 1

Role overload Bakker, 2000; Messersmith, 2007 2Role ambiguity Kahn et al.,, 1964 1Role conflict Messersmith, 2007 1Accommodation model Lambert, 1990; Zedeck and Mosier, 1990;

Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000

5

Compensation model Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000 4

Conflict (or Interference) model – cross-over effect

Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Zedeck, 1992; O’Driscoll, 1996; Hammer et al.,, 1997; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000

5

Crossover effect Westman, 2001 1Enrichment model Greenhaus and Powell, 2006Instrumental model 2Segmentation model Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Lambert, 1990Demand/Control model Karasek’s, 1979 1Spillover model / inter-role facilitation

Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Graves et al.,, 2007; Quick et al.,, 2004 2

Work-family balance Greenhaus, et al.,, 2003 1Work-family expansion Barnett and Hyde, 2001 1Time balance, Involvement balance, Satisfaction balance

Hatton, 20051

Scarcity hypothesis Goode, 1960; Graves et al.,, 2007 2Role theory Kahn et al.,, 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978;

Schaubroeck et al.,, 1993 3

Identity theory Stryker, 1968; Stryker and Burke, 2000; Burke and Reitzes, 1991 3

38

When the spillover from either of the domains is positive in nature, it leads to

enhancement and enrichment of the experience in the other domain. Family-to-work

enhancement or positive spill over thus, can be termed as ‘inter-role facilitation’ (Graves

et al.,, 2007). This results when the experiences in the family domain contribute

positively, improving the individual’s energy levels, work relevant skills and over all

well being. While the detrimental effects of work-life conflict, a result of negative spill

over or interference, has been well researched and documented, the outcome of a positive

spill over has not been explored as well. The view promoting positive spillover or

enhancement, holds that ‘experiences in one domain generate resources that can be

transferred to the other domain’ (Bolger et al.,, 1989) It is this transfer of resources that

is termed as enhancement and which is presumed to contribute positively to satisfaction,

attitudes and performance (Graves et al.,, 2007). Work-family enhancement, which

basically implies strengthening or enhancing the quality of one role by the other, has also

been termed as work-life enrichment, work-family facilitation and positive spill over.

Outcomes of positive spill over or family-to-work enhancement are three pronged – life

satisfaction, career satisfaction and work performance.

The six recurring linking mechanisms identified by Edward and Rothbard (2000)

which effectively integrate the research conducted on the relationships between the work

and family constructs are: spillover, compensation, segmentation, resource drain,

congruence and work-family conflict. While, Spillover, compensation, segmentation and

congruence, according to Edward and Rothbard (2000), are the dominant models

providing the linkage between work and non-work roles, resource drain and work-family

conflict are outcomes of the work and family role performances.

Two mechanisms that are important to make note of, although they are not

"linkages" in the sense of a causal relationship between work and family life, are work-

family balance and work-family expansion. Work-family balance is the extent to which

individuals are equally involved in and equally satisfied with-their work role and their

family role (Greenhaus, et al.,, 2003). Work-family expansion refers to the notion that

simultaneously engaging in multiple work and family roles is beneficial for the physical,

39

mental, and relationship health of individuals (Barnett and Hyde, 2001). The quality of

the roles, rather than the number of roles occupied, or the amount of time spent in

particular role, determine the degree to which individuals experience the positive effects

of participating in multiple roles.

A recent study by Hatton (2005), explored and measured three aspects of

Work/Life Balance:

1. Time balance, which concerns the amount of time given to work and non-work

roles.

2. Involvement balance, meaning the level of psychological involvement in, or

commitment to, work and non-work roles.

3. Satisfaction balance, or the level of satisfaction with work and non-work roles.

This model of Work/Life Balance, with time, involvement and satisfaction components,

enables a broader and more inclusive picture to emerge.

The new millennium has seen a rise in the number of dual income families with

both partners juggling work responsibilities with household chores, which once came

under the purview of the stay-at-home spouse. The common perception about the

impact of an overlap or a commitment concurrence between the two domains of family

and work, is interference leading to conflict. The premise rests on the Scarcity

Hypothesis (Goode, 1960), Role Theory (Katz and Kahn, 1978) and the Identity Theory

(Burke and Reitzes, 1991).

The Scarcity Hypothesis states that the physical and psychological resources

available with an individual are fixed in nature. The greater the amount allocated to one

domain, the lesser would be available for the other domain or roles (Goode, 1960). It is

this depletion that leads to interference and consequently to compromises in the

performance and results (Graves et al.,, 2007).

The Role Theory (Kahn et al.,, 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978), states that

organizations can be viewed as a system of roles that rely on the appropriate assignment

of job tasks to roles and employees' motivation to fulfil their assigned role. Employees

40

are socialized into their designated role, given feedback on their success in carrying out

their role, encouraged to make any necessary corrective adjustments to their

performance, and sanctioned for failing to perform according to role expectations.

Ideally, each role consists of a single recurrent activity. However, roles are often

complicated by requiring employees to balance multiple, conflicting, or unclear roles

(Katz and Kahn, 1978). These complications, or role stressors, induce tension, negatively

affect work-related attitudes (Schaubroeck et al.,, 1993), and hurt organizational

effectiveness.

The Identity Theory (Stryker, 1968), states that the self of an individual consists

of a collection of identities, with each of which s/he attaches certain expectations

(Stryker, 1968; Stryker and Burke, 2000). For each of these identities, the individual

strives to strike a balance between his expectations and experiences. Roles recognised by

an individual as having greater expectations and hence, higher commitment, would have

greater time and energy devoted to them, to help translate the expectations into reality

(Burke and Reitzes, 1991).

3.1.2. Moderators of Work/Life and Balance

Work/Life Balance being an employees’ ability to balance work and non-work

demands, is significantly influenced by factors such as gender, dependent care and job

type. Hence, analysis of Work/Life Balance needs to examine the extent to which

following demographic variables impact the demands, attitudes and outcomes: (1)

gender, (2) caregiver strain, (3) life cycle stage, (4) generational cohort (5) individual

trait and (6) support network.

3.1.2.1 Gender

Early literature on work-family issues states that women experience significantly

greater work and family related stressors than men (Anderson and Leslie, 1991;

Duxbury et al.,, 1994), while some suggest that this is the result of their hormonal

response to different stressors (Jick and Mitz, 1985). There are others who argue that

41

these responses are the result of differences in role expectations and socialisation of

men and women (Duxbury and Higgins, 2001). The former hypothesis is borne out by

differences in stress symptomatology shown by women and men. Women tend to

respond to stress by exhibiting emotional symptoms, such as depression, mental illness,

and general psychological discomfort, while men tend to respond by manifesting

physiological disease, such as heart disease and cirrhosis (Guest, 2001). Others argue

that gender differences in the stress response are attributable to differences in

socialisation processes and role expectations that expose women to a higher level of

stressors. Women, irrespective of their involvement in paid work, are significantly more

likely than men to bear the primary responsibility for home chores and childcare

(Statistics Canada, 2000; Amponsah, 2011). At both their workplace and homes,

women, world over, are exposed to diverse and a greater number of stressors than men.

There is a significance difference in the working roles of women and men and

substantial light has been thrown on the same in literature (Super, 1977; Schein, 1978;

Arnold and Feldman, 1986; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Sirajunisa and

Panchanatham, 2010). Although it is difficult to determine which of these is most

responsible for women’s differential response to stress, there is little doubt that women

are exposed to different (if not more) stressors than men at both work and at home.

3.1.2.2. Caregiver Strain

Another dimension that contributes to strain based conflict is in the form of

caregiver strain, which has been described in terms of "burdens" in the caregivers’ day-

to-day life. This can be attributed to the need to provide care or assistance to someone

else who needs it (Robinson, 1983). Thus, three types of strains are associated with

caregiver strain:

o Emotional strain (i.e. depression, anxiety and emotional exhaustion),

o Physical strain and

o Financial strain.

Caregiver responsibilities (also termed as dependent care responsibilities) are

defined as ‘an individual who spends at least one hour a week caring for a child and/or

an elderly dependent’ (Greenlee and Scharlach, 2007, pg.7). Research (Higgins et al.,,

42

1994; Henley et al.,, 2004) suggests that parents will have more difficulties with respect

to balance than non-parents as they have more demands and less control over their time.

In the new millennium dependent care is not just a question of care for children, with

eldercare responsibilities (defined as providing some type of assistance with the daily

living activities for an elderly relative who is chronically ill, frail or disabled) now

increasing as the parents of Baby Boomers enter their 60s, 70s and 80s. As the “baby

boom” and “baby bust” generations assume responsibility for both dependent children

and aging parents, the “sandwich generation” will experience extraordinary challenges

balancing work and family demands. Further, gender and dependent care status are

often linked considering the fact that even in the new millennium working mothers

assume a disproportionate share of family responsibilities, including eldercare. It is

ironical that society still judges women’s worth by their performance of family roles

(e.g. mother, eldercare giver, cook, homemaker) while men’s merit is judged by their

success as a “breadwinner”.

3.1.2.3. Life Cycle Stage

The dictionary of sociology notes that the term “life cycle” is a widely used

metaphor denoting “the passage of an individual through the successive stages of life. It

is an attempt to relate the place where an individual is in the course of his/her life with

the kind of issues that the person is facing and with the kind of resources s/he will have

available to face those issues. And, eventually, the kind of disturbance s/he could

develop in case s/he fails to cope successfully with those issues”. Researchers rarely use

age alone to define stages in the life cycle. Instead the more common approach is to use

marital status and the presence of children. It is well-established by research that work-

family conflict increases as one’s obligations to family expand through marriage and

the arrival of children (Higgins et al.,, 1994). However, that many of these conflicts

decrease as the age of the youngest child increases.

Karasek’s (1979) Demand/Control model, which predicts that stress will be

highest in situations where individuals have little or no control over the stressful

environment, is often used to explain this phenomenon. Parents of young dependent

43

children (especially mothers) are more likely to face higher, often unpredictable (e.g.,

day-care pick up and drop off, care of sick child) family demands than those with older

children. These higher demands result in lower levels of control over the work and

family interface and thus higher levels of work-family conflict. As the children get

older the demands should decrease, resulting in increased levels of control and lower

stress for the parents. Demographic analysts identify the two dependent groups as

children under 15 years and old people aged 65 (or 60) and over, who are supported

financially and otherwise by the population of working age or active population.

Table 3.2: Literature related to moderators of Work/Life Balance

Charactertistic/Dimension Moderators

Number of

articlesGender Anderson and Leslie, 1991; Duxbury et al.,,

1994; Jick and Mitz, 1985; Duxbury and Higgins, 2001; Guest, 2001; Amponsah, 2011; Super, 1977; Schein, 1978; Arnold and Feldman, 1986; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Sirajunisa and Panchanatham, 2010

11

Caregiver strain Robinson, 1983; Henley et al.,, 2004; Greenlee and Scharlach, 2007 3

Life Cycle Stage Higgins et al.,, 1994 1Generational cohort Henley et al.,, 2004; Karl Mannheim in the

early 1920s; Conger, 1998 3

Locus of control Rotter, 1966; Mitchell et al.,, 1975; Spector, 1985 3

Self-efficacy Bandura, 1977, 1982; Garland et al.,, 1988 3Positive/negative effect Isen and Baron, 1990; Watson and Clark,

1984; Watson et al.,, 1988; Burke et al.,, 1993

4

Support network Bowen, 1998; Ganster et al.,, 1986; House and Wells, 1978; LaRocco et al.,, 1980; Warren and Johnson, 1995

5

Family Blegen et al.,, 1988; Shellenbarger, 1998b; 1998b; Voydanoff, 1988; Bond et al.,, 1998; Minehan, 1997; Rachor, 1998; Gahan and Abeysekera, 2009; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000; Schor, 1991; Caplan, 1976.

11

Work associates Kossek and Nichol, 1992; Kossek, 1990; House and Wells, 1978; Ganster et al.,, 1986; Hopkins, 1997; LaRocco et al.,, 1980.

6

44

PIE barriers Parish and Hao, 1991; Bloom et al.,, 2006; Kossek et al.,, 1997 3

3.1.2.4. Generational cohort

A generational cohort has been defined as "the aggregation of individuals who

experience the same event within the same time interval" (Henley et al.,, 2004, pg.

431). The idea that a group of individuals born in a particular period of time (termed as

generational cohort) are bound together by sharing a common set of historical events

occurring during this time frame was first introduced by Karl Mannheim in the early

1920s. Their values and beliefs are shaped on similar lines. The demands, attitudes and

outcomes of three generational cohorts Baby Boomer (age 45 to 60), Generation X (age

30 to 44) and Generation Y (age 20 to 29) show significant differences. Research in the

area suggests that Baby Boomers hold decidedly different values regarding the place of

job or career in their lives and have been described as “driven” with a work oriented

value system. On the other hand Generation X value greater equality for women, are

more accepting of diverse family structures, and are more committed to flexibility,

individualism and diversity. Similarly, those just entering the workplace, “Generation

Y” or “Echo Boomers” hold views divergent from the other two cohorts These

individuals tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs and while they

benefited from the extra family income, many felt that they were deprived of their

parents’ company - a situation that is exacerbated by a very high percentage of them

being the children of divorce (Conger, 1998). Hence, many of this new generation

employees say that they do not want the sort of lives their parents led.

Apart from these, how an individual copes with work-life issues depends on

three variable sets – individual personality traits (locus of control, emotional

maturity/stability, and self-efficacy), support network (relationships within family,

friends and work associates) and resource accessibility (financial resources and

information).

3.1.2.5. Individual Personality Traits

The response an individual chooses while dealing with a situation reflects his

ability, attitude and value system and has an impact on his level of work-life balance.

Researchers have used individual differences as moderators of the relationship between

45

work-family experiences and individual well-being (Frone et al.,, 1992; Higgins et al.,,

1992). Personality traits tend to augment or lessen life complexity and dynanism and

thus influence work-life balance. Personality traits have a bearing on work-life balance

are:

3.1.2.5.1. Locus of control. Locus of control is one’s perception of the degree of control

she or he has over events in life (Rotter, 1966). Rotter (1966) identified internal locus of

control individuals as people who tend to perceive outcomes of their behaviors as

resulting from their own efforts. External locus of control individuals tend to believe

that the events surrounding them are beyond their control. Persons with an internal

locus of control tend to prefer participative managerial styles, are more motivated,

experience less anxiety and also report higher levels of job satisfaction. (Mitchell et al.,,

1975; Spector, 1985). Since individuals with internal locus of control believe that

outcomes of their performances and efforts are within their control, they are more adept

at handling their life complexities and dynamism, thus leading to better work-life

balance.

3.1.2.5.2. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs, expectations, and

judgments about their ability to accomplish tasks required for handling forthcoming

situations and problems (Bandura, 1977, 1982). There is evidence of a positive

relationship existing between self-efficacy and performance (Garland et al.,, 1988).

High self-efficacy facilitates a positive outcome and success as these individuals put in

greater efforts and persist in face of challenge in the expectation of mastering the

situation or overcoming the challenge (Bandura, 1982).

3.1.2.5.3. Positive/negative effect. Individuals with a tendency to view themselves,

others, and the events in their lives in a more positive light are referred to as individuals

with positive effect, whereas those who generally take a negative view of life and

themselves have negative affect (Isen and Baron, 1990; Watson and Clark, 1984; Watson

et al.,, 1988). Positive and negative affect are directly linked with the stress levels

perceived by individuals in light of uncertain and complex life situations. Individuals

with positive affect not only have a tendency to view their life events in more positive

46

light than they actually are; they are also better equipped to exploit their support network

and resources at their disposal. On the other hand negative affect people focus on the

negative aspects when they evaluate their life situations. Research indicates that they

report more stress at work (Burke et al.,, 1993). Since the negative affect people take a

rather pessimistic view of life, the resultant feeling of depression, frustrations and

helplessness contribute to lower levels of Work/Life Balance.

3.1.2.6 Support Network

Abundant research data is available which addresses the issue of support

available from family, friends and work associates (Bowen, 1998; Ganster et al.,, 1986;

J. S. House and Wells, 1978; LaRocco et al.,, 1980; Warren and Johnson, 1995). It is

these domains that provide support and resources to an individual aiding creation of

Work/Life Balance. Abundance of individual level resources within support network

increases the number of options at the disposal of the person, helping him cope better

with life complexity and dynamism issues. On the other hand, a scarcity of support

network resources reduces the options available with an individual, leaving him with

fewer alternatives for managing the demands of work and family. Thus, Work/Life

Balance becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as the supportive network of

relationships with an individual decrease or fizzle out.

3.1.2.6.1. Family: Family members’ age, composition and work schedules have a

significant impact on the life complexity and pressures faced by an individual (Blegen

et al.,, 1988). Increase in the number of children in the family and their ages

(Shellenbarger, 1998b; Voydanoff, 1988), care requirements of elders in the family

(Bond et al.,, 1998; Minehan, 1997; Rachor, 1998; Shellenbarger, 1998a), working

spouse with hectic work schedule (Gahan and Abeysekera, 2009; Rajadhyaksha and

Bhatnagar, 2000) all make their own demands on the time of an individual making life

more complex and dynamic. At the same time one’s engagement in family activities is

also a source of satisfaction and happiness, though providing coordination challenges

for an individual (Schor, 1991). Emotional, financial, information and physical (child

care assistance, help with shopping and coverage for events like doctor’s visit, repair

47

calls) support may also be forthcoming form the members of the family (Caplan, 1976),

helping balance work and life.

3.1.2.6.2. Work Associates: Organizational culture and the nature of support provided

by the supervisor have a significant impact on the work-life balance of an individual.

Leave and time off policies, employee wellness programs, employee assistance

programs, and flexible work arrangements (i.e., flextime, part-time, job sharing,

reduced hours, compressed work weeks, and tele-commuting), whether paid for by the

employer or merely facilitated, are all intended to help employees maintain a healthy

balance between work and life (Kossek and Nichol, 1992). Company-sponsored day

care centers for children and elder care consultation and referral services are examples

of ways employers may assist employees with dependent care concerns (Kossek, 1990).

In addition to the types of explicit programs, the workplace is a source of support from

co-workers (House and Wells, 1978), supervisors (Ganster et al.,, 1986; Hopkins, 1997;

LaRocco et al.,, 1980), and the organizational culture. These types of programs result in

more resources for individuals to utilize in reducing experienced complexity and

dynamism in life and reaching work-life balance.

3.1.2.7 Resource quality and accessibility

Existence and accessibility to resources are two distinct things. An individual

may have abundant resources in his life and yet be unable to exploit them for coping

with life complexity and dynamism as they are inaccessible to him. Accessibility of

resources is dependent on the absence of physical, informational and economic (PIE)

barriers. Ability of an individual to use the resources to his benefit moderates the

relationship between work-life balance and life complexity, dynamism.

3.1.2.7.1. PIE barriers: Even though resources may be readily available, they may not

be easily accessible on account of geographical distances (Parish and Hao, 1991).

Similarly, resources cannot be of much use if an individual lacks information about

them. Especially in terms of employee assistance programmes put in place by the

organizations, it has been observed that communication about their existence and how

they can be utilised is important before they can be effectively used by the employees.

48

The greater the familiarity with the programme, the higher is the usage (Bloom et al.,,

2006).

Further economics works as both a barrier as well as a facilitator in as much as

for certain segments of the population organizing child care and elder care is easier

because the costs are within their reach. Individuals for whom these costs are

prohibitively high, organizing such help is an issue that adds complexity to the life

situation, thus, adversely influencing the work-life balance equation (Kossek et al.,,

1997). Thus, for resources to be beneficial, they have to be both within reach physically

as well as financially viable.

3.1.3 Consequences of Work/Life Im(balance)

Work/Life Balance is about creating and maintaining a workplace that supports a

healthy work environment, enabling the employees to give their best to both family and

job. Research findings (Duxbury and Higgins, 2001; Quick et al.,, 1997; Frone et al,

1997; Aryee, 1992) show that work-life conflict has two major impacts – individual

outcomes and organisational outcomes. Poor Work/Life Balance has been known to

reduce the work quality as well as the productivity of the individual.

3.1.3.1. Individual outcomes

The manifestation of distress at the individual level can be divided into three classes:

a) behavioural consequences, such as changes in eating, smoking, or

drinking behaviours;

b) psychological consequences, including depression, lower life satisfaction

and burnout; and

c) physical health consequences, most often those associated with

cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal disorders.

3.1.3.1.1. Behavioural consequences: Workplace stress has been identified as a major

contributing factor to a wide range of adverse behaviours, including increased cigarette

smoking, the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, accident proneness, violent behaviour,

and eating disorders (Quick et al.,, 1997). Very little research has been done specifically

49

on the behavioural consequences of work-life conflict, but work by Frone et al., (1993;

1997) has strongly suggested a connection with increased alcohol consumption.

3.1.3.1.2. Psychological consequences: Workplace stress has been identified as a

significant contributor to reduced psychological functioning, and the psychological

effects of workplace stress have been well documented (Quick et al.,, 1997). Among the

problems associated with distress are depression, reduced life satisfaction, perceived

stress, and “burnout”. Depressed mood is defined as a state characterized by low energy

and persistent feelings of helplessness and hopelessness (Duxbury and Higgins,

1998).Given the persistent, and often irreconcilable, time demands of the work and

family roles, it is not surprising that work-life conflict has been shown to be a significant

contributor to depressed mood (Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Frone et al.,, 1992; Frone et al.,,

1997; Higgins et al.,, 1992; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Control over the work-family

interface has been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of symptoms of

depression (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). It has also been observed that improvements in

the quality of work-life (e.g., increased work-time or work-location flexibility) will

produce corresponding improvements in the quality of life as it makes it easier for

employees to reduce the strains of managing the modern family (Duxbury and Higgins,

1998). Generally, the research has supported these contentions. High work-life conflict

has consistently been associated with a reduction in overall life satisfaction (Aryee,

1992; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; Rice et al.,, 1992).

Burnout is a concept which dates to the late 1970s, and is characterized as a state

of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion (Maslach, 1978). Most commonly

associated with “white collar professions” (Karasek and Theorell, 1990) which combine

a high level of interpersonal involvement with exposure to emotionally demanding

situations, burnouts are particularly seen in the human services professions, in public

service and managerial positions (Duxbury and Higgins, 1998). In addition to its

draining effect on individuals, burnout is strongly correlated with unfavourable

organizational outcomes, including reduced job satisfaction and increased job conflict

(Duxbury and Higgins, 1998).

50

3.1.3.1.3. Physical health consequences: Although the behavioural and psychological

effects of work-related stress are themselves immense, they may in turn have a

potentially more devastating effect on an individual’s medical health (Quick et al.,,

1997). It is believed that, with prolonged exposure to stressors, chronic arousal of the

sympathetic and endocrine systems may contribute to the development of more serious

medical conditions (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987), including cardiovascular disease

(e.g., heart attack, hypertension, stroke, migraine), gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., peptic

ulcer), arthritis, allergy, skin disease, and backpain; (Quick et al.,, 1997). In fact, these

physical disorders are so closely related to distress that Selye labelled them the “diseases

of adaptation” (Selye, 1976).

Table 3.3: Literature related to consequences of Work/Life (Im)balance

Consequences LiteratureNumber

of articles

Behavioural consequences

Quick et al.,, 1997; Frone et al., 1993; 1997 3

Psychological consequences

Quick et al.,, 1997; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Frone et al.,, 1992; Frone et al.,, 1997; Higgins et al.,, 1992; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Aryee, 1992; Rice et al.,, 1992; Karasek and Theorell, 1990

10

Physical health consequences

Quick et al.,, 1997; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987; Selye, 1976.

3

Absenteeism Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990.

2

Turnover intention Quick et al.,, 1997; Robbins, 1993; MacBride-King, 1990; Cooper et al.,, 1996; Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Duxbury and Higgins, 1998.

6

Performance Duxbury and Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990

2

3.1.3.2 Organisational outcomes

Problems with work-related stress and work-life conflict affect not only

individual employees, but also their employers. Both organizations and individuals

benefit from an optimum level of stress, and both pay a price for mismanaged stress and

distress (Quick et al.,, 1997). The consequences of an optimal “healthy” level of stress in

51

organizations include high performance and vitality (Ibid). The unhealthy consequences

of excessive or mismanaged stress take the form of “organizational distress” (Ibid, pg.

89). Signs of organizational distress range from increased absence and turnover due to

illness and the inability to manage work-related stress to decrements in job satisfaction,

commitment and productivity (Duxbury et al.,, 1991; Higgins et al.,, 1992).

3.1.3.2.1. Absenteeism: Absenteeism can also be correlated with scores on formal

measures of work-life conflict collected through survey. Duxbury and Higgins (1998)

divided their sample of 5,000 Saskatchewan employees into those who reported high

work-life conflict and those who reported low work-life conflict. The number of days

absent per year in the high work-life conflict group was over three times that in the low

conflict group (9.5 days versus 2.5). MacBride-King (1990) obtained similar results in

the Conference Board Study after grouping her respondents into high- and low-conflict

categories (5 days for high conflict employees versus 2.5 for low). Combined with the

labour force survey data presented earlier, these empirical studies provide strong

evidence of a link between work-life conflict and absence.

3.1.3.2.2. Turnover: Although a certain level of turnover is essential to organizational

vitality (Quick et al.,, 1997), the costs associated with replacement mean most

organizations strive to keep turnover to a minimum (Robbins, 1993). The cost of

turnover includes not only the obvious loss of the productivity of the qualified employee,

but also the hidden costs of recruiting, hiring, and training a replacement (MacBride-

King, 1990). Estimates indicate that the ratio of turnover costs to annual salary ranges

from 1.2 to 2. As expected, research has linked work-related stress and burnout to

increased turnover (Cooper et al.,, 1996; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Work has also

been done in the context of work-life conflict. In the Conference Board study, 12% of

Canadian employees said they had left a previous employer due to family

responsibilities; 14% had considered leaving their current employer (MacBride-King,

1990). Women were about four times (20%) more likely than men (6%) to report having

left a previous employer for this reason. Recent work by Duxbury and Higgins (1998)

with Saskatchewan employees indicated that 30% of employees with high work-family

conflict would consider leaving their jobs for one with a better “balance”, compared to

only4% of a low conflict group. The authors caution that high turnover is a particular

52

threat to organizational health, as the employees who leave are those who are most

“marketable”, and accordingly, are those with skills the employer can least afford to lose.

3.1.3.2.3. Performance: Work-life researchers have typically explored employee

performance by using a measure of employees’ perceived productivity (Duxbury and

Higgins, 1998; MacBride-King, 1990). This approach uses survey format to ask

employees to what extent their personal and family obligations have interfered with their

work.

3.2 Quality of Work/Life

3.2.1. Introduction and History

The concept of quality of work life made an appearance in India in the mid-

seventies. At that time the country was transiting through a phase of intense labour

unrest. The concept received substantial support from the government as well as the

public sector but failed to take roots, the interest in it was short lived. The Indian

economic reforms of 1991 triggered a fresh interest in Quality of Work life due to the

pressures on the HR functions of domestic companies. India has been regarded as a

dynamic emerging nation, poised to becoming the fourth largest economy by 2020

according to the World Bank forecasts (Sundaray, et al, 2010). There has been a

tremendous increase in competition with more and more foreign firms making a beeline

for India, necessitating reorientation of the human resource and employment

relationships of Indian organisations (Budhwar, 2000; Sodhi, 1999). Post liberalisation,

there has been an excessive concern within the organisations with economic

development and materialism. There is also an increasing realisation that a motivated and

productive workforce is essential for attaining a sustained competitive advantage for

business operating on a global level. Consequently, organisations have become

conscious of the relevance of quality of work life in enhancing employee performance

and productivity.

53

The genesis of Quality of Work Life can be traced back to the humanistic

traditions of social studies which stress the employees’ need for satisfying and

meaningful work experiences. The term QWL, encompassing an individual’s outlook on

his working conditions and environment was coined in late 1960s by Irving Bluestone,

working with General Motors. It was further deliberated upon in the International

Conference on ‘democratisation of work’ held at Columbia University’s Arden House,

New York, in 1973 and the International Council for the Quality of Working Life was

created to promote and research it better. Davis and Cherns, post the Arden House

meeting, linked organisational redesign to quality of work life and democratisation at the

workplace. The late 1970s experienced a brief lull in interest and research related to

quality of work life, which however picked up once again with QWL projects at General

Motors Tarrytown, USA and Volvo, Sweden, bearing results. This reawakening of

interest in QWL led to another international conference on QWL in Toronto, Canada,

where the term was broadly defined to include the ‘general objective of arranging

organizations, management procedures and jobs for maximum utilization of individual

talents and skills in order to create more challenging and satisfying work and improve

organizational effectiveness’ (Jenkins, 1981, p7).

As a sequel to this, QWL programs became more comprehensive and widespread.

Thus, the early phase of the decade of 1980s saw a renewed interest in QWL and related

issues in India as well. The National Productivity Council organized a seminar titled the

National Seminar on Improving Quality of Working Life in New Delhi in 1982, which

emphasised the need for enlarging the scope and coverage of QWL in several other areas

affecting the working life of an individual in an organisation. The renewed interest in the

concept stemmed from the realisation that improvement in the quality of work life of the

employees could well be the source for numerous gains for the organisation, leading to

positive feelings towards one’s self (greater self esteem), towards one’s job (improved

job satisfaction and involvement), and towards the organization (stronger commitment to

the organization’s goal). Further, human resource was being recognised as an important

asset which needed to be nurtured and developed.

54

3.2.1.1. Definition

Quality of Work Life is a generic term that encompasses an individual’s outlook on his

working conditions and environment. It includes within its ambit benefits, compensation,

rewards and recognition, interpersonal relationships and job security (Ahmed, 1981). It

may be described as ‘a state of mind or condition an employee experiences within his

organisation’. Walton (1974) defined Quality of Work Life as a ‘phrase that contains

vast meaning. It is not merely the limit of working 40 hours a week, or labour law that

protect child labour and equitable pay, but also the inclusion of the needs and wishes for

a better life of the people within the organisation.’

QWL refers to ‘the degree of an individual’s satisfaction with his/her

role, relationships, and duties in the workplace. This satisfaction is

predicted on a variety of factors affecting the individual including, but

not limited to, personality variables, family expectations, social cultural

norms, workplace culture and concrete facets of the job within the setting

where the duties are performed’ (Schalock, 1997; pp2).

Davis (1983, pg. 66.) has QWL defined as “the quality of the relationship

between employees and the total working environment, with human dimensions added to

the usual technical and economic considerations”. George (1990) relates the concept of

Quality of Work Life to Quality of Life as experienced in the work place. Carayon

(1997), for instance, defines QWL as a complex interaction of the elements of the work

system, namely the individual, the tasks, organizational factors, the environment, and

tools and technology. Still others view QWL as “employee satisfaction with a variety of

needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the

workplace” which translates into overall satisfaction with life and subjective well being

(Sirgy et al, 2001).

Definition given by Lau and May (1998, pg. 213), where QWL is defined as

‘favourable conditions and environments of a work place that support and promote

55

employee satisfaction by providing employees with rewards, job security and growth

opportunities’ stresses on environmental and relational factors which have been found to

be of greater relevance in Indian context (Saklani, 2010).

Saklani (2010, pg.90) defines quality of work life as ‘the existence of a

work environment which is a matter of certain humanistic and life-

enhancing work experience characteristics, as perceived by people in the

organisations. Certain working conditions and management practices

such as reasonable pay, healthy physical environment, employees

welfare, job security, equal treatment in job related matters, grievance

handling, opportunity to grow and develop, good human relations,

participation in decision making and balance in life are some of the key

components of this humanistic and life-enhancing ‘work environment’.

QWL covers a wide range of issues both financial and non-financial

relating to work context, work content and work relations.’

Quality of Work Life has been variously defined by different researchers, yet,

there is a lack of universally accepted definition hinting at a lack of consensus as to what

QWL entails (Krueger, et al., 2002). However, there is a general agreement on its

multidimensional qualities and usefulness as a concept (Baba and Jamal, 1991). This

review on the definitions of QWL indicates that QWL is a multidimensional construct,

made up of a number of interrelated factors that need careful consideration to

conceptualize and measure. It is associated with job satisfaction, job involvement,

motivation, productivity, health, safety and well-being, job security, competence

development and balance between work and non work life as is conceptualized by

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (2002).

3.2.2 Quality of Work/Life Constructs

The diversity in the definitions of Quality of Work Life have spawned various

measures and interpretations for the same (Nankervis et al.,, 2007). Available evidence

does not support a generalised set of QWL constructs which can find universal

56

applicability (Levine, 1983, Lau and May, 1998) as the QWL constructs are context

based (Guest, 1979 cited in Kandaswamy, 2009).

The earliest set of constructs, given by Walton in 1975 had eight major

conceptual categories relating to QWL viz. (1) adequate and fair compensation, (2) safe

and healthy working conditions, (3) immediate opportunity to use and develop human

capacities, (4) opportunity for continued growth and security, (5) social integration in the

work organization, (6) constitutionalism in the work organization, (7) work and total life

space and (8) social relevance of work life and those given by Hackman and Oldham

(1976), focused on psychological growth needs, identifying skill variety, task identity,

task significance, autonomy and feedback. In contrast to the constructs suggested by

Hackman and Oldham (1976), Taylor (1979) segregated intrinsic and extrinsic factors

which impact the quality of working life, including employee participation in

management, fairness, equity, social support, self development and meaningful future at

work.

Mirvis and Lawler (1984) have measured quality of working life in terms of

satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the “basic elements of

a good quality of work life” as safe work environment, equitable wages, equal

employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement. Baba and Jamal (1991)

listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of working life, including job

satisfaction, job involvement, work role ambiguity, work role conflict, work role

overload, job stress, organisational commitment and turn-over intentions. Baba and

Jamal also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be

investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life. A 2001 definition given by

Sirgy et al., considers need satisfaction based on job requirements, need satisfaction

based on work environment, need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour, need

satisfaction based on ancillary programmes, and organizational commitment as the key

factors for measuring quality of working life.

3.2.2.1. Compensation and Rewards

57

Compensation and rewards are an important component of an individual’s quality

of working life (Walton, 1975; Saklani, 2010). Since, earning a living is the primary

driving force behind any individual engaging in work, (Schreuder and Theron, 1997), the

Quality of Work Life, too, is influenced to quite an extent by the remuneration received

at work (Walton 1973). However, measuring adequate compensation is a difficult task as

its operational definition is largely influenced by the relative perception of the concerned

employee and his work situation (Walton, 1973). Mirvis and Lawler (1984) and Reid

(1992) have identified compensation as an important constituent of Quality of Work Life

constructs. Stein (1983) has included pay under the category of external rewards along

with promotion and status. Reid (1992) recognised the importance of compensation in

Quality of Work Life in his study of clothing workers. The factor is additionally

supported by the study of Newell (2002) who has put great emphasis on the reward

system, while not specifically mentioning compensation. Nirenberg (1993) cites

Walton’s QWL determinant of adequate and fair compensation as a factor to consider

when wishing to operationalize QWL programs. In the Indian context as well the studies

have identified compensation and rewards as a vital construct of QWL (Kalra and

Ghosh, 1984; Joshi, 2007; Jagannath and Akhila, 2009; Rao and Venugopal, 2009;

Gupta and Sharma, 2010; Reena, 2010; Saklani, 2010) Hence, there is significant proof

for inclusion of compensation and rewards as a determinant influencing Quality of Work

Life of an individual.

3.2.2.2 Opportunity to Develop and Use Human Capabilities

A high QWL is related to the opportunities available to an employee to use his

skills and competencies in job and to develop his capacity. The earliest works on QWL

have asserted that experiencing high levels of QWL is largely dependent on the extent to

which the job permits the employee to use and develop his competencies and skills

(Walton, 1973). Autonomy, task significance, skill, variety are some of the features in a

job that allow employees the opportunity to use and develop their human capacities and

thus, eventually experience QWL. Stein (1983) discusses the component of progress and

development which implies that the development of skills and competencies are an

important contributing factor for QWL to be high. Pinder (1984) and Ramlall (2004)

pointed out that the inclusion of task variety as an element of job design is consistent

58

with the concept of growth need satisfaction and enhances the task capability of the

individual. Issues related to continued growth in career are equally important in the

Indian context as indicated in studies conducted by Saklani (2010) on 294 managerial

and non-managerial employees of Indian organisations.

3.2.2.3. Opportunity for Growth, Rewards and Promotions

According to this determinant of QWL, the emphasis has shifted from job to

career advancement (Walton, 1973). According to Orpen’s (1981) opportunity for

personal growth includes opportunities that are provided for employees to advance in

their careers. This also relates to the idea of professional learning as a means for career

development or succession possibilities (Bertrand, 1992). There are three distinctive

elements of QWL related interventions: (1) a concern about the effect of work on people

as well as organizational effectiveness, (2) the idea of worker participation in

organizational problem - solving and decision – making and (3) the creation of reward

structures in the workplace which consider innovative ways of rewarding employee input

into the work process such as gain sharing. In the 1980s, emphasis was increasingly

placed on employee centred productivity programs. In the mid 1990s till today, many

organizations are faced with challenges of downsizing and corporate restructuring. Thus,

the significance of continued growth opportunities, rewards and promotions takes on a

special meaning for the employee.

3.2.2.4. Task Significance

Meaningful and satisfying work is said to include: (1) an opportunity to exercise

one’s talents and capacities, to face challenges and situations that require independent

initiative and self-direction (and which therefore is not boring and repetitive work); (2)

an activity thought to be of worth by the individual involved; (3) work which one

understands the role one’s activity plays in the achievement of some overall goal; and (4)

pride in what one is doing and in doing it well, giving the task at hand, significance.

Most people want to improve their performance on the job, to receive constructive

suggestions regarding areas they need to work on and to be commended on how their job

contributes to the organizational success.

59

Table 3.4: Literature related to Quality of Work/Life

Characteristics/Dimensions

Literature related to Quality of Work/Life No. of articles

Adequate and fair compensation

Walton in 1975; 1973; Mirvis and Lawler, 1984; Saklani, 2010; Schreuder and Theron, 1997; Reid, 1992; Stein, 1983; Newell, 2002; Nirenberg, 1993; Kalra and Ghosh, 1984; Joshi, 2007; Jagannath and Akhila, 2009; Rao and Venugopal, 2009; Gupta and Sharma, 2010; Reena, 2010.

15

Safe environment Walton, 1975; 1Opportunity to develop

Walton, 1973; 1975; Stein, 1983; Pinder, 1984; Ramlallm 2004; Saklani, 2010.

6

Rewards and promotions

Walton, 1973; 1975; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Orpen, 1981; Bertrand, 1992

5

Social integration Walton, 1973; 1975; Orpen, 1981; Bertrand, 1992; Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Boumans et al.,, 2004; Gellis and Chun Kim, 2004; Wai Chai Tai and Robinson, 1998; Hawkins and Shohet, 2000; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Scaife and Walsh, 2001.

11

Recognition for achievement

Kotze, 2008; Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Bakker et al.,, 2005.

5

Task significance / Meaningful and Significant work

Orpen, 1981; Chalofsky, 2003; Dolet, 2003; Thomas, 2000; Grady and McCarthy, 2008; Wrezesniewski et al.,, 2003; Hackman and Oldham, 1976.

7

Work pressure Nordqvist et al.,, 2004; Guest, 1998; Sturges and Guest, 2004; De Dreu, 2003; Durham et al.,, 2000; Kelly and Loving, 2004; Van der Kleij et al.,, 2008.

7

Autonomy Orpen, 1981; Stein, 1983; Newell, 2002; Kerce and Booth-Kewley, 1993; Herman and Hulin, 1972; Loscocco, 1990; Jenkins, 1991; Karasek, 1998; Van der Doef and Maes, 1999.

9

Work load French and Caplan, 1970; 1974; Miller, 1960; Terryberry, 1968; Russek and Zohman, 1958; Morgan et al.,, 2002; Brulin et al.,, 2000; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Zika-Viktorsson, 2002; Noboeka, 1995; Lindkvist, 2001.

12

Role ambiguity / Job ambiguity

Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Kleynhans et al.,, 2006; Tubre and Collins, 2000; Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007; Kahn et al.,, 1964; Kendall et al.,, 2000; Cooper et al.,, 2001; Dunnette, 1998; Li and Bagger, 2008.

9

Social support Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Elliot, 2004; Kilfedder et al.,, 2001; Bakker et al.,, 2005; Howard, 2008.

5

Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance

Bailey, 2006; Rapport et al.,, 2002; Bailyn et al.,, 2001; Jackson, 2002; Kotze, 2005; Greenhaus, et al., 2003; Kofodimos, 1993; Barnett and Hyde, 2001; Mark and

10

60

MacDermid, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1992.

3.2.2.5. Social Interaction in the Work Organization

According to Walton (1973) and Orpen (1981), the quality of social interaction is

another determinant of QWL. Five factors, namely, support, tolerance, equality, mobility

and identification are considered essential for these interactions to have beneficial

outcomes for individuals. Support relates to the nature of relationships between team

members, which should be characterized by socio-emotional assistance, respect for

individuality, reciprocity, trust, openness and honesty (Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973).

According to Bertrand (1992) support needs to be demonstrated within supervisory

relationships making them both helpful and caring in nature. Supervisor support refers to

the support that is provided by one’s supervisor. (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999) and

other researchers, too, have included supervisor support as an important determinant of

QWL (Boumans et al.,, 2004; Gellis and Chun Kim, 2004). Wai Chai Tai and Robinson

(1998) in their study of 42 Texas dialysis facilities found the impact of reduced

supervisor support on turnover. Hawkins and Shohet (2000) also stated that a good

supervisor can also help one to use one’s resources better, manage one’s workload and

challenge inappropriate patterned ways of coping. Thomas and Ganster (1995) found that

support from the supervisor reduced work/family conflict directly, as well as indirectly,

through the increased sense of control over areas of work and family. Scaife and Walsh

(2001) also support the inclusion of supervisory support, describing how supervision can

provide an opportunity for dealing with the effects of organizational climate and

professional relationships. Thus, support from within the work environment impacts on

employee wellbeing and reduces work-related outcomes for employees such as stress,

mental health and job dissatisfaction. Potentially then, work-based support from

supervisors and co-workers may influence the quality of work/life of employees.

3.2.2.6. Recognition for Achievement

Recognition for achievement is defined by Kotze (2008) as the recognition for

achievements by management, colleagues, subordinates and clients. Closely related to

task significance is feedback. Feedback refers to the necessity of organizations to

61

speedily provide employees with information and accurate knowledge regarding their

performance and its wider organizational impact (Orpen, 1981; Walton, 1973).

Constructive feedback not only helps employees do their work more effectively but also

improves communication between supervisors and employees. When specific and

accurate information is provided in a constructive way, both employees and supervisors

can improve or change their performance. All employees who perform well should

receive frequent praise and encouragement, whereas those who are not performing at the

expected level should be informed of any problems and coached on how to improve.

Appraising employees of good performance helps maintain their motivation and signals

them to continue in this direction (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Communicating with

employees in a positive manner when they need to improve their performance will help

prevent work problems and minimize surprises during the performance review. Adequate

feedback reduces the tendency to worry at home about work-related issues (Bakker et

al.,, 2005).

3.2.2.7. Meaningful and Significant Work

Meaningful according to Orpen, (1981) relates to the fact that the duties and tasks

that define a particular job, should make sense to the person who has to perform that job,

in that he feels that doing the job well or poorly will make a difference to himself and to

others in the organization. Research on meaningful work has increased in recent years

(Chalofsky, 2003; Dolet, 2003). Thomas (2000), highlighting the role of meaningfulness

identifies the four critical intrinsic reward motivators as a sense of meaning and purpose,

a sense of choice, a sense of competence and a sense of progress. Therefore according to

Grady and McCarthy (2008) meaningful work is influenced by an inclusiveness of all the

aspects of one’s life beyond that of paid employment which can lead to an integrated

wholeness for the individual. According to Wrezesniewski et al., (2003), the meaning

people make of their work is tied to their attitudes about the work they do and their

overall wellbeing. Hackman and Oldham (1976) stated that when an individual

understands that the results of his work may have a significant effect on his well-being

the meaningfulness of that work is usually enhanced.

3.2.2.8. Work Pressure

62

Nordqvist, Hovmark and Zika-Viktorsson (2004) found that deadlines and time

pressures are important regulators for how work is planned and practiced. Deadlines

regulate and help structure the work through the breakdown of projects into interim

goals, different courses of action and time anchoring. Part of the employee’s

expectations that constitute the psychological contract may concern working hours and

work pressure and the anticipated returns that are associated with this. If the

psychological contract is breached in this regard, because individuals have to work

longer hours than they had expected, then work/non-work conflict may be exacerbated

(Guest, 1998). The tension between working long hours and a desire for Work/Life

Balance is supported by the findings of the qualitative study on working graduates by

Sturges and Guest (2004). However, research (De Dreu, 2003; Durham et al.,, 2000;

Kelly and Loving, 2004) has also shown that time pressures can lead to a variety of

consequences viz., faster rate of working, deteriorated quality of work (Van der Kleij et

al.,, 2008) and significantly lowered critical probing (Kelly and Loving, 2004), at the

individual and organisational levels.

3.2.2.9. Autonomy and Control

Autonomy relates to the degree of independence and discretion in terms of

discharging duties (Orpen, 1981). Quality of Work/Life has been linked with ability of

an individual to influence his/her working environment (Stein, 1983; Newell, 2002). Jobs

that lack autonomy result in low Quality of Work/Life (Kerce and Booth-Kewley, 1993;

Herman and Hulin, 1972; Loscocco, 1990) as greater autonomy provides better

opportunities to cope with stressful situations (Jenkins, 1991; Karasek, 1998). Studies

have revealed that in certain cases autonomy acts as a buffer against work overload and

time pressure (Van der Doef and Maes, 1999).

3.2.2.10. Work Load

Overload French and Caplan (1974) differentiate the concept of overload in terms

of qualitative and quantitative overload. Quantitative refers to having “too much to do”,

while qualitative means work is too difficult. It has been found that overload often results

in breakdown (Miller, 1960; Terryberry, 1968) and is strongly linked with cigarette

smoking (French and Caplan, 1970), coronary heart diseases (Russek and Zohman,

63

1958) and stress (Morgan et al.,, 2002). Furthermore, Brulin et al.,, (2000) and Morgan

et al.,, (2002) have reported that heavier workloads lead to increased time pressure

among nursing staff, resulting in higher stress levels. While quite a few studies have

highlighted the negative consequences of work overload (Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003;

Zika-Viktorsson, 2002), there are others which indicate that workload can at times

provide for increased learning and rich work content (Noboeka, 1995; Lindkvist, 2001).

Professional competence and skills can thus, be developed and shaped in daily work.

3.2.2.11. Role Ambiguity (Job Ambiguity)

Role ambiguity refers to not knowing what one’s tasks are and also not knowing

what is expected from oneself (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Kleynhans et al.,,

2006).This may lead to stress when the individual does not do certain tasks as the

employer expects or when he or she does tasks that are part of another person’s job. All

of the above-mentioned will then result in low QWL. The clarity with which individuals

perceive their work roles has been linked to several important organizational outcomes,

including job performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tubre and

Collins, 2000). Work role ambiguity may result from unclear articulations of expected

role activities, performance contingencies and work methods. A logical extension is that

increased ambiguity is very likely to impact on perceptions of the specific requirements

necessary for successfully enacting one’s work role (Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007). Tubre

and Collins (2000) found that a condition of high ambiguity is associated with a lack of

knowledge regarding what role activities are critical to the job. Therefore an ambiguous

role would make it more difficult for an individual to judge exactly what is important or

central to his or her job, and how often he or she may perform a particular activity

(Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007), leading to reduced task significance.

Kahn et al., (1964) found in their study that men who suffered from role

ambiguity experienced lower job satisfaction, higher job related tension, greater futility

and lower self-confidence. Today, workers are being required to perform multiple tasks,

learn new skills and self-manage in order to meet the competitive demands of the

modern job. According to Kendall et al., (2000) this has lead to jobs that are more fluid

(Cooper et al.,, 2001), possibly exacerbating role ambiguity and role conflict and leading

64

in turn to work stress and illness (Dunnette, 1998). While role ambiguity is high, the

ability to visualize one’s performance is

impaired, thereby reducing one’s confidence in his or her ability to perform effectively

and reducing their QWL (Li and Bagger, 2008).

3.2.2.12. Social Support

Social support refers to instrumental and emotional support provided by

colleagues (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999). According to Jenkins and Elliot (2004)

support can be emotional, such as the action of caring or listening sympathetically, or

instrumental, involving tangible assistance such as help with a work task. High levels of

support have been associated with low levels of burnout (Kilfedder et al.,, 2001). Social

support moderates the effects of stressors (ibid), thus, improving the Quality of

Work/Life. Social support is a straightforward resource in that it is functional in

achieving work goals (Bakker et al.,, 2005). Thus instrumental support from colleagues

can help to get the work done in time and may therefore alleviate the impact of work

overload on strain, including burnout (Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999). Furthermore,

Howard (2008) found that better social support from colleagues was one of the factors

identified by clinical psychologists as factors most likely to alleviate stress.

3.2.3. Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance

Striking a balance between one’s professional and personal life has become a

focal issue in the recent years, especially since people are working longer hours than

before (Bailey, 2006). However, longer working hours are not the only factors which

have disturbed the professional-personal equilibrium. Family and workplace

demographics have changed and nuclear families, single parents, dual-career couples

have become more common (Bailey, 2006). Work is an important and integral part of the

life of a vast majority and cannot be separated from other aspects of life (Rapport et al.,,

2002). Rather, most of the times people prefer to view work and personal life as

integrated, interdependent, equally valued activities (Bailyn et al.,, 2001), thus, calling

for an examination of how work and personal life can be blended together (Jackson,

2002). Imbalance, it was felt, arouses high levels of stress, detracting from quality of

65

life and ultimately reducing the individual’s effectiveness at work. According to Kotze

(2005) work-family balance enhances an individual’s QWL, as involvement in multiple

roles protects or buffers individuals from the effects of negative experiences in any one

role. Beyond this buffering effect, work-family balance is thought to promote well-being

in a more direct manner. Balanced individuals experience low levels of stress when

enacting roles, presumably as they are participating in role activities that are salient to

them.

However, Greenhaus, et al (pp.525, 2003) concluded from their research that

‘When individuals invest relatively little of their time or involvement in their combined

work and family roles, or when they derive little satisfaction from their combined roles,

work–family balance is unrelated to quality of life. Under these conditions, there is little

time, involvement, or satisfaction to allocate between roles’. These findings are not

supported by Kofodimos (1993) whose findings suggest that imbalance arouses high

levels of stress, detracts from quality of life, and ultimately reduces individual’s

effectiveness at work. How Work/Family or Work/Life Balance contributes to or

facilitates Quality of Life or Quality of Work/Life has been variously explained by

researchers.

Barnett and Hyde (2001) maintain the involvement in multiple roles tends to

protect the individual from the effects of negative experiences in any one role. In a way,

it provides a cushion that absorbs the impact, thus, equipping the balanced individual to

better cope with the exigency. According to Mark and MacDermid (1996, pg. 421) the

balanced individuals are ‘‘primed to seize the moment’’ when confronted with a role

demand because no role is seen as ‘‘less worthy of one’s alertness than any other.’’

This, they suggest stems from the balanced individual’s supposed participation in role

activities salient to them, leading to less role overload and depression in comparison to

their imbalanced counterparts (ibid). Thus, it can be said that, a balanced engagement in

work and life roles is expected to be associated with individual well-being because such

balance reduces work–family conflict, which detracts from well-being (Frone et al.,,

1992).

66

3.3 Performance

3.3.1. Introduction and Definition

The word “performance” is utilised extensively in all fields of management.

However, despite its frequent usage, the precise meaning of the word has rarely been

explicitly defined. The word can be interpreted variously as effectiveness and efficiency

(Neely et al.,, 1995), contribution (Thorndike, 1949), intelligence (Berger and

Humphrey, 1992) and, hence, it is important to look at its meaning in the context in

which it is being used. It is a relative concept defined in context with some

organisational referent point (Corvellec, 1995).

3.3.1.1. Definitions

Performance is the execution or accomplishment of work, tasks or goals to a

certain level of desired satisfaction (Aluko, 2003). The employee performance can

alternatively be defined as the echelon of productivity of an individual employee, as

compared to his or her colleges of similar level on numerous job-related behaviors and

outcomes (Babin and Boles, 1996).

The past few decades have been quite trying for the organisations as external

environmental variables have exerted pressures, influencing performance. in response to

the greater competition in the global marketplace, most of the organisations have

streamlined their operations (Collis and Montgomery, 1995) and increasingly realised

that to ‘remain competitive in such an environment, a organisation needs to get the most

out of its assets, especially the human assets’ (Hayward, 2005, pg. 10). Employees, it is

felt can provide the much needed competitive advantage, thus, contributing to

organisational performance (Collis and Montgomery, 1995). Employee performance has

been shown to have a significant positive effect on organisational performance (ibid).

With the contribution of human resource in gaining competitive advantage being

empirically established (Brewster et al.,, 2003), performance management and

67

measurement of this valuable asset has been pushed to the fore (Bartlett and Ghoshal,

1995).

In recent years, there is an increased pressure on the managers to improve the

organisational performance (Holloway, 1999). Every employee’s performance has an

impact on the organisation’s wider success (Hayward, 2005) as; it is the cumulative

effect of individual performances that translates into organisational performance

(Armstrong and Baron, 1998). Performance management is, thus, an ongoing and joint

process where the employee, with the assistance of the employer, “strives to improve the

employee’s individual performance and his contribution to the organisation’s wider

objectives” (Hellriegel, et al.,, 2004, pg.249). Since, this contributes to the productivity

of the work place, performance forms an area of interest for the organisations (Hunter

and Hunter, 1984). Murphy (1989) stressed that performance definitions should also

focus on behaviours rather than just focussing on outcomes as exclusive focus on

outcomes can encourage employees to find the easiest way to achieve the desired

outcomes. In the long run, this can be detrimental for the well being of the organisation

as exclusive focus on results might be at the cost of other important behaviours (Cook,

2008). Campbell et al.,, (1990) emphasise that job performance consists of observable

behaviours of individuals that are relevant to the goals of the organisation. However, it is

not just the behaviour which is under consideration; it is behaviour with an evaluative

aspect (Motowidlo et al.,, 1997) as can be seen in frequently used measures of job

performance, viz., performance ratings from supervisors and peers (Newman et al.,,

2004). Job performance has, thus, become one of the significant indicators in measuring

organizational performance in many studies (Wall et al., 2004).

Thorndike (1949) defined job performance as the sum of all contributions that an

individual makes to the workplace (in Borman, 1991)

Alternatively, job performance has been defined on the basis of intelligence as

‘the set of learned behaviours comprised of knowledge, skills, abilities and other

characteristics considered to be intellective.’ (Berger and Humphrey, 1992, pg.254)

68

Further, the literature on performance (Katz and Kahn, 1978) makes a distinction

between in-role and extra-role performance. Extra-role performance is regarded as

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (Smith et al.,, 1983) and as another similar

concept termed Contextual Performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). The concept of

Organisation Citizenship Behaviour was first mooted by Organ (1988, pg. 4) as

‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the

formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization.’ Task Performance or the in-role performance, focuses on the activities that

form the technical core of the organisation, are formally a part of the employees’ job and

effectiveness with which these are performed (Cook, 2008). On the other hand,

contextual performance refers to such behaviours and activities which, though not task

related, contribute to the social and psychological aspects of the organisation (Borman

and Motowidlo, 1993). Thus, contextual performance can be such behaviours as helping,

cooperating with others, and volunteering, which are not formally part of the job but can

be important for all jobs. Although this distinction does exist, the current study focuses

on task, or in-role, performance.

3.3.2. Performance MeasurementPerformance, is very often measured in financial terms. However, it can be

measured equally well through a combination of expected behaviour and task-related

aspects (Motowidlo, 2003). Performance based on absolute value or relative judgement

is taken to reflect the overall organisational performance (Wall et al., 2004; Gomez,

2007). Since, job analysis specifies work behaviours and knowledge, skills, abilities and

other characteristics required from the person performing the job; it can be used for

developing performance standards required of each employee (Heneman and Judge,

2005). Job performance can be divided into ‘will-do’ (implying the individuals’ KSAOs

required for the performance of a particular job) and ‘can-do’ (referring to the motivation

level of the individuals in performing their work) (Motowidlo, 2003). In keeping with

this Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) suggested that performance construct consists of

task performance and contextual performance. there are different factors which influence

task performance and contextual performance. while the individual’s personality type

determines the contextual performance, it is job related experience which determines the

69

task performance (ibid). The job-related behaviours provide support to the task

performance (Williams, 2002).

Table 3.5: Literature related to performanceCharacteristic/Dimension

Literature on Performance No. of articles

Performance Thorndike, 1949; Berger and Humphrey, 1992; Corvellec, 1995; Aluko, 2003; Babin and Boles, 1996; Collis and Montgomery, 1995; Hayward, 2005; Brewster et al.,, 2003; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995; Holloway, 1999; Armstrong and Baron, 1998; Hellriegel, et al.,, 2004; Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Murphy, 1989; Cook, 2008; Campbell et al.,, 1990; Motowidlo et al.,, 1997; Newman et al.,, 2004; Wall et al., 2004; Borman, 1991; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Smith et al.,, 1983; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988.

25

Expected behaviour Motowidlo, 2003 1Task related Motowidlo, 2003; Motowidlo and Van Scotter,

1994; Williams, 2002; Lusch and Serpkenci, 1990.

4

Organisational performance

Wall et al., 2004; Gomez, 2007 2

Job analysis Heneman and Judge, 2005 1Efficiency and effectiveness

Armstrong, 1994; Heinrich, 2002; Neely et al., 1995 3

Self-report measures Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996; Kessler et al., 2003; Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel and Wheaton, 1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003; Heneman, 1974; Stathakopoulos, 1998.

10

Performance and Work/Life Balance

Green, 2001; Millward et al.,, 2000; Perrons, 2003; Simpson, 2000; White et al.,, 2003; Kinnunen et al.,, 2006; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Boyar et al.,, 2003; Prince et al.,, 2003; Judge and Watanabe, 1994; Engle and Prince, 2005; Elloy and Smith, 2003; Netemeyer et al.,, 1996

13

Armstrong (1994, p. 93) argues that the criteria for assessing performance should

be balanced between “achievements in relation to objectives, behaviour on the job as it

relates to performance (competencies) and day-to-day effectiveness”. Heinrich (2002, p.

721) goes on to explain that, “performance measures will be indicators, at best, and not

highly accurate gauges of actual performance.” Neely et al., (1995) defined performance

70

measurement as the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action.

Neely went on to identify the activities required to measure performance by defining a

performance measurement system as consisting of three inter-related elements:

- Individual measures that quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of actions.

- A set of measures that combine to assess the performance of an organisation as a

whole.

- A supporting infrastructure that enables data to be acquired, collated, sorted, analysed,

interpreted and disseminated.

Importantly this identifies that performance is multidimensional (requiring a number of

measures to assess) and an infrastructure to measure and manage.

Lusch and Serpkenci (1990) argued that the overall performance measures of the

organization unit (e.g. market share, sales ratios) should not be used to assess individual

performance, since the unit’s performance is a function of multiple factors including

individual manager performance, performance of other employees, the strategy pursued

by the organization unit and the market conditions. Therefore, the focus should be on the

job tasks and actions that relate to individual-level performance.

Work performance is also assessed by means of objective performance based

assessment rather than self-report. Many employers have developed assessments of this

sort for at least some of their workers (Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996). However, these

systems vary enormously in coverage as well as in sophistication, making them

impossible to use in broad-based studies of health and work performance (Kessler et al.,

2003). A comprehensive review of the literature found a number of useful self-report

measures of work performance (Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel

and Wheaton, 1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003). Most of these,

however, focused on single occupations and included questions that were tailored to the

unique demands of those occupations. The measure for this study was required to assess

performance of bank employees based on their perception of linkages between their

Work/Life Balance and performance. Hence, it was felt that developing self-report

measures was the most feasible tool for the purpose. Additionally, as noted by Heneman

(1974), self-ratings may be more accurate and precise than superiors’ ratings. The reason

71

is that superiors are typically less well-informed and more subject to halo effects.

However, self-ratings of one’s own performance are expected to be biased (i.e. to over-

report performance level) (Stathakopoulos, 1998).

3.3.3. Performance and Work/Life Balance

Work-life balance has emerged as a major theme during the last two decades,

which witnessed a substantial intensification of work caused by economic uncertainty,

organisational restructuring, and increase in business competition (Green, 2001;

Millward et al.,, 2000). To respond to the new conditions, organisations demand higher

performance and commitment from their employees, which is translated into

expectations for working longer and for prioritising work over personal life (Perrons,

2003, pp. 68-72; Simpson, 2000; White et al.,, 2003).

Employee performance has been the focus of organizational behavioral

researchers since long. Among other antecedents of employee performance, one that has

surfaced lately is conflict in personal and work life of employees. That is, to balance the

work and life responsibilities, whereas any incompatibility and misbalance of work and

life activities, is called work-life conflict and have stern effects on work performance

(Kinnunen et al.,, 2006; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006).

There is significant research support from various countries, such as United

States (Boyar et al.,, 2003; Prince et al.,, 2003; Judge and Watanabe, 1994), Canada

(Engle and Prince, 2005), Australia (Elloy and Smith, 2003), Puerto Rico and Romania

(Netemeyer et al.,, 1996) that reveals that role strain, role conflict, role ambiguity and

work/life imbalance all have a significant impact on the job performance, job satisfaction

and life satisfaction of people. Work/Life Balance has been studied in different ways as

Work/Life Conflict or as Work/Family Balance or Work/Family Conflict and results

have emphasised the significant relationship between WLB, its allied concepts and

employee performance. For instance Frone et al., (1997) examined the impact of work-

life conflict on performance using a self-report scale to assess job performance and

reported a significant relationship. Aryee (1992) reported that performance is related to

job-parent conflict but not to job-spouse conflict in his study. Blackhurst et al., (1998)

72

found that organizational commitment is negatively related to family life of the

individuals leading to low performance and consequent high work-life conflict.

Studies undertaken by Jackson and Schuler (1985) and Aven (1988) revealed that

there was a bi-directional relationship between job and personal life of employees and

high job commitment led to work-life conflict, ultimately reducing the employee

performance. The same was investigated by Allen and Meyer (1990). Contrary to this,

Ali and Baloch (1999) said in their study that loss of commitment had a negative impact

on performance which infact led to work/family conflict. Work to family conflict has a

negative impact on performance of people and when work affects the family adversely,

the performance at job decreases (Lee and Hui, 1999). Netemeyer et al., (2005), in their

study on customer service employees, customers and supervisors, found direct and

indirect effects between work-family conflict and employee performance where the

performances are rated by supervisor. Relationship between work-family conflict and

performance on the basis of gender has been studied by Butler and Skattebo (2004)

where there was a significant difference in the performance of men experiencing

work/family conflict but this was not the case for women. There was no difference in the

overall performance ratings given to women who experienced the work-life conflict and

women who did not.

While there are studies supporting the relationship between work-family conflict

and job performance, there are others that did not. Bhuian et al.,, (2005) found no

noteworthy relationship between work-family conflict and job performance. Similar

findings were documented by Netemeyer et al.,, (1996). According to Aminah (2008) the

work-family conflict is directly negatively related to the level of employees’ job

performance. Further, she states that work-family conflict increases employees’

emotional exhaustion and hence, job performance is reduced. Work-family conflict

reduces employees’ job satisfaction which in turn decreases the level of job performance

(Anwar and Shahzad, 2011).

Exploring from the angle of spillover, literature provides evidence that work to

family spillover produces fatigue which in turn impacts performance (Williams and

73

Alliger, 1994). Since, workload results in work to home interference, the associated

negative spillover adversely affect the performance of the employee (Geurts et al.,,

2003). Similar findings were reported by Beehr et al.,, (2000) in their study of 198 door

to door book salesmen, where psychological strain had an adverse impact on

performance.

Further, Work/Life Balance policies have been found to have an impact on

performance. Better Work/Life Balance policies have been known to help attract better

recruits, improve staff retention rates and enhancing productivity (Yasbek, 2004). There

are different theories about the link between work-life balance and productivity. Some

argue that policies will decrease negative spillovers from workers’ lives, leading to

productivity gains. Policies can also reduce extended hours and fatigue, which have a

negative effect on productivity (ibid).

3.3.4. Performance and Quality of Work/Life

Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance are both organisationally based

factors. While job performance relates to both the individual and the organisation,

Quality of Work/Life influences performance. Writings and research in management,

HR, and OD often link QWL and job-related outcomes to organizational performance

(e.g., Cascio, 1998; Cummings and Worley, 2005; Dess et al.,, 2007; Lau and May,

1998; Leopold, 2005; Walker, 1992; Wheelan and Hunger, 2006; Yorks, 2005). Robbins

(1990, pg. 207) defines QWL as ‘a process by which an organization responds to

employee needs by developing mechanisms to allow them to share fully in making the

decisions that design their lives at work’, thus, impacting performance. In Quality of

Work/Life literature, performance has been regarded as a key element of QWL along

with job security, job satisfaction, better reward system, employee benefits and employee

involvement (Havlovic, 1991; Scobel, 1975). Dimensions of individual job performance

include quality of work/life, leadership abilities, output, turnover, training time,

promotion and satisfaction (Kheradmand et al., 2010).

74

Empirical studies exploring the relationship between Quality of Work/Life and

performance have shown a direct and positive relationship between the dimensions of

QWL and job performance (May et al., 1999; Pruijt, 2000; Knox and Irving, 1997;

Brooks and Anderson, 2004). Rastegari et al., (2010) found a strong association between

QWL and job performance of nurses working in Iranian hospitals. Hosseini et al., (2010)

examined the relationship between QLW and performance by testing for all the eight

dimensions of QWL given by Walton for Social Insurance workers of Mazandaran

province and found a significant relationship between them. Beh and Rose (2007) found

QWL and job performance highly positively correlated (r=0.94) in their research on 475

managers in a manufacturing concern in Malaysia.

However, in certain cases the relationship was moderated by factors such as job

satisfaction (Islam et al., 2009). Similarly, psychological capital was the mediating

variable between QWL and performance in the study conducted on 364 Vietnamese

marketers by Nguyen and Nguyen (2011). There was a positive impact of psychological

capital on both performance and QWL. Further, QWL was seen as underlying the job

performance of the marketers. Quality of Work/Life conceptualised in terms of

interaction between need satisfaction (survival, social, ego, and self-actualization needs)

and those organizational resources which are relevant for meeting them confirmed the

positive relation between organizational identification, job satisfaction, job involvement,

job effort and job performance (Efraty and Sirgy, 1990). A study conducted by Islam et

al., (2009) on 216 non-managers working with the Dhaka Export Processing Zone

reported that QWL has a negative but not significant relationship with organizational

performance. The reason given by the researchers for the contradictory results was that

for non-managerial and operational workers it was very likely that satisfying basic needs

and getting a good wage was more important that achieving quality of work/life.

3.3.5 Performance in Banks

Banking by its nature is an information intensive and human capital intensive

industry. If employees perceive a better working environment, it reflects in higher levels

of performance, greater productivity and job involvement (Rose et al, 2006). Employee

75

involvement and satisfaction results in organisational commitment leading to retention of

best employees and improving the quality and delivery of services to the customers

(Berry, 1981). Since, employee mental and physical well being gets duly transferred and

impacts the 'quality' in the service towards customers, ‘quality’ in work life is especially

important in the service sector (Hodson and Roscigno, 2004). The intangible, perishable,

heterogeneous and inseparable nature of services (Wolak, 1998) puts the onus of delivery

on the employees directly interacting with the customers. Studies (Day, 1999) have

emphasized upon the competence and attitude of the employee, the ‘internal customer’

who deliver services to the external customer. Increasing intensity of competition among

the firms operating in service delivery, calls for a keener analysis of factors which could

help differentiate services for the customer. This is where the employee figures as he

alone can provide the competitive edge in the current scenario as every tangible resource

is easily replicable. Human resource and its humane touch is the only remaining resource

which cannot be replicated by competitors (Francisco, 2006). Therefore, it is important

to understand those factors that operate in an ‘internal customer’s work and life that can

impact his delivery in the service predominant banking sector.

3.4 Summary

There is a significant amount of work done with respect to Work/Life Balance.

However, as can be seen post literature review, majority of this work has been carried

out in developed countries, where Work/Life Balance, today forms an important part of

the Human Resource mandate. Post 1991, the Indian economy has tuned in with the

global economy and Indian businesses have ventured beyond the national borders.

Further, competition from foreign and private Indian companies has shaken up the

playing field of the erstwhile complacent Indian public sector. A sector which figures

prominently in this regard is the banking sector. Little is yet known about the trials and

travails of the public sector banker as he struggles to match up with his more customer

and technology savvy private counterpart. Does this struggle result in jeopardising the

delicate balance between work and life? Is there actually a difference in the Work/Life

Balance on the public sector and private sector bank employees in India? Further, are

there factors in the Indian work scenario that can facilitate establishment of Work/Life

76

Balance? Quality of Work/Life is viewed as a wide ranging concept, of which the

determinants/dimensions include adequate and fair compensation, safe and health

working conditions, social integration in the work organization that enables an individual

to develop and use all his capacities, opportunity for continued growth and security,

workers’ rights, recognition for achievement, meaningfulness and significance of work,

workload/ pressures and work, autonomy and control, enjoyment of work, creativity and

innovation. These determinants/ dimensions emphasize the good feeling perceived from

the interaction between the individuals and the work environment. Further, Work/Life

Balance is associated with Quality of Work/Life of an individual depending upon the

time or involvement invested by him. There are diverse views with respect to the

relationship between Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance. This study also aims

to explore this relationship further keeping in focus the Work/Life Balance and Quality

of Work/Life of the public and private sector bank employees. These are some of the

questions this study seeks to explore and answer.

77

Chapter 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1.NEED FOR THE STUDY

4.1.1. Objective

4.1.2. Hypothesis

4.2.RESEARCH DESIGN

4.2.1. Study Population and sampling frame

4.2.2. Sample and sample size

4.2.3. Sampling technique

4.3.RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

4.4.DATA COLLECTION

4.4.1. Questionnaire

4.4.2. Interview

4.5.STATISTICAL TOOLS OF ANALYSIS

4.5.1. Descriptive statistics

4.5.2. Inferential statistics

4.5.2.1. Independent sample t-test

4.5.2.2. ANOVA

4.5.2.3. Factor Analysis

4.5.2.4. Correlation and Regression

4.5.2.5. Structural Equation Modelling

4.6.LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

78

Chapter 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThis section deals with the research methodology adopted during the course of the

current study. The section lays emphasis on the research design, the sample selection

procedure, the data collection method rounded up with the statistical tools used for

analysis.

4.1. Need for the Study4.1.1. Objective

To find out about the status of Work/Life Balance in the Indian scenario with focus on

private and public sector bank staff members and to study its status in the individual’s

personal life and effect on the organizational performance depending on demographics

and job related factors.

Primary Research Aim:

f) To understand the status of Work/Life Balance of public and private sector bank

employees.

g) To understand the status of Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector

bank employees.

h) To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and the Quality of

Work/Life of an employee.

i) To explore the relationship between work-life balance and employees’ perception

of his job performance.

j) To identify workplace factors that have an impact on Work/Life Balance

4.1.2. Hypothesis

Work/life balance (WLB) is a key human resources theme across public and private

sector organisations today. Organisations are fast realising the value of framing policies

and programmes geared at facilitating and improving the work/life balance of staff.

79

Organizational work-life interventions in India are varied and disparate and have found

favour mainly with the private sector. There is no overarching government policy

addressing work and family issues across public sector organisations. Given these

differences in the way Work/Life issues are dealt across public and private sector, there

is a need to understand whether there are differences in the work/life balance of public

and private sector employees or not?

H1: There is no difference in the perception of WLB of the employees of public and

private banks in India.

The null hypothesis is broken down in further sub-hypotheses, which are stated as

follows:

H1a: There is no difference in the perception of Work Spillover in Personal Life of the

employees of public and private commercial banks in India.

H1b: There is no difference in the perception of Personal Life Spillover in Work of the

employees of public and private commercial banks in India.

H1c: There is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance Enhancers of the

employees of public and private commercial banks in India.

H1d: There is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance Constrainers of the

employees of public and private commercial banks in India.

WLB: Demographic comparisons

H2a: Gender has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H2b: Age has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H2c: Educational qualification has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced

by an individual

H2d: Marital status has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H2e: Family type (Nuclear vs Joint) has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

H2f: Family size has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

80

H2g: Number of children has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

H2h: Caring responsibilities (for elderly, disabled or sick) have no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H2i: Working status of one’s spouse has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

WLB: Work related comparisons

H2j: Length of service has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H2k: Longer working hours has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

H2l: Nature of duties (managerial Vs non-managerial) has no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H2m: Income has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H2n: City of posting has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

WLB: Demographic comparisons (Public sector banks)

H3a: Gender has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H3b: Age has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H3c: Educational qualification has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced

by an individual

H3d: Marital status has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H3e: Family type (Nuclear vs Joint) has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

H3f: Family size has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H3g: Number of children has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

81

H3h: Caring responsibilities (for elderly, disabled or sick) have no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H3i: Working status of one’s spouse has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

WLB: Work related comparisons (Public sector banks)

H3j: Length of service has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H3k: Longer working hours has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

H3l: Nature of duties (managerial Vs non-managerial) has no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H3m: Income has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H3n: City of posting has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

WLB: Demographic comparisons (Private sector banks)

H4a: Gender has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H4b: Age has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H4c: Educational qualification has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced

by an individual

H4d: Marital status has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H4e: Family type (Nuclear vs Joint) has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

H4f: Family size has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H4g: Number of children has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

H4h: Caring responsibilities (for elderly, disabled or sick) have no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

82

H4i: Working status of one’s spouse has no influence on the Work/Life Balance

experienced by an individual

WLB: Work related comparisons (Private sector banks)

H4j: Length of service has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

H4k: Longer working hours has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by

an individual

H4l: Nature of duties (managerial Vs non-managerial) has no influence on the

Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H4m: Income has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an individual

H4n: City of posting has no influence on the Work/Life Balance experienced by an

individual

WLB: Demographic inter band comparisons between public and private sector

banks)

H5a: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of male employees

working in public and private sector banks.

H5b: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of female

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5c: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of 20-29 year old

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5d: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of 30-39 year old

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5e: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of 40-49 year old

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5f: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of 50-59 year old

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5g: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of graduate

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5h: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of post-graduate

employees working in public and private sector banks.

83

H5i: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of professional

employees working in public and private sector banks.

H5j: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees with

single marital status working in public and private sector banks.

H5k: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees with

married marital status working in public and private sector banks.

H5l: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

coming from nuclear family working in public and private sector banks.

H5m: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

coming from joint family working in public and private sector banks.

H5n: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

coming having 1-5 member family working in public and private sector banks.

H5o: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

coming having 6-19 member family working in public and private sector banks.

H5p: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

coming having 11-15 member family working in public and private sector banks.

H5q: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having no children in their family working in public and private sector banks.

H5r: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having one child in their family working in public and private sector banks.

H5s: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having more than one child in their family working in public and private sector

banks.

H5t: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having care responsibilities for elderly in their family working in public and

private sector banks.

H5u: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having care responsibilities for disabled in their family working in public and

private sector banks.

H5v: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having care responsibilities for sick in their family working in public and private

sector banks.

84

H5w: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having full-time working spouse employed with public and private sector banks.

H5x: There is no difference in the mean Work/Life Balance scores of employees

having part-time working spouse employed with public and private sector banks.

WLB: Work related inter related band comparisons between public and private

sector banks

H6a: There is no difference in Work/Life Balance scores of employees having service

tenure of 0-9 years serving in public and private banks.

H6b: There is no difference in Work/Life Balance scores of employees having service

tenure of 10-19 years serving in public and private banks.

H6c: There is no difference in Work/Life Balance scores of employees having service

tenure of 20-29 years serving in public and private banks.

H6d: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees earning

`10,000 to ` 50,000 in public and private sector banks

H6e: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees earning

`50,001 to ` 1,00,000 in public and private sector banks

H6f: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees earning

`1,00,001 and above in public and private sector banks

H6g: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working

upto 48 hours in public and private sector banks

H6h: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working

more than 48 and upto 60 hours in public and private sector banks

H6i: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working

more than 60 hours in public and private sector banks

H6j: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees performing

managerial duties in public and private sector banks

H6k: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees performing

non-managerial duties in public and private sector banks

H6l: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working in

the city of Delhi in public and private sector banks

85

H6m: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working in

the city of Jaipur in public and private sector banks

H6n: There is no difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of employees working in

the city of Lucknow in public and private sector banks

Quality of Work/Life

H7: There is no difference in the quality of work/life experienced by public and

private sector bank employees

This was further broken into the following hypotheses:

H7a: There is no difference in the organisational commitment of public and private

sector bank employees

H7b: There is no difference in the supervisory support perceived by public and private

sector bank employees

H7c: There is no difference in the rewards and promotion opportunities perceived by

public and private sector bank employees

H7d: There is no difference in the task capability and significance of public and private

sector bank employees

H7e: There is no difference in the perceived work load of public and private sector

bank employees

H7f: There is no difference in the job ambiguity perceived by public and private sector

bank employees

H7g: There is no difference in the work pressures perceived by public and private

sector bank employees

QWL: Demographic comparisons

H8a: Gender makes no difference to the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an

individual

H8b: Age has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an individual

H8c: Educational qualification has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life

experienced by an individual

H8d: Marital status has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an

individual

86

H8e: Family type (Nuclear vs Joint) has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life

experienced by an individual

H8f: Family size has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an

individual

H8g: Number of children has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by

an individual

H8h: Caring responsibilities (for elderly, disabled or sick) have no influence on the

Quality of Work/Life experienced by an individual

H8i: Working status of one’s spouse has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life

experienced by an individual

QWL: Work related comparisons

H8j: Length of service has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by

an individual

H8k: Longer working hours has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced

by an individual

H8l: Nature of duties (managerial Vs non-managerial) has no influence on the Quality

of Work/Life experienced by an individual

H8m: Income has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an

individual

H8n: City of posting has no influence on the Quality of Work/Life experienced by an

individual

WLB and QWL

H9: There is no relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life

WLB and Performance

H10: There is no relationship between Work/Life Balance and Performance

87

4.2. Research Design

‘Research Design is a framework or blue print for conducting research’ (Malhotra and

Dash, 2011, pg.70) A research design specifies the methods and procedures for

conducting a particular study (Beri, 2009). The current study has adopted a mixed

research design. The initial part of the study has Exploratory Research Design, where the

primary objective was to gain insights and comprehension of the status and issues related

to Work/Life Balance in Public and Private sector banks. Post the pilot survey and

construction of the scales, the research design adopted was Descriptive in nature. Thus, a

survey was undertaken to quantify the Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life scores

as well as the perceived job performance of the bank employees. Further, in-depth

interviews of bank employees were conducted to understand the reasons behind the

survey results.

4.2.1. Study Population and Sampling Frame

Study Population

Reserve Bank of India classifies commercial banks into three categories – Public sector

banks, Private sector banks and foreign banks. Since the topic of research was

comparison between public and private sector bank staff, these were stratified into public

and private sector banks for further selection of the sample. Reserve Bank of India lists a

total of 21 scheduled commercial public sector banks (19 of these are nationalised banks

and 2 are other public sector banks) and 22 scheduled commercial private sector banks

(RBI, 2010).

Sampling Frame

Bank employees are categorised as officers, clerks and sub-staff. For the purpose of the

study, the category comprising officers has been considered as quite a few private sector

banks do not have clerks and sub-staff, while maintaining only officers on their roles. To

maintain parity with private sector nomenclature, the study population identified was of

officers across public and private sector banks.

88

The total number of employees in public sector and private sector banks were 466063

and 176410, respectively. Of this, 186872 and 150502 were officer cadre employees

belonging to public and private sector, respectively (RBI, 2010).

4.2.2. Sample and Sample Size

The sample of this study comprised bank employees who have put in more than 1 year of

service with either public or private sector bank. Sample size was calculated using the

formula for sample size calculation when estimating proportions (Nargundkar, 2009).

n=pq ( ze )

2

Where

‘p’ is the frequency of occurrence of something expressed as a proportion

‘q’ is the frequency of non-occurrence of the same event and is calculated as (1-p)

‘z’ is the confidence level related value of the standard normal variable

‘e’ is the tolerable level of error in estimating ‘p’

Computation of sample size

Taking a confidence level of 95% in the results (which means z=1.96) and ‘e’ as 0.05,

the sample size was determined.

‘p’ for public sector banks: pb = (186872/466063) = 0.37 qb = (1-pb) = (1-0.37) =

0.63

‘p’ for private sector banks: pv = (150502/176410) = 0.85 qv = (1-pv) = (1-0.85) =

0.15

Sample calculation for public sector banks:

nb = 0.37 X 0.63 (1.96/0.05)2

= 358.2

358

89

Sample calculation for private sector banks:

nv = 0.85 X 0.15 (1.96/0.05)2

= 195.9

196

Total sample size = (public sector banks + 10% margin of error) + (private sector banks+

10% margin of error)

= (358 + 36) + (196 + 20) = 394 + 216 = 610 employees

In the study a margin of 10% was maintained, increasing the sample size by 56 to a total

of 610 employees to account for any incomplete or erroneously filled responses.

4.2.3. Sampling technique

Mixed sampling methods were used for selecting sample units. The steps followed were:

Step 1: Banking operations in the India are divided into 6 regions – Eastern,

Western, Northern, North-Eastern, Southern and Central. Two zones, Northern and

Central were randomly selected (RBI, 2009).

Step 2: The Northern region has 5 states and 2 union territories (Jammu and

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan are the 5 states and Delhi

and Chandigarh are the 2 union territories located in North India). The Central region has

4 states (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand). One state

(Rajasthan) and one union territory (Delhi) from Northern region and one state from

Central region – Uttar Pradesh, were selected randomly.

Step 3: From each of these, one city was selected randomly, resulting in Jaipur,

Lucknow and Delhi.

Step 4: Of the 27 public sector (21 nationalised banks and 6 associate banks of

SBI) and 25 private sector banks operating in these cities, a total of 6 were randomly

selected – 3 from public sector (State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Union

Bank) and 3 from private sector (HDFC, ICICI and Axis bank).

90

Step 5: A total of 755 branches for the three randomly selected public sector

banks, SBI, PNB and Union Bank are operable in the three cities of Delhi, Jaipur and

Lucknow and a total of 284 branches for the three randomly selected private sector

banks, HDFC, ICICI and Axis Bank are functioning in Delhi, Jaipur and Lucknow. The

city wise distribution of the branches is given in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: City wise distribution of the branches of the banks selected in the sample.

City Public Sector Banks

TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

Private Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

SBI

PNB

Union

Bank

HDFC

ICICI

Axis Ban

kDelhi 19

0190 60 440 78 91 53 222

Jaipur 26 95 31 152 15 11 6 32Lucknow 45 105 13 163 12 14 4 30TOTAL BRANCHES OF A BANK

261

390 104 755 105 116 63 284

Step 6: Presence of a bank in a particular city was calculated based on the number

of its branches in that city out of the total branches for all the three banks in all the three

cities (table 4.2). Thus, the proportionate presence on SBI in the sample was based on the

number of branches it has in a city. The calculation was as follows:

SBI branches in Delhi = 190

Total public sector (SBI+PNB+UB) branches in Delhi, Jaipur and Lucknow = 755

Therefore, SBI’s proportion in the sample = 190 755 = 0.25

Table 4.2: Proportionate representation of the banks in the sample based on their number of branches.

City Public Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

Private Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

SBI PNB Union Bank

HDFC ICICI Axis Bank

Delhi 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.58 0.28 0.32 0.19 0.79Jaipur 0.03 0.13 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.11Lucknow 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.22 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.10TOTAL BRANCHES

0.34 0.52 0.14 1.00 0.37 0.41 0.22 1.00

91

OF A BANKStep 7: The number of employees to be targeted from each bank and city were

decided on the basis of the proportional representation of each bank in the respective

based on the above table. Thus, if SBI, Delhi has a 25% presence in the total sample on

the basis of the number of branches it is operating in the city. Therefore, the number of

employees to be randomly selected from SBI, Delhi (99), was arrived at by multiplying

the figure 394 (i.e. the total number of respondents to be selected in the sample) by the

figure 0.25 (i.e. the proportionate presence of SBI in Delhi based on the number of

branches). Table 4.3 gives the number of respondents (i.e. employees) for each bank and

city based on the above logic.

Table 4.3.: Number of respondents to be selected from each bank (Proposed sample)

City Public Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

Private Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

SBI PNB Union

Bank

HDFC ICICI Axis

Bank

Delhi 98 99 31 228 60 69 40 168

Jaipur 14 50 16 80 11 8 5 24

Lucknow 24 55 7 86 9 11 3 23

TOTAL BRANCHES OF A BANK

137 204 54 394 80 88 48 216

Table 4.4: Number of respondents selected from each bank (Actual sample)

City Public Sector

Banks

TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIES

Private Sector Banks TOTAL BRANCHES

IN SELECTED

CITIESSB

I

PNB Union

Bank

HDFC ICIC

I

Axis

Bank

Delhi 88 85 31 204 52 63 40 155

Jaipur 12 45 15 72 10 10 7 27

Lucknow 25 51 8 84 12 11 8 31

TOTAL BRANCHES OF A BANK

125 181 54 360 74 84 55 213

92

4.3. Research Instrument

Data was collected from bank employees for measuring Work/Life Balance, Quality of

Work/Life and for ascertaining their perception of job performance. A structured

questionnaire having two parts I and II was used for collecting respondent data. Part I

dealt with the demographic profile of the respondent while Part II had three sections for

recording responses on Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance.

SECTION A of the survey instrument comprises 24 items, making up 4 factors described

as Personal Life Spillover on Work (PLSW), Work Spillover on Personal Life (WSPL),

Work/Life Balance Enhancers (WLBE) and Work/Life Balance Constrainers (WLBC)

measured on a 7-point Likert scale with possible responses ranging from 1 – strongly

disagree to 7 – strongly agree. Of the 24 items comprising the scale, 3 were reverse

coded. The Instrument has a KMO value of 0.801 and a overall scale reliability of 0.908.

The subscale reliability was fairly good with 0.968 for subscale I (WSPL), 0.898 for

subscale II (PLSW), 0.883 for subscale III (WLBE) and 0.798 for subscale IV (WLBC).

For a measure to be acceptable, coefficient alpha should be above 0.7 (Nunally 1978).

Hence, the reliability of the scale comes out to be quite good and above the acceptable

value.

SECTION B of the research instrument, measuring Quality of Work/Life, comprised 26

items, making up 7 factors described as Organisational Commitment, Supervisor

Support, Rewards and Promotions Opportunity, Task Capability and Significance, Work

Load, Job Ambiguity and Work Pressures measured on a 7-point Likert scale with

possible responses ranging from 7 – strongly disagree to 1 – strongly agree. Of the 26

items comprising the scale, 9 were reverse coded. The scale with a KMO value of 0.818,

reported a scale reliability of 0.813 with sub-scale reliability ranging from 0.91 to 0.70,

which is required for a measure to be acceptable (Nunally, 1978).

SECTION C had ten self-report questions dealing with the perception of the respondent

of his/her job performance, spread over 3 factors, namely, Task Achievement Orientation

(TAO), Resource Trust Orientation (RTO) and Learning Involvement Orientation (LIO)

93

with five items, three items and two items respectively. Responses were recorded on a 7-

point scale, with responses ranging from 1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree. Out

of all items, 2 items were reverse coded. Further, there were 2 additional questions

requesting respondent for rating on his/her perception of work/life balance and quality of

work/life. The scale had a KMO value of 0.779 explaining 61.208per cent of variability.

The overall scale reliability was reasonably good with alpha value = 0.783.

4.4. Data Collection

Data collection process was done in three phases. Before undertaking the first phase of

data collection, extensive review of literature was done for identifying items for the

scale. In this phase along with secondary research, Focused Group Discussions were

organised for understanding the factors contributing to Work/Life Balance, Quality of

Work/Life and Performance. Post this, the first phase of data collection was initiated for

testing and validating the scales to be used in the study; second for studying the

comparative Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector

bank employees and for getting self-report on employee performance. The third phase

(in-depth interviews) was undertaken after the first round of analysis to explore and

undertand the reasons leading to the results of phase two (Annexure 2).

4.4.1. Questionnaire

Phase I : The first phase of data collection was done from January 2010 to March 2010

wherein 450 questionnaires were personally administered by the researcher to public and

private sector bank employees in the city of Lucknow. Of the administered

questionnaires, 360 questionnaires were found fit for analysis as they were complete in

all respects. The entire sample, thus, comprised 228 employees from public sector banks

and 132 professionals from private sector banks. This data was used for formulating

Work/Life Balance and quality of work/life scales.

Phase II : The second phase of data collection was started in the month of June 2010 and

completed in the month of December 2010. The entire process took a long time of seven

94

months as three cities (Delhi, Jaipur and Lucknow) were covered by the researcher for

collecting data from public and private sector bank employees. Only those employees

who had put is at least one year of service with the bank, were included in the list of

potential respondents. The total sample size for the second phase of data collection was

573 respondents, of which 360 worked for public sector banks and 213 were employed in

private sector banks.

4.4.2. Interviews

The third phase of data collection dealt with in-depth interviews with public and private

sector bank employees. This was done post analysis as the results were contrary to the

expectations of the researcher. The last phase of data collection was started post first

phase of analysis, which took place from January 2011 to May 2011. After this, the

interviews were conducted in the city of Lucknow to understand the results better and

these lasted from June 2011 to September 2011. Subsequent to this, the discussions of

the thesis were written and another phase of analysis undertaken to check the check the

fit of the hypothesised model.

4.5. Statistical Tools of Analysis

The coded and tabulated data was analysed using both descriptive and inferential

statistical techniques. Mean, standard deviation, range have been calculated to draw a

profile of the respondents and their responses. ‘The scales used in section A, B and C are

assumed to be interval scales.’ (Zikmund, 2010) and hence, parametric tests are used.

The data set was analysed with the help of SPSS 19.0.

4.5.1. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics include the numbers, tables, charts, and graphs used to describe,

organize, summarize, and present raw data. In the study descriptive statistics were used

to summarize the basic characteristics of the data and tables were used for the same.

95

4.5.2. Inferential statistics

Inferential statistics was used to draw conclusions about the population from the sample

collected randomly from it. The two main methods used in inferential statistics are

estimation and hypothesis testing. The study in this case has used hypothesis testing for

understanding the population better. The tools used are briefly described below:

4.5.2.1. T-test for independent samples

The independent t-test, also called the two sample t-test or student's t-test is an inferential

statistical test that determines whether there is a statistically significant difference

between the means in two unrelated groups. The null hypothesis for the independent t-

test is that the population means from the two unrelated groups are equal: H0: u1 = u2

against the alternative hypothesis, which is that the population means are not equal: HA:

u1 ≠ u2. The alternative hypothesis is either accepted or rejected based on the significance

level (alpha) set by the researcher. Most commonly, this value is set at 0.05. The test is

run with one independent categorical variable, also referred to as unrelated or unpaired

variable, having two levels and a dependent variable. T-test for independent samples is

used for investigating differences in individuals and when comparing two groups, an

individual in one group cannot also be a member of the other group and vice versa

The basic assumptions for running an independent t-test are normality of the dependent

variable and homogeneity of the variances. Assumption of normality requires that the

dependent variable is approximately normally distributed within each group and can be

ascertained by running the Shapiro-Wilks test. The test rejects the hypothesis of

normality when the p-value is less than or equal to 0.05.  Failing the normality test

means the data does not fit the normal distribution and this can be stated with 95%

confidence.  However, the t-test is described as a robust test with respect to the

assumption of normality. This means that even deviations away from normality do not

have a large influence on Type I error rates. The exception to this is if the difference in

the size of the groups is greater than 1.5 (largest compared to smallest).

96

T-test for independent samples was used for analysing the difference between the

Work/Life Balance and quality of work/life scores of public and private sector bank

employees. It was also used for testing whether or not there was a statistically

significant difference between the means of the samples drawn from public and private

sector bank employees, with respect to the factors constituting the Work/Life Balance

scale as well as the quality of work/life scale. All the statements were tested at 0.05%

level of significance.

4.5.2.2. ANOVA

The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether there are any

significant differences between the means of three or more independent (unrelated)

groups. Before running ANOVA for data, there are certain assumptions that need to be

satisfied. These are:

• Dependent variable is either interval or ratio (continuous)

• Dependent variable is approximately normally distributed for each category of

the independent variable.

• Equality of variances between the independent groups i.e. homogeneity of

variances.

• Independence of cases.

One-way ANOVA tests the null hypothesis:

Ho : μ 1=μ2=μ3=…=μk

where µ = group mean and k = number of groups.

If one-way ANOVA returns a significant result then we accept the alternative hypothesis

(H1), which is that there are at least two group means that are significantly different from

each other.

Analysis of Variance was used for testing whether there was a significant difference in

the means of the groups under study. ANOVA was used wherever the independent

groups were more than two as the t-test for independent samples compares means for

97

just two samples. As in the case of t-test, in ANOVA, too, the statements were tested at

95% level of confidence.

4.5.2.3. Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis is a set of techniques which, by analysing correlations between variables

reduces their number to fewer factors (common underlying dimensions of the variables)

which explain much of the original data more economically. Factor analysis investigats

whether a number of variables of interest Y1, Y2, : : :, Yl, are linearly related to a smaller

number of unobservable factors F1, F2, : : :, Fk, thus, reducing data complexity by

reducing the number of variables under study. There are two stages in the method.

Stage 1 is the Factor Extraction process in which the most popular method is Principal

Component Analysis. The number of factors extracted is based on the computation of an

Eigen value. Factors with Eigen value of 1 or more are retained.

Stage 2 is called Rotation of Principal Components. The original unrotated factor matrix

is a part of the first stage. Stage 2 involves interpreting and naming the factors by

identifying which factors are associated with which variables. The rotated factor matrix

(as also the unrotated factor matrix) gives the loading of each variable on each of the

extracted factors. Loadings take values between 0 and 1. Loadings with values close to 1

are regarded as high loadings and those close to 0 are low loadings. Here the objective is

to find variables having high loadings on one factor but low loadings on other factors. A

factor is, thus, considered to be a linear combination of the variables having high loading

on it.

Factor analysis subsumes that correlation exists between at least some of the original

variables, the method is applied after running formal tests like the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure and the Bartlett’s Sphericity test on the original data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy tests whether the partial correlations among

variables are small. The sampling adequacy i.e. the KMO value should be greater than

0.5 for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed. Large values for the KMO measure

98

indicate that a factor analysis of the variables is a good idea. Bartlett's test of Sphericity

tests whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that the

factor model is inappropriate. Bartlett’s test is an indicator of the strength of the

relationship among variables and tests the null hypothesis that the variables in the

population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. At observed significance level of .000 the

null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that the strength of the relationship among

variables is strong. Therefore, it suggests that it would be a good idea to proceed a factor

analysis for the data.

Factor analysis was undertaken for data reduction and was applied on the sections A

and B, dealing with Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance

scales. Three separate scales were constructed to measure Work/Life Balance, Quality

of Work/Life and the perceived Job Performance of bank employees.

4.5.2.4. Correlation and Regression

Correlation and Regression are generally performed together. The application of

correlation analysis is to measure the degree of association between two sets of

quantitative data. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used as a

measure of strength of a linear association between two variables, Work/Life Balance

and quality of work/life. It is denoted by r can take a range of values from +1 to -1. A

value of 0 indicates that there is no association between the two variables. On the other

hand, a value greater than 0 indicates a positive association and a value less than 0

indicates a negative association. The stronger the association of the two variables, the

closer is the Pearson correlation coefficient, r, to either +1 or -1 depending on whether

the relationship is positive or negative, respectively.

There are four assumptions that are made with respect to Pearson's correlation:

1. The variables must be either interval or ratio measurements.

2. The variables must be approximately normally distributed.

3. There is a linear relationship between the two variables.

4. Outliers are either kept to a minimum or are removed entirely.

99

Regression, which in many cases follows correlation analysis, is used to explain the

variation in one variable (called dependent variable), based on the variation in one or

more other variables (called independent variables). When multiple independent

variables are used to explain the variation in the dependent variable, it is termed as

multiple regression model. The current study, however, uses linear regression model to

explain the variation in Work/Life Balance scores with respect to organisational

commitment, rewards and promotion opportunities, task capability and significance,

work load, role ambiguity, etc.

Correlation was primarily used for testing whether there was a relationship between

the perceived Work/Life Balance and the perceived Quality of Work/Life of an

individual. It was also used for ascertaining the relationship between the Work/Life

Balance and Employee Job Performance.

Regression analysis was done to identify the significant work-related factors

influencing the Work/Life Balance of the bank employees.

4.5.2.5. Structural Equation Modelling

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish a model with the closest fit to the

data. Confirmatory factor analysis is an application of structural equation modeling in

which items are associated a priori with factors, and the adequacy of a model is tested

through fit indices that measure the degree to which the factor model reproduces the

empirical covariance matrix.Structural Equation modelling is a procedure for estimating

a series of dependence relationships among a set of constructs represented by multiple

measured variables and incorporated into an integrated model (Malhotra and Dash, 2011,

pg. 691).

Traditional statistical methods normally utilize one statistical test to determine the

significance of the analysis. However, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), CFA

specifically, relies on several statistical tests to determine the adequacy of model fit to

the data. The chi-square test indicates the amount of difference between expected and

observed covariance matrices. A chi-square value close to zero indicates little difference

100

between the expected and observed covariance matrices. In addition, the probability level

must be greater than 0.05 when chi-square is close to zero. The Comparative Fit Index

(CFI) is equal to the discrepancy function adjusted for sample size. CFI ranges from 0 to

1 with a larger value indicating better model fit. Acceptable model fit is indicated by a

CFI value of 0.90 or greater (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA) is related to residual in the model. RMSEA values range from

0 to 1 with a smaller RMSEA value indicating better model fit. Acceptable model fit is

indicated by an RMSEA value of 0.06 or less (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

If model fit is acceptable, the parameter estimates are examined. The ratio of each

parameter estimate to its standard error is distributed as a z statistic and is significant at

the 0.05 level if its value exceeds 1.96 and at the 0.01 level it its value exceeds 2.56

(Hoyle, 1995). Unstandardized parameter estimates retain scaling information of

variables and can only be interpreted with reference to the scales of the variables.

Standardized parameter estimates are transformations of unstandardized estimates that

remove scaling and can be used for informal comparisons of parameters throughout the

model. Standardized estimates correspond to effect-size estimates.

4.6. Limitations

It is very difficult to criticise one’s own baby. However, it is equally true, that no work is

perfect and there are factors which force a researcher to limit his/her work within feasible

boundaries. Some of the limitations, which were faced during the conduct of the current

research, are outlined below.

4.6.1. Time

Time is an important dimension in any study. The current study spanned a total of three

years and six months. A major part of the study went into literature review and a crucial

part was collecting data. Data collection was undertaken in two phases. The first being

for the development of a scale, while the second for gathering responses from the bank

101

employees on the final scales. The second part took a much longer time than had been

anticipated, delaying the completion of the study. The reason for this was that the study

was conducted in three cities, Delhi, Jaipur and Lucknow. While collecting data in

Lucknow was not difficult, doing so in the cities of Delhi and Jaipur meant that the

researcher had to take leave and have time to go and stay in these cities. Hence, the

months and days in which the researcher was comparatively free from her professional

obligations, was she able to visit these two cities to collect the responses from the bank

employees. Perceptions and expectations keep on changing over a span of time but no

study can go on forever. Hence, the study has to be designed keeping in mind the time

available.

4.6.2. Cost

Monetary constraints limit the area and subjects under study. A study on banks would

find better relevance if it included a pan India cross section of bank employees in all

three i.e. public, private and foreign sector banks operating in the country. In this case

only three cities were targeted. Extending the study to three cities itself was a substantial

monetary strain. Hence, a sample best representative of the population has to be selected

and studied.

4.6.3. Cooperation

This is a sensitive area for research, and some bank employees were apprehensive of

giving information as they felt that it might be used against them at the time of

appraisals. Few were unwilling to disclose their income and in such cases, it was an

approximate amount that was finally included. There were some who refused to

participate in research which may highlight them as having a work-life conflict situation!

Women employees in particular were not very forthcoming when they were asked to

write their contact numbers for future use by the researcher. The feeling was that there

would be unnecessary disturbance and invasion in privacy at a later stage. In such cases,

quite a few agreed to give the branch landline number with their extension number rather

102

than their personal mobile numbers. Therefore, care is necessary on gaining co-operation

for the research.

4.6.4. Absence of Work Life Balance Policies

In this study, the relationship between Work/Life Balance and Job Performance could at

best be studied using a self-report assessment by the employees. Perceived job

performance was checked and the results of self-reported job performance were

correlated with the reported Work/Life Balance scores. It would have been a better study

if the performance of the employees could be studied as a pre and post-hoc design, where

an in-depth performance analysis before implementation of Work Life Balance Policies

could be followed up by another in-depth performance analysis post implementation of

Work Life Balance Policies. However, Work Life Balance Policies in the true sense of

the word are absent from the banks which were a part of the study. For that matter,

public sector banks do not have Work Life Balance Policies as a part of their Human

Resource mandate while the private sector banks are at best paying partial attention to

the same. They still have to design a full-fledged, comprehensive Work Life Balance

Policy which can take care of the Work Life issues of employees.

4.6.5. Inclusion of all Categories of Banking Staff in Sample

While measuring Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance, bank

employees from different levels and of different cadres were included. This became a

constraint while measuring performance as quite a few of these bank employees were not

involved in customer interaction. Thus, performance measurement instrument had to be

designed to focus on task related, achievement related and interpersonal equations (with

colleagues and immediate superior) of the employees but not with the bank customers.

Attempt was to maintain parity while recording the self-report of performance.

103

Chapter 5

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

5.

5.1.DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

5.2.MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

5.2.1. WLB Scale Construction

5.2.1.1. Scale Construction

5.2.1.2. Constructs

5.2.1.3. Reliability and Validity of the Scale

5.2.2. QWL Scale Construction

5.2.2.1. Scale Construction

5.2.2.2. Constructs

5.2.2.3. Reliability and Validity

5.2.3. Employee Job Performance Scale Construction

5.2.3.1. Scale construction

5.2.3.2. Constructs

5.2.3.3. Reliability and Validity

5.3.ANALYSIS OF WORK

5.3.1. Comparison of mean scores on WLB: public and private sector

bank employees

5.3.2. Comparison of mean scores on QWL: public and private sector

bank employees

5.3.3. Significance of demographic variables for WLB

5.3.4. Significance of work-related variables for WLB

5.3.5. Significance of demographic variables for WLB (public sector

banks)

104

5.3.6. Significance of work-related variables for WLB (public sector

banks)

5.3.7. Significance of demographic variables for WLB (private sector

banks)

5.3.8. Significance of work-related variables for WLB (private sector

banks)

5.3.9. Significance of demographic variables for WLB – intra-

category comparisons between public and private sector banks

5.3.10. Significance of work-related variables for WLB – intra-

category comparisons between public and private sector banks

5.3.11. Significance of demographic variables for QWL

5.3.12. Significance of work-related variables for QWL

5.3.13. Relationship between QWL and WLB

5.3.14. Impact of WLB on performance

5.3.15. Identifying factors having an impact on WLB

5.3.16. Relationship between WLB, QWL and Job Performance

105

Chapter 5

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The raw data, as received from the field was subjected to data preparation and

processing. To transform the data into information, the raw data was edited, coded and

entered in Excel and cleaned. SPSS 19.0 was used to analyse the data. The analysis

focused on understanding the differences in the Work/Life Balance in public and private

sector bank employees. Further, attempts were made to understand the underlying

relationship structure between Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/life as well as with

Job Performance for public and private sector bank employees.

5.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents

The demographic profile of respondents is reported in two tables. Table 5.1 gives the

demographic profile of bank employees on whom the study was conducted. The sample

is dominated by male respondents (72.8%) with a fair representation of female

respondents (27.2%), which is in keeping with the national representation of women in

banking sector (Padmanabhan, 2011). According to Alok Khare, president of the All

India Bank Officers Association, out of about one million bank employees in the

country, 15-17 percent are women, while the figures for metro centres and cities is 27-30

percent women employees (Padmanabhan, 2011). The age of the respondents ranged

from 21 years to 59 years, with a mean age of 35.30 years. Majority (40.0%) were in the

age group of 30 to 39 years, followed by those in the age group of 20 to 29 years (31.6%)

with 16.1% respondents in the age bracket of 40 to 49 years and 12.4% in 50 to 59 years

old. While the public sector bank employees had a higher average age of 37.50 years, the

private sector bank employees had a lower mean age of 31.59 years. Bank jobs are open

directly after graduation and this was reflected in the relatively higher number of bank

employees (40.2%) being simple graduates. On the other hand, there was an almost equal

representation of post-graduate (29.7%) and professionally qualified employees. The

sample was dominated by married respondents (76.4%), with a smaller number of

unmarried employees (23.2%) contributing to the study. Of the married respondents,

106

32.7% had a working spouse with 72.7% (of those working) holding full-time jobs and

27.3% holding part-time jobs. The impact of marriage and working spouse on the

Work/Life Balance of the individuals was also tested.

Table 5.1: The demographic profile of bank employees administered WLB/QWL scaleVariable Total

N=573 (Percentage)

Public SectorN=360

Private SectorN=213

Gender Male 417 (72.8) 289 (80.3) 128 (60.1) Female 156 (27.2) 71 (19.7) 85 (39.9)Marital Status Single 133 (23.2) 65 (18.1) 70 (32.9) Married 438 (76.4) 293 (81.4) 143 (67.1) Divorced or Widowed 2 (0.3) 2 (0.6) 0 (0.0)Educational Qualification Graduate 230 (40.2) 163 (45.3) 67 (31.5) Post-graduate 170 (29.7) 119 (33.1) 51 (23.9) Professionals 171 (29.8) 76 (21.1) 95 (44.6) Others 2 (0.3) 2 (0.6)Age 20-29 181 (31.6) 82 (22.8) 99 (46.5) 30-39 229 (40.0) 147 (40.8) 82 (38.5) 40-49 92 (16.1) 68 (18.9) 24 (11.3) 50-59 71 (12.4) 63 (17.5) 8 (3.8)Religion Hindu 542 (94.6) Muslim 27 (4.7) Sikh 4 (0.7)Type of Duties Managerial 436 (76.1) 284 (78.9) 152 (71.4) Non-managerial 137 (23.9) 76 (21.1) 61 (28.6)Length of Service 0 to 9 years 350 (61.1) 180 (50.0) 170 (79.8) 10 to 19 years 102 (17.8) 78 (21.7) 24 (11.3) 20 to 29 years 92 (16.1) 73 (20.3) 19 (8.9) 30 to 39 years 29 (5.1) 29 (8.1) 0 (0.0)Average Working Hours (per week)

<= 48 hours 237 (41.4) 203 (56.4) 34 (16.0) 49 to 60 hours 280 (48.9) 140 (38.9) 140 (65.7) More than 60 hours 56 (9.8) 17 (4.7) 39 (18.3)

107

Monthly Income ` 10,000/- to ` 50,000/- 428 (74.7) 283 (78.6) 145 (68.1) ` 50,001/-to ` 1,00,000/- 111 (19.4) 57 (15.8) 54 (25.4) ` 1,00,001/ and above 34 (5.9) 20 (5.6) 14 (6.6)Family type Nuclear 399 (69.6) 243 (67.5) 156 (73.2) Joint 174 (30.4) 117 (32.5) 57 (26.8)Family size 1-5 284 (49.6) 160 (44.4) 124 (58.2) 6-10 258 (45.0) 183 (50.8) 75 (35.2) 11-15 29 (5.1) 15 (4.2) 14 (6.6) 16-20 2 (0.3) 2 (0.6) 0 (0.0)Children in the family None 101 (17.6) 53 (14.7) 48 (22.5) One child present 373 (65.1) 252 (70.0) 121 (56.8) More than one child 99 (17.3) 55 (15.3) 44 (20.7)Caring responsibilities for None 395 (68.9) 267 (74.2) 128 (60.1) Elderly 102 (17.8) 49 (13.6) 53 (24.9) Disabled 15 (2.6) 7 (1.9) 8 (3.8) Sick 61 (10.6) 37 (10.3) 24 (11.3)Working Spouse Yes 143 (32.7)* 80 (27.1)* 63 (44.1)* No 295 (67.3)* 215 (72.9)* 80 (55.9)* Working status of spouse (if working) Part-time 39 (27.3)** 27 (33.8)** 12 (19.0)** Full-time 104 (72.7)** 53 (66.3)** 51 (81.0)*** calculated as percentage of total of number of spouses** calculated as percentage of total working spouses

The sample comprised 62.8% public sector bank employees and 37.2% private sector

bank employees, which was in accordance with the number of public and private sector

banks operating in the country. 76.1% were engaged in managerial duties while 23.9%

employees worked in non-managerial roles. This information was used in studying the

impact of duty type on the Work/Life Balance of an individual. Since length of service

has also been construed as influencing the work/life conflict experienced by a person, the

respondents’ length of service, too, was recorded. The average length of service for the

entire sample was 10.40 years, with 12.68 years average length of service in case of

public sector bank employees and 6.54 years average length of service for the private

108

sector bank employees. While there was a concentration on respondents in the 0 to 9

years service bracket, almost equal number of respondents, 17.8% and 16.1%, had put in

service in the range of 10-19 years and 20-29 years respectively.

Average working hours per week were segmented in three slabs – less than and equal to

48 hours, 49 to 60 hours and more than 60 hours average for a week. The number of

hours worked on an average showed a pretty clear divide in case of public and private

sector bank employees. The mean working hours for public sector employees came out

to be 48.41 hours per week, while the mean for private sector bank employees was

higher at 56.92 hours on an average per week. The average income of the respondents

was ` 45,000 with the maximum income touching ` 2,60,000. The average income for

private sector was slightly higher at ` 47,300/- than public sector, which had a mean

value of ` 43,200/-. Majority of the respondents, 428 bank employees (74.7%) were in

the income band of `10,000 to ` 50,000/-, while 111 employees (19.37%) indicated that

their income was between `50,001/- and `1,00,000/-. 34 i.e. 5.93% respondents had the

highest income which was ` 1,00,001/- and above.

The sample gave a clear indication that India is fast graduating from a joint family set-up

to a predominantly nuclear family set-up. 69.6% respondents belonged to nuclear family

structure with a smaller 30.4% group still retaining a joint family structure in place.

Further, there was a strong indication of the family size getting smaller by the day. About

half the respondents i.e. 49.6% had a small family size with 1-5 members, closely

followed by those having 6 to 10 member (45.0%). A very small number had families

with more than 10 members (5.4%). Within these families, 17.6% did not have any

children, while a majority (82.4%) had one or more children to look after. Here, children

in the family were recorded and does not necessarily mean children of the respondent

itself. Since, caring responsibilities were construed as having a role to play in Work/Life

Balance, information on this was also captured. 68.9% had no caring responsibilities. On

the other hand, there were major caring responsibilities for the elderly (17.8%) and sick

(10.6%). Caring responsibilities for a disabled family member were the least (2.6%).

109

5.2 Measurement InstrumentThe instrument used for measuring Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and

Employee Job Performance was developed by the researcher. There were three scales

which were developed – one for measuring the Work/Life Balance scores, another for

measuring the Quality of Work/Life of the bank employees and the third for measuring

the perceived Job Performance of the employee. The tool used for data collection was a

structured questionnaire with items measured on a seven point Likert scale. 21 out of 24

items for the Work/Life Balance scale were negative in nature and responses were

recorded on Likert scale with ‘strongly disagree = 7’ and ‘strongly agree=1’. For the

three positively worded items (item no 19, 20 and 21), the scores were reversed to

‘strongly disagree = 1’ to ‘strongly agree’ = 7.

In case of the Quality of Work/Life scale, 17 items out of 26 items were positively

worded and were coded as ‘strongly disagree = 1’ to ‘strongly agree’ = 7. The remaining

negatively worded 9 items were reverse coded, with ‘strongly disagree = 7’ and ‘strongly

agree=1’. In case of Job Performance scale, 2 out of 10 items were reverse coded as

these were negatively worded. The measuring instrument was composed of five parts as

described below:

Part 1 The first part consisted of 18 questions on demographic factors such as age,

education level, work experience, income, marital status, family size and caring

responsibilities.

Part 2 This part labelled as ‘SECTION A’ dealt with 24 questions on Work/Life

Balance including work-to-personal life spillover and personal life-to-work spillover.

The constructs were:

Work Spillover in Personal Life (WSPL) - items 1-13

Personal Life Spillover in Work (PLSW) - items 14-18

Work/Life Balance Enhancers (WLBE) - items 19-21 (Reverse coded)

Work/Life Balance Constrainers (WLBC) - items 22-24

110

Part 3 labelled as ‘SECTION B’ consisted of questions related to Quality of Work/life

and had a total of 26 items, operationalised as:

Organisational Commitment - items 7-10, 18, 19

Supervisory Support - items 1-5

Rewards and Promotion Opportunity - items 11-13

Task capability and Significance - items 26-28

Work Load - items 20-22 (Reverse coded)

Job Ambiguity - items 15-17 (Reverse coded)

Work Pressure - items 23-25 (Reverse coded)

Part 4 This part, labelled as ‘SECTION C’ had 10 questions dealing with performance.

These were termed as:

Task Achievement Orientation - ietms 2-5, 8

Resource Trust Orientation - items 7, 9, 10

Learning Involvement Orientation - items 1, 6 (Reverse coded)

Further, there was one question each asking the respondent about his perception of his

quality of work/life and Work/Life Balance.

5.2.1 WLB Scale Construction

The concept of work/life conflict and work/family conflict were developed in the West

and has been studied quite vigorously in Western countries (Greenhaus, and Beutell,

1985; Frone, 2000; Frone et al, 1997; Thomas and Ganster, 1995, Higgins, and Duxbury,

2001; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Gutek, Searle, and Klepa, 1991) (Table 5.2). However,

there is a notable lack of information on the concept in Eastern countries (Wesley and

Muthuswamy, 2005) and whatever studies have been undertaken in the area of

Work/Life Balance and work/life conflict in India, are characterised by a glaring and

distinct lack of focus (Rajadhyaksha and Smita, 2004). It is noted that issues of

111

interdependence and encroachment of work family domains on each other are not

confined to western countries like USA and Canada alone (Lewis et al, 1992), there is a

need to explore it in other countries as well. The differences in attitudes, values and

behaviours between the employees in west and those belonging to the countries in the

East is very much evident (Black and Porter, 1991; Ralston et al, 1993), making it

imperative to study the work/family constructs from the point of view of emerging

economies like India, where the institution of family is very strong and where of late

women participation in professional sphere is on the rise (Chandra, 2010).

Table 5.2: Work/Life scales reviewed for the WLB instrument

WLB Study Factors

Bacharach et al.,, 1991. 4 items work-home inter-role conflictBohen, and Viveros-Long, 1981. 19 items measuring role strain

Boyar et al.,, 2007. Perceived Work Demand and Perceived Family Demand

Carlson, and Perrewe, 1999. 4 additional items added to Gutek et al.,, scale.Carlson et al.,, 2006. 18 item Family-Work Enrichment Carlson et al.,, 1998. 6 dimensions, 18 items, 3 per dimensionFrone et al.,, 1992. 4 items – work-family and family-work interference Gutek et al.,, 1991. 8 Items – work-family and family-work interference

Hanson et al.,, 2006. Behavior-based instrumental positive spillover, Value-based instrumental positive spillover, and Affective positive spillover.

Holbrook, 2005. Work-Family facilitationKopelman et al.,, 1983. 8 items inter-role conflict between work and familyNetemeyer et al.,, 1996. WFC, 5 items and FWC, 5 itemsSmall and Riley, 1990. 20 items SpilloverStephens and Sommer, 1996. 14 items Time, Strain and Behaviour Based conflict

Studies in India as well as in neighbouring countries have primarily depended upon

foreign scales for evaluating work/life conflict and Work/Life Balance. Bhargava and

Baral (2009) in their study on the ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Work-Family

Enrichment among Indian Managers’ and Rajadhyaksha and Velgach (2000), for their

study ‘Gender, Gender Role Ideology and Work Family Conflict in India’ have used

items from the Carlson et al., (2000) measure on Work-to-Family Enrichment and

Family-to-Work Enrichment to ascertain work/family conflict. Similarly, Noor and Maad

112

(2008) in their study of Work Life Conflict, Stress and Turnover Intentions among

Marketing Executives in Pakistan, Ahmad’s 1998 on Gender Differences in the

Boundary Permeability between Work and Family Roles and Malhotra and Sachdeva

(2005) for Social Roles and Role Conflict: An Inter-professional Study among Women,

have all used scales developed and validated outside India. Hence, it was felt that a scale

measuring Work/Life Balance in context with the Indian perceptions and setting was

much needed. The authors have come across just one scale measuring Work/Life

Balance constructed in Indian setting post liberalisation and globalisation of the Indian

economy. Wesley and Muthuswamy, (2005) developed a Work-Family Conflict scale

with five items each for Work Family Conflict and Family Work Conflict. Their

population for study was teaching faculty at self-financing engineering colleges in

Coimbatore, India. The study concentrated on work interference with life and life

interference with work and does not include the Behavioural component that is included

in the present scale.

The gaps identified above necessitated undertaking the present study on Work/Life

Balance. The study examines a bi-directional work/life construct in the Indian context.

After completing the literature review, an empirical study was undertaken aimed at

developing and validating a scale for measuring Work/Life Balance among professionals

working in India.

5.2.1.1 Scale construction

Item Generation

The constructs for forming a scale measuring Work/Life Balance were identified by

conducting focussed group discussions as well as through literature review (Bihen and

Viveros-Long, 1981; Kopelman et al.,, 1983; Small and Riley, 1990; Gutek, et al.,, 1991;

Adams, et al.,, 1996; Ahmad, 1996; Netemeyer et al.,, 1996; Aryee, et al.,, 1998;

Bedeian et al.,, 1988; Holbrook, 2005; Carlson et al.,, 2006; Hanson, et al.,, 2006; Boyar

et al.,, 2007; Brough et al.,, 2009) (table 5.3).

113

Table 5.3: Items included in the pilot of the WLB instrumentSl.

Item Study

1 Personal work interferes with responsibilities at work. (reworded)

Gutek, Searle and Klepa, 1991

2 Put off things at work due to family demands on time. Group discussion3 Family related strain interferes with job related duties. Netemeyer et al.,, 19964 The demands of family or spouse/partner interfere with

work-related activities.Netemeyer et al.,, 1996

5 The things that make one effective at work also help in being a better parent and spouse

Stephens and Sommer, 1996

6 What works at home seems to be effective at work as well and vice-versa

Stephens and Sommer, 1996

7 The problem solving approach used in job is equally effective in resolving problems at home

Group discussion

8 Behaviour effective at work is counter-productive at home

Stephens and Sommer, 1996

9 The response to interpersonal problems at work and home is different from each other.

Group discussion

10 It is not possible to act similarly at home as at work Group discussion11 Due to work related duties, I have to make changes to my

plans for family activitiesNetemeyer et al.,, 1996

12 My spouse/partner and I have different goals Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007

13 I know what my family responsibilities are Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007

14 I am given a lot of work to do. Scott L. Boyar et al, 2007

15 I meet my standards regarding expertise in taking care of my child (parental efficacy)

Cinamon et al.,, 2007

16 I believe that my partner thinks that I am competent in the accomplishment of various housekeeping tasks

Clarke et al.,, 2004

17 My friends/family dislike how often I am preoccupied with my work while I’m at home.

Kopelman, Greenhaus and Connely(1983)

18 I feel physically drained when I get home from work. Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981)

19 The amount of travel requires by my job interferes with my family life.

Pleck, 1979

20 My job or career keeps me from spending the amount of time I would like to spend with my family

Carlson and Perrewe, 1999

21 My home life keeps me from spending the amount of time I would like to spend on job or career-related

Carlson and Perrewe, 1999

114

activities22 My work schedule often conflicts with my family life Kopelman, et al.,, 198323 Because I am tired after work, I don't see friends as much

as I would like toSmall and Riley (1990)

24 Time spent at home energises me for work Group discussion25 I have greater confidence at work if I have a better day at

homeGroup discussion

26 My workplace provides contacts which help me in my personal/family performance

Group discussion

27 I believe that my partner thinks I am competent in my role of parent

Clarke et al.,, 2004

28 Talking with someone at work helps me deal with personal/family related challenges

Group discussion

29 Work demands interfere with personal life (reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199630 Work keeps one away from family more than liked. Stephens and Sommer,

199631 Rushed in doing the job Bacharach et al.,, 199132 Time taken by job makes it difficult to fulfil family

obligations (reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199633 Work takes up time meant to be spent with family. Cinamon et al.,, 200734 Personal chores cannot be done due to job demands

(reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199635 Job duties force changes in plans for family activities. Group discussion36 Job related strain leads to changes in family activities.

(reworded) Netemeyer et al.,, 199637 There is no time to finish job Bacharach et al.,, 199138 The strain of attempting to balance responsibilities at

work and home is often feltStephens and Sommer, 1996

39 Work makes me too tired or irritable to enjoy personal life.

Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981)

40 The tension of balancing responsibilities at home and work often result in feeling emotionally drained.

Stephens and Sommer, 1996

41 Job demands make it difficult to maintain the kind of relationship with spouse and children/ family as one would like

Stephens and Sommer, 1996

42 Official work cannot be completed due to family demands. Group discussion

The study focuses on understanding the work/life related issues for working

professionals. Thus, focused group discussions were held with randomly chosen

employees drawn from four areas, viz. 10 managerial level employees of a private sector

company, 12 academicians, 7 social sector professionals and 15 public sector employees

to identify factors considered relevant to Work/Life Balance by professionals working in

115

the city of Lucknow, India. Each focussed group lasted for an average of 60 minutes and

yielded a list of about 100 variables which were thought to impact Work/Life Balance.

This list was subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth discussions

with Human Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of 45 items

was constructed, constituting the WLB dimensions. A posteriori the choice of factors

seemed pretty similar to those proposed in writings on Work/Life Balance.

Sampling

As the population of professionals is infinite, purposeful sampling (Yin 1994) was used.

The study was conducted in North India and the sample was drawn from five sectors

namely, banking, insurance, education, public health and telecommunications by non

probability convenience sampling based on sampling strategies described by Patton (Pg.

169-186; 1990). 4 banks, 3 insurance firms, 5 educational institutions, 1 public health

research organisation and 2 telecommunications firms, all in North India, were covered.

A deliberate attempt was made to represent different age groups as also to include

respondents from different vocations, both public and private sector undertakings as well

as full and part-time work status, so as to reduce systematic bias in sampling, the other

aim being to enhance the generalisability of results (Young, 1993).

A total of 250 questionnaires were personally administered and of these 228 were found

fit for analysis as they were complete in all respects. The entire sample, thus, represents

banks professionals (n=50), insurance firms (n=44), 5 educational institutions (n=50), 1

public health research organisation (n=40) and 2 telecommunications (n=44). Post data

collection, it was cross checked for double entries and missing responses, a master chart

prepared and fed into Excel sheets. It was further prepared for analysis by coding and

analysed using SPSS 19.0. The demographic profile of the respondents is given in table

(Refer Table 5.4)

Data Reduction

Factor Analysis was done to identify the underlying factors and to group the constructs

into manageable factors. Since, the appropriateness of data for factor analysis needs to be

established, the sampling adequacy test was performed through Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) statistic. Table 5.5 provides the SPSS output of data for factor analysis. Since,

116

KMO values greater than 0.6 is considered as adequate (Kaiser and Rice, 1974), hence,

the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy with value of 0.801 was

acceptable. Barlett's Test of Sphericity (3752.653, df. 276, Sig.0.00) show that the values

are significant and hence, acceptable implying that non-zero correlations existed at the

significance level of 0.000, it provided an adequate basis for proceeding with the factor

analysis.

Table 5.4: Demographic profile of respondents (WLB scale development)Variable N=228 PercentageGender Male Female

15078

65.834.2

Marital Status Single Married Divorcee/Widowed

551744

21.976.31.8

Educational Status Graduate Post Graduate Professional/Doctorate

0844176

3.519.377.2

Type of Organisation Private sector Public sector

120108

52.647.4

Work status Full time Part-time

208 20

91.28.8

The Principle Components method for extraction was employed with the Varimax

Rotation with Kaiser Normalisation. The rotation converged in six iterations, and factors

with Eigen values greater than one were retained (Hair et al, 2009). Further, in order to

assess the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis, the communalities derived from

the factor analysis were reviewed. These were all relatively large (greater than 0.5,

falling in the range 0.650 to 0.915), suggesting that the data set is appropriate (Stewart,

1981). This final version having twenty four items was finalised for the scale. It has three

items which were reverse scored during data interpretation. To interpret the factors and

construct the final version, only those variables having a loading at least 0.55 on a single

factor were considered. Factor loadings of 0.55 or greater are "Practically significant" for

sample size 100. (Hair et al, 2009, Pg 152).

117

5.2.1.2 Constructs

The screening test extracted four factors with Eigen values greater than 1 ranging from

1.511 to 10.628, which shows the importance of each factor and their relative

explanatory power. These four factors accounted for 79.947 percent of the total variance.

These are operationalised as:

Factor 1 – Work Spillover in Personal Life (WSPL),

Factor 2 – Personal Life Spillover in Work (PLSW),

Factor 3 – Work/Life Balance Enhancers (WLBE) and

Factor 4 – Work/Life Balance Constrainers (WLBC).

The first factor included 13 items relating to Work Spillover in Personal life namely job

interference in personal life, neglect of personal life/duties due to work related duties,

personal/family time being infringed upon by work responsibilities.

The second group, with 5 items, related to Personal Life Spillover in Work namely

demands of personal life interfering with work-related activities, having to postpone

things at work because of demands on time at home, inability to do things at work

because of the demands of one’s personal life and family related strain precluding proper

discharge of work responsibilities.

The third factor Work/Life Balance Enhancers had three items loading on it, namely, the

problem solving approach used at job also being effective in resolving problems at home,

things proving effective at work also helping one be a better parent and spouse.

The fourth factor, Work/Life Balance Constrainers had significant loadings of 3 items

such as behavioural response to interpersonal problems, behavioural effectiveness and

inability to behave in the same manner at home as well as workplace.

All four factors were used to constitute the subscales and analysed. The results are shown

in Table 5.5. The four factors combined explained 79.95 percent of variance both before

and after rotation.

Table 5.5. Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for WLB Measurement Scale.

118

Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for Work/Life Balance Measurement Scale

Factor

Subscale/Items I II III IVWork Spillover in Personal Life (WSPL)

Work demands interfere with personal life0.934 0.093 0.141

-0.045

Work keeps one away from family more than liked.0.918 -

0.162-

0.1090.083

Rushed in doing the job0.910 0.082 0.076

-0.059

Time taken by job makes it difficult to fulfil family obligations 0.900 -

0.1420.129 0.127

Work takes up time meant to be spent with family.0.874 -

0.139-

0.0040.115

Personal chores cannot be done due to job demands 0.867 0.096 0.165 0.201Job duties force changes in plans for family activities.

0.832 0.247-

0.0120.161

Job related strain leads to changes in family activities. 0.821 0.149 0.271 0.184There is no time to finish job

0.796 0.240 0.224-

0.016The strain of attempting to balance responsibilities at work

and home is often felt 0.734 -0.173

-0.028

0.419

Work demands lead to irritability in personal life.0.674 -

0.1240.411 0.526

The tension of balancing responsibilities at home and work often result in feeling emotionally drained. 0.663 -

0.1430.257 0.512

Job demands make it difficult to maintain the kind of relationship with spouse and children/ family as one would like 0.644 -

0.1820.433 0.479

Personal Life Spillover in Work (PLSW) Official work cannot be completed due to family demands.

0.168 0.867 0.284-

0.066 Home life interferes with responsibilities at work. -

0.0600.866

-0.175

0.128

Put off things at work due to family demands on time.0.089 0.861

-0.005

-0.148

Family related strain interferes with job related duties. -0.118

0.812-

0.1940.103

The demands of family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities. 0.007 0.787 0.203

-0.082

Work/Life Balancel Enhancers (WLBE) The things that make one effective at work also help in

being a better parent and spouse-

0.090-

0.092-

0.946-

0.087 What works at home seems to be effective at work as well

and vice-versa-

0.261-

0.115-

0.883-

0.198

119

The problem solving approach used in job is equally effective in resolving problems at home 0.007 0.125

-0.738

-0.300

Work/Life Balancel Constrainers (WLBC) Behaviour effective at work is counter-productive at home -

0.0450.009 0.069 0.903

The response to interpersonal problems at work and home is different from each other. 0.319

-0.053

0.332 0.751

It is not possible to act similarly at home as at work 0.283 0.126 0.355 0.558Eigen value of the factor 10.62

83.963 3.085 1.511

Percent of variance explained by the factor before rotation

44.282

16.513

12.856

6.296

Percent of variance explained by the factor after rotation

37.619

16.286

13.652

12.3905.2.1.3 Reliability and Validity

Reliability of the Work/Life Balance scale and the constituent subscales was estimated

by analyses of internal consistency and Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach 1951).

The scale reliability is fairly good at 0.908, with subscale reliability of 0.968 for subscale

I (WSPL), 0.898 for subscale II (PLSW), 0.883 for subscale III (WLBE) and 0.798 for

subscale IV (WLBC). For a measure to be acceptable, coefficient alpha should be above

0.7 (Nunally 1978). Hence, the reliability of the scale comes out to be quite good and

above the acceptable value (Table 5.6a).

Table 5.6a) Description and reliability analysis of subscales for Work/Life Balance Measurement Scale.Statistics

SubscaleWSPL PLSW WLBE WLBC

Number of items 13 5 3 3Mean 4.049 2.333 4.646 4.327Variance 3.131 1.232 1.405 1.282Cronbach’s Alpha (Scale reliability = 0.908)

0.968 0.898 0.883 0.798Lowest inter-item correlation 0.420 0.524 0.609 0.418Highest inter-item correlation 0.934 0.730 0.911 0.706

WSPL=Work Spillover in Personal Life, PLSW=Personal Life Spillover in Work, WLBE=Work/Life Balance Enhancers, WLBC=Work/Life Balance Constrainers.

Convergent validity

Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed three procedures to assess the convergent validity

of a set of measurement items in relation to their corresponding constructs. These are (1)

item reliability of each measure, (2) composite reliability of each construct and (3) the

average variance extracted. The item reliability of an item was assessed by its factor

120

loading onto the underlying construct. Hair et al., (2009) suggested that an item is

significant if its factor loading is greater than 0.50. As shown in table 5.5, the eigen

values of all constructs exceeded 1.00 and the percent of cumulative variance explained

by these four constructs was 79.947%. The factor loadings of all the items in the measure

ranged from 0.644 to 0.946. This exceeds the threshold set by Hair et al., (2009) and

demonstrates convergent validity at the item level. The composite reliability of each

construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Nunally (1978), Robinson et al., (1991)

and DeVellis (2003) suggested that an alpha value of .70 should be considered an

acceptable measure of reliability. As shown in table 5.6a, the reliabilities of all the

constructs range from 0.798 to 0.968 and is well within the range suggested by Nunally

(1978), Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis (2003). The final indicator of convergent

validity, average variance extracted, is a more conservative test of convergent validity

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). It measures the amount of variance captured by the

construct in relation to the amount of variance attributable to measurement error.

Convergent validity is judged to be adequate when average variance extracted equals or

exceeds 0.50 (i.e. when the variance captured by the construct exceeds the variance due

to measurement error). As shown in Table 5.6b, the convergent validity for the proposed

constructs of the research model is adequate as the AVE for each of the Work/Life

Balance sub-scales is more than 0.5, indicating an adequate convergent validity.

Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity is assessed to measure the extent to which constructs are different.

At the item level, Barclay et al., (1995) suggested that discriminant validity is present

when an item correlates more highly with items in the construct it intends to measure

than with items belonging to other constructs. In this study, an acceptable level of

discriminant validity at the item level was found. At the construct level, discriminant

validity is considered adequate when the variance shared between a construct and any

other construct in the model is less than the variance that construct shares with its

measures (Fornell et al.,, 1982). The variance shared by any two constructs is obtained

by squaring the correlation between the two constructs. The variance shared between a

construct and its measures corresponds to average variance extracted. Discriminant

validity was assessed by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted for

121

a given construct with the correlations between that construct and all other constructs.

Table 5.6b shows the correlation matrix for the constructs. The diagonal elements have

been replaced by the square roots of the average variance extracted. For discriminant

validity to be judged adequate, these diagonal elements should be greater than the off-

diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. Discriminant validity appears

satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs. This indicates that each

construct shared more variance with its items than it does with other constructs. Having

achieved discriminant validity at both the item and construct levels, the constructs in the

proposed research model are deemed to be adequate.

Table 5.6b): Inter-construct correlation matrix* and AVE for WLB scaleWSPL PLSW WLBE WLBC

WSPL (.819)PLSW 0.011 (.839)WLBE -0.340 -0.051 (.860)WLBC 0.457 0.004 -0.485 (.751)* = p < .01; Diagonal in parantheses: square root of average variance extracted from observed variables (items); Off-diagonal: correlation between constructs.

Further, the respondents were asked a straight forward question on their status of

Work/Life Balance. This question was asked to ascertain whether the Work/Life Balance

score from the scale measured the Work/Life Balance as perceived by the respondent or

not. The answer to this question has a high correlation ( = .738) with the scores of WLB

scale, which points to the robustness of the scale used for measuring WLB (Tables 5.7).

Table 5.7: Correlation between WLB scores and question on WLB in life

MeanStd.

Deviation CorrelationOverall (N = 573)WLB score 4.16 1.00

.738 **I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)

3.75 1.69

Public Sector Banks (N = 360)

.755**WLB score 4.02 1.03I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)

3.62 1.67

Private Sector Banks (N = 213) .705**WLB score 4.38 .92I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fufil my potential both in 3.95 1.70

122

my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life.)** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

This was separately tested for public and private sector bank staff. The results are

reported in table 5.7. This revealed that the responses of public sector and private sector

bank employees to the question ‘I generally have a balance in my life i.e. I fulfil my

potential in my career and as a spouse and a parent/in my personal life’ correlated quite

well with the summated score of the Work/Life Balance scale. While public sector

correlation stood at .755, the private sector, too, showed a high correlation value at .705.

The convergent and discriminant validity of the scale was also tested and found to be

good. These are reported in table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Convergent and Discriminant Validity correlations for the WLB scaleItem 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 11 Item 12 Item 14 Item 15 Item 18 Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 22 Item 23 Item 24 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27

Item 1 1 .840(**) .819(**) .790(**) .796(**) .859(**) .875(**) .794(**) .791(**) .629(**) .631(**) .595(**) .554(**) 0.122 0.123 .260(**) -0.005 -0.063 -0.107 -.191(*) -.366(**) .366(**) .311(**) -0.042Item 2 1 .834(**) .841(**) .717(**) .691(**) .772(**) .807(**) .781(**) .708(**) .756(**) .719(**) .710(**) -0.058 -0.107 0.095 -.197(*) -.212(*) -.217(*) -0.167 -.303(**) .303(**) .393(**) 0.117Item 3 1 .836(**) .786(**) .699(**) .759(**) .753(**) .702(**) .665(**) .779(**) .730(**) .705(**) 0.097 0.099 .262(**) 0.041 -0.024 -0.176 -.262(**) -.402(**) .364(**) .432(**) 0.166Item 4 1 .701(**) .665(**) .728(**) .678(**) .631(**) .667(**) .799(**) .721(**) .698(**) .201(*) 0.171 .361(**) -0.038 0.039 -.192(*) -.344(**) -.490(**) .396(**) .397(**) .189(*)Item 5 1 .707(**) .738(**) .716(**) .697(**) .656(**) .561(**) .499(**) .533(**) 0.15 .215(*) .336(**) .243(**) 0.065 -0.085 -0.114 -.258(**) .397(**) .396(**) 0.081Item 11 1 .863(**) .609(**) .592(**) .420(**) .545(**) .542(**) .496(**) 0.17 .214(*) .402(**) 0.144 0.008 -0.089 -.274(**) -.401(**) .518(**) .327(**) 0.009Item 12 1 .769(**) .769(**) .536(**) .591(**) .559(**) .574(**) 0.085 0.139 .201(*) -0.03 -0.039 0.005 -0.121 -.313(**) .367(**) .304(**) -0.077Item 14 1 .934(**) .777(**) .618(**) .629(**) .653(**) -0.142 -0.021 -0.014 -0.148 -.203(*) 0.018 -0.019 -0.157 0.158 .345(**) 0.03Item 15 1 .721(**) .622(**) .614(**) .645(**) -0.096 -0.02 0.014 -0.133 -0.177 -0.122 -0.091 -.253(**) .238(*) .462(**) 0.034Item 18 1 .724(**) .698(**) .698(**) -0.155 -0.098 -0.064 -0.124 -0.16 -0.146 -0.104 -.268(**) .358(**) .504(**) .277(**)Item 19 1 .921(**) .883(**) -0.026 -0.097 0.081 -.195(*) -0.172 -.422(**) -.476(**) -.634(**) .540(**) .719(**) .472(**)Item 20 1 .862(**) -0.021 -0.132 0.059 -.235(*) -.281(**) -.454(**) -.493(**) -.591(**) .468(**) .639(**) .483(**)Item 21 1 -0.07 -0.082 0.01 -0.127 -.200(*) -.254(**) -.358(**) -.523(**) .434(**) .640(**) .435(**)Item 6 1 .672(**) .684(**) .524(**) .574(**) -0.09 -.213(*) -.197(*) -0.021 -0.116 0.058Item 7 1 .730(**) .689(**) .604(**) .205(*) -0.086 -0.118 0.039 -0.107 -0.166Item 8 1 .701(**) .579(**) -0.056 -.374(**) -.351(**) .192(*) 0.057 -0.024Item 9 1 .665(**) 0.158 0.051 0.028 0.102 0.006 0.057Item 10 1 0.16 0.113 0.047 -0.003 -0.089 0.065Item 22 1 .640(**) .609(**) -.338(**) -.438(**) -.347(**)Item 23 1 .911(**) -.382(**) -.412(**) -0.127Item 24 1 -.510(**) -.554(**) -0.182Item 25 1 .706(**) .418(**)Item 26 1 .576(**)Item 27 1

5.2.2 QWL Scale ConstructionLiterature on quality of work/life in India is not systematic (Saklani, 2010) making it

difficult to comprehend the meaning of QWL in Indian context (Gani and Ahmad, 1995).

Published QWL studies and literature from ASEAN countries are not much and a major

part of QWL literature is contributed by the first world countries (Bagtasos, 2011).

Studies have been attempted in India to gauge the quality of work life of employees in

both public as well as private sector but the emphasis has been the manufacturing sector

123

and have been conducted prior to the opening up of the Indian economy (Ganguli and

Joseph, 1976; Monga and Maggu, 1981; Sanyal and Sinh, 1982; Kalra and Ghosh, 1983;

Rahman, 1984; Singh, 1984; Chakraborthy, 1990). Since, these studies have been

concentrated in the period before the Indian economy was liberalised, they fail to capture

the impact of post liberalisation work environment of 1991. After liberalisation and

globalisation of India’s economy, the country’s services sector has been pivotal in

realizing the overall economic growth in the country and has been growing rapidly for

the past few years. In the current year 2009-2010, the services sector is expected to

record a comfortable growth of more than 10 per cent (Central Statistical Organisation of

India). Service providing industries like health care, tourism and hotels, communication,

trade and retail, banking financial services, transportation and logistics etc. form the

main stay of the Indian economy today (Marwaha et al.,, 2010). This sector, providing

employment to 23% of the work force, has propelled the demand for educated workers.

The focus on service sector and its contribution merits a closer examination of the

quality of work life of its professionals. Therefore it necessitates that a measure be

developed to study the factors impacting the quality of work life of employees in the post

liberalisation India. Further, studies in Indian organisations reveal that, in contrast to

Western countries, relational and environmental factors have greater importance with

regard to QWL, here (Saklani, 2010). There are few studies from the service sector with

the available literature dealing more with industrial sector (Bagtasos, 2011). Hence, the

need was felt to develop a measure for studying Quality of Work Life.

Literature review undertaken and purposive conversations with service sector

professionals from banking and insurance helped in drawing inferences on factors and

issues influencing quality of work life. 5 focused group discussions were conducted by

asking the respondents open ended questions about factors in their professional life that

increase or decrease their quality of work life. These interactions with banking service

professionals provided valuable insights regarding issues related to QWL and helped in

compiling a list of about 60 variables that can influence the quality of working life of an

individual. This list was subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth

discussions with Human Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of

124

28 items was constructed, constituting the QWL dimensions. A posteriori the choice of

factors seemed similar to those proposed in writings on quality of work life (Van Laar

and Easton, 2007; Sirgy et al.,, 2001; Ellis and Pompli, 2002; Baba and Jamal, 1991;

Mirvis and Lawler, 1984; Taylor, 1979; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Walton, 1973,

1975; Orpen, 1981; Stein, 1983; Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999; Saklani, 2010) (Table

5.9).

Table 5.9: QWL literature reviewed for scale constructionSl.

QWLStudy Dimensions/characteristics

1Van Laar and Easton, 2007

Job and Career Satisfaction; Working Conditions; General Well-Being; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at Work

2Sirgy et al.,, 2001

Need satisfaction based on job requirements; need satisfaction based on work environment; need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour; need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes; organizational commitment.

3Ellis and Pompli, 2002

Poor working environments; resident aggression; workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred; balance of work and family; shiftwork; lack of involvement in decision making; professional isolation; lack of recognition; poor relationships with supervisor/peers; role conflict; lack of opportunity to learn new skills.

4Van Der Doef and Maes, 1999

Skill discretion; decision authority; task control; work time pressure; role ambiguity; physical exertion; hazardous exposure; job insecurity; lack of meaningfulness; social support supervisor; social support colleagues

5Baba and Jamal, 1991

Job satisfaction; job involvement; work role ambiguity; work role conflict; work role overload; job stress; organisational commitment and turn-over intentions

6Mirvis and Lawler, 1984

Safe work environment; equitable wages; equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement.

7 Stein, 1983Compensation; working environment; autonomy and control; skill variety; decision discretion;

8 Orpen, 1981Job responsibility; intricacy of decision-making and harmfulness ofworking conditions

9 Taylor, 1979 Individual power; employee participation in the management; fairness and equity; social support; use of one’s present skills; self development; a meaningful future at work; social relevance of the

125

work or product; effect on extra work activities.

10Hackman and Oldham, 1976

Psychological growth needs, identifying skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback

11Walton, 1973; 1975

Adequate and fair compensation; safe and healthy working conditions; immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities; opportunity for continued growth and security; social integration in the work organization; constitutionalism in the work organization; work and total life space and social relevance of work life

5.2.2.1 Scale Construction

Item Generation

Based on the item pool of the shortlisted 28 variables, a structured questionnaire was

framed and a pilot study conducted. These 28 items were pretested on a sample size of

40 service professionals for clarity and relevance of the items. Wherever the need to

restate or to reword was felt, it was done. 2 items were omitted as they had low

concurrence (factor loading less than 0.4) yielding 26 items for further tests. The

research instrument had two sections. Section A recorded pertinent demographic

information such as age, gender, marital status, educational qualification, organisation

and employment type, working hours, nature of duties and caring responsibilities at

home. Section B had 26 items related to quality of work life and 10 items related to self-

reported measure of performance. The constructs were written in simple English and a

seven point Likert scale was used with labels ranging from ‘strongly disagree = 1’ to

‘strongly agree’ = 7 for 17 out of 26 positively worded items and the remaining

negatively worded 9 items were reverse coded, with ‘strongly disagree = 7’ and ‘strongly

agree=1’. Out of 10 items, 8 items pertaining to performance were positively worded,

while 2 were negatively worded (reverse coded) and coded on a seven point-Likert scale.

Sampling

Owing to the infinite nature of the population of professionals, purposeful sampling

(Yin, 1994) was used. The study was conducted in select states of North India and the

sample was drawn from banking and insurance sector by non probability convenience

sampling based on sampling strategies described by Patton (1990). 6 banks, (3 private

sector and 3 public sector) from North India, were covered. A deliberate attempt was

126

made to represent different age groups as also to include respondents from different

vocations, both public and private sector undertakings as well as full and part-time work

status, so as to reduce systematic bias in sampling, the other aim being to enhance the

generalisability of results (Young, 1993). A total of 450 questionnaires were

administered, 372 were received back and of these 360 were found fit for analysis as

they were complete in all respects. The entire sample, thus, represents 228 employees

from public sector banks and 132 professionals from private sector banks. Post data

collection, it was cross checked for double entries and missing responses, a master chart

prepared and fed into Excel sheets. It was further prepared for analysis by coding and

analysed using SPSS 19.0. The demographic profile of respondents is given in table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Demographic profile of respondents (QWL scale development and Employee Performance measure)Variable N=360 PercentageGender Male Female

233127

64.735.3

Marital Status Single Married Divorcee/Widowed

1042542

28.870.60.6

Educational Status Graduate Post Graduate Professional/Doctorate

67178115

18.649.432.0

Type of Organisation Private sector Public sector

164196

45.654.4

Work status Full time Part-time

31545

87.512.5

Data Reduction

To develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring the quality of work life, the

underlying factors were identified using Factor Analysis. The constructs for forming the

scale were identified by conducting focussed group discussions as well as through

literature review. For establishing the appropriateness of data for factor analysis, the

sampling adequacy test was performed through Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic.

Table 5.12 provides the SPSS output of data for factor analysis. Since, KMO values

127

greater than 0.6 is considered as adequate (Kaiser and Rice, 1974), the Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin measure of sampling adequacy with value of 0.818 was acceptable. Barlett's Test

of Sphericity (5752.745, df. 378, Sig.0.00) show that the values are significant and

hence, acceptable implying that non-zero correlations existed at the significance level of

0.000, it provided an adequate basis for proceeding with the factor analysis. The

Principle Components method for extraction was employed with the Varimax Rotation

with Kaiser Normalisation. The rotation converged in seven iterations, and factors with

Eigen values greater than one were retained (Hair et al.,, 2009). The communalities were

all relatively large (greater than 0.5, falling in range 0.57 to 0.84), suggesting that the

data set is appropriate (Stewart, 1981). This final version having twenty six items was

finalised for the scale. It has three items which were reverse scored during data

interpretation. To interpret the factors and construct the final version, only those

variables having a loading at least 0.50 on a single factor were considered (Hair et al.,,

2009). The screening test extracted seven factors with Eigen values greater than 1

ranging from 1.13 to 7.43, which shows the importance of each factor and their relative

explanatory power. These seven factors accounted for 70.09 percent of the total variance.

5.2.2.2 Constructs

The constructs which finally make up the Quality of Work/life Scale are described in

detail in this section. These are Factor I (Organisational Commitment) 6 items dealing

with pride in belonging to the organisation, being glad of working in the organisation,

and enjoying a healthy working environment. Factor II (Supervisor Support) 5 items

consisting of constructive feedback from the supervisor, supportive supervisor, sharing

information and expectations and giving a patient hearing. Factor III (Rewards and

Promotion opportunity) with 3 items having satisfaction with rewards and compensation,

opportunities for promotion and satisfaction with present working situation as part of it.

Factor IV (Task Capability and Significance) 3 items includes expertise in performing

assigned tasks and duties, response quality to customer queries and resource availability

and usage.

128

Factor V (Work load) with 3 items relating to workload and expectations at work. Factor

VI (Job ambiguity) items 3 items comprising lack of clarity on roles and responsibility as

well as about existing opportunities for advancements and promotions. Factor VII (Work

pressure) having 3 items dealing with unreasonable pressure for performance, conflicting

roles and working with inadequate material and resources. All seven factors were used to

constitute the subscales and analysed. In factor III, one item, B14 was dropped as it was

cross loading on Factor II as well (Table 5.11).

TABLE 5.11: Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for Quality of Work Life Measurement Scale.

ComponentConstructs/Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Organisational Commitment Proud of belonging to the organisation .796 .094 -.061 .225 -.021 -.016 -.053 Organisation inspires best in job performance .776 .050 .127 .217 -.061 .038 -.073 Care about the fate of this organization .752 .029 -.195 .222 .006 .001 -.054 Happy to have chosen the current organisation over others .745 .185 .103 .099 .007 -.004 -.062 Best possible organisation to work in .701 .108 .410 -.053 -.018 -.191 -.001 Good healthy working environment. .650 .148 .017 -.018 .062 -.340 -.038

Supervisor Support Supervisor provides constructive feedback .304 .836 -.053 .040 -.082 -.083 -.034 Supervisor shares information and makes expectations clear .349 .812 .002 .098 -.065 -.031 .001 Immediate supervisor is supportive -.120 .754 .364 .199 .142 -.149 -.016 Immediate supervisor gives patient hearing -.021 .742 .360 .318 .171 -.178 .014 Supervisory support to decisions .284 .509 .110 .424 -.221 .101 -.061 Supervisory recognition for job done well* .420 .479 .214 .296 -.180 .027 .086

Rewards and Promotion Opportunity Recognition for job done .156 .090 .850 .197 -.018 -.057 -.049 Satisfaction with benefits and compensation -.041 .010 .797 .162 .063 .045 -.026 Good opportunities for promotion. .149 .279 .732 .058 -.041 -.146 -.035 Colleagues can be relied on -.127 .463 .509 .111 .046 -.271 -.067

Task Capability and Significance Enjoy doing the job and take pride in it .218 .183 .186 .826 .127 .035 -.118 Respond quickly and courteously to customer queries, needs .221 .208 .151 .819 .059 -.095 -.091

Well versed in the assigned tasks and duties .248 .211 .195 .795 -.007 .022 -.220

Work Load Unrealistic work expectations .060 .008 -.004 .110 .825 -.007 .156 Workload more than can be finished in a routine day -.028 -.043 .013 -.105 .815 .114 .083 Amount of work load interferes with quality of performance -.048 .006 .038 .094 .807 .002 .060

Job Ambiguity Lack of clarity on scope and responsibilities of job -.031 -.090 -.023 -.039 .024 .869 .073

129

Feeling of insecurity and vulnerability at times at workplace. -.090 -.084 -.061 .194 -.069 .775 -.032 Too little authority to carry out the assigned responsibilities. -.142 -.067 -.174 -.241 .264 .688 .020

Work Pressure Often involved in situations with conflicting requirements -.062 .026 -.093 -.014 .111 -.008 .800 Inadequate resources and materials to execute assignments -.024 -.003 .012 -.128 .003 .138 .774 Unreasonable pressures for better performance -.101 -.058 -.024 -.156 .197 -.075 .734Eigen value of the factor 7.426 3.031 2.474 2.237 1.805 1.522 1.130Percentage of variance explained by the factor before rotation 26.52 37.34 46.18 54.17 60.62 66.05 70.09Percentage of variance explained by the factor after rotation 14.39 26.87 37.06 47.12 55.33 63.20 70.09

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. ; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.; * Removed from final scale due to cross loading on Factor 1 and Factor 2

5.2.2.3 Reliability and Validity

Reliability of the Quality of Work Life scale and the constituent subscales was estimated

by analyses of internal consistency and Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach 1951).

The scale reliability is fairly good at 0. 813, with subscale reliability of 0.86 for subscale

Factor I, 0.86 for subscale Factor II, 0.79 for subscale Factor III, 0.91 for subscale Factor

IV, 0.79 for subscale Factor V, 0.75 for subscale Factor VI and 0.70 for subscale Factor

VII. For a measure to be acceptable, coefficient alpha should be above 0.70 (Nunnally

1978). Hence, the reliability of the scale comes out to be quite good and with acceptable

values. The reliability coefficient for the subscales ranges from 0.70 to 0.91, the seven

subscales are found to be of good reliability (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12: Description and reliability analysis of sub-scales for QWL scaleQWL Scale reliability = 0.80

Subscale

Statistics Factor1

Factor II

Factor III

Factor IV

Factor V

Factor VI

Factor VII

Number of items 6 5 3 3 3 3 3Mean 3.70 3.56 3.68 5.05 3.94 4.22 3.20Variance 1.08 1.58 1.87 2.84 1.34 1.42 1.58Cronbach’s Alpha 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.91 0.79 0.75 0.70Lowest inter-item correlation

0.37 0.39 0.39 0.75 0.51 0.37 0.42

Highest inter-item correlation

0.65 0.84 0.68 0.78 0.62 0.56 0.47

Factor I – Organisational Commitment; Factor II – Supervisor Support; Factor III – Rewards, Promotions; Factor IV – Task Capability and Significance; Factor V – Workload; Factor VI – Job ambiguity; Factor VII – Work pressure

130

Validity of the scale were analysed through two methods viz. Factor loadings and

average variance extracted. Factor Loadings are important criteria while checking out the

validity of the constructs. The factor loadings for the 26 items making up the scale range

from 0.509 to 0.869, which is a good indication of the validity of the factors. While 0.5 is

considered as acceptable factor loading, loadings above 0.70 are recommended (Hair et

al, 2009). The study has 23 items, i.e. 88.5% items, with factor loadings above 0.70.

Convergent and discriminant validity are both considered to be subcategories on

construct validity, ideally thought of as two interlocking propositions. According to

Zikmund (2010) correlations between theoretically similar measures should be high,

showing convergence whereas correlations between theoretically dissimilar measures

should be low, showing discrimination. Discriminant validity was tested using the

Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria that discriminant validity is established if the square

root of the average variance extracted from each construct is greater than the correlation

between the construct and the other constructs. Correlation for each construct, square

root of correlation and the square root of the average variance extracted for the

constructs is given in Table 5.13) and clearly establishes discriminant validity of the

scale.

Convergent validity

Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed three procedures to assess the convergent validity

of a set of measurement items in relation to their corresponding constructs. These are (1)

item reliability of each measure, (2) composite reliability of each construct and (3) the

average variance extracted. The item reliability of an item was assessed by its factor

loading onto the underlying construct. Hair et al., (2009) suggested that an item is

significant if its factor loading is greater than 0.50. As shown in table 5.11, the Eigen

values of all constructs exceeded 1.00 and the percent of cumulative variance explained

by these three constructs was 70.09%. The factor loadings of all the items in the measure

ranged from 0.509 to 0.869. This exceeds the threshold set by Hair et al., (2009) and

demonstrates convergent validity at the item level. The composite reliability of each

construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis

(2003) suggested that an alpha value of .70 should be considered acceptable. As shown

131

in table 5.12, the reliabilities of all the constructs range from 0.91 to 0.70 and is within

the range suggested by Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis (2003). The final indicator

of convergent validity, average variance extracted, is a more conservative test of

convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). It measures the amount of variance

captured by the construct in relation to the amount of variance attributable to

measurement error. Convergent validity is judged to be adequate when average variance

extracted equals or exceeds 0.50 (i.e. when the variance captured by the construct

exceeds the variance due to measurement error). As shown in Table 5.13), the

convergent validity for the proposed constructs of the research model is adequate.

Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity is assessed to measure the extent to which constructs are different.

At the item level, Barclay et al., (1995) suggested that discriminant validity is present

when an item correlates more highly with items in the construct it intends to measure

than with items belonging to other constructs. In this study, an acceptable level of

discriminant validity at the item level was found. At the construct level, discriminant

validity is considered adequate when the variance shared between a construct and any

other construct in the model is less than the variance that construct shares with its

measures (Fornell et al., 1982). The variance shared by any two constructs is obtained by

squaring the correlation between the two constructs. The variance shared between a

construct and its measures corresponds to average variance extracted. Discriminant

validity was assessed by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted for

a given construct with the correlations between that construct and all other constructs.

Table 5.13 shows the correlation matrix for the constructs. The diagonal elements have

been replaced by the square roots of the average variance extracted. For discriminant

validity to be judged adequate, these diagonal elements should be greater than the off-

diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. Discriminant validity appears

satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs. This indicates that each

construct shared more variance with its items than it does with other constructs. Having

achieved discriminant validity at both the item and construct levels, the constructs in the

proposed research model are deemed to be adequate.

132

Table 5.13: Inter-construct Correlation Matrix and AVE for QWL ScaleConstruct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Organisational Commitment .738 .12 .04 .19 .00 .05 .02Supervisor Support .35** .740 .16 .27 .00 .06 .01Rewards and Promotions .20** .40** .734 .14 .00 .04 .01Task capability .43** .52** .38** .813 .00 .01 .07Workload -.04 .01 .03 .06 .816 .01 .05Job ambiguity -.22** -.24** -.19** -.07 .09 .78

1.01

Work pressure -.05** -.09 -.12* -.27** .22** .08 .770

Correlations between constructs (below the diagonal), squared correlations between constructs (above the diagonal) and the Square root of Average Variance Extracted as the diagonal element** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)* correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

To test the predictive validity of the QWL scale, the respondents were asked a question

in section C which captured their perception of their Quality of Work/Life in a straight

forward manner. The correlation between the QWL scale scores and the question

reporting quality of work/life experienced by the respondents was significant and

moderately high at 0.559. The correlation between the QWL scale scores and the

question was again tested separately for public and private sector bank employees. The

results are reported in table 5.14. In case of both the public sector and private sector

banks the positive correlation between QWL scale scores and the independent question

related to QWL was moderately high (r = 0.534, p < .01 for public sector; r = 0.596, p <

0.01 for private sector), indicating that the scale had predictive validity.

Table 5.14 Correlation between QWL scores and question on QWL.Mean Std. Deviation Correlation

Overall (N = 573)QWL score 3.56 0.36

0.559 **I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.78 1.39Public Sector Banks (N = 360)

0.534 **QWL score 3.59 0.35I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.81 1.28Private Sector Banks (N = 213)

0.596 **QWL score 3.50 0.37I am satisfied with my Quality of Work/Life.) 4.72 1.56

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

133

5.2.3 Employee Job Performance Scale Construction

Many employers have developed assessments for measuring performance for at least

some of their workers (Harbour, 1997; Grote, 1996). However, these systems vary

enormously in coverage as well as in sophistication, making them impossible to use in

broad-based studies of health and work performance (Kessler et al., 2003). A

comprehensive review of the literature found a number of useful self-report measures of

work performance (Holloway et al, 1995; Pritchard et al.,, 2002; Whetzel and Wheaton,

1997; Goodman and Svyjantec, 1999; Janssen, 2003). Most of these, however, focused

on single occupations and included questions that were tailored to the unique demands of

those occupations. The measure for this study was required to assess performance of

bank employees based on their perception of linkages between their Work/Life Balance

and performance. Hence, it was felt that developing self-report measures was the most

feasible tool for the purpose. Additionally, as noted by Heneman (1974), self-ratings may

be more accurate and precise than superiors’ ratings. The reason is that superiors are

typically less well-informed and more subject to halo effects.

Table 5.15: Employee Job Performance factors

Factors/dimensions Literature on Job Performance No. of

articles

Employee retention;

Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Paul and Anantharam, 2003 2

Product/service quality

Parasuraman et al.,, 1985; Tzafrir, 2005; Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Paul and Anantharam, 2003 4

Employee turnover

Richard and Johnson, 2001 1

Task performance

Werner,1994; Borman and Motowildo, 1997; Whiting et al.,, 2008; Dalal, 2005; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Sackett, 2002.

7

Customer satisfaction

DunlopandLee,2004;Koys,2001; Podsakoff et al.,,1997;PodsakoffandMacKenzie,1994;WalzandNiehoff,1996; Tzafrir, 2005; Khandekar and Sharma 2005.

7

134

Profitability DunlopandLee,2004;Koys,2001; Podsakoff et al.,,1997; PodsakoffandMacKenzie,1994;WalzandNiehoff,1996; Tzafrir, 2005. 6

Interpersonal Skills

Skarlicki and Latham, 1995; Chughtai, 2006 2

Achievement/Goal orientation

Porath and Bateman, 2006; Stephens et al.,, (1998); Greenhaus et al.,, (1990) 3

Citizenship performance

Dalal, 2005; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Sackett, 2002. 4

Employee productivity

Richard and Johnson, 2001. 1

5.2.3.1 Scale construction

Literature review undertaken and purposive conversations with service sector

professionals from banking and insurance helped in drawing inferences on factors and

issues influencing performance. 3 focused group discussions were conducted by asking

the respondents open ended questions about factors that identify performance of an

indiviual. These interactions with bank professionals provided valuable insights

regarding issues related to performance and helped in compiling a list of about 45

variables that could be used for assessing self-reported job performance. This list was

subjected to further screening and refinement through in-depth discussions with Human

Resource practitioners and industry experts and an item pool of 23 items was

constructed, constituting the self-report measure of performance.

The demographic profile of the respondents was the same as that for the Quality of

Work/Life questionnaire as the Employee Performance self-assessment instrument was

appended to the Quality of Work/Life questionnaire for the piloting. The respondent

profile is given in table 5.10. The instrument developed for measuring performance

focussed on understanding job performance from the point of view of the employee as

Work/Life Balance of the same indiviudal was hypothesised to have a bearing on his/her

performance. Factors/characteristics of job performance culled out from literature is

summarised in table 5.15.

5.2.3.2 Constructs

135

Post piloting factor analysis was used for data reduction and scale refinement. The final

job performance scale has ten self-assessment questions were asked from the employees

to ascertain their perception of their performance. Out of the 450 administered

questionnaires, 360 questionnaires were finally used for analysis. Factor analysis was

performed on the items, yielding 0.779 as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample

adequacy and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (1482.238, df = 45) was significant and

the communalities ranged from 0.519 to 0.721. The variables explained 61.208per cent

of variance (Table 5.16). Three factors, namely, Task Achievement Orientation (TAO),

Resource Trust Orientation (RTO) and Learning Involvement Orientation (LIO) with

five items, three items and two items respectively, emerged.

Table 5.16: Component loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation for Employee Performance Measure

Construct Component1 2 3

Task Achievement Orientation Make rigorous attempts to achieve objectives and targets at work 0.750 Find my work challenging and exciting 0.690 I take full responsibility for my work 0.682 I work long hours when necessary 0.664 I am aware of and fulfil organisational expectations 0.581Resource Trust Orientation Superior recognises and appreciates the work I do 0.782 Adequate resources to perform work 0.755 Colleagues at work can rely on me when things get tough at work 0.695Learning Involvement Orientation Often feel tired of upgrading skills to improve performance 0.817 Involvement in my organisation is limited to my work 0.798

Eigen value of the factor 3.495 1.443 1.183Percentage of variance explained by the factor before rotation

34.953 49.379 61.208

Percentage of variance explained by the factor after rotation

25.106 45.410 61.208

Reliability (of the scale = .783) 0.757 0.694 0.631

136

Item mean 4.995 4.936 5.311 4.671Item Variance 1.552 1.424 1.468 1.996Maximum score 5.691 5.415 5.691 4.983Minimum score 4.360 4.541 5.010 4.360Inter-item correlation – Maximum

0.503 0.503 0.495 -

Inter-item correlation – Minimum

-0.004 0.263 0.325 0.461

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

5.2.3.3 Reliability and Validity

Reliability of the Employee Performance Measurement scale and the constituent

subscales was estimated by analyses of internal consistency and Cronbach alpha

coefficient (Cronbach 1951). The reliability scores for the final Employee Performance

Measure was 0.783 and for the sub-scales it was 0.757 (TAO), 0.700 (RTO) and 0.631

(LIO) respectively (Table 5.17). Further, the Average Variance Extracted was calculated

for ascertaining the

Convergent Validity

Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed three procedures to assess the convergent validity

of a set of measurement items in relation to their corresponding constructs. These are (1)

item reliability of each measure, (2) composite reliability of each construct and (3) the

average variance extracted. The item reliability of an item was assessed by its factor

loading onto the underlying construct. Hair et al., (2009) suggested that an item is

significant if its factor loading is greater than 0.50. As shown in table 5.16, the eigen

values of all constructs exceeded 1.00 and the percent of cumulative variance explained

by these three constructs was 61.2%. The factor loadings of all the items in the measure

ranged from 0.581 to 0.817. This exceeds the threshold set by Hair et al., (2009) and

demonstrates convergent validity at the item level. The composite reliability of each

construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Robinson et al., (1991) and DeVellis

(2003) suggested that an alpha value of .70 should be considered acceptable. As shown

in table 5.17, the reliabilities of all the constructs range from 0.757 to 0.631. The

reliability of one construct falls below 0.70 but the factor has been retained as it justifies

the other indicators of convergent validity. The final indicator of convergent validity,

137

average variance extracted, is a more conservative test of convergent validity (Fornell

and Larcker, 1981). It measures the amount of variance captured by the construct in

relation to the amount of variance attributable to measurement error. Convergent validity

is judged to be adequate when average variance extracted equals or exceeds 0.50 (i.e.

when the variance captured by the construct exceeds the variance due to measurement

error). As shown in Table 5.18, the convergent validity for the proposed constructs of the

research model is adequate.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is assessed to measure the extent to which constructs are different.

At the item level, Barclay, et al., (1995) suggested that discriminant validity is present

when an item correlates more highly with items in the construct it intends to measure

than with items belonging to other constructs. At the construct level, discriminant

validity is considered adequate when the variance shared between a construct and any

other construct in the model is less than the variance that construct shares with its

measures (Fornell et al.,, 1982). The variance shared by any two constructs is obtained

by squaring the correlation between the two constructs. The variance shared between a

construct and its measures corresponds to average variance extracted. Discriminant

validity was assessed by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted for

a given construct with the correlations between that construct and all other constructs.

Table 5.18 shows the correlation matrix for the constructs. The diagonal elements have

been replaced by the square roots of the average variance extracted. For discriminant

validity to be judged adequate, these diagonal elements should be greater than the off-

diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. Discriminant validity appears

satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs. This indicates that each

construct shared more variance with its items than it does with other constructs. Having

achieved discriminant validity at both the item and construct levels, the constructs in the

proposed research model are deemed to be adequate.

Table 5.17: Reliability and Validity for Employee Job Performance scale

Statistics SubscaleTAO RTO LIO

Number of items 5 3 2Mean 4.936 5.311 4.671

138

Variance 1.424 1.468 1.996Cronbach’s Alpha (Performance Scale reliability = .783)

0.757 0.700 0.631

Lowest inter-item correlation 0.263 0.325 0.461Highest inter-item correlation 0.503 0.495 0.461

Table 5.18: Inter-construct correlation matrix* for Employee Job Performance scaleFactor TAO RTO LIOTAO (.71)RTO .451 (.75)LIO .285 .174 (.81)* = p < .01; Diagonal in parantheses: square root of average variance extracted from observed variables (items); Off-diagonal: correlation between constructs.

5.3 Analysis of Work

The analysis was divided into descriptive and inferential analysis. Descriptive analyses

were done to detect any missing values and revealed very few missing values, which

were subsequently verified from the original answers given in the questionnaires and

rectified. Before using the parametric statistical techniques, the assumption of normality

was tested. The data did not violate the normality assumption. To test the hypotheses of

this study, independent samples t-test, ANOVA and linear regression analyses have been

used. The analysis is presented in line with the proposed objectives of the study.

5.3.1 Comparison of mean scores on WLB: public and private sector

bank employees

Objective: To understand the status of Work/Life Balance of public and private sector

bank employees.

Independent samples t-test was used for comparing the mean scores on Work/Life

Balance and its sub-scales between public and private sector bank employees. The null

hypothesis (H1) that there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance of the

139

employees of public and private banks in India, was not accepted at 0.05% level of

significance. There is a significant difference between the Work/Life Balance of public

and private sector bank employees (Table 5.19). While the summated Work/Life

Balance score is 99.72, the summated WLB score for public sector banks in 96.46 which

is less than the summated score for private sector bank employees at 105.22.

The mean WLB score for public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a

moderate Work/Life Balance in general for the banking sector employees. The mean

score for WLB for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is 4.38. In

this case the employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance as

compared to the employees of public sector banks.

Table 5.19: WLB scores for bank employees

N ValidMissing

5730

Summated scoreStandard DeviationMinimumMaximum

99.72 24.05 48141

Work/Life Balance 24 to 71 (Low) 106 (18.50%)72 to 120 (Moderate) 324 (56.54%)121 to 168 (High) 143 (24.96%)

The null hypothesis was broken down further into sub-hypotheses, which were examined

for greater insights into factor wise perceptions of the public sector and private sector

bank employees. The sub-scales of Work/Life Balance, Work Spillover in Personal Life,

Personal Life Spillover in Work, Work/Life Balance Enhancers and Work/Life Balance

Constrainers were examined using independent samples t-test to understand the factors

which have a greater contribution to maintaining balance between the spheres of work

and life of public and private sector bank employees. The results of the test are shown in

table 5.20.

140

The hypothesis (H1a) that there is no difference in the perception of Work Spillover in

Personal Life (WSPL) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India

was not accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean score of public sector bank

employees, 3.95 for WSPL is less than the mean score of 4.37 for private sector

employees, which signifies that there is greater work spillover in personal life in case of

public sector banks than in case of private sector banks.

The hypothesis (H1b) that there is no difference in the perception of Personal Life

Spillover in Work (PLSW) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in

India, is not accepted at 5% level of significance. The implication is that there is a

difference in the perception of personal life spillover in work in the case of public and

private sector bank employees. the mean scores reflect that this spillover perception is

greater in the case of public employees as compared to the private sector bank

employees. The mean score for PLSW for public sector and private sector bank

employees is 4.39 and 4.92 respectively.

On the other hand the hypothesis (H1c) that there is no difference in the perception of

Work/Life Balance Enhancers (WLBE) of the employees of public and private

commercial banks in India has been accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean

scores for public and private sector bank employees are very close at 4.28 and 4.29

respectively, signifying that factors that work for public sector bank employees in

ameliorating work/life (im)balance are similarly perceived by the private sector bank

employees as well.

The fourth sub-scale, Work/Life Balance Constrainers (WLBC) again shows a

significant difference in the scores for public and private sector bank employees. The

hypothesis (H1d) that there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life Balance

Constrainers of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is not

accepted at 5% level of significance. The mean scores of 3.47 and 3.65 for the public and

private sector bank employees respectively, points to greater constraints perceived by the

public sector bank employees as compared to the private sector bank employees.

Table 5.20: Comparison of mean scores on Work/Life Balance and its sub-scales between public and private sector bank employees

141

WLB scale and sub-scales

Mean Value(N=573)Public (N=360) #

Private (N=213)##

Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

t-value

DfLevel of significance (p-value)

Overall 4.02 # 1.03 .05 -4.27 571 0.000 < .05*4.38 ## 0.92 .06WSPL 3.95 # 1.30 .07 -3.93 571 0.000 < .05*4.37 ## 1.15 .08PLSW 4.39 # 1.48 .08 -4.27 571 0.000 < .05*4.92 ## 1.36 .09WLBE 4.28 # 0.61 .03 -0.22 571 0.828 > .05*4.29 ## 0.58 .04WLBC 3.47 # 0.98 .05 -2.27 571 0.020 < .05*3.65 ## 0.88 .06

Item-wise analysis of the mean scores of Work/Life Balance was also undertaken for

both demographic variables as well as for work related variables. The results of the same

are given in annexure V to XII. The results show that most of the items of the Work/Life

scale show significant differences with respect to the bank type and the mean value of

these are higher in case of private sector banks, implying a better score. Only in the case

of items relating to emotional drainout and irritability at home due to work is there a

non-significant difference for the bank types. On the other hand, exploring for

differences in Work/Life Balance scores on the basis of gender, it was seen that there

was a mix of results. While most of the items for Work Spillover in Personal Life

reported not-significant results, there were a majority in Personal Life Spillover in Work

that had significant differences. Even in these cases, the mean score for the Work/Life

Balance of female employees was better as compared to the male employees. The next

comparison was between married and single employees. The single employees had a

lower score in a majority of the items which was also significant. There were few items,

relating to strain of balancing responsibilities, work/life balance constrainers and

work/life balance enhancers which had non-significant differences in woth work/life

scores. With respect to family type, there were insignificant differences in the work/life

scores for most of the items except for those dealing with family activity changes, strain

of balancing responsibilities and time taken to fulfil family responsibilities. In these

142

items, the nuclear families had a better work/life score as compared to the joint families.

Investigating for nature of duties, there was a mix of results. Most surprising were the

results for age groups and educational qualifications, which showed significant

differences for all the items. Similarly, there were significant differences in the scores

with respect to number of children in family, care giver responsibility, service tenure,

income and city of posting. However, in all these variables, the differences were non-

significant in case of the items relating to work/life balance constrainers.

5.3.2. Comparison of mean scores on QWL: public and private sector bank employees.

Objective: To understand the status of Quality of Work/Life of public and private sector bank employees.

The perception of Quality of Work/life for public and private sector bank employees was

tested using the independent samples t-test. The results of the test are reported in table

5.21. The null hypothesis that there is no difference in the perception of QWL of the

employees of public and private banks in India (H7) was not accepted since the ‘p’ value

0.016 is less than the significance level of 0.05, leading to the conclusion that the quality

of work/life of a public sector and private sector bank employee is significantly different.

The summated score of public sector at 93.19 stands higher than the overall QWL

summated score of 91.26 for private sector bank employees. The null hypothesis is

broken down in further sub-hypotheses, to gain an understanding into the factors which

contribute to the quality of work/life for a bank employee.

Table 5.21: Comparison of mean scores on Quality of Work/Life and its sub-scales

between public and private sector bank employees

QWL

Mean Value(N=573)Public (N=360) #

Private (N=213)##

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

t-value dfLevel of significance (p-value)

Overall 3.58 # 9.097 # .479 #

2.412 571 0.016 < .05* 3.51 ## 9.497 ## .651 ##

OC 2.95 # .646 # .034 #

-.528 502.192 0.598 > .052.98 ## .550 ## .037 ##

SS 2.75 # .675 # .035 #

-.384 491.349 0.701 > .052.77 ## .593 ## .040 ##

RPO 2.90 # .736 # .038 # -.677 571 0.499 > .05

143

2.94 ## .718 ## .049 ##

TCS 2.90 # .986 # .051 #

.100 571 0.920 > .052.90 ## .921 ## .063 ##

WL 4.23 # 1.352 # .071 #

3.591 490.611 0.000 < .05*3.84 ## 1.190 ## .081 ##

JA 4.57 # .985 # .051 #

1.020 498.272 0.308 > .054.49 ## .848 ## .058 ##

WP 4.03 # 1.289 # .067 #

2.647 501.797 0.008 < .05*3.76 ## 1.098 ## .075 ##

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.598 is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the null

hypothesis that there is no difference in the perception of organisational commitment

(H7a) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is accepted. The

conclusion is that the perception of organisational commitment of a public sector and

private sector bank employee is the same. The mean score for organisational

commitment for public sector and private sector are 2.95 and 2.96 respectively, pointing

out a negligible difference in employee commitment.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.701 is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the null

hypothesis that there is no difference in the perception of supervisory support (H7b) of

the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is accepted. The

conclusion is that the perception of supervisor support of a public sector and private

sector bank employee is the same. The mean score for supervisory support in public and

private banks are quite similar being 2.75 and 2.77 for public sector and private sector

banks respectively.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.499 is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the null

hypothesis there is no difference in the perception of rewards and promotion opportunity

(H7c) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is accepted. The

conclusion is that the perception of rewards and promotion opportunity of a public sector

and private sector bank employee is the same, with the mean scores for the sub-scale

being 2.90 and 2.94 respectively.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.920 is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the null

hypothesis there is no difference in the perception of task capability and significance

(H7d) of the employees of public and private commercial banks in India is accepted. The

144

conclusion is that the perception of task capability and significance of a public sector and

private sector bank employee, with the mean scores of 2.90 for both public and private

sector bank employees is the same.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.000 is less than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis

there is no difference in the perception of work load (H7e) of the employees of public and

private commercial banks in India is not accepted. The conclusion is that the perception

of work load of a public sector and private sector bank employee is significantly

different. The work load mean score of 4.23 for public sector bank employees is

significantly greater than the workload mean score of 3.82 of private sector bank staff.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.308 is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the null

hypothesis there is no difference in the perception of job ambiguity (H7f) of the

employees of public and private commercial banks in India is accepted. The conclusion

is that the perception of job ambiguity of a public sector and private sector bank

employees at 4.6 and 4.5 respectively is the same.

Since, the ‘p’ value 0.008 is less than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is

there is no difference in the perception of work pressures (H7g) of the employees of

public and private commercial banks in India rejected. The conclusion is that the

perception of work pressure of a public sector and private sector bank employee is

significantly different. The mean score of 4.03 for public sector and 3.76 for private

sector reiterate this difference for the sub-scale.

Table 5.22 shows the levels of quality of work/life experienced by bank staff. A majority

(94.42%) have a moderate quality of work/life, while very few 11 respondents (1.92%)

and 21 (3.66%) respondents have reported as having a high level or low level,

respectively, of quality of work life. The inference is that banks need to improve upon

the working conditions for the bank employees.

Table 5.22: QWL scores for Bank employees

N ValidMissing

5730

MeanStandard DeviationMinimumMaximum

92.47 9.29 63128

145

Quality of Work/Life 131 to 182 (High) 11 (1.92%) 79 to 130 (Moderate) 541 (94.42%) 26 to 78 (Low) 21 (3.66%)

5.3.3 Significance of demographic variables for WLB scores

The statistical significance of demographic variables for the Work/Life Balance scores

was tested using t-test (in case of two categories) and ANOVA (in case of more than two

categories). The results are reported in tables 5.23 a) and b). It was revealed that gender

(H2a), age (H2b), educational qualification (H2c), marital status (H2d), number of children

in the family (H2g) and caring responsibilities (H2h) all had significant impact on the

Work/Life Balance scores, while family type (H2e), family size (H2f) and working status

of spouse (H2i) did not show a significant relation with Work/Life Balance scores.

Table 5.23a): Significance of gender, family type, marital status for WLB (independent samples t-test results)

Variable CategoryMean WLB score

Std. Deviation

Total sample

t - value ‘p’ value

Gender Male = 417 4.096 1.026 2.315 0.021<0.05*Female = 156 4.313 .919

Family Type Nuclear = 399 4.199 1.012 -1.601 0.110>0.05 Joint = 174 4.054 .975

Marital Status Single = 133 4.112 1.083 3.341 0.001<0.05*Married = 438 3.762 .964

* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Table 5.23b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores – demographic variables.

Variable Total sample F value ‘p’ value

Age 12.528 .000*Educational Qualification 33.322 .000*Family size 1.841 .139Number of Children in family 4.960 .007*Caring responsibilities 12.517 .000*Working status of spouse 2.093 .124

146

5.3.4 Significance of work related variables for WLB scoresThe statistical significance of demographic variables for the Work/Life Balance scores

was tested using t-test (in case of two categories) and ANOVA (in case of more than two

categories). The results are reported in tables 5.24 a) and b). It was revealed that length

of service (H2j), long working hours (H2k), nature of duties (H2l), income (H2m) and city

of posting (H2n) all had significant impact on the Work/Life Balance scores.

Table 5.24a): Significance of nature of duties for Work/Life Balance (independent samples t-test results)

Variable CategoryMean WLB score

Std. Deviation

Total sample

t - value ‘p’ value

Nature of Duties Managerial = 436 4.064 1.059 3.941 .000*Non-managerial = 137 4.446 .723* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Table 5.24b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores on length of service, income, working hours and city of work on bank employees

Variable Total sample F value ‘p’ value

Length of Service 12.076 .000*Income 9.961 .000*Long hours of work (Average working hours per week) 4.506 .011*

City of posting 39.530 .000*

The data was further analysed with respect to public and private sector bank employees

to ascertain whether there were significant differences based on the type of bank an

individual worked with. The results of this are reported in table 5.25a) and b); 5.26a) and

b) for public sector and 5.27a) and b); 5.28a) and b) for private sector.

5.3.5 Significance of demographic variables for WLB scores (public sector banks)

Table 5.25 a): Significance of gender, family type and marital status for Work/Life Balance of Public sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)

Hypothesis Category Mean Std. Public Sector

147

Deviation

t - value

‘p’ value

Gender Male = 289 3.977 1.051 -.119 .906Female = 71 3.993 .930

Marital Status Single = 64 4.613 1.086 16.059 .000*Married = 295 3.843 .964

Family Type – Nuclear vs Joint

Nuclear = 243 3.943 1.052-1.011 .313

Joint = 117 4.059 .976* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Table 5.25 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Public sector bank employees on demographic variables

VariablePublic Sector

F value ‘p’ valueAge 12.751 .000*Educational Qualification 32.441 .000*Family size 1.697 .167Number of Children in family 7.354 .001*Caring responsibilities 13.157 .000*Working status of spouse 1.761 .173* Significant at 0.05% level of significanceWhen testing for differences with respect to gender (H3a), family type (H3e), family size

(H3f) and working status of spouse (H3i), it was seen that in Public sector the Work/Life

Balance mean scores did not differ significantly (table 5.25 a and b). However, the

Work/Life Balance scores with respect to age (H3b), educational qualification (H3c),

marital status (H3d), number of children in the family (H3g) and caring responsibilities

(H3h) had significant differences in case of Public sector bank employees.

5.3.6 Significance of work related variables for WLB scores (Public sector banks)

Table 5.26 a): Significance of nature of duties for Work/Life Balance of Public sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)

Variable Category MeanStd.

Deviation

Public Sector t -

value‘p’

value

Nature of Duties Managerial = 284 4.078 1.082 3.536 .000*Non-Managerial = 76 3.616 .681

* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

148

Table 5.26 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Public sector bank employees on work-related variables

VariablePublic Sector

F value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 15.451 .000*Income 8.310 .000*Average working hours per week 1.992 .138Location of work – posting city 40.893 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Exploring for the differences in mean Work/Life Balance scores in public sector bank

employees with respect to work related variables, it was seen that nature of duties (H3l),

length of service (H3j), income (H3m) and city of posting (H3n) all had significant

differences. Only the average working hours per week (H3k), measuring whether long

hours worked had an impact on Work/Life Balance scores, accepted the null hypothesis

of no significant difference.

5.3.7 Significance of demographic variables for WLB scores (private sector banks)

Table 5.27 a): Significance of gender, family type, marital status and nature of duties for Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)

Variable Category MeanStd.

Deviation

Private Sector t -

value‘p’

value

Gender Male = 128 3.738 .949 2.428 .016*Female = 85 3.431 .832

Marital Status Single = 69 3.646 .854 .309 .735Married = 143 3.596 .946

Family Type – Nuclear vs Joint

Nuclear = 156 3.580 .905 -.946 .345Joint = 57 3.714 .940

Testing for differences with respect to marital status (H4d), family type (H4e), family size

(H4f), number of children in the family (H4g) and caring responsibilities (H4h) and

working status of spouse (H4i), it was seen that in Private sector the Work/Life Balance

mean scores did not differ significantly (table 5.27 a and b). However, the Work/Life

149

Balance scores with respect to gender (H4a), age (H4b) and educational qualification (H4c)

had significant differences in case of Private sector bank employees.

Table 5.27 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees on demographic variables

VariablePrivate Sector

F - value ‘p’ valueAge 2.711 .046*Educational Qualification 6.622 .002*Family size .321 .726Number of Children in family 1.850 .160Caring responsibilities 2.389 .070Working status of spouse .337 .714* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

5.3.8 Significance of work related variables for WLB scores (Private sector banks)

Exploring for the differences in mean Work/Life Balance scores in private sector bank

employees with respect to work related variables, it was seen that nature of duties (H4l),

income (H4m) and average working hours per week (H4k) all had no significant

differences.

Table 5.28 a): Significance of gender, family type, marital status and nature of duties for Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees (independent samples t-test results)

Variable Category MeanStd.

Deviation

Private Sector t -

value‘p’

value

Nature of Duties Managerial = 152 3.671 .963 1.403 .162Non-Managerial = 61

3.477 .771

Only length of service (H4j) and city of posting (H4n) had an impact on Work/Life

Balance scores, reflecting significant differences.

150

Table 5.28 b): Comparison of mean Work/Life Balance scores of Private sector bank employees on demographic variables

VariablePrivate Sector

F - value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 6.294 .002*Income 1.494 .227Average working hours per week .788 .456Location of work – posting city 13.138 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Thus, is was seen that Analysis of Variance tests on Work/Life Balance scores with

respect to age, qualification, tenure, income, working hours, family size, number of

children in family, city of work for Public and Private sector bank employees show that

there are significant differences within groups in case of age, educational qualifications,

service length and location of posting for both Public sector as well as Private sector

bank employees. As far as intra-group comparisons for average working hours, family

size and the working status of spouse is concerned, neither Public sector nor Private

sector had a significant difference for the Work/Life Balance scores. However, exploring

for income, number of children in the family and caring responsibilities, the Public

sector showed significant differences within the respective groups but Private sector did

not have a significant difference for the Work/Life Balance scores within these groups.

5.3.9 Significance of demographic variables for Work/Life Balance scores intra-category comparisons between public and private sector banks.The differences between Public and Private sector were explored in-depth for each group

of demographic and organisational factors. Table 5.29 a) gives the results for a

comparative of public and private sector bank employees’ Work/Life Balance scores

with respect to the demographic factors and Table 5.29 b) discusses the comparisons

with respect to the organisational variables. Results revealed differences exist in case of

gender, age, educational qualification, length of service, etc. However, these differences

are present for some sub-categories of the major categories. Thus, first conducting

gender based comparisons, it was seen that there was a significant difference in the WLB

scores for men (H5a) working in Public sector (M=4.02, SD=1.05) and men working in

151

private sector banks (M=4.26, SD=.95) conditions; t(415)= 2.202, p = 0.028 as well as

for WLB scores for women (H5b) working in Public sector (M=4.01, SD=.93) and

women working in private sector banks (M=4.57, SD=.83) conditions; t(154)= 3.981, p =

0.023.

Table 5.29 a): Comparison of Work/Life Balance scores between public and private sector bank employees for demographic variables (intra-category comparisons).

Variable Category Bank type N Mea

n

Std. Deviatio

nt

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Gender

MalePublic 289 4.02 1.05 -

2.202 .028*Private 128 4.26 .95

FemalePublic 71 4.01 .93 -

3.981 .023*Private 85 4.57 .83

Age

20-29 years

Public 82 4.09 .99 -

2.067 .040*Private 99 4.37 .87

30-39 yearsPublic 147 3.66 1.08 -

4.023 .000*Private 82 4.25 1.00

40-49 yearsPublic 68 4.43 .84 -

1.625 .108Private 24 4.74 .66

50-59 yearsPublic 63 4.33 .85 -

1.785 .079Private 8 4.89 .77

Educational Qualification Graduate

Public 163 4.20 1.02

4.459 .000*Private 67 3.52 1.07

Post Graduate

Public 119 4.59 .70 -

1.617 .108Private 51 4.77 .65

ProfessionalPublic 76 4.20 .85

-.778 .438Private 95 4.30 .90

OthersPublic 2 4.21 .00

a.Private 0a . .

Marital Status Single

Public 65 3.38 1.08 -5.728 .000*Privat

e 70 4.35 .85

Married

Public 295 4.15 .96 -

2.519 .012*Private

143 4.40 .94

152

Family Type

Nuclear

Public 243 4.05 1.05 -

3.543 .000*Private

156 4.41 .90

Joint

Public 117 3.94 .97 -

2.217 .028*Private 57 4.28 .94

Family size

1-5 members

Public 160 3.96 .96 -

3.505 .001*Private

124 4.36 .92

6-10 members

Public 183 4.01 1.09 -

2.546

.011*Private 75 4.38 .89

11-15 membersPublic 15 4.45 .75

-.351 .728Private 14 4.57 .97

16-20 membersPublic 2 5.02 .20

a.Private 0a . .

Number of Children in family No children in

family

Public 53 3.58 1.07 -4.551 .000*Privat

e 48 4.47 .86

One Child

Public 252 4.04 1.02 -

2.111 .035*Private

121 4.28 .99

More than one child

Public 55 4.31 .84 -1.521 .132Privat

e 44 4.56 .70

Caring responsibilities Elderly

Public 49 4.64 .77.119 .906Privat

e 53 4.62 .94

DisabledPublic 7 4.18 .76

-.525 .608Private 8 4.41 .91

SickPublic 37 4.51 .81

2.144 .036*Private 24 4.05 .82

Working status of spouse Working Full-time

Public 53 4.21 .99 -.843 .401Privat

e 51 4.38 .99

Working Part-timePublic 27 4.19 .86 -

1.377 .177Private 12 4.59 .77

In case of age groups, the results revealed a significant difference in the WLB scores for

age group of 20-29 years (H5c) working in Public sector (M=4.09, SD=.99) and private

sector banks (M=4.37, SD=.87) conditions; t(179)= - 2.067, p = 0.040 and for the age

group of 30-39 years (H5d) working in Public sector (M=3.66, SD=1.08) and private

153

sector banks (M=4.25, SD=1.0) conditions; t(227)= - 4.023, p = 0.000. However, for the

older age groups of 40-49 years (H5e) working in Public sector (M=4.43, SD=.84) and

private sector banks (M=4.74, SD=.66) conditions; t(90)= - 1.625, p = 0.108 and 50-59

years (H5f) working in Public sector (M=4.33, SD=.85) and private sector banks

(M=4.98, SD=.77) conditions; t(69)= - 1.785, p = 0.079, the difference did not come out

as significant.

In the case of educational qualifications, there was a significant difference in the WLB

scores for graduates (H5g) working in public sector (M=4.20, SD=1.02) and private

sector banks (M=3.52, SD=1.07) conditions; t(228)= 4.459, p = 0.000 but there was no

significant difference in the WLB scores for post-graduates (H5h) working in Public

sector (M=4.59, SD=.70) and private sector banks (M=4.77, SD=.65) conditions; t(168)=

- 1.617, p = 0.108 as well as for the WLB scores for professionals (H5i) working in

Public sector (M=4.20, SD=.85) and private sector banks (M=4.30, SD=.90) conditions;

t(169)= -0.778, p = 0.438

Family and related factors were also tested and the results showed that there was a

significant difference in the WLB scores for staff with single status (H5j) in public sector

(M=3.38, SD=1.08) and private sector banks (M=4.35, SD=.85) conditions;

t(131)=5.728, p = 0.000 as well as for staff having married marital status (H5k) in public

sector (M=4.15, SD=.96) and private sector banks (M=4.40, SD=.94 ) conditions; t(436)

= 2.519, p = 0.012. Even in the case of family type, there was a significant difference in

the WLB scores for staff having nuclear family structure (H5l) in public sector (M = 4.05,

SD = 1.05) and private sector banks (M=4.41, SD= .90 ) conditions; t(397) = 3.543, p =

0.000 as well as for staff having joint family structure (H5m) in public sector (M = 3.94,

SD= .97) and private sector banks (M = 4.28, SD= .94) conditions; t(172) = 2.217, p =

0.028.

Further, the tests for WLB scores and the size of the family reflected a significant

difference in the WLB scores for staff having 1-5 family members (H5n) in public sector

(M = 3.96, SD = .96) and private sector banks (M = 4.36, SD =.92) conditions; t(282) =

3.505, p = 0.001 and for staff having 6-10 family members (H5o) in public sector (M =

154

4.01, SD = 1.09) and private sector banks (M = 4.38, SD = .89) conditions; t(256) =

2.546, p = 0.011. At the same time, the WLB scores for staff having 11-15 family

members (H5p) in public sector (M = 4.45, SD = .75) and private sector banks (M = 4.57,

SD = .97) conditions; t(27) = .351, p = 0.728 did not show any significant differences.

Analysing further for the impact number of children have on the Work/Life Balance

perceived by an individual working in public or private sector bank, it was revealed that

there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having no children in the

family (H5q) in public sector (M = 3.58, SD = 1.07) and private sector banks (M = 4.47,

SD =.86) conditions; t(99) = 4.551, p = 0.000 and same was the case with respect to staff

having one child in the family (H5r) in public sector (M = 4.04, SD = 1.02) and private

sector banks (M = 4.28, SD = .99) conditions; t(371) = 2.111, p = 0.035. However, there

was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having more than one child in

the family (H5s) in public sector (M = 4.31, SD = .84) and private sector banks (M =

4.56, SD = .70) conditions; t(97) = 1.521, p = 0.132.

Exploring further for caregiver responsibilities and their impact on Work/Life Balance

in public and private sector banks, it was found that there was a significant difference in

the WLB scores for staff having caring responsibilities for sick (H5v) in public sector (M

= 4.51, SD = .81) and private sector banks (M = 4.05, SD =.82) conditions; t(59) =

2.144, p = 0.036. It was in case of staff having caring responsibilities for elderly (H5t) in

public sector (M = 4.64, SD = .77) and private sector banks (M = 4.62, SD =.94)

conditions; t(100) = .119, p = 0.906 and for staff having caring responsibilities for

disabled (H5u) in the family in public sector (M = 4.18, SD = .76) and private sector

banks (M = 4.41, SD =.91) conditions; t(13) = .525, p = 0.608, that no significant

difference was revealed in the Work/Life Balance scores between public and private

sector bank staff.

Exploring for comparisons with respect to the working status of spouse, it was seen that

there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having a full-time

working spouse (H5w) in public sector (M = 4.21, SD = .99) and private sector banks (M

= 4.38, SD =.99) conditions; t(102) = .842, p = 0.401. There was no significant

difference in the WLB scores for staff having a part-time working spouse (H5x) in public

155

sector (M = 4.19, SD = .86) and private sector banks (M = 4.59, SD =.77) conditions;

t(37) = 1.377, p = 0.177.

5.3.10 Significance of work related variables for Work/Life Balance scores intra-category comparisons between public and private sector banks.

Analysis for organisational factors was next undertaken. The results of this are included

in table 5.29b). The WLB scores for staff with length of service between 0-9 years (H6a)

in Public sector (M=4.27, SD=.94)) and private sector banks (M=3.68, SD=1.07

conditions; t(348)= 5.424, p = 0.000 as well as for staff with length of service between

10-19 years (H6b) in Public sector (M=4.22, SD=.89) and private sector banks (M=4.75,

SD=.58) conditions; t(100)= 2.731, p = 0.007 showed a significant difference. At the

same time, there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff with length of

service between 20-29 years (H6c) in Public sector (M=4.53, SD=.81) and private sector

banks (M=4.88, SD=.70) conditions; t(90)= 1.678, p = 0.097.

Testing for income, it was revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB

scores for income group ` 10,000 to 50,000/- (H6d)working in Public sector (M=4.35,

SD=.90) and private sector banks (M=3.93, SD=1.04) conditions; t(426)= 4.119, p =

0.000, while there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for income group ` 50,000 to 100,000/- (H6e) working in Public sector (M=4.50, SD=.89) and private sector

banks (M=4.53, SD=.93) conditions; t(109)= 0.119, p = 0.906 and for income group of ` 100,000 and above (H6f) working in Public sector (M=3.76, SD=.76) and private sector

banks (M=4.08, SD=.94) conditions; t(32)= 1.109, p = 0.275.

There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours upto

and including 48 hours per week (H6g) for staff in Public sector (M=3.97, SD=1.0) and

private sector banks (M=4.20, SD=.79) conditions; t (235)= 1.260, p = 0.209 but this

became a significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours more than

48 hours and upto and including 60 hours per week (H6h) for staff in Public sector

(M=4.12, SD=1.07) and private sector banks (M=4.41, SD=.93) conditions; t (278)=

156

2.409, p = 0.017 and for average working hours above 60 hours per week (H6i) for staff

working in Public sector (M=3.65, SD=.89) and private sector banks (M=4.42, SD=.93)

conditions; t(54)= 2.857, p = 0.006. Similarly, while there was a significant difference in

the WLB scores with respect to the nature of duties performed. Thus, for staff

performing managerial duties (H6j) in Public sector (M=3.92, SD=1.08) and private

sector banks (M=4.32, SD=.96) conditions; t (434)= 3.880, p = 0.000, there were

significant differences. However, in the case of staff performing non-managerial duties

(H6k) in Public sector (M=4.38, SD=.68) and private sector banks (M=4.52, SD=.77)

conditions; t (135) = 1.118, p = 0.266, there was no significant difference revealed.

Table 5.29 b): Comparison of Work/Life Balance scores between public and private sector bank employees for work-related variables (intra-category comparisons).

Variable Category Bank type N Mean

Std. Deviatio

nt

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Length of Service 0-9 years

Public 180

4.27 .94

5.424 .000*Private 170

3.68 1.07

10-19 years Public 78 4.22 .89 -2.731 .007*Private 24 4.75 .58

20-29 years Public 73 4.53 .81 -1.678 .097Private 19 4.88 .70

30 years and above Public 29 4.21 .83 a.Private 0a . .Income

`10,000 to `50,000

Public 283

4.35 .90

4.119 .000*Private 145

3.93 1.04

`50,001 to`1,00,000

Public 57 4.50 .89-.119 .906Private 54 4.53 .93

`1,00,000 and abovePublic 20 3.76 .76 -1.109 .275Private 14 4.08 .94

Average working hours per week

upto and including 48 hours

Public 203

3.97 1.00-1.260 .209

Private 34 4.20 .79

more than 48 - upto and including 60 hours

Public 140

4.12 1.07

-2.409 .017*Private 140

4.41 .93

more than 60 hours Public 17 3.65 .89 -2.857 .006*Private 39 4.42 .93Nature of Duties

Managerial Public 284

3.92 1.08 -3.880 .000*

157

Private 152

4.32 .96

Non-Managerial Public 76 4.38 .68 -1.118 .266Private 61 4.52 .77Location of work – posting city Delhi

Public 204

3.67 1.02

-6.028 .000*Private 155

4.31 .94

Jaipur Public 72 4.11 .81 .703 .483Private 27 3.98 .86

Lucknow Public 84 4.76 .76 -2.257 .026*Private 31 5.07 .12

It was felt that the location of posting, implying the city of posting could have an impact

on the Work/Life Balance scores and this, too, was tested. There was a significant

difference in the WLB scores for staff posted in the city of Delhi (H6l) in public sector

(M = 3.67, SD = 1.02) and private sector banks (M = 4.31, SD =.94) conditions; t(357) =

6.028, p = 0.000. There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff posted in

the city of Jaipur (H6m) in public sector (M = 4.11, SD = .81) and private sector banks (M

= 3.98, SD =.86) conditions; t(97) = .703, p = 0.483. There was a significant difference

in the WLB scores for staff posted in the city of Lucknow (H6n) in public sector (M =

4.76, SD = .76) and private sector banks (M = 5.07, SD =.12) conditions; t(113) = 2.257,

p = 0.026.

Thus, it can be seen from the results that there are differences in the manner in which the

demographic and organisational variables interact with the Work/Life Balance scores of

public and private sector bank employees. While age, educational qualification, length of

service and location of work (city of posting) have a significant influence on Work/Life

Balance of both public as well as private sector bank employees, it is not so for other

variables.

Income, nature of duties, marital status, number of children and caring responsibilities

have a significant impact on the work/life of public sector bank employees but not on the

private sector bank employees. On the other hand, gender has shown a significant impact

on the Work/Life Balance score of private sector but not on that of the public sector bank

employees. Average working hours per week, though has a significant impact in the

entire sample, this is not reflected when testing separately for public and private sector

respondents.

158

5.3.11 Significance of demographic variables for QWL

The impact of demographic (table 15.30 a and b) and organisational variables (table

15.31 a and b) on the quality of work/life was tested for all bank employees. The results

revealed that there was no significant difference in the quality of work/life as perceived

by either gender (H8a). Even in the case of age groups (H8b) and educational qualification

(H8c) of employees, there were no significant differences between the respective groups.

Table 5.30a): Significance of gender, family type and marital status for QWL.

Variable CategoryMean QWL score

Std. Deviation

Total sample

t - value ‘p’ value

Gender Male = 417 3.569 .330

1.398 .163Female = 156 3.522 .420

Family TypeNuclear = 399 3.547 .332

-.869 .386Joint = 174 3.577 .409

Marital StatusSingle = 133 3.590 .322

1.252 .211Married = 438 3.545 .367

* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Further, the family type (H8e), too, did not have a significant impact on the quality of

working life of the bank employees, while the family size (H8f) did indicate a positive

impact on the quality of work/life of a bank employee.

Table 5.30b): Comparison of mean Quality of Work/Life scores on demographic variables

VariableTotal Sample

F value ‘p’ valueAge .496 .685Educational Qualification 1.443 .229Family Size 2.782 .040*Number of Children in family 1.090 .337Caring responsibilities 13.776 .000*Working status of spouse 4.055 .018** Significant at 0.05% level of significance

159

It was seen that though the size of the family (H8f) did have a significant impact on the

quality of work/life of an employee, the number of children (H8g) did not have a

significant impact on the quality of work/life. At the same time, the caring

responsibilities (H8h) for elderly, sick or disabled showed a significant impact on the

quality of work/life of the bank employees. Working status of one’s spouse (H8i) had a

significant impact on the quality of work/life of the bank employees.

5.3.12 Significance of work related variables for QWL scores

The results (table 5.31a and b) revealed that there was a significant difference in the

Quality of Work/Life scores with regard to the length of service (H8j), income (H8m) and

long work hours (H8k). On the other hand, the nature of duties (H8l), managerial and non-

managerial, did not show a significant impact on the quality of work/life of an

individual.

Table 5.31a): Significance of nature of duties for Quality of Work/Life.

Variable CategoryMean QWL

scoreStd.

DeviationTotal sample t -

value‘p’

valueNature of Duties

Managerial = 436 3.552 .351-0.545 0.586

Non-managerial = 137 3.571 .376* Significant at 0.05% level of significance

Table 5.31b): Comparison of mean Quality of Work/Life scores on work-related variables

VariableTotal Sample

F value ‘p’ valueLength of Service 5.976 .001*Income 10.592 .000*Average working hours per week 5.211 .006*Location of work – posting city 18.223 .000** Significant at 0.05% level of significance

160

It was seen that the location of the city (H8n) where the person was posted had a

significant impact on the quality of work/life of the bank employees.

5.3.13. Relationship between Quality of Work/Life and Work/Life Balance

Objective: To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and the Quality of Work/Life of an employee.

To explore the relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life (H9),

correlation between them was calculated. The results are reported in table 5.32a). A

Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between

Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life. The data showed no violation of normality

or homoscedasticity. There was a high, positive correlation between Work/Life Balance

and Quality of Work/Life, which was statistically significant (r = .817, n = 573, P

< .0005) (Cohen, 1988).

Table 5.32a): Correlation between WLB and QWL.WLB QWL

WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .817**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 573 573

QWL Pearson Correlation .817** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 573 573

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.32b): Correlation between WLB and QWL for public and private sector bank employees.Bank type WLB QWLPublic WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .810**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 360 360

QWL Pearson Correlation .810** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 360 360

Private WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .818**

161

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 213 213

QWL Pearson Correlation .818** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 213 213

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A Pearson product-moment correlation was run separately for public and private sector

bank employees to understand the differences, if any, in the correlation between

Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life. The results are given in table 5.32b). Both

the public sector and private sector showed a high correlation between Work/Life

Balance and Quality of Work/Life (r = .810, n = 360, P < .0005; public sector) and (r

= .818, n = 213, P < .0005; private sector).

5.3.14. Relationship between WLB and Job Performance

Objective: To find the relationship between Work/Life Balance and employees’ job performance perception.To understand whether there is a relationship between Work/Life Balance and

performance, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was run (table 5.33a). There was a

high, positive correlation between Work/Life Balance and employees’ Performance

perception (Cohen, 1988).

Table 5.33a: Correlation between WLB and job performanceWLB Performance

WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .697**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 573 573

Performance Pearson Correlation .697** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 573 573

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.33b: Correlation between WLB and job performance of public and private sector bank employees Bank type WLB PerformancePublic WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .715**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 360 360

162

Performance Pearson Correlation .715** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 360 360

Private WLB Pearson Correlation 1 .693**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 213 213

Performance Pearson Correlation .693** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 213 213

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

This was tested further for both public and private sector bank employees (Table 5.33b).

The result revealed that in both the cases, there was a moderate, positive correlation

between Work/Life Balance and employees’ performance perception. However, the

public sector employees had a higher correlation value (r = .715, n = 360, P < .0005)

compared to that of the private sector bank employees (r = .693, n = 213, P < .0005)

5.3.15. Factors having an Impact on Work/Life Balance

Objective: To identify workplace factors that have an impact on Work/Life Balance.

Regression analysis was run to identify factors which may have a significant impact on

Work/Life Balance. The results revealed that Organisational Commitment and

Supervisory Support do not have a significant impact on Work/Life Balance while

Rewards and Promotion Opportunities, Task Capability and Significance, Work Load,

Job Ambiguity, Work Pressure, Task Achievement Orientation, Resource Trust

Orientation and Learning Involvement Orientation have a significant impact on the

Work/Life Balance of the public and private sector bank employees. The regression was

a good fit, describing 76.9% of the variance in Work/Life Balance (R2adj = 76.5%) and

the overall relationship was statistically significant (F10,562 = 186.72, p<0.05). The

regression results are reported in table 5.34a-b).

Table 5.34a): Regression results testing the relationship between Work/Life Balance

and work place factors/Model Summaryb

R R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Change Statistics Durbin-WatsonR

Square F

Changedf1 df2 Sig. F

Change

163

Change.877a .769 .765 .48620 .769 186.717 10 562 .000 1.574a. Predictors: (Constant), LIO, JA, SS, RTO, TCS, RPO, WL, OC, WP, TAOb. Dependent Variable: WLB

Work/Life Balance was negatively related to Work Load, Work Pressure, Job

Ambiguity, Task Capability Significance and Task Achievement Orientation all of which

have significant effect on Work/Life Balance. Work/Life Balance scores were positively

related to Organisational Commitment, Supervisory Support, Rewards and Promotion

Opportunities, Resource Trust Orientation and Learning Involvement Orientation and all

except Organisational Commitment and Supervisory Support had significant effect on

WLB.

Table 5.34b): Regression results testing the relationship between Work/Life Balance and work place factors/Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) 6.566 .523 12.566 .000

OC .014 .046 .009 .301 .763SS .009 .038 .006 .225 .822RPO .181 .038 .132 4.750 .000TCS -.140 .050 -.135 -2.792 .005WL -.280 .026 -.366 -10.721 .000JA -.061 .026 -.057 -2.367 .018WP -.254 .029 -.312 -8.654 .000TAO -.145 .061 -.122 -2.384 .017RTO .081 .025 .077 3.228 .001LIO .192 .022 .230 8.909 .000

a. Dependent Variable: WLB

Regression equation:

WLB = 6.566 - 0.280WL - 0.254WP + 0.192LIO - 0.145TAO - 0.140TCS +

0.181RPO + 0.081RTO – 0.061JA + 0.014OC + 0.009SS

164

Work/Life Balance does not have a significant relationship with Organisational

Commitment and with Supervisory Support. On the other hand, Work Load explains

36.6% decrease in Work/Life Balance and Work Pressure explains 31.2% decline in

Work/Life Balance at 5% level of significance. Task Achievement Orientation shows a

negative influence of 12.2% on Work/Life Balance scores while Job Ambiguity also has

a negative relationship with Work/Life Balance at 5% level of significance though it

explains merely 5.7% of the variance. Further, Rewards and Promotion Opportunties,

Learning Involvement Orientation and Resource Trust Orientation each explain a

positive and significant variance of 13.2%, 23% and 7.7% respectively in the Work/Life

Balance scores.

5.3.16. Relationship between WLB, QWL and Job Performance

The study tested the adequacy of the hypothesised model (Figure 5.1) examining the

relationship between WLB, QWL and Job Performance using structural equation

modelling (SEM) approach in AMOS 16.0. This technique is chosen for its ability to

examine a series of dependence relationships simultaneously, especially where there are

direct and indirect effects among constructs within the model (Hair et al., 2009).

Figure 5.1: Hypothesised model of relationship between WLB, QWL and Job

Performance

PerformanceWLBalance

QualWorkLife

Sample size plays an influential role in the reliability of the result where SEM is

concerned. Bollen (1989) recommended a minimum sample size of 100 while Anderson

and Gerbing (1988) recommended 200. A recent proposal by Hair et al., (2009) indicated

165

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.37

WLBalance

.29

e11

.77

e21

-.08

e7

1

WLBE

.47

e31

.60

1.00

1.08

RTO

.82

e6

1

.75

TAO

.46

e5

1

1.00

QualWorkLife

.04

e8

1

.26 .03

.49

WLBC

.40

e4-.19

1LIO

1.08

e9 1.24

1

that any study with five or fewer constructs, each with more than three items, and high

item communality with .60 and higher, can adequately be estimated with sample size of

150. In this study, the sample size is 573 (360 + 213) and this was considered adequate

sample size on the basis of recommendation from research. LIO in the Employee

Performance Measurement scale comprised only two items and had a slightly low alpha

coefficient. However, it had an acceptable AVE, hence, indicating an acceptable level of

convergent validity. On this basis, LIO was retained in the initial model.

Each latent construct comprised several observed variables that were measured using

scales developed for measuring WLB, QWL and Job Performance (Figure 5.2a, b and

Annexure XIV). Data however provided poor fit to the theoretical model: χ2/ df ratio =

(7.038); RMSEA = .103; GFI = .951; IFI = .951; CFI = .951.

Figure 5.2a: A test of causal model I of WLB (unstandardised estimates)

Figure 5.2b): A test of causal model I of WLB (Standardised estimates)

166

.83

WSPL

.68

PLWS

1.30

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e7

.51

WLBE

e3 .71

.91

.82

.15

RTO

e6.39

.36

TAO

e5

.60

.72

QualWorkLife

e8

.85 .02

1.12

.11

WLBC

e4-.33

.27

LIO

e9 .52

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.35

WLBalance

.31

e11

.75

e21

.08

e7

1

WLBE

.46

e31

.60

1.00

1.10

RTO

.71

e6

1

.78

TAO

.30

e5

1

1.00

QualWorkLife

.04

e8

1

.26 .08

.48

WLBC

.40

e4-.19

1

An alternative model was attempted to improve fit. In this alternative model, LIO was

dropped as it had just two items loading on it and hence, was not a very good choice for

being retained in the model. Further it had the weakest significant correlation value with

Work/Life Balance. The model fit, however, did not improve much: χ2/ df ratio = 6.991;

RMSEA = .102; GFI = .964; IFI = .964; CFI = .963. (Figure 5.3a, b and Annexure XV).

Figure 5.3a): A test of causal model II of WLB (Unstandardised estimates)

167

.81

WSPL

.68

PLWS

.80

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e7

.52

WLBE

e3 .72

.90

.83

.27

RTO

e6.52

.59

TAO

e5

.77

.72

QualWorkLife

e8

.85 .05

.86

.11

WLBC

e4-.33

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.33

WLBalance

.32

e11

.76

e21

.08

e7

1

WLBE

.46

e31

.61

1.00

1.10

RTO

.71

e6

1

.78

TAO

.30

e5

1

1.00

QualWorkLife

.03

e8

1

.27 .00

.50

Figure 5.3a): A test of causal model II of WLB (Standardised estimates)

Since, this too was not a very good fit, modifications in the model were explored and

WLBC, which had the next lowest correlation with Quality of Work/Life, was dropped.

This, certainly lead to an improvement in the model, though it was just incremental. The

model fit: χ2/ df ratio = 2.349; RMSEA = .049; GFI = .991; IFI = .995; CFI = .995. The

alternative model provided a better fit.

Figure 5.4a): A test of causal model III of WLB (Unstandardised estimates)

168

.80

WSPL

.68

PLWS

.81

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e7

.51

WLBE

e3 .72

.90

.82

.27

RTO

e6.52

.59

TAO

e5

.77

.74

QualWorkLife

e8

.86 .00

.90

Figure 5.4b): A test of causal model III of WLB (Standardised estimates)

All paths were significant except for Quality of Work/Life to Performance, which does

not show a significant relationship. At the same time Work/Life Balance has a highly

significant relationship with Performance as well as a weakly significant relationship

with Quality of Work/Life (Figure 5.4a, b and Annexure XVI).

Since, model III offered a good fit, it was also tested separately for public and private

sector. Table 5.35 shows the model fit for the overall model and separately for the public

sector and private sector banks’ samples (Figure 5.5a, b and Annexure XVII for public

sector; Figure 5.6a, b and Annexure XVIII for private sector banks). There is a good fit

for both models.

Table 5.35: Fit Indices of the proposed research model, total sample, public sector and private sectorFit Index Recommended

Level of FitOverall Model Public Sector

banksPrivate Sector banks

P value 0.021 0.079 0.442χ2 n.s. at p < .05 16.44 12.74 7.07χ2 / df < 5 2.349 1.820 1.01GFI > 0.90 0.991 0.989 0.989NFI > 0.90 0.991 0.989 0.990

169

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.42

WLBalance

.37

e11

.72

e21

.06

e4

1

WLBE

.43

e31

.62

1.00

1.10

RTO

.75

e6

1

.86

TAO

.34

e5

1

1.00

QualWorkLife

.03

e7

1

.26 -.72

.66

RMSEA < 0.05 0.049 0.048 0.007CFI > 0.90 0.995 0.995 1.000

SEM uses a variety of indices to measure model fit (Kline, 2005). The ratio of the χ2

statistic to its degree of freedom should be a value less than 5 indicating acceptable fit.

The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is equal to the discrepancy function adjusted for

sample size. CFI ranges from 0 to 1 with a larger value indicating better model fit.

Acceptable model fit is indicated by a CFI value of 0.90 or greater (Hu and Bentler,

1999). The model under consideration has a CFI value of 0.995, which indicates an

acceptable model fit. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is related to

residual in the model. RMSEA values range from 0 to 1 with a smaller RMSEA value

indicating better model fit. Acceptable model fit is indicated by an RMSEA value of 0.06

or less (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA value for the tested model is 0.049, which

again indicates an acceptable model fit.

Figure 5.5a): A test of causal model (Public sector banks) of WLB (Unstandardised estimates)

170

.79

WSPL

.70

PLWS

.84

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e4

.56

WLBE

e3 .75

.89

.84

.28

RTO

e6.53

.54

TAO

e5

.74

.74

QualWorkLife

e7

.86 -.42

1.25

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.10

WLBalance

.24

e11

.82

e21

.01

e4

1

WLBE

.52

e31

.55

1.00

1.07

RTO

.57

e6

1

.76

TAO

.27

e5

1

1.00

QualWorkLife

.05

e7

1

.45 .24

.49

Figure 5.5b): A test of causal model (Public sector banks) of WLB (Standardised estimates)

Figure 5.6a): A test of causal model (Private sector banks) of WLB (Unstandardised estimates)

171

.82

WSPL

.60

PLWS

.98

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e4

.39

WLBE

e3 .62

.91

.78

.29

RTO

e6.54

.60

TAO

e5

.77

.81

QualWorkLife

e7

.90 .20

.81

Figure 5.6b): A test of causal model (Private sector banks) of WLB (Standardised estimates)

WSPL (b = 0.90, p<0.05) is a more dominant determinant of Work/Life Balance than

either PLSW (b = 0.82, p<0.05) or WLBE (b = 0.72, p<0.05) Fig 5.4b). This conclusion

drawn on the basis of the total sample is also reflected in case of public sector [WSPL

(b=0.89, p<0.05); PLSW (b=0.84, p<0.05) and WLBE (b=0.75, p<0.05)] and private

sector samples [WSPL (b=0.90, p<0.05); PLSW (b=0.78, p<0.05) and WLBE (b=0.62,

p<0.05)]

Similarly, the Task Achievement Orientation (b=0.52, p<0.05) has a greater impact on

performance as compared to the Resource Trust Orientation (b= 0.77, p<0.05). This was

closely matched by the independent analysis results for public sector banks [TAO (b=0.

74, p<0.05); RTO (b=0. 53, p<0.05)] and private sector banks [TAO (b=0.77, p<0.05);

RTO (b=0. 54, p<0.05)]

Job Performance was treated as a dependent variable which is influenced by the

Work/Life Balance of the employee. Further, it is hypothesised that most of the effects of

Work/Life Balance on Performance are mediated (influenced) by Quality of Work/Life.

172

Thus, the direct and indirect impact of Work/Life Balance on Job Performance was

calculated for each of the three cases viz., total sample, public sector and private sector

sample.

Table 3.36: Summary of Direct, Indirect and Total effect of WLB on Job PerformanceEffect Total Sample Public Sector Private Sector

Direct effect from WLB to Job

Performance

0.90 1.25 0.81

Indirect effect from WLB to Job

Performance, mediated by

QWL

0.88 X 0.00 = 0.00

0.86 X (- 0.42) = - 0.36

0.90 X 0.20 = 0.18

Total effect (Direct + Indirect)0.90 + 0 = 0.90

1.25 + (- 0.36) = 0.89

0.81 + 0.18 = 0.99

Finally, a direct model of Work/Life Balance and Job Performance was tested (Figure

5.7 a, b and Annexure XIX.

Figure 5.7a): A test of causal model of WLB and Performance (Unstandardised estimates)

173

WSPL

PLWSPerformance

1.30

WLBalance

.35

e11

.70

e21

.07

e7

1

WLBE

.47

e31

.61

1.00

1.13

RTO

.70

e6

1

.81

TAO

.31

e5

1

1.00.51

.79

WSPL

.71

PLWS

.82

PerformanceWLBalance

e1

e2

e7

.50

WLBE

e3 .71

.89

.84

.27

RTO

e6.52

.57

TAO

e5

.75.91

Figure 5.7b): A test of causal model of WLB and Performance (Standardised estimates)

The model fit: χ2/ df ratio = (5.752/4); RMSEA = .028; GFI = .996; IFI = .999; CFI

= .999. Thus, the model exploring the direct impact of Work/Life Balance on Job

Performance had an improved fit over the previous model.

174

Since, there was no mediating variable and the direct effect of Work/Life Balance on Job

Performance was significant (b=0.91, p<0.05). WSPL (b = 0.89, p<0.05) continues to be

the dominant influencer of Work/Life Balance compared to either PLSW (b = 0.84,

p<0.05) or WLBE (b = 0.71, p<0.05) Fig 5.7b). Similarly, the impact of Task

Achievement Orientation was still seen as higher than that of Resource Trust Orientation

[TAO (b=0.75, p<0.05); RTO (b=0.52, p<0.05)] (Fig. 5.7b).

Based on the above it can be concluded that the mediating effect of Quality of Work/Life

on Performance is much less as compared to the direct effect of Work/Life Balance on

Job Performance.

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION

175

6.1 STATUS OF WLB OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR BANK EMPLOYEES.

6.2 STATUS OF QWL OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR BANK EMPLOYEES.

6.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB AND QWL.

6.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB AND JOB PERFORMANCE.

6.5 WORKPLACE FACTORS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON WLB

6.6 WLB INITIATIVES

6.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WLB, QWL AND JOB PERFORMANCE

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION

Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Job Performance have, individually been

the subject of various researches. However, the same cannot be said when it comes to

176

exploring their linkages with each other. There have been fewer studies world-wide and

just a handful, in India, which have tried to understand the relationship between

Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance. Further, there are no Indian

studies in the knowledge of the researcher which have compared all the three issues viz.,

Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance together with respect to

public and private sector bank employees. This comparison was sought with the primary

objective of understanding the reasons for the differences, if there were any and for

suggesting remedies for the same.

The first part of the study compares the Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life scores

for public and private sector bank staff, the second part of the study explores the

relationship between these three, wherein, it is seen that there is a direct positive

relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life, Work/Life Balance

and Performance as well as between Quality of Work/Life and Performance.

6.1 Status of WLB of public and private sector bank employees.

The mean WLB score for public and private sector bank employees is 4.16, hinting at a

moderate Work/Life Balance in general for the banking sector employees. However, the

mean score for WLB for public sector banks is 4.02 and for private sector banks it is

4.38. In this case the employees of private sector banks have a better Work/Life Balance

as compared to the employees of public sector banks. The findings of the research, thus,

were quite interesting but surprising for the researcher as contrary to the general

perception that public sector enjoys better Work/Life Balance, it was revealed that the

private sector bank employees enjoy a much better Work/Life Balance. A further

analysis was done understand the patterns of Work/Life Balance that emerged from the

sub-scales of the Work/Life Balance scale. These results revealed that there was a

significant difference in the Work Spillover in Personal Life (public sector mean = 3.95;

private sector mean = 4.37), Personal Life Spillover in Work (public sector mean = 4.39;

private sector mean = 4.92) and Work/Life Balance Contrainers (public sector mean =

3.47; private sector mean = 3.65) for public and private sector bank employees. In each

of these sub-scales, the mean scores of public sector bank employees was lower than the

177

mean scores of private sector bank employees, clearly hinting at private sector offering a

better Work/Life Balance to the employee compared to the public sector banks.

The constrainers, too, showed a difference in the case of public and private sector bank

employees. Interviews revealed that both set of employees had factors which they saw as

constrainers operating in their environment. However, the public sector employees and

private sector employees differed in their views of the factors which adversely impacted

their Work/Life Balance. In case of public sector employees, it was the red tapism,

inequitable distribution of work, absence of linkages between rewards and performance

which worked as constrain variables (interview with Mrs Sadhana Srivastava, Branch

Manager, PNB, Gomti Nagar), in the case of private sector employees, it was the long

hours of working and the constant pressure to perform, which prevented them from

giving their best to their family and personal life (interview with Manish Tripathi,

Regional Debt Manager, ICICI, Hazratganj, Lucknow). However, on the whole, it was

the public sector, which came across as being more disgruntled with the lack of policies

on WLB and the absence of will in working on the issue. This could be due to the private

sector bank employees working within better defined rules and hence, being clear about

the operating boundaries, leading to lower spillover and less constrains. Further, the

above findings are supported by the charter of demands forwarded by the All India Bank

Employees Association where they have specifically mentioned that public sector banks

lack Work/Life Balance while private sector banks have family friendly policies built

into their human resource guidelines. It was only in the case of the third sub-scale,

Work/Life Balance Enhancers, that the null hypothesis ‘there is no difference in the

perception of the WLBE among public and private sector bank employees’, was

accepted. The perception of the employees did not show significant differences on

account of the trade-offs worked out by them. An instance was when during the

interview, the private sector employees talked of ‘flexible working, performance linked

rewards, absence of bureaucratic structures and ample opportunity to explore one’s

potential’ (interview: Deepak Agarwal, Officer, Axis Bank) as enhancers, contrary to

what the public sector staff said in their interviews. For the public sector bank employee,

the enhancers were ‘job security, higher base pay and perquisites offered by the bank’

(interview: R K Seth, Assistant branch manager, PNB, DAV branch).

178

Work/Life Balance and demographic variables

The findings of the present study revealed that the Work/Life Balance of male and

female bank employees differed from each other (p = 0.021). However, the same cannot

be said about the employees in public sector banks. Though women employees in public

sector had a better work/life mean (3.993) as compared to men (3.977), this difference

was not significant (p = .906). On the contrary, there were significant differences in the

mean scores of male and female employees in private sector banks (p = .016). What was

surprising was that men had a better Work/Life Balance (mean = 3.738) compared to

women (mean = 3.431). Overall the women staff with a mean of 4.569 shows a better

Work/Life Balance as compared to the men staff with a mean of 4.261. These results

reflect the findings of Shoenfeld (2005), wherein he states the possible explanation for

the result as ‘a function of duration the issue has been in the forefront—women have had

more time to develop balancing mechanisms compared with men (Shoenfeld, 2005, pp

6). Tausig and Fenwick, (2001), in their study on 3381 white and blue collar workers in

USA, reported that gender is not correlated with Work/Life Balance. However, Coltrane

(2000), reported that women typically do a greater share of the household labour than

men and that additional work at home partially restricts the time women can spend in

paid work (Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1999; Rothbard and Edwards, 2003), thus,

impacting their Work/Life Balance. Thus, while some researchers have found no

significant differences across gender (Frone et. al, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1997; Grzywacz

2000) other studies (Grzywacz and Marks 2000; Rothbard 2001) have shown that

women report a higher positive emotional reaction from the work-to-family direction

than men. Additionally, work-to-family conflict research has found no significance in

relation to conflict and gender (Frone et al.,, 1996; Frone et al.,, 1997). Therefore, the

findings tend to be inconsistent. Even in the current study, there are differing results

from public and private sector. One probable reason for women employess in private

sector having lower scores links to the role played by them in home and outside.

Traditionally women have shouldered the burden of doing almost the entire household

management and this continues even after they have started building careers. Previous

Indian studies (Singh, 2004; Doble and Supriya, 2010) have highlighted this issue time

179

and again. At the same time work pressures are going up, impacting the Work/Life

Balance of both the genders, but more so of the fair gender in private banks. Public

sector banks have not shown a significant Work/Life Balance difference with respect to

gender as absence of strong reward - performance linkages ensure that women

employees are able to better manage their work responsibilities with the help of their

colleagues. However, when making comparisons between male workers of public and

private sector banks, there were significant differences (p = .028) as was in the case of

female employees of public and private sector banks (p = =.023).

The next comparison was based on the age groups of the employees. In the current study,

it was found that there was a significant relationship between Work/Life Balance and age

of the employee. Comparisons of the Work/Life Balance score between the public and

private sector bank employees with respect to age shows there was a significant

difference in the WLB score for age group of 20-29 years working in public sector

(M=4.09) and private sector banks (M=4.37) (p = 0.040) as well as for the age group of

30-39 years working in public sector (M=3.66) and private sector banks (M=4.25) (p <

0.0005. However, in case of the older age groups, it was revealed that difference in the

WLB scores for age group of 40-49 years working in public sector (M=4.43) and private

sector banks (M=4.74) conditions; (p = 0.108 was not significant. Similarly, there was no

significant difference in the WLB scores for age group of 50-59 years working in public

sector (M=4.33) and private sector banks (M=4.98) (p = 0.079. Implications are that the

younger work force, reflects differences in the Work/Life Balance in public and private

sector which have direct correlations with the policies of the banks. In both the cases the

public sector employee shows a lower Work/Life Balance (mean=4.09 for age group 20-

29 and mean=3.66 for age group 30-39 in public sector vs mean=4.37 for age group 20-

29 and mean = 4.25 for age group 30-39 in private sector). Private sector banks have

stated policies facilitating Work/Life Balance which tends to improve upon scores

reported by private sector employees. On the other hand, the reasons why public sector

bank staff has a lower Work/Life Balance score in the younger age group relates to the

family responsibilities and the stress due to greater competition in the younger age

bracket. Studies exploring the relationship between age and Work/Life Balance have

revealed differences based on gender. Grzywacz and Marks’ (2000) in their research

180

found that younger men experience less positive spillover than older men from both the

work-to-family and family-to-work direction, and that younger women experience

greater positive spillover form the work-to-family direction than older women. It is seen

that age continues to play an important role in perceptions of work-life balance, where

younger men and women have higher scores (meaning better) than older men and

women respectively Shoenfeld (2005), but at the same time, employee age is weakly

though significantly related to work-to-family conflict (Madsen et al.,, 2005). A recent

study in New Zealand (Hughes, 2010), however, supports the findings of the current

study that employees in the age groups of 25-34years and 35-44years have lower

Work/Life Balance compared to those in the age group of 55-64 and 65 and above.

Exploring the differences with respect to educational qualifications and Work/Life

Balance between public and private sector banks employees, the results show that there

are significant differences for graduates working in public sector (M=4.20) and private

sector banks (M=3.52), (p < 0.0005). The reason for this is not far to seek. Indians

traditionally favour public sector banks and hence, as soon as person obtains job in a

public sector bank, the satisfaction of having gained a ‘secure’ job, offsets disadvantages,

if any. On the other hand, those getting a job in private sector, continue to strive for

openings in the public sector and many times are simultaneously appearing for

competitive government sector job exams. This adds on to their burden leading to a

lowered Work/Life Balance. The situation is more common in fresh graduates as they are

still in the early stage of their life where they can afford to give a few more years to

competitive exams before settling down for family life. However, as the educational

qualifications increase, there was no significant difference in the WLB scores for post-

graduates working in Public sector (M=4.59) and private sector banks (M=4.77)

conditions; t(168)= -1.617, p = 0.108 as well as in the case of professionals working in

Public sector (M=4.20, SD=.85) and private sector banks (M=4.30, SD=.90) conditions;

t(169)= -0.778, p = 0.438. Stoddard and Madsen (2007) study shows that educational

qualifications do not have a predictive value for the Work/Life Balance of an individual.

A study on Ayurvedic practitioners in Kerala (Mathew and Panchanatham, 2011a)

reported significant differences in WLB scores based on educational qualifications. This

study conducted on bank employees also shows a significant difference in the WLB

181

scores for different educational groups, F(3, 569) = 33.322, p = .000. This is contrary to the

earlier result obtained by Stoddard and Madsen in their 2007 study on sales employees

from two different branches of a large retail business within the state of Utah but similar

to the results obtained by Mathew and Panchanatham in India.

The present study reports that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for

staff with single status in public sector (M=3.38) and private sector banks (M=4.35); (p <

0.0005) as well as for staff having marital status in public sector (M=4.15) and private

sector banks (M=4.40), (p = 0.012). When analysing without differentiating between the

public and private worker, the difference in the Work/Life Balance scores of single and

married staff still existed with the single staff having a lower Work/Life Balance (mean

= 3.887) as compared to the married staff with a better work/life average score of 4.237.

Exploring reasons behind this surprising result, it was discovered that quite often the

single staff was at a disadvantage in terms of postings, leave grants and work load.

Family friendly policies or even attitudes worked against providing the ‘single’

employee opportunities for taking time off for his/her personal engagements. Poe (2002,

pg. 23) categorically states in his research on American professionals that there is a

gradually growing resentment in singles and child-less ‘fueled by the perception that the

majority of the workforce, those without young children, must cover for the minority,

those with young children’. Similarly the study conducted on Ayurvedic practitioners in

Kerala (Rincy, et al, 2011) revealed significant differences in the WLB of married and

single employees. However, the Stoddard and Madsen (2007) study shows that marital

status of the individual does not have a predictive value for the Work/Life Balance of an

individual. Contrary to both these studies, Tausig and Fenwick (2001), report from their

study of white and blue collar US workers that dual earner couples with no children have

greater work-life balance, while both single and married parents report significantly

lower balance scores compared to single, non-parents.

Further, the current study revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB

scores for staff having nuclear family structure in public sector (M = 4.05) and private

sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.000) and also for staff having joint family structure in

public sector (M = 3.94) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), (p = 0.028). In both cases,

182

it can be seen that private sector staff has a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of

the public sector staff. This reiterates the assertion made by Boles, et al (1997) that

work-family issues are no more limited to married individuals or those with children but

extend to single parents and single individuals as well. Again the reasons for private

sector having a better Work/Life Balance compared to that of the public sector related to

the policies of flexibility built into the HR guidelines of private sector banks. Further,

private sector banks provide their staff with faster clearance of medical bills and

reimbursements, thus, improving their work/life status (interview with Paritosh Joshi,

Regional Manager, Government Loans and Manish Tripathi, ICICI Bank, Lucknow).

Buddhapriya (2009) in the study of women professionals in India, states that women

professionals living in joint families agreed more strongly that ‘career trade-offs” had to

be made to take care of family responsibilities, whereas those living in nuclear families

agreed less on this issue. The current study, however, reports that there were no

significant differences in the Work/Life Balance scores of those having nuclear and joint

family structures (p = .110), with both having a mean score of WLB towards the higher

side. Reasons for this seem to be that while those living in joint family system have to

live up to the greater expectations from family members, those having a nuclear family

face a tough time managing everything on their own. So while the joint family system

provides for a better distribution of responsibilities, it also compels the member to give

greater preference to the family and at times compromise on the work issues, hence,

diluting the benefit derived from having a joint family.

Family size has acted variously as a facilitator and impeder for maintaining balance in

work and life. Exploring the family size – Work/Life Balance equation, the current

study found that there were no significant differences in the Work/Life Balance scores of

individuals belonging to different family sizes, F(3,569) = 1.841, p = .139. However,

when the same was explored for family size of public and private sector banks staff, the

results were different. There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff

having 1-5 family members in public sector (M = 3.96) and private sector banks (M =

4.36), (p = 0.001) as well as for staff having 6-10 family members in public sector (M =

4.01) and private sector banks (M = 4.38), (p = 0.011. On the other hand, the difference

183

was not significant with respect to the WLB scores for staff having 11-15 family

members in public sector (M = 4.45) and private sector banks (M = 4.57), (p = 0.728).

While a larger family size does not show differences between public and private sector,

the WLB score reflects better Work/Life Balance as well. It could be due to the family

support drawn by the individual and the back-up provided due to the presence of a

greater number of family members. Duxbury and Higgins (2008) have found a clear link

between family size and Work/Life Balance of an individual. According to their study of

11,920 full-time knowledge workers in Australia, “a significant number of socio-

economically advantaged men and women in Australia are reducing their family size as a

way to cope with career and work demands” (Duxbury and Higgins, 2008, pg 14).

The findings of this study reveal that there are significant differences between individual

with children and those not with children, F(2, 570) = 4.960, p = .007. In the current study it

was found that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having no

children in the family in public sector (M = 3.58) and private sector banks (M = 4.47), (p

= 0.000) which was also reflected in case of staff having one child in the family in public

sector (M = 4.04) and private sector banks (M = 4.28), ( p = 0.035). However, when

tested for members having more than one child in the family in public sector (M = 4.31)

and private sector banks (M = 4.56), (p = 0.132), the difference in the WLB scores for

staff did not come out to be significant. A possible reason for this could be in cases

where there is more than one child the other children who are older would be able to help

out with the younger children and their tasks, thus, mitigating the pressures on the

parents. Leaving children at day care or home while parents work may result in serious

concerns like safety, health, learning, supervision and nurturance. The findings of Bailyn

et al.,, (2001) suggested that families alone cannot change the structure of careers nor

alter the availability of child care. And when families experience crises, whether

financial or personal, external supports are needed. It is widely believed that workers

with preschool or preparatory school children will be especially interested in reducing

their hours, particularly if they (like many women) are responsible for child care and

household tasks. However, as revealed in several studies, the desire for fewer work hours

184

is only weakly related to having children in the house (Clarkberg and Moen, 2001;

Jacobs and Gerson, 2000).

The current study reveals that there are significant differences in the Work/Life Balance

of caregivers and non-caregivers, (p = .000). Non-caregivers have a better Work/Life

Balance mean (M = 4.504) when compared to that of caregiver (mean = 3.997). Analysis

further revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having

no caring responsibilities in the family in public sector (M = 3.83) and private sector

banks (M = 4.34), (p = 0.000). Many other studies have also revealed that those, who

manage elder care are more likely to experience increased depression, anxiety, poor

health, stress and family interference with work (Gottleib et al.,, 1994; Strawbridge,

Wallhagen et al.,, 1997). In the absence of alternative work arrangements and support

from co-workers, dependent care becomes more complicated, leading to problems in

maintaining Work/Life Balance (Mathew and Panchanatham, 2011b). There was no

significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having caring responsibilities for

elderly in public sector (M = 4.64) and private sector banks (M = 4.62), (p = 0.906) and

for staff having caring responsibilities for disabled in the family in public sector (M =

4.18) and private sector banks (M = 4.41), (p = 0.608). In both the cases, the mean WLB

scores were on the higher side, implying a good Work/Life Balance. This surprising fact

seems to imply that the family support inherent in the Indian society, helps tide over the

emotional and physical strain so frequently associated with caregiving in western

society. Since, there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having

caring responsibilities for sick in public sector (M = 4.51) and private sector banks (M =

4.05), (p = 0.036), the results seem to indicate that caregiving responsibilities attain

greater magnitude when occurring in case of sick dependents rather than old or disabled

dependents.

There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff having non-working

spouse in public sector (M = 3.96) and private sector banks (M = 4.36), (p = 0.000).

Again this difference seems to stem from the kind of Family-Friendly policies present in

the bank. Private sector WLB is better as compared to the WLB of Public sector bank

185

staff and the reason was linked with ‘the flexibility that the bank offers’ (Paritosh Joshi,

ICICI Bank, Lucknow). There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff

having a full-time working spouse in public sector (M = 4.21) and private sector banks

(M = 4.38), (p = 0.401) as well as for the WLB scores for staff having a part-time

working spouse in public sector (M = 4.19) and private sector banks (M = 4.59), (p =

0.177). Some studies have focused on the well-being of social systems, including

families (Zubrick et, al., 2000). Workers may desire a reduction in work hours if they

have a partner who is also employed. It is primarily married workers (Jacobs and Gerson,

2000), especially women whose husbands work many hours (45 hours or more a week),

who want to work less (Clarkberg and Moen, 2001). However, the desire for fewer work

hours is only weakly related to having an employed spouse (Jacobs and Gerson, 2000).

WLB and Work related variables

The current study indicates that there are significant differences in the Work/Life

Balance perception based on the service tenure of the employee, F (3, 569) = 12.076, p =

.000. Scheffe’s test revealed that there are significant differences between employees

with service tenure of 0-9 years and employees have longer service tenures of 10-19 and

20-29 years respectively. However, there is no difference in the perception of Work/Life

Balance of those with service tenure between 0-9years and between 30-39 years. The

reason behind this could be the life-cycle stage of the individual and hence the related

pressures at both the work and personal fronts which make striking a balance between

the spheres a difficult task. 53per cent (96 out 180) of those with 0-9 years of service are

single and in the age group of 20-29 years, implying that the responsibilities over them

are less as compared to employees in the other age groups of 30-39. Exploring for public

and private sector bank staff, the results revealed that there was a significant difference

in the WLB scores for staff with length of service between 0-9 years in public sector

(M=4.27) and private sector banks (M=3.68), (p = 0.000) as well as for staff with length

of service between 10-19 years in Public sector (M=4.22,) and private sector banks

(M=4.75), (p=0.007). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the WLB

scores for staff with length of service between 20-29 years in Public sector (M=4.53) and

private sector banks (M=4.88), (p = 0.097). The inference drawn from this is that while

186

private sector bank job are more stressful in the initial period of working, they gradually

improve as workplaces due to the family friendly policies adopted by them as also due to

the acceptance by the private sector employee that he/she would continue with the

private sector. The initial desire for a secure public sector job, gives way to enjoying the

better structured work culture in the private sector bank (interview with K Vinay Raj,

HDFC, Hazratganj, Lucknow). A study by Sturges et al in 2000 suggests that at the

beginning of a career work-life balance issues are important, but as careers advance

dissatisfaction with work-life balance increases.

There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours upto

and including 48 hours per week for staff in Public sector (M=3.97) and private sector

banks (M=4.20), (p = 0.209). There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for

average working hours more than 48 hours and upto and including 60 hours per week for

staff in public sector (M=4.12) and private sector banks (M=4.41), (p = 0.017). There

was a significant difference in the WLB scores for average working hours above 60

hours per week for staff working in Public sector (M=3.65) and private sector banks

(M=4.42), ( p = 0.006). These findings show that Work/Life Balance scores are similar

for both public and private sector employees working upto and including 48 hours per

week. These start showing a significant difference as the working hours go up over 48

hours per week. However, looking at the mean scores, it can be seen that public sector

employee has a lower Work/Life Balance (M=3.97) when he is working 48hours per

week and this in fact improves as his working working hours go up from 48hours to

60hours per week but again worsens with a further increase in working hours beyond 60

hours per week. Similarly, there are significant differences within the private sector as

well when we explore with respect to the hours of work put in. However, the scores for

each of the three bands, (<=48hours per week, 48< to <=60hours per week and >60hours

per week) reflect a better Work/Life Balance in the private sector compared to the public

sector. Thus, it can be concluded that even when the hours of work are longer at private

sector, it has a better Work/Life Balance compared to public sector. The difference in the

Work/Life Balance scores with varing hours of work in public and private sector is tied

up with the reward-performance linkage. Private sector rewards for the output which

187

results from the longer hours of work put it while in the public sector this linkage is not

very clear. In the public sector, linger hours may or may not translate into rewards.

According to Mr. Ramesh Srivastava (Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Lucknow), at

times, the longer hours worked at a public sector sector banks, may even lead to negative

rewards in terms of working piling over an efficient individual. Guest (2001) states that

the number of hours worked are an objective indicator of work-life balance. The more

time an individual puts into one sphere of life, the less time the individual will have for

all other spheres. A possible explanation could be that long working hours reduces

opportunities for socially productive leisure by restricting time available ‘for being an

effective marriage partner, parent and citizen’ (Golden and Figart, 2000, pg. 26), thus,

lowering the satisfaction gained from investing time in the sphere of work. Existing

research indicates that long weekly hours and involuntary overtime have a negative

effect on work–life balance (Berg et al.,, 2003) as it reduces the quality and quantity of

workers’ participation in family and social life (Pocock, 2001; Pocock and Clarke, 2004).

People working long hours report lower levels of satisfaction with their hours of work

and their work–life balance than other workers (Watson et al., 2003: 87).

Data analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff

performing managerial duties in public sector (M=3.92) and private sector banks

(M=4.32,), ( p=0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for staff performing non-

managerial duties in public sector (M=4.38) and private sector banks (M=4.52),

(p=0.266) was not significant. While studies in this respect could not be found,

interviews conducted with the public and private sector bank employees threw light on

the factors that have a bearing on the differences in the Work/Life Balance issues faced

by the employees of managerial and non-managerial levels. Similar findings are reflected

in the study conducted by Kamal (2008) on probationary officers in public sector banks

in the city of Lucknow. There is a lot of pressure on the probationary officers in the

public sector bank and this reflects in the lower Work/Life Balance scores shown by

these staff members. Unlike their counterparts in the private sector, where the work load

is more equitably distributed making the work/life issues easier to handle. Especially in

the case of public sector banks, the staff with non-managerial positions has lesser

188

decision making and responsibilities on them, leading to lower work pressures and

workloads (interviews with Mr. D P Singh, AGM, SBI, Lucknow; Mr. Abhishek Singh,

Probationary Officer, SBI, Kanpur and Mrs. Neha Chaudhary, Probationary Officer,

Bank of Baroda, Lucknow).

The current study reveals that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for

income group ` 10,000 to 50,000/- working in public sector (M=4.35) and private sector

banks (M=3.93), (p = 0.000) but the difference in the WLB scores for income group ` 50,000 to 100,000/-working in Public sector (M=4.50, SD=.89) and private sector banks

(M=4.53, SD=.93) conditions; t(109)= 0.119, p = 0.906 and for income group ` 100,000

and above working in Public sector (M=3.76, SD=.76) and private sector banks

(M=4.08, SD=.94) conditions; t(32)= 1.109, p = 0.275 was not significant. The results

imply that as the income of the individual improves, he/she can opt for support services

that make coping with work/life issues easier for him/her. Where incomes are lower,

private sector (M = 3.76) employee show a lower Work/Life Balance as compared to the

better Work/Life Balance scores of the public sector (M = 4.25) bank employees. As

reported in the CIPD study, problems with work-life balance are elevated among well-

paid management positions (Guest, 2001). However, there isn’t a significant correlation

between annual salary and work-life balance. Some studies have explored the

relationship between WLB and income in context of the family responsibilities of the

employee and the results have indicated that higher income works in mitigating work/life

(im)balance situations, as Duxbury and Higgins (2001) argue that, “while money cannot

buy happiness, it can sure help people cope with work-life conflict” (p. 61).

The city of posting has a significant influence on the Work/Life Balance scores as can be

seen from a significant correlation of 0.205 between the city of posting and Work/Life

Balance score. It was seen that there was a significant difference in the WLB scores for

staff posted in the city of Delhi in public sector (M=3.67) and private sector banks (M =

4.31), (p=0.000). There was no significant difference in the WLB scores for staff posted

in the city of Jaipur in public sector (M=4.11) and private sector banks (M=3.98), (p =

189

0.483). There was a significant difference in the WLB scores for staff posted in the city

of Lucknow in public sector (M=4.76) and private sector banks (M=5.07), (p=0.026).

While Delhi and Lucknow showed a significant difference in the Work/Life Balance

scores of public and private sector bank staff, there was no such difference in the city of

Jaipur. In case of Delhi, which is a metropolitan and Lucknow, which is fast adopting the

metropolitan culture, the public sector bank staff had some pertinent points to make

regarding their working style. According to Mr. D. P. Singh (SBI, Hazratganj, Lucknow)

‘branches of public sector banks in Lucknow have not quite been able to match the

efficiency levels of the private sector banks, leading to increased pressures on the

employees’.

All these factors contribute to the significant difference in the Work/Life Balance of

public and private sector bank employees. Further, in the study, the comparisons for

Quality of Work/Life were made.

6.2. Status of QWL of public and private sector bank employees.

The perception of quality of work/life among public and private sector bank employees

differs significantly. This difference in QWL cannot be attributed to the organisational

commitment of employees, supervisory support, rewards and promotion opportunities,

task and capability significance and job ambiguity, which have been perceived as similar

in cases of both public and private sector bank staff. Two major contributors to this

difference in perception are work load and work pressure. The QWL mean value for

public sector bank employees is 3.58, which is higher than 3.51, the mean value for the

QWL scores of private sector bank staff. This implies that the quality of work/life of

private sector bank employees is better than the quality of work/life of public sector bank

employees. Further, the workload in case of public sector banks employees has a mean

score of 4.23 as compared to a lower workload mean score of 3.84 in case of private

sector bank employees. The reasons for this were explored through in-depth interviews

conducted with both public and private sector bank employees. What came to light was

that as banking reforms gathered speed, it was realised that public sector banks were

overstaffed by roughly 1,00,000 employee (Jain and Shukla, 2002). Since, hiring and

firing happened to be highly unionised in banking sector, after much deliberation and

190

negotiation with the Indian Banks Association, the Government sanctioned the release of

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in November 1999. By March 2001, 1,00,810

employees, constituting 11.7 per cent of public sector bank staff had opted for VRS. The

fallout of implementing VRS in public sector added to the workload and work pressures

of the banking staff.

In some cases, the bank’s managerial employees had to share some clerical functions,

which delayed the clearance process. Irate customers of SBI complained of the increased

waiting time for cheque clearance since there was shortage of manpower. SBI faced flak

not only for customer service but also for interest lost on money transferred from various

branches as delays in remittance of cash snowballed to over five days with SBI too

understaffed to clear transactions in time. In normal cases, the transfer takes place on the

same day or the next day. Further, VRS could have balanced the skill profile vis-à-vis the

employee mix (officer : clerical : subordinate). However, since this did not happen, it

added to the burden of the existing staff as the banks were forced to retrain the remaining

staff to handle new duties at the shortest possible notice. Some banks resorted to

promoting clerks to officer cadre. VRS was supposed to level the age profile. However,

the results were not different from before with 16 per cent below 35 years of age, a

sizeable 45 per cent between 35 and 44 years and 39 per cent between 45 and 60 years

(Jain and Shukla, 2002). This meant that while the private sector banks had a younger,

technology friendly workforce at their disposal, the public sector banks were still saddled

with a sizeable older age group staff which, though retrained in computer skills, was still

struggling to come to grips with the new ways of working till as late as 2008 (interview

excerpts, Mr. D P Singh).

6.3 Relationship between WLB and QWL.

On closely examining the relationship between Work/Life Balance and Quality of

Work/Life a moderately strong relationship merged between the two. Even when testing

separately for public and private sector banks, the correlation results highlighted the

importance of Quality of Work/Life for maintaining a proper Work/Life Balance. This

correlation was especially significant in case of private sector employees. This implies

191

that banks cannot expect one to exist in the absence of the other. Work/Life Balance has

often been considered as a major component of Quality of Work/Life (Rethinam and

Ismail, 2008). Since the Quality of Work/Life is dependent of supervisor support,

compensation, work load, job ambiguity, social support, task capability, opportunities to

develop ones’ self and recognition of achievements, banks can work at improving these

so that the Work/Life Balance of the employee can be enhanced.

The relationship between QWL and WLB is especially significant in light of the

increasingly competitive environment, where separating home and work life are

becoming almost impossible. Due to the option of being able to work from anywhere and

at any time, the boundaries between work and home are getting blurred by the day. Allen

et al., (2000) emphasized that problems associated with family responsibilities are

additional sources that may diminish QWL among professionals. Hence, employees

today are more likely to express a strong desire to have a harmonious balance among

career, family life and leisure activities. The threat of imbalance in work and non-work

life has implications not only for the employees but also for organizations, governments

and society (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Swanson, Power and Simpson, 1998). The

need for a policy to help balance work and life commitments of individuals has, thus,

been suggested at international level. The International Labour Organisation (ILO)

convention in 1981 emphasised the necessity for organizations to help employees to

balance their work and non-work demands (Lewis, 1997). It has been suggested that the

constantly increasing work demand creates an isolation of the personnel from their

families. Personal and family responsibilities are neglected in the process of securing an

economic prospect; hence, it is the deteriorating quality of interaction with family life

that reduces the QWL.

6.4 Relationship between WLB and Job Performance.

Many banks are learning the hard way that whether it is in their banking operations or on

their frontline teller ranks, performance issues are not always linked to the lack of job

skills but may also be impacted by poor cause identification, inefficient work schedules,

continuous overtime, lack of adequate transportation or other personal issues that spill

over into their workplace and diminish their performance. Additionally when an

192

employee has higher work responsibility there will be more spillover of negative work

outcomes on family life. The demands of managing higher responsibility at work and

home are also a potential source of stress because it allows a spillover to family life thus

creating an imbalance in the working environment and adversely affecting performance.

Studies have shown a direct relationship between job stressors and ill health, which

subsequently lead to a lowered performance amongst employees (Sparks et al.,, 2001;

Caplan, 1985; Parasuraman et al.,, 1981; Pal & Vasudeva, 1989; Ivancevich et al.,,

1982).

Further, it was seen that a number of role based factors such as role ambiguity and role

conflict (Burke, 1988; Nelson and Burke, 2000) can impact performance. Role overload,

lack of supervisory support, lack of growth opportunities and resource inadequacy (all of

which were considered as part of the Quality of Work/Life in the current study) (Kumar,

2006; Singh, 1989; Driscoll, 1994; Sen, 1981; Sharma and Devi, 2008) negatively

impact the Quality of Work/life as well as the Work Spillover to Family. In special

context to employees in the service sector, who are aggressively involved in direct

dealing with the customers, role stress has been found to be very important in

determining their commitment to the organization and satisfaction with supervisor and

their intention to leave the organization (Dubinsky et al.,, 1984). Role stress, role

ambiguity and role conflict all have significant linkages with work/life balance (Duxbury

and Higgins, 1991; Bakker, 2000; Messersmith, 2007). The current study, too, supports a

strong link between work/life balance and job performance. This relationship emerges as

moderately strong in the overall sample (r = 0.697), as also in case of public sector

sample (r = 0.715) and private sector sample (r = 0.693).

6.5 Workplace factors that have an impact on Work/Life Balance

The results of the study show that Rewards and Promotion Opportunities, Task

Capability and Significance, Work Load, Job Ambiguity, Work Pressure, Task

Achievement Orientation, Resource Trust Orientation and Learning Involvement

Orientation all have an impact on the Work/Life Balance of an individual while

Organisational Commitment and Supervisory Support did not have a significant impact.

193

In light of these findings, the implications are to study the Rewards and Promotion

Opportunities being offered to the employees and linking them with performance,

especially in case of public sector bank employees. Since, Rewards and Promotion

Opportunities carry a positive significant relationship with Work/Life Balance,

emphasis and transparency in these is likely to improve the employee commitment to

work. Further, better rewards and promotion options compensate for having to work

longer hours or work pressures. As the rewards and compensation improves, the

individual gains access to paid support network in the form of maids, concierge

services, crèche, preferred customer benefits at various outlets etc. so, a number of

chores which otherwise would be performed by himself can be outsourced. Individuals

for whom these costs are prohibitively high, organizing such help is an issue that adds

complexity to the life situation, thus, adversely influencing the work-life balance

equation (Kossek et al.,, 1997). Thus, for resources to be beneficial, they have to be

both within reach physically as well as financially viable.

Task capability and significance imparts confidence to the employee. The better one is

at his task, the greater is the likelihood that he will be more efficient and would be

having a higher performance. However, it is seen that Task Capability impact Work/Life

Balance adversely. The reason for the same is not far to seek. The more capable an

individual is the greater is the likelihood of his being designated more than his fairshare

of work. Naturally, this leads to a skewed balance in work and life. Management of task

capability can be improved by giving training to the employee and ensuring that in case

of changes in technology and processes, the employee skills need to be upgraded and

further, he needs to be supported well by the management during the upgradation

process. Work load is seen as having a significant impact on the Work/Life score of the

individual. By and large in the public sector banks, those of are sincere workers, get the

maximum work piled up on the while those who are inefficient, manage to escape with

doing little. Hence, public sector needs to look into more equitable distribution of work

and ensure that those who are shirking work do not escape without a penalty and those

with outstanding performance are suitable rewarded. In absence of performance linked

rewards, the better performing employee is likely to get demotivated and demoralised.

This was seen at the time of the launching of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the

194

public sector banks. It was not the inefficient, rather it was the cream of the public sector

banks, the actual performers who took the benefit of VRS and later joined the private

sector banks at hefty salaries.

Work load has the maximum negative impact on Work/Life Balance. A high work load

is a common phenomenon in today’s workplace. If work load is taken care of, the work

pressure too shall ease. Work pressure is related to the deadlines and work load to the

amount of work to be performed. Job ambiguity further compounds the problem as lack

of clarity of role performance and duplicity leaves one uncertain. Job ambiguity and

work pressure together act as a deadly combination of increasing the stressors leading

to Work/Life (Im)balance. A logical extension is that increased ambiguity is very likely

to impact on perceptions of the specific requirements necessary for successfully

enacting one’s work role (Dierdorff and Rubin, 2007). Tubre and Collins (2000) found

that a condition of high ambiguity is associated with a lack of knowledge regarding

what role activities are critical to the job. Therefore an ambiguous role would make it

more difficult for an individual to judge exactly what is important or central to his or

her job, and how often he or she may perform a particular activity (Dierdorff and

Rubin, 2007), leading to reduced task significance. Kahn et al., (1964) found in their

study that men who suffered from role ambiguity experienced lower job satisfaction,

higher job related tension, greater futility, lower self-confidence and lower work/life

balance.

While organisational commitment and supervisory support have not come out as

significant factors in this study, they cannot be ignored. Supervisory support is essential

for implementing any policy and ensuring that the employee does not hesitate in

approaching the superior with requests related to easing to work pressure and work load.

There is ample evidence in literature that Work Life Balance Policies have failed to

deliver primarily because of the superior’s apathy and indifferent attitude (Thompson et

al.,, 1999; Allen, 2001; Baral and Bhargav, 2011). In addition to the types of explicit

programs, the workplace is a source of support from co-workers (House and Wells,

1978), supervisors (Ganster et al.,, 1986; Hopkins, 1997; LaRocco et al.,, 1980), and the

organizational culture. Abundant research data is available which addresses the issue of

195

support available from family, friends and work associates (Bowen, 1998; Ganster et al.,,

1986; J. S. House and Wells, 1978; LaRocco et al.,, 1980; Warren and Johnson, 1995). It

is these domains that provide support and resources to an individual aiding creation of

Work/Life Balance.

Task Achievement Orientation, too, relates negatively with Work/Life Balance. It was

felt that this would be a facilitating factor as the better one is in one’s task; the easier it

would be to accomplish them with ease and within time, thereby improving the

Work/Life Balance. Task achievement orientation is linked with self-efficacy and refers

to individuals’ beliefs, expectations, and judgments about their ability to accomplish

tasks required for handling forthcoming situations and problems (Bandura, 1977, 1982).

There is evidence of a positive relationship existing between self-efficacy and

performance (Garland et al.,, 1988). High self-efficacy facilitates a positive outcome

and success as these individuals put in greater efforts and persists in face of challenge in

the expectation of mastering the situation or overcoming the challenge (Bandura, 1982).

Resource and Trust Orientation of the individual had a positive and significant

influence on his work/life balance. As reported by the bank employees, access to

adequate resources improves their performance and consequently leads to a better

balance in their work and life.

6.6 Work/Life Balance initiatives

Work Life Balance Policies are organised into three major categories, policies, benefits

and services. Policies cover the formal and informal ways by which employees’ work

and leave schedules are handled, including part-time work, flexitime, and parental/family

leave. Benefits cover different forms of compensation that protect against loss of

earnings, payment of medical expenses and sponsored vacation. Services include on-site

or near-site childcare centres, medical facilities and counselling. Work Life Balance

Policies also include government mandated statutory policies such as maternity leaves

and benefits as well as discretionary policies and benefits offered by various

organisations such as flexitime, telecommuting and employee assistance programmes

196

such as stress management programmes (Ingram and Simons, 1995; Osterman, 1995;

Perry-Smith and Blum, 2000; Zedeck and Mosier, 1990). When the policies offered by

the banks were evaluated in the light of the above given explanation of Work Life

Balance Policies, it was seen that public sector banks were offering just one part of the

entire package i.e. benefits. These were not offering two major categories i.e. policies

and services. Similarly, while private banks do recognise the importance of Work Life

Balance, they too, were not offering the actual terms considered a part of the Work Life

Balance Policies (Annexure 1).

6.7 Relationship between Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance

Work/Life Balance, Quality of Work/Life and Performance are linked to each other as

each in their own way contributes to the effective functioning of the organisation.

Exploring the linkages between these three, it came to light that Quality of Work/Life

does not necessarily play a positive mediating role between Work/Life Balance and

Performance. Since, Quality of Work/Life measure used in the study had two

predominant set of factors, viz., support related factors (organisational commitment,

supervisory support, rewards and promotion opportunities, task capability and

significance) and strain related factors (work load, job ambiguity, work pressure), effect

of both was seen while testing the relationship between Work/Life Balance and

Performance with QWL as the mediating variable. An interesting observation was that

Quality of Work/Life did not have any impact on Job Performance when testing for

direct effect for the total sample (b = 0.00, p>0.05), while in case of public sector banks’

sample, the direct effect of QWL on Job Performance was negative (b = -0.42, p<0.05).

Contrary to this, in case of the private sector sample, QWL had a direct positive

influence on performance (b = 0.20, p>0.05). Performance, in each case was found to be

positively influenced by Work/Life Balance. A one point improvement in Work/Life

Balance would lead to a 0.504 improvement in performance. Work/Life Balance in the

study comprised Work Spillover in Personal Life (in terms of enrichment) and similarly,

Personal Life Spillover in Work (again in terms of enrichment) along with Work Life

Balance Enhancers and Work Life Balance Constrainers. The regression weight for

Work Spillover in Personal Life was fixed, but an improvement in Work/Life Balance by

197

one point indicated greater than one point (1.098) increase in positive spillover in

personal life of the individual. The direct implication of the result is that a better

balanced an individual’s life is, the greater the likelihood of the person would be

performing better. Similar results were replicated in the case of separate analysis of the

samples of public and private sector banks.

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION, SUGGESTIONS

AND

FUTURE RESEARCH ORIENTATION

198

7.1 CONCLUSION

7.2 SUGGESTIONS

7.3 CONTRIBUTION TO ACADEMICS

7.4 CONTRIBUTION TO INDUSTRY

7.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ORIENTATION

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION, SUGGESTIONS

AND

FUTURE RESEARCH ORIENTATION

199

Research is undertaken with the point of view of making a contribution to the previously

existing body of literature. In line with this philosophy, I would like to highlight the

areas where the present study has endeavoured to make a small contribution to

academics and banking industry. Further, research is an ongoing process which is never

complete. However, given the constraints of time, finances, reach and abilities, there is a

point where the researcher passes on the baton to others for carrying out further studies

on a particular area of interest. Keeping this mind, I am also suggesting some areas

which might be undertaken for future studies.

7.1 Conclusion

Based on the analysis of data, there are certain points which have come to light.

While public sector banks have remained oblivious to the family-friendly policies,

private sector banks have taken the initiative to incorporate family-friendly policies into

their Human Resource policies. Further, the philosophy of the people heading the private

sector banks has time and again stressed the need and importance of having Work/Life

Balance as an integral part of working culture. As Mr. Paritosh Joshi (Regional Head,

Government Loans, ICICI bank, Lucknow) stated ‘ICICI is a bank with a heart....it looks

after its staff well and in turn gets better quality output from them!’. Public sector bank

employees have not been provided the same benefits and as can be seen from the charter

of demands put forth by the All India Banking Association, the public sector is now

demanding that their work/life issues be dealt with by the top management (AIBA

Charter, 2010).

Another factor which emerged as having an implication for the better Work/Life Balance

scores for private sector was the beginning of core banking operations by banking sector

and hence, the increased dependence on computers. While a majority of workforce in the

private sector banks are skilled in computer usage, this is hardly the case with public

sector banks. The younger workforce of the private sector banks has computer education

as a part of their school learning while the workforce manning the public sector were

later trained in the working of the computer systems and are not as comfortable with

200

computers. This adds up to the load that they perceive and hence, decreases their

Work/Life Balance.

Another distinguishing feature of in the private and foreign banks is the structural

composition of the workforce. Data on employment in commercial banking is given by

three categories of employment – officers, clerical staff, and subordinate staff. The

decline in the growth of employment amongst the clerical and subordinate cadres has

been concentrated amongst the private and foreign banks. For the SBI group and the

nationalized banks the ratio of officers, clerical, and subordinate staff to total staff did

not show much variation during the decade. In the foreign banks and private sector

banks, however, there has been growing recruitment amongst the officers' cadre with a

decline in the recruitment of clerical and subordinate staff. The especially noteworthy

examples of the staffing pattern tilting in favour of officers is amongst the new private

banks – HDFC Bank, Global Trust Bank, Axis Bank, IDBI Bank, for instance, have no

clerical and subordinate staff and 100% of the staff in these banks are officers. This is a

manifestation of these banks resorting to technology, the operation of which requires

high-skill human capital for increasing the returns to the technology which anyway

enables routine tasks formerly undertaken by lower level staff to be speedily processed.

Also the presence of only officers is indicative of multi-tasking which promotes

flexibility in the bank and ensures long-term profitability. The increasing pace at which

private and foreign banks are reducing their workforce composition away from clerical

and subordinate staff and the relative rigidity in the composition of the workforce in

public sector banks points to an important distinction between the organization of the

private and foreign banks on the one hand and the public sector banks on the other which

definitely has an impact on their performance.

The practices of managing human resources at the officers' level are different in the

public sector banks and the other banks. The practices regarding compensation, i.e., rules

governing pay and pay raises, benefit structures and the practices that centre on training,

staffing, hiring and selection, and job design differ substantially. To mention a few

differences, public sector banks, structure compensation in such a way that there are

lower differentials between employees, long-term tenure is rewarded, and there is a high

base pay. In the private and foreign banks there are larger pay differentials, fewer

201

rewards for tenure, and individual incentives are high. Public sector banks place a lot of

emphasis on training whereas in the private and foreign banks training is emphasized

according to necessity. As regards the practice of hiring and selection public sector banks

invest heavily in screening whereas the practices in other banks are more market based.

Finally, in terms of the practice of work organization public sector banks have relatively

narrow jobs with a steep hierarchy whereas the other banks have broader jobs and a

relatively flat hierarchy.

The pay structure that emerges in the public sector banks is compressed and even though

the relative responsibility increases significantly as one moves up the organizational

hierarchy, the relative increase in compensation does not match up to this increased

responsibility. As a result, the use of promotions as they take place currently amongst the

public sector banks, is not an effective mechanism for sorting out the higher ability

individuals and neither do they provide incentives for increased effort. It is not surprising

accordingly that many employees bypass the opportunity for promotion and that with the

emergence of the new private banks there is an incentive created for shifting jobs

amongst those employees who are less risk-averse and are willing to forego job security.

7.2 Suggestions

Based on the findings in the previous chapter, certain suggestions are being forwarded

for the banking sector in India, especially for the public sector bank. These suggestions

deal with how a banking organisation can reconcile the crucial need for top performance

expectation with top performance realisation. Performance of banking sector is linked

with the performance of its personnel. Hence, it is crucial for the public sector banks and

private sector banks to identify the factors which could help in improving the functioning

of their staff and ensure that the top performers are being effectively retained with the

organisation.

1. Ensure an eclectic mix in age and skill in the personnel: Public sector has suffered to

the wide gap in the age groups working with them. An almost complete stop on

202

recruitments during 1999-2008, there are very few staff members in the age bracket of

34-39. This was the generation which was introduced to computers during their

formative years. Thus having grown up with the new technology, they have an edge over

the older generations working with the public sector banks. Then, with almost a

generation absent, there is an increased burden of mentoring fresher’s who are entering

the system. This has led to additional stress on the officers higher up in the hierarchy.

This issue is gradually being resolved with the recruitment of large number of candidates

in the younger age group. However, the banks should ensure that the new recruits have a

good understanding of the computer systems and are technology savvy as core banking is

the norm of the day. As the age and skill mix in banks reaches the optimum level,

working will smooth out and have a positive impact on the Work/Life Balance and

Quality of Work/Life of the staff.

2. Extend the option of Flexible hours to all employees: There are employees at different

levels who are looking for less than full-time hours and who also have the skills to pitch

in for a variety of bank work. This group may be used by the bank to supplement the

existing employee pool that may be looking for the choice of an occasional overtime vs.

continuous overtime. With exacting schedules and longer working hours, bank customers

expect broader service days and operating hours and it shall be a viable option for the

bank to embed flexible hour or job sharing options into the work plan -proactively.

3. Family Friendly Policies should be for both gender employees: Gender of the

employee should not form the base for extending family-friendly facilities to them. Men,

it was seen are more vulnerable to Work/Life (Im)balance situation than women staff.

Reason being that women over the ages have developed various coping mechanisms

which help them deal with complex life issues. On the other hand, men who have

traditionally been the primary bread winners for the family are not used to the idea of

contributing effectively to the household chores. However, there is a gradual trend

towards the same and more and more men are keen on becoming active participants in

child rearing and related responsibilities. This is a positive change but it also makes them

more prone to finding the situation of handling work and family responsibilities

203

cumbersome and difficult to balance. It is here that family friendly policies aimed

specifically at men staff member can help them walk the thin line between balance and

(im)balance. It would be a sound move to involve the male and female staff at different

hierarchical levels while designing family-friendly policies.

4. Design cafeteria style benefit plans: The findings of the study have brought up the

discontent felt by the single (unmarried) employee, who feel they have to do more than

their share because the employees with children get to enjoy greater flexibility and are

often let off from tougher duties as they have children to take care of. Keeping in mind

the requirement of the single employee for a better balance at work, one solution is to

offer a cafeteria style benefits plan, where employees can pick and choose from a variety

of options. That can provide flexibility and would let people choose what they need.

Linking with the above suggestion, it would be best if a bouquet of benefit plans could

be designed and the employees helped to make the most relevant choice depending on

their gender, family life cycle, type of care giving responsibilities, income and support

network.

5. Practice what we preach: Designing policies but not following them in letter and spirit

would defeat the purpose of actually having them in place. Private sector banks have

family friendly policies in place but some of the staff was not very comfortable with

using the said facilities. The reason cited for this reluctance was that if they used family

friendly facilities, they would be passed over for promotions or would be regarded as less

responsible. This apprehension was also cited as a reason for non-usage of policies in

studies conducted in other countries as well. If policies have to be implemented, the

Human Resource department, the top level management and the staff responsible for

implementing the same should be trained. This training has more to do with the attitudes

that superiors have towards staff availing family friendly options. There should be no

negative connotations attached to such individuals’ performance.

204

6. Alternative support system at workplace: Indian families are a wonderful support

system and this inherent support helps individuals tide over emotional and physical

strain. However, this wonderful support system, which was so far taken for granted, is

gradually disappearing and in its wake are emerging the new set-ups of nuclear, single

and dual earner households. These are in need of support and facilities which will help

ease the pressure of having a latch-key kid at home from the minds of a working

father/mother. The banks and other organisations should establish crèches and day

boarding facilities for children of the staff.

7. Reducing average working hours: Public and private sector employees show

significant differences as the average hours worked per week increase to beyond 48

hours per week. Work/Life Balance of the public sector takes a sharp dip while this is not

so in case of private sector. Public sector shows lower Work/Life Balance as hours of

work go beyond 48hours as the reward-performance linkage is not always transparent

and longer and harder hours at work might not really translate into promotions and

rewards. Public sector as well as private sector banks need to critically examine whether

longer hours of work are actually contributing to productivity in the same proportion as

there is an increase in the hours worked. In case this is not so, they need to revise their

outlook with respect to longer work hours and trim them so that more and better quality

can be achieved by working reasonable hours.

8. Identify and check work standards often: Banking sector is under continuous change

and workflows are more quickly dated and are in need of continuous reviews. Job

ambiguity and unreasonable work load need to be checked and managed. What is needed

is identification of any ambiguity in roles, which can result in lowered performance. The

greater the clarity, the more is accomplished, the more all of the employees will become

aware of opportunities to save time, save energy and save money. Therefore, way need to

be developed to improve role clarity, make results tangible in, as many aspects of the

bank’s business lines as possible, so that achieving results are possible.

205

9. Sustain quality by ensuring employees are well-trained and retained: Bankers who are

better trained are likely to accomplish more and be more satisfied than others. Since

satisfaction in a particular sphere goes hand-in-hand with enhancing Work/Life Balance,

these employees with have a better Work/Life Balance. What is needed is managers, who

are trained in operations forecasting, capacity planning and strategic planning that will

readily identify the line’s or the individual worker’s potential to produce – anywhere in

the bank. Good workers are not just found, they have to be trained, invested in and

retained. Employees who know the quality performance values of their bank should be

treated as real resources. It takes more money to hire and re-train new employees, no

matter at what level in the bank they are absorbed. Loyalty is a rare commodity in

employees in the current times but a fully-trained employee may offer many more years

of quality performance in return for support extended to him/her by the bank during a

temporary tough life situation. This would be far more valuable to the bank than losing

the employee because the HR policies and procedures were too restrictive or

unresponsive.

10. Improve the officer: clerk: subordinate ratio: There are significant differences in the

work/life scores of managerial and non-managerial cadres. Public sector has a surplus of

clerical cadre, who are neither efficient nor eager to perform routine or additional duties.

Further, their attitude leads to demotivating the officers handling managerial duties.

Private sector has very few in the non-managerial level and thus, there is parity in

working. Public sector should strive to reduce the numbers in the clerical role and create

more posts in the officer grade. Though, managerial and non-managerial duties are both

performed by the officer cadre, non-managerial duties are the specific domain of clerical

employees. When officers perform both the duties, as is the case in private sector, there

is no differentiation and hence, are treated as work tasks rather than as managerial or

non-managerial responsibilities. In case of public sector banks, these get

compartmentalised based on grades and are often relegated to clerks but are per force

performed by officers, leading to increased work load and work pressures and hence,

performance issues. It would be worthwhile for the public sector banks to emulate the

staff division adopted by the private sector banks.

206

11. Provide better exposure, opportunities and rewards: A common sentiment reflected

by the staff of public sector banks was that there was little exposure and opportunities for

those wanting to put in their best, present in the public sector as compared to the private

sector. Experienced and top performing public sector employees gravitate towards the

private sector, motivated by the higher salaries, better opportunities and more conducive

work environment. While the public sector is great to work for as far as job security is

concerned, these other factors are missing. Thus, the public sector needs to ensure that it

is able to improve its working culture to match that of private sector, especially where

opportunities, incentives, performance linked rewards are concerned.

12. Ensure job security in private sector banks: A recurring theme throughout the

interview with private sector bank employees was the lack of job security in private

sector setting. Private sector banks are not very attractive to the staff in their initial

service tenure. A major reason is that most are seeking a secure job, which a public

sector set-up can provide. Private banks need to work upon providing better job security,

especially in light of the findings that the younger age group in the private sector keep on

exploring options of moving to the public sector due to this very reason.

7.3 Contribution to Academics

Today work-life balance has become an increasingly pervasive concern for employers as

well as employees. Demographic changes as seen in the increasing number of women in

the workplace and dual career families have generated an increasingly diverse workforce

and a greater need of employees to balance their work and non-work lives. However, the

amount of literature available on Indian companies has not been much, especially where

banks are considered. The concept has been well explored and studied in American and

European countries, where it originated from in the early 1930s and gained widespread

recognition in the late 1970s. Indian studies have concentrated more on the work-family

207

aspect of the issue (Bharat, 2003; Komarraju, 1997; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000;

Ramu, 1989; Sekharan, 1992).

This study tries to understand the factors which contribute to Work/Life Balance, Quality

of Work/Life and Job Performance in the context of the Indian banking sector. By and

large the previous studies have relied upon the scales developed in foreign countries. The

societal conditions, organisational culture and work ethos differ from country to country

and a scale designed in one country may not be effective enough to capture true

responses in another country. This is especially true in case of using an instrument

designed in a developed to study the conditions in a developing country. The Work/Life

Balance and Quality of Work/Life scales which have been developed for this study are

parsimonious, robust and have a good reliability and validity. These have been designed

especially for capturing the responses of individuals working in the banking sector, as

the constructs of both Work/Life Balance and Quality of Work/Life are industry specific.

Additionally, the current study explores Work/Life Balance from the view point of bank

employees of both public and private sector. The comparison takes into account branches

of 6 different banks (3 public and 3 private), located in 3 different cities of India. Both

tier I and tier II cities were included to provide a comprehensive view of the Work/Life

Balance issues. Further, the study has taken into account the different demographic and

organisational factors which could have an impact on the Work/Life Balance and Quality

of Work/Life status of an individual.

While exploring for an indepth understanding of the factors that contribute to the

Work/Life Balance of an individual, it was seen that there are differences in the factors

with respect to public and private sector bank employees. The reasons for these

differences lie in the nature, philosophy and background of the banks, which continues to

influence the working style of the employees. Understanding which demographic factors

have a greater impact on the Work/Life status of the employees improves the possibility

of designing better Work Life Balance Policies for the organisation. There are specific

requirements of individuals belonging to different age groups, gender, family types,

marital status and knowing about their requirements can aid better tailored policies to

address their needs. The findings of the study offer further scope to understand the

208

differences between the culture, structure, background, working style and human

resource practices in public and private sector banks in the country.

7.4 Contribution to Banking Industry

The concept of Work/Life Balance is not new to India but it has not gained complete

acceptance in the working culture of corporate India. The campaign of Work/Life

Balance has often figured in the corporate rhetoric wanting to present the face of a caring

workplace to its employees but there are few who actually practice what they preach.

Further, there is a wide spread misconception that those working in the public sector are

better off than those in the private sector. Public sector employees definitely were in a

more secure and complacent environment in the previous decades but all this changed

with the country opening up wider avenues for foreign and private players in every

sector. In the banking sector, public banks had enjoyed a near monopoly post

independence will 1990s. The public sector bank employees had job security, long

tenure, perquisites and above all a 9-5 fixed hours job with an assured clientele. Even

after there were changes in the organisational structure and expectations from public

sector bank employees, it was assumed that private sector bank employees were having a

harder time dealing with the demands of work. The results of this study reveal that this is

not the case. The Work/Life Balance of private sector bank employees is better than that

of the public sector bank employees. This has implications for the banking industry when

we consider:

Performance

It has been seen that public sector banks have not been performing as well as the private

sector and foreign sector banks. There have been several studies aimed at analysing the

performance of banks in India. The usual approach has been to use financial ratios to

measure the bank’s performance. However, as pointed out by Sherman and Gold (1985),

financial ratios fail to capture the long-term performance of banks and do not consider

several other aspects such as marketing, human resource and operations, which make

vital contributions to the overall banking performance. Lusch and Serpkenci (1990)

argued that the overall performance measures of the organization unit (e.g. market share,

209

sales ratios) should not be used to assess individual performance, since the unit’s

performance is a function of multiple factors including individual manager performance,

performance of other employees, the strategy pursued by the organization unit and the

market conditions. Therefore, the focus should be on the job tasks and actions that relate

to individual-level performance. While studies capture performance from the point of

view of the organisation, it is also important to know how an employee perceives his

own performance. Self-reporting of performance is especially important as it helps in

understanding the factors which an employee considers as important contributors to his

work output. This study has tried to capture those factors which are regarded as essential

by the bank employees’ in self-reporting of performance.

Adoption of Work/Life Balance Practices

Public sector banks have shown a lower mean score in Work/Life Balance and

interviews with public sector staff showed that there were not many policies catering to

the Work/Life issues of public sector employees. The study stresses on the importance of

designing and promoting Work Life Balance Policies for the public sector banks.

Policies and programs offered in pieces may not help in general neither would a common

program that fits for all help. Organisations in India need to take lessons from

organisations across countries and design their benefit plans keeping in mind the nature

of the profile of the work force, gender specific needs, individual initiated bargains, local

culture and environment as well as policy implications.

Support to Work Life Balance initiatives

While Work/Life Balance policies are present in the private sector, this sector, too, does

not show a very healthy state of affairs. As time spent at the workplace is often used as

an indicator of employees’ contributions and commitment to the organization,

participation in work-life practices that make employees less visible (such as childcare

leave or family leave) has been associated with lower performance evaluations, smaller

salary increases, and fewer promotions (Bailyn, 1997; Perlow, 1995). There is an

increasing amount of research supporting the notion that workers who make use of work-

life practices suffer negative perceptions from colleagues and superiors. An experiment

conducted by Allen and Russell (1999) found that employees who used work-life

210

balance practices were perceived by co-workers as having lower levels of organizational

commitment, which was thought to affect the subsequent allocation of organizational

rewards such as advancement opportunities and salary increases. Further, employees are

often not aware of the Family Friendly Policies present in their organisation. Therefore,

simply designing relevant policies will not help, the management of the bank needs to

ensure that the employees are made aware of the types of Family Friendly options they

have at the bank. Further, they have to educate the superiors on the benefits of

encouraging employees to make use of the Work Life Balance Policies. Last but not the

least, the stigma attached to the usage of Work Life Balance Policies/Family Friendly

Options has to be removed, if they have to be really effective and yield results.

Manpower mix

To manage the performance of the public sector banks, the Government declared

voluntary retirement scheme for the public sector bank employees. Initially the move

was opposed but later when it was finally adopted by the employees, it was seen that the

talented employees sought this scheme as an opportunity and joined the private sector

banks for very lucrative salary packages. The private sector banks, who were already

facing difficult times due to high attrition rates, welcomed these experienced employees

to their fold giving them higher positions as compared to the existing employees. It is

suggested that the banking sector should improve its manpower mix, especially the

public sector banks. There is a need to recruit specialists rather than generalists by

paying them high salaries just as is the case in private sector banks. Further, the

imbalance created by having a work force which is veering towards the older age group

makes it difficult for the public sector bank to adapt to newer technology, leading to

problems not only for the customer but also impacting the efficiency of the staff. This

study has brought out the need for identifying the right mix of freshers and experienced

people in the public sector banks.

7.5 Future research and direction

211

While a growing number of studies find that WLBPs benefit employees, empirical

support for the business cases in India for investing in such initiatives is less developed

which needs immediate concern of researchers. A few questions need to be answered

before talking about the effectiveness and use of WLBPs in India. Future research

agenda could be to understand if WLBPs are able to reduce work-family conflict and if

they really add to company bottom line. Efforts should be taken to understand if

employees perceive their organisations providing these policies to be family-friendly and

whether the culture of the company is supportive towards using such programs.

The current study has tried exploring the equation between Work/Life Balance, Quality

of Work/Life and Performance. Since the focus of the current research was a comparison

of Work/Life Balance, not much attention has been given to Quality of Work/Life and

Performance. These are two areas which are very much relevant to arriving at a clear-cut

understanding of what are the expectations of a bank employee and what are the factors

in organisational culture that will support and facilitate a better performance. An in-depth

study of the same would lead to a holistic view of the working environment in the banks.

The current study was undertaken in just three cities. While the sample was statistically

justified, the researcher feels that 573 bank employees are not really representative of the

entire banking staff population. It would be worthwhile to extend such studies

throughout the length and breadth of the country. Another aspect is inclusion of staff

working with foreign banks as also with co-operative banks and in the rural and semi-

urban branches of the public and private sector banks. Data on Work/Life Balance which

could be compared for all of the financial institutions would provide a deeper and more

comprehensive understanding of the sector and would also help in designing sector

specific policies.

Banking being a crucial sector of the economy, more attention needs to be directed

towards it and this would mean attention not just to the tangible factors but also to the

intangible factors – a pertinent one being – human capital management. In this age of

easily replicable technology, manpower is set to be the only differentiator. A relevant

future investigation could combine qualitative and quantitative methods and thus, capture

richer data. Tailoring trainings, human resource policies, rewards and opportunities to

the changing needs of the manpower is the need of the day. Further, the manpower we

212

retain and develop forms the backbone of an efficient and effective system. Hence,

banking sector, both public and private should undertake periodic studies to help them

identify emerging manpower requirements. This should be able to provide them with the

tool to stay ahead of competition.

Lastly, research is an ongoing process. As newer and better evaluative techniques are

developed, these should be adopted to variously explore the different facets of manpower

management and how it links up with financial management, marketing strategies and

information technology backed transformations.

REFERENCES

213

1. Adams, G.A., King, L.A. and King, D.W. (1996). Relationships between Job and

Family Involvement, Family Social Support, and Work-Family Conflict with Job

and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81(4). pg. 411-420.

2. Agrawal, V. (2007). Human Resource Development : Perceptions of Bank

Employees in India, Book Enclave, pg. 214

3. Ahmad, A. (1996). Work-Family Conflict among Married Professional Women

in Malaysia. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 136(5). pg. 663-665.

4. Ahmad, A. (1998). Gender Differences in the Boundary Permeability between

Work and Family Roles. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity,

Vol. 6(1). pg. 43-49

5. Ahmed, N. (1981). Quality of Work-Life: A Need for Understanding, Indian

Management, 20 (1) pg. 29-33

6. AIOBOA CHARTER OF DEMANDS - SALARY REVISION w.e.f. 1/11/2007.

www.aioboa.org/files%5Ccharter.pdf

7. Ali, N., and Baloch, Q. B. (1999). Predictors of Organizational Commitment and

Turnover Intention of Medical Representatives: An Empirical Evidence of

Pakistani Companies. Journal of Managerial Sciences, Vol. 3(2). pg. 263-273.

8. Allen T. D. (2001). Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of

Organisational Perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol.58. pg.414-

435.

9. Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of

Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal

of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63. pg. 1-18.

10. Aluko, M. A. O. (2003). The Impact of Culture on Organizational Performance in

Selected Textile Firms in Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies Vol.12 (2),

pg. 164–179.

11. Amberkar, G. (1985). Women's Wing of All India Confederation of Bank

Officers Organisation'. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Women's

Movement in India- a review of achievements and issues, SNDT, Bombay

214

12. Aminah, A. (2008). Direct and Indirect Effects of Work-Family Conflict on Job

Performance. The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 3(2). pg.

176-180.

13. Amos, T.L., Ristow, A. and Ristow, L. (2004). Human Resource Management

(2nd Edition). Lansdowne: Juta and Co Ltd.

14. Amponsah, M.O. (2011). Workstress and Marital Relations. Educational

Research, Vol. 2(1). pg. 757-764.

15. Anantharam Iyer, T.N., Venkateshwara Rao, E., and Sitaram Murthy, M. (1991).

Computerisation in Banking Industry in India, Indian Bank, Madras

16. Anbalagan, K., and Gowry, P.A. (2011). Work-Life Balance of Employees in

Banking Sector in Kanyakumari District. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in

Business Management, Vol.2(12), 94-111.

17. Anbarasan, V. and Mehta, N. (2009). An Exploratory Study on Perceived Quality

of Working Life among Sales Professionals Employed in Pharmaceutical,

Banking, Finance and Insurance Companies in Mumbai. Abhigyan, Vol. 27(1).

18. Anderson, E. A., and Leslie, L. A. (1991). Coping with Employment and Family

Stress: Employment Arrangement and Gender Differences. Sex Roles, Vol.24.

pg. 223-231.

19. Anderson, J., and Gerbing, D.W., (1988). Structural Equation Modelling in

Practice: A Review and Recommended Two Step Approach. Psychological

Bulletin, Vol.103 (May). pg. 411-23.

20. Annual Report and Accounts (2009-10). Standard Chartered Bank, retrieved from

http://www.standardchartered.co.in/_documents/tools-utilities/anualresult10.pdf

on 10th December 2010.

21. Anonymous, (2009). India’s Best Banks 2009 – A BW-PwC Survey. Business

World, pg 78.

22. Anonymous, (2010). Banks among Top 10 High Stress Workplaces, retrieved

from http://www.banknetindia.com/banking/70518.htm on 24th December 2010.

23. Anwar, M. and Shahzad, K. (2011). Impact of Work-Life Conflict on Perceived

Employee Performance: Evidence from Pakistan. European Journal of

Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Vol.31. pg. 82-86.

24. Armstrong, M. (1994). Performance Management, Kogan Page, London.

215

25. Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management – The New

Realities. London: IPD.

26. Arnold, H. J., and Feldman. (1986). Organizational Behavior. New York:

McGraw Hill.

27. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict among

Married Professional Women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations,

Vol.45(8). pg. 813-837.

28. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1998). Role Stressors, Work-Family

Conflict and Well-Being: An Examination of the Effects of Spouse Support and

Coping Behaviors among Employed Parents in Hong-Kong. Academy of

Management Proceedings 1998, San Diego.

29. Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S., and Tan, H.H. (2005). Rhythms of Life: Antecedents

and Outcomes of Work-Family Balance in Employed Parents. Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol.90(1). pg. 132-146.

30. Aven, F. F. (1988). A Methodological Examination of the Attitudinal and

Behavioural Components of Organizational Commitment. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 40, 3420A.

31. Baba, V., and Jamal, M. (1991). Routinization of Job Context and Job Content as

Related to Employees' Quality of Working Life: A Study of Canadian Nurses.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.12. pg. 379-386.

32. Babin, B. J., and Boles, J. S. (1996). The Effects of Perceived Co-Worker

Involvement and Supervisor Support on Service Provider Role Stress,

Performance, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72. pg. 57-76.

33. Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S. (1991). Work-Home Conflict

among Nurses and Engineers: Mediating the Impact of Role Stress on Burnout

and Satisfaction at Work. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 12(1).

pg.39-53.

34. Bagtasos, M.R. (2011). Quality of Work Life: A Review of Literature. Business

and Economics Review, Vol.20 (2).

35. Bailey, S. J. (2006). Family and Work Role-Identities of Divorced Parents: The

Relationship of Role Balance to Well-being. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,

46, (3/4), pg. 63-82.

216

36. Bailyn, L., Drago, R. and Kochan, T. A. (2001). Integrating Work and Family

Life: A Holistic Approach: A Report of the Sloan Work –Family Policy Network.

Retrieved from http://mitsloan.mit.edu/iwer on 31st March 2009.

37. Bajpai, N., and Srivastava, D. (2004). Sectorial Comparison of Factors

Influencing Job Satisfaction in Indian Banking Sector. Singapore Management

Review, Vol. 26(2). pg. 89–99.

38. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., and Euwema, M.C. (2005). Job Resources Buffer

the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, Vol.10. pg. 170-180.

39. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005). The Crossover of

Burnout and Work Engagement among Working Couples. Human Relations,

Vol. 58(5), pg. 661-689.

40. Bakker, A.B., Killmer, C.H., Siegrist, J., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2000). Effort-

Reward Imbalance and Burnout Among Nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

Vol.31, pg. 884-891.

41. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioural

Change. Psychological Review, Vol.84. pg. 191-215.

42. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American

Psychology, Vol.37. pg. 122-147.

43. Bandyopadhyay, T. (2007). HR Dilemmas of India’s Public Sector banks.

Banker’s Trust, retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/25231048/HR-

dilemmas-of-India8217s-p.html accessed on 12th June 2010.

44. Baral, R. and Bhargav, S. (2011). HR Interventions for Work-Life Balance:

Evidences from Organisations in India. International Journal of Business,

Management and Social Sciences, Vol.2 (1). pg. 33-42.

45. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., and Thompson, R. (1995) The Partial Least Squares

(PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an

Illustration. Technology Studies, Vol.2(2). pg. 285–309.

46. Barnett, R. C., and Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, Men, Work and Family: An

Expansionist Theory. The American Psychologist, Vol.56(10). pg. 781-796.

217

47. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1995). Changing the Role of Top Management:

Beyond Systems to People. Harvard Business Review, Vol.73(3). pg. 132-142.

48. Beauregard, T.A. (2007). Family Influences on Career Life-Cycle cited in

Suppramaniam, S., Rahim, F.A. and Arumugam, T. (2010) retrieved from

http://internationalconference.com.my/proceeding/icber2010_proceeding/

PAPER_228_QualityOfWorkLife.pdf accessed on 12th January 2011.

49. Becker, G.S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

50. Bedeian, A.G., Burke, B.G. and Moffett, R.G. (1988). Outcomes of Work-Family

Conflict among Married Male and Female Professionals. Journal of

Management, Vol.14 (3). pg. 475-491.

51. Beehr, T.A., Jex, S.M., Stacy, B.A., and Murray, M.A. (2000). Work Stressors

and Coworker Support as Predictors of Individual Strain and Job Performance.

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol.21(4). pg. 391-405.

52. Beh, L., and Rose, R.C. (2007). Linking QWL and Job Performance:

Implications for Organizations. Performance Improvement, Vol.46(6). pg. 30-35.

53. Beh, L.S., Uli, J., Idris, K., and Silong, A.D. (2006). An Analysis of Quality of

Work Life (QWL) and Career-Related Variables. American Journal of Applied

Sciences, Vol.3(12), pg. 2151-2159.

54. Behrman, D.N., Bigoness, W.J., and Perreault, W.D. (1981). Sources of Job

Related Ambiguity and Their Consequences Upon Salespersons' Job Satisfaction

and Performance. Management Science, Vol.27(11). pg.1246-1260.

55. Berg, P., Kallenberg, A.L., and Appelbaum, E. (2003). Balancing Work and

Family: The Role of High Commitment Environments. Industrial Relations,

Vol.42(2). pg.168–88.

56. Berger, A.N., and Humphrey, D.B. (1992). Measurement and Efficiency Issues in

Commercial Banking. In Output Measurement in the Service Sectors, Zvi

Griliches (ed.), pg. 245-300. University of Chicago Press

57. Beri, G.C. (2009). Marketing Research. (4th Ed.) Tata McGraw Hill Education

Private Limited, New Delhi

58. Berry, L.L. (1981). The Employee as Customer. Journal of Retail Banking,

Vol.3(1). pg. 33-39

218

59. Bertrand, J. (1992). Designing Quality into Work Life. Quality Progress, Vol.12,

pg.29-33.

60. Bhagwagar, H. (2009). Need for Workplace Counseling in India. Retrieved from

Http://prod.bolohealth.com/healthzones/21-total-health/article/165-needfor-

workplace-counseling-in-india, accessed on 24 January 2012.

61. Bhanu Murthy, K. V. and Deb, A. T. (2008). Concept of Deregulation - Lessons

from Banking History in India. Retrieved from

http://www.igidr.ac.in/~money/mfc_08/Concept%20of%20Deregulation...KV

%20Bhanu%20Murthy%20and%20Ashish%20Tatu%20Deb.pdf on 27th

December 2010

62. Bharat S. (1995). Attitudes and Sex-Role Perceptions among Working Couples in

India. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol.26. pg.371-388.

63. Bharat, B. (2008). Longer Working Hours for Computer Software Engineers,

India. Retrieved from Http://www.saching.com/Article/Longer-working-hours-

for-Computer-Software-Engineers–India/1088 accessed on 24th January 2012.

64. Bharat, S. (2003). Women, Work, and Family in Urban India: Towards new

families? in Berry, J.W., Mishra, R.C., and Tripathi, R. C. ed., Psychology in

Human and Social Development, Lessons from Diverse Cultures. pg.155-169

New Delhi, India, Sage.

65. Bharathi, P.S. and Umaselvi, M. (2011). Quality of Work Life: Perception of

College Teachers. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies,

Vol.2(1). pg. 47-65.

66. Bhargava,S. and Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and Consequences of Work-

Family Enrichment among Indian Managers. Psychological Studies, Vol.54. pg.

213-225.

67. Bhattacharya, P (2008). Best Workplaces in India-2008 Study, retrieved

from

http://resources.greatplacetowork.com/article/pdf/great_place_to_work

%C2%AE_across_the_globe.pdf. Accessed on 24th March 2010.

68. Bhoir, A. (2010). Public Sector Banks Take a Look at Human Resources

Challenges retrieved from

219

http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/03233617/Public-sector-banks-take-a-

loo.html accessed on 10th June 2010.

69. Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., and Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and Job

Outcomes in Sales: A Triphasic Model Versus a Linear-Quadratic-Interactive

Model. Journal of Business Research, Vol.58. pg. 141-150.

70. Bird, J., (2003). Work-Life Balance Defined – What it Really Means.

Worklifebalance, USA. retrieved from www.worklifebalance.com accessed on

25th June 2009.

71. Black, J. S. and Porter, L. W. (1991). Managerial Behaviours and Job

Performance: A Successful Manager in Los Angeles may Not Succeed in Hong

Kong. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.22(1). pg. 99–113.

72. Blackhurst, A., Brandt, J., and Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of Personal and

Work-Related Attributes on the Organizational Commitment and Life

Satisfaction of Women Student Affairs Administrators. NASPA Journal, Vol.35.

pg. 86-99.

73. Blegen, M., Mueller, C., and Price, J. (1988). Measurement of Kinship

Responsibility for Organizational Research. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.73(3). pg. 402–409.

74. Blood, R., and Wolfe, D. (1960). Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of

Married Living. New York: Free Press.

75. Bloom, N., Kretschmer, T., and Reenen, J.V. (2006). Work-Life Balance,

Management Practices and Productivity, London Center for Economic

Performance.

76. Bohen, H., and Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing Jobs and Family Life.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

77. Boles, J.S., Johnson, M.W., and Hair Jr. J.F. (1997). Role Stress, Work-Family

Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion: Interrelationships and Effects on Some Work

Related Consequences. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,

Vol.17(1). pg.17-28.

78. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R., and Wethington, E. (1989). The Contagion

of Stress across Multiple Roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, pg. 175-

183.

220

79. Bond, J.T., Galinsky, E., and Swanberg, J.E. (1998). The 1997 National Study of

the Changing Workforce. Executive Summary retrieved from The Families and

Work Institute website: http://www.familiesandwork.org/summary/nscw.pdf.

accessed on 12th June 2010.

80. Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to

Include Elements of Contextual Performance. In Schmit, N. and Borman, W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. pg. 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass

81. Borman, W.C. (1991). Job Behaviour, Performance, and Effectiveness. In M.

Dunnette and L Hough (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial/Organisational

Psychology, Vol. 2, pg. 271-326. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

82. Borman, W.C., and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual

Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human

Performance Vol.10(2), pg. 99-109.

83. Boumans, N.P., Landeweerd J.A., Visser, M. (2004). Differentiated Practice,

Patient-Oriented Care and Quality of Work in a Hospital in the Netherlands.

Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, Vol.18(1), pg.37-48.

84. Bowen, G. L. (1998). Effects of Leader Support in the Work Unit on the

Relationship between Work Spillover and Family Adaptation. Journal of Family

and Economic Issues, Vol.19(1). pg. 25-52.

85. Boyar, S. L., Carr, J.C., Mosley, Jr. D.C., and Carson, C. M. (2007). The

Development and Validation of Scores on Perceived Work and Family Demand

Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.67. 100-115.

86. Boyar, S., Maertz, C., Pearson, A., and Keough, S. (2003). Work-Family

Conflict: A Model of Linkages between Work and Family Domain Variables and

Turnover Intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol.15 (2). pg. 175-184.

87. Brandt, J., Krawczyk, M. R and Kalinowski, M. J. (2008). Personal and Work-

Related Predictors of Organizational Commitment and Life Satisfaction of

Slovak Women in Higher Education. College Teaching Methods and Styles

Journal, Vol. 4(2), pg. 7-14.

221

88. Brewster, C., Carey, L., Dowling, P., Grobler, P., Holland, P. and Warnich, S.

(2003). Contemporary Issues in Human Resource Management. Cape Town:

Clyson Printers.

89. Brooks, B.A., and Anderson, M.A. (2004). Nursing Work Life in Acute Care.

Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Vol.19(3), pg. 269–75.

90. Brulin, C., Winkvist, A., and Langendoen, S. (2000). Stress from Working

Conditions among Home Care Personnel with Musculoskeletal Symptoms.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 31(1), pg. 181–189.

91. Buddhapriya, S. (2009). Work-Family Challenges and Their Impact on Career

Decisions: A Study of Indian Women Professionals. Vikalpa: The Journal of

Decision Makers, Vol. 34(1), pg. 31-45.

92. Budhwar, P. (2000). Indian and British Specialists’ Understanding of Dynamics

of Their Function: An Empirical Study. International Business Review, Vol. 9(6),

pg.727-753.

93. Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., and George, J. M. (1993). The Role of Negative

Affectivity in Understanding Relationships between Self-Reports of Stressors

and Strains: A Comment on the Applied Psychology Literature. Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol.78, pg. 402-412.

94. Burke, P. and Reitzes, D. (1991). An Identity Theory Approach to Commitment.

Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.54, pg. 239-251.

95. Burley, K.A. (1995). Family Variables as Mediators of Relationship between

Work/Family Conflict and Marital Adjustment among Dual Career Men and

Women. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.135 (4), pg. 483-497.

96. Business World (2009). India’s Best Banks 2009 – A BW-PwC Survey. pg. 78.

97. Butler, A. B., and Skattebo, A. (2004). What is Acceptable for Women May Not

Be for Men: The Effect of Family Conflicts with Work on Job Performance.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol.77, pg. 553-564.

98. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., and Sager, C. E. (1993). A Theory

of Performance. In Schmitt, N. and Borman, W. C. (Eds.). Personnel Selection in

Organizations pg. 35-70. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

99. Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., and Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling Job

Performance in a Population of Jobs. Personnel Psychology, Vol.43, pg. 313-333.

222

100. Caplan, G. (1976). The Family as Support System. In Caplan, G. and

Killilea, M. (Eds.), Support Systems and Mutual Help: Multidisciplinary

Explorations, pg. 19-36. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

101. Carayon, P. (1997). Temporal Issues of Quality of Working Life and

Stress in Human-Computer Interaction. International Journal of Human-

Computer Interaction, Vol.9(4), pg. 325-342.

102. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, M. K., and Williams, L. J. (2000).

Construction and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family

Conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.56(2), pg. 249–276.

103. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, M. K., Wayne, J. H., and Grzywacz, J.

G. (2006). Measuring the Positive Side of the Work-Family Interface:

Development and Validation of a Work-Family Enrichment Scale. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Vol.68(1), pg. 131-164.

104. Carlson, D.S. and Perrewe, P.L. (1999). The Role of Social

Support in the Stressor-Train Relationship: An examination of Work-Family

Conflict. Journal of Management, Vol.24(4), pg. 513-33.

105. Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., and Williams, L.J. (1998). The

Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work-Family

Conflict. Academy of Management Proceedings, San Diego.

106. Cascio, W.F. (1993). Downsizing: What Do We Know? What Have We

Learned. Academy of Management Executive, Vol.1(1), pg. 95-104.

107. Cascio, W.F. (1998). Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality

of Work Life, Profits. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

108. Chakraborthy, S.K. (1990). Managerial Effectiveness and Quality of

Work Life: Indian Insights, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill, pg. 120-141

109. Chalofsky, N. (2003). An Emerging Construct for Meaningful Work.

Human Resource Development International, Vol.6, pg. 69-83.

110. Chandra, V. (2010). Women and Work-Family Interface: Indian Context.

Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Vol 1(2), pg. 235-258.

111. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research:

A Model of Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review,

Vol.14(1), pg. 333-350.

223

112. Chauhan, A. (2010). Indian Corporate Women and Work/Life Balance.

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol.5(4), pg. 183-196.

113. Che Rose, R., Beh, L.S., Uli, J., and Idris, K. (2006). An Analysis of

Quality of Work Life (QWL) and Career- Related Variables. American Journal

of Applied Sciences, Vol.3(12), pg. 2151-2159.

114. Chitnis, S. (1988). Feminism: Indian Ethos and Indian Convictions. In

Ghadially, R. (Ed.), Women in Indian Society: A Reader. New Delhi: Sage

Publication.

115. Chiu, R.K. (1998). Relationships among Role Conflict, Role Satisfactions

and Life Satisfaction: Evidence from Hong Kong. Social Behaviour and

Personality, Vol.26, pg. 409-414.

116. Chughtai, A.A. (2008). Impact of Job Involvement on In-Role Job

Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. pg. 169-183

117. Cinamon, R.G., Weisel, A., and Tzuk, K. (2007). Work/Family Conflict

within the Family: Crossover Effects, Perceived Parent-Child Interaction Quality,

Parental Self-Efficacy, and Life Role Attributions. Journal of Career

Development, Vol.34, pg. 79-85.

118. Clark, S.C. (2000). Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of

Work/Life Balance. Human Relations, Vol.53(6), pg. 747-770.

119. Clarkberg, M., and Moen, P. (2001). Understanding the Time-Squeeze:

Married Couples Preferred and Actual Work-Hour Strategies. American

Behavioral Scientist, Vol.44, pg. 1115-1136.

120. Clarke, M.C., Koch, L.C., and Jeffrey Hill, E. (2004). The Work-Family

Interface: Differentiating Balance and Fit. Family and Consumer Sciences

Research Journal, Vol.33, pg. 121-126.

121. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences

(2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

122. Cole, D.C., Robson, L.S., Lemieux-Charles, L., McGuire, W., Sicotte, C.,

and Champagne, F. (2005). Quality of Working Life Indicators in Canadian

Health Care Organizations: A Tool For Healthy, Health Care Workplaces?

Occupational Medicine, Vol.55, pg. 54–59.

224

123. Collis, D.J., and Montgomery, C.A. (1995). Competing on Resources.

Harvard Business Review, Vol.73(4), pg. 118-128.

124. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on Household Labor: Modeling and

Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work. Journal of

Marriage and Family, Vol.62, pg. 1208–1233.

125. Conger, J. (1998). How “Gen X” Managers Manage. Strategy and

Business, First quarter, pg. 21–29.

126. Connell, J. and Hannif, Z. (2007) Call Centres, Quality of Work Life and

HRM Practices: An In-House/Outsourced Comparison, retrieved from

http://www.globalwork.in/GDW07/pdf/40-477-490.pdf on 12th November 2010.

127. Cook, A.L. (2008). Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: Is the

Relationship Spurious?. Thesis, Texas AandM University.

128. Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P., and O'Driscoll, M. (2001). Organizational Stress:

A Review of Critique of Theory, Research and Applications. Thousand Oak, CA:

Sage.

129. Cooper, C.L., Liukkonen, P. and Cartwright, S. (1996). Stress Prevention

in the Workplace: Assessing the Costs and Benefits to Organisations. Dublin:

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

130. Corvellec, H. (1995). Stories of Achievement: Narrative Features of

Organisational Performance. Sweden: Lund University Press.

131. Coughlan, A. (2005). Work-Life Balance: An Introduction to Work-Life

Balance Issues and a Preliminary Exploration of Work-Life Balance Culture in

NUI, Maynooth. Eetrieved from

http://qpo.nuim.ie/quality/documents/WLBFinalReport.pdf, accessed on 26th

January 2010.

132. Cronbach, I.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of

Tests. Psychometrika, Vol.16(3), pg. 297-334.

133. Cummings, T.G., and Worley, C.G. (2005). Organizational Development

and Change. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western College Publishing.

134. D’Souza, E. (2002). Employment and Human Resource Practices in

Public Sector Banks in the Nineties. Shuji Uchikawa (ed.) Labour Market and

225

Institution in India: 1990s and Beyond, Institute of Developing Economies,

Japan.

135. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90(6), pg.1241–1255.

136. Dasgupta, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence Emerging as a Significant

Tool for Female Information Technology Professionals in

Managing Role Conflict and Enhancing Quality of WorkLife and Happiness.

Asian Journal of Management Research, Vol.1(1), pg. 558-565.

137. Davis, L. E. (1983). Design of New Organizations. In Kolodny, H. and

Beinum, H. V. (Eds.), The Quality of Working Life and the 1980s (65-86). New

York: Praeger Publishers.

138. De Dreu, C.K.W. (2003). Time Pressure and Closing of the Mind in

Negotiation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol.91,

pg. 280- 295.

139. De George, T.R. (1990). Business Ethics, New York: MacMillan

Publishing Company, 3rd Edn. Pg 346.

140. Deekshit, G.R. (1991). An Uneasy Look at Bank Nationalisation', paper

presented at the national seminar on 'Revitalisation of Indian Banking under

Threat of Privatisation', organized by the All India Bank Employees Association

(AIBEA) in Bombay. Economic Times.

141. Deolalkar, G.H. (1999). The Indian Banking Sector: On the Road to

Progress, in: (ed.) Rising to the Challenge in Asia: A Study of Financial Markets

- India, Manila, pg. 59-109.

142. Desai, T.P. (2004). India: At Multiple Crossroads of Work-Family

Conflict. American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii. USA.

143. Desai, T.P. and Rajadhyaksha, U. (2004). Work family Conflict in Asian

Cultural Context: The Case of India. Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Chicago, IL, USA.

144. Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T., and Eisner, A.B. (2007). Strategic

Management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin

226

145. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications.

(2nd Ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

146. Dex, S. and Scheibl, F. (2001). Flexible and Family-Friendly Working

Arrangements in UK-Based SMEs: Business Cases. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, Vol.39, pg. 411-31.

147. Dhanorkar, S. (2010). HR Issues Have Become the New Risk Factor in

the Banking Industry’ retrieved from

http://www.moneylife.in/article/4/6981.html accessed on 5th January 2011.

148. Dierdorff, E.C., and Rubin, R.S. (2007). Carelessness and

Discriminability in Work Role Requirement Judgements: Influences of Role

Ambiguity and Cognitive Complexity. Personnel Psychology, Vol.60, pg. 597-

625.

149. Dixon, M. and Sagas, M. (2007). The Relationship between

Organizational Support, Work/Family Conflict, and the Job-Life Satisfaction of

University Coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol.78, pg. 236-

247.

150. Doble, N. and Supriya, M.V. (2010). Perception of Work-Life Balance.

Management, Vol.5 (4), pg. 331–342.

151. Dolet, P.M. (2003). An Exploration of The Meaning of Work and Life.

Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No: 3099660, The George Washington

University, Washington, DC.

152. D'Souza, E. (2002). Employment and Human Resource Practices in

Public Sector Banks in the Nineties. In Shuji Uchikawa (Ed.). Labour Market

and Institution in India: 1990s and Beyond. Japan: Institute of Developing

Economies.

153. Duncan, S. and Irwin, S. (2004). The Social Patterning of Values and

Rationalities: Mothers' Choices in Combining Caring and Employment. Social

Policy and Society, Vol.3, pg. 391-399.

154. Dunlop,P.D.,andLee,K.(2004).WorkplaceDeviance,Organizational

CitizenshipBehavior,andBusinessUnitPerformance:TheBadApplesDoSpoilthe

WholeBarrel.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,Vol.25,pg. 67-80.

227

155. Dunnette, M. D. (1998). Emerging Trends and Vexing Issues in Industrial

and Organizational Psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

Vol.47, pg. 129-153.

156. Durham, C.C., Locke, E.A., Poon, J.M.L., and Mcleod, P.L. (2000).

Effects of Group Goals and Time Pressure on Efficacy, Information-Seeking

Strategy and Performance. Human Performance, Vol.13, pg. 115-138.

157. Duxbury, L. E., and Higgins, C. A. (2001). The 2001 National Work-Life

Conflict Study: Report One. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada.

158. Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C.A., and Mills, S. (1991). Balancing Work and

Family: A Study of the Canadian Federal Public Sector. Ottawa: Carleton

University.

159. Duxbury, L.E., and Higgins, C.A. (1991). Gender Differences in Work-

Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.76 (1), pg. 60-74.

160. Duxbury, L.E., and Higgins, C.A. (1998). Work-Life Balance in

Saskatchewan: Realities and Challenges, Government of Saskatchewan: Regina.

161. Duxbury, L.E., and Higgins, C.A. (2001). Work-Life Balance in the New

Millennium: Where Are We? Where Do We Need To Go?. Work Network,

Canadian Policy Research Networks, Inc.

162. Duxbury, L.E., and Higgins, C.A. (2008). Work-Life Balance in Australia

in the New Millennium: Rhetoric Versus Reality. Beaton Consulting.

163. Duxbury, L.E., Higgins, C.A., and Lee, C. (1994). Work-Family

Conflict: A Comparison by Gender, Family Type, and Perceived Control.

Journal of Family Issues, Vol.15, pg. 449-466.

164. Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., and Maes, J. D. (1998). The Importance of

Employee Demographic Profiles for Understanding Experiences of Work–

Family Inter-role Conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.138, pg. 690–

709.

165. Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., and Maes, J. D. (1998). The Importance of

Employee Demographic Profiles for Understanding Experiences of Work–Family

Inter-role Conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.138, pg. 690–709.

228

166. Edwards, J. R., and Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms Linking Work

and Family: Clarifying the Relationship between Work and Family Constructs.

Academy of Management Review, Vol.25, pg. 178–199.

167. Efraty, D., and Sirgy, M. (1990). The Effects of Quality of Working Life

(QWL) on Employee Behavioral Responses. Social Indicators Research, Vol.22,

pg. 31-47.

168. Egglefield, L., and Edgar, L. (2003). Hassles: Their Importance to Nurses,

Quality of Works Life. Nursing Economics, Vol.21(3), pg. 106-13.

169. Elisaveta, S. (2006). Relationship among Perceptions of Quality of Work

Life and Job Satisfaction. Management and Organization Review, Vol.2(3), pg.

459-460.

170. Elizur, D., and Shye, S. (1990). Quality of Work Life and its Relation to

Quality of Life. Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol.39 (3), pg.

275-291.

171. Elloy, D., and Smith, C. (2003). Patterns of Stress, Work-Family Conflict,

Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Overload among Dual-Career and Single

Career Couples: An Australian Study. Cross-Cultural Management, Vol.10, pg.

55-66.

172. Engle, R.L., and Dimitriadi, N.A. (2006). Role Impact on Work and Life:

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Russia and United States. Proceedings – AIB-

SE (USA) Annual Meeting: Clearwater Beach, FI.

173. Engle, R.L., and Prince, M. (2005). The Impact of Role Strain on Work

and Life: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Insights to a Changing World Journal,

Vol.1, pg. 1-13.

174. Engwall, M., and Jerbrant, A. (2003). The Resource Allocation

Syndrome: The Prime Challenge of Multi-Project Management. International

Journal of Project Management, Vol.21, pg. 403-409.

175. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (2002).

176. Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A., and Walter, S. (2002).

Opportunities to Work at Home in the Context of Work-Life Balance. Human

Resource Management Journal, Vol.12, pg. 54-76.

229

177. Fisher-McAuley, G., Stanton, J., Jolton, J. and Gavin, J. (2003).

Modelling the Relationship between Work Life Balance and Organizational

Outcomes. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for

Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Orlando, pg. 1-26.

178. Flexible Working Hours Policy Ver 1.1; HDFC)

179. Foot, M., and Hook, C. (1999). Introducing Human Resources

Management. London: Longman.

180. Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., and Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and

Family Satisfaction and Conflict: A Meta-Analysis of Cross-Domain Relations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.92, pg. 57-80.

181. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation

Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol.48, pg. 39-50.

182. Fornell, C., Tellis, G. J., and Zinkhan, G. M. (1982) Validity assessment:

A structural equations approach using partial least squares. AMA Educator's

Proceedings, Chicago, 405-409.

183. Francisco, C.E. (2006). Filipino-Japanese Interaction: Perspectives and

Impact of Cross-Cultural Management Skills in the Global Workplace.

Conference proceedings: Pakistan’s 10th International Convention on Quality

Improvement, Lahore.

184. French, J.R.P., and Caplan, R.D. (1970). Organizational Stress and

Individual Strain. In A.J. Row (ed.), The Failure of Success, pg.30-36. New

York: AMACOM.

185. Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-Family Conflict and Employee Psychiatric

Disorders: The National Co-morbidity Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.85(6), pg. 888–895.

186. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-Family Balance. In: J. C. Quick and L. E.

Tertrick (Eds.) Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, D.C:

American Psychology Association, pg. 143-162.

187. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-Family

Conflict, Gender and Health Related Outcomes: A Study of Employed Parents in

230

Two Community Samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

Vol.1(1), pg. 57-69.

188. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and

Outcomes of Work–Family Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work–Family

Interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.77, pg. 65–78.

189. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of Work-

Family Conflict to Health Outcomes: A Four-Year Longitudinal Study of

Employed Parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

Vol.70(4), pg. 325-335.

190. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., and Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and

Testing an Integrative Model of the Work-Family Interface. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Vol.50(2), pg. 145-167.

191. Frone, M.R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M.L. (1992a). Antecedents and

Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-Family

Interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.77(1), pg. 65-78.

192. Frone, M.R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M.L. (1992b). Prevalence of

Work-Family Conflict: Are Work and Family Boundaries Asymmetrically

Permeable?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (7), 723-729.

193. Frone, M.R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M.L. (1993). Relationship of

Work-Family Conflict, Gender and Alcohol Expectancies to Alcohol Use/Abuse.

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol.14, pg. 545-58.

194. Fu, C.K., and Shaffer, M.A. (2001). The Tug of Work and Family.

Personnel Review, Vol. 30, pg. 502-22.

195. Furnham, A. (1991). Work and Leisure Satisfaction. In Strack, F.,

Argyle, M., and Schwarz, N. (Ed.), Subjective Wellbeing (pg. 235-259). New

York: Pergomon

196. Gahan, P., and Abeysekera, L. (2009). What Shapes an Individual’s

Work Values? An Integrated Model of the Relationship between Work Values,

National Culture and Self-Construal. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, Vol.20(1), pg. 126–147.

231

197. Ganguli, O. N., and Joseph, J. S. (1976). Quality of Working Life: Work

Prospects and Aspirations of Young Workers in Air India. Central Labour

Institute, Bombay.

198. Gani, A., and Ahmed, R. (1995). Correlates of Quality of Work Life: An

Analytical Study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Bombay, Vol.31(1), pg.

1-17.

199. Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., and Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of Social

Support in the Experience of Stress at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.71, pg. 102–110.

200. Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., and Jackson, A. (1988). Self-

Efficacy and Endurance Performance: A Longitudinal Field Test of Cognitive

Mediation Theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol.37, pg.

381-394,

201. Gellis, Z. D., and Chun Kim, J. (2004). Predictors of Depressive Mood,

Occupational Stress, and Propensity to Leave in Older and Younger Mental

Health Case Managers. Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 40(5), pg. 407-

13.

202. Geurts, S.A.E., Kompier, M.A.J., Roxburgh, S., and Houtman, I.L.

(2003). Does Work-Home Interference Mediate Relationship between Workload

and Well-Being? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol.63 (3), pg. 532-559.

203. Ghosh, P., Singh, T., Mukherjee, U., and Tripathi, N.P. (2010). Job

Satisfaction in Private Sector Banks in India. International Journal of Indian

Culture and Business Management, Vol.3(5), pg. 560 – 576.

204. Goff, S.J., Mount, M.K., and Jamison, R.L. (1990). Employer Supported

Child Care, Work-Family Conflict and Absenteeism: A Field Study. Personnel

Psychology Vol.43, pg. 793-809.

205. Golden, L., and D. Figart (2000). Doing Something about Long Hours.

Challenge, Vol.43(6), pg. 15–37.

206. Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., and Cardy, R.L. (2007). Managing

Human Resources. Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

207. Goode, W. J. (1960). A Theory of Role Strain. American Sociological

Review, Vol.25, pg. 483-496.

232

208. Goodman, S.A., and Svyjantec, D.J. (1999). Person-Organization Fit and

Contextual Performance: Do Shared Values Matter?. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, Vol.55, pg. 254–275.

209. Gorgievski, M.J., Bakker, A.B., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2010). Work

Engagement and Workaholism: Comparing the Self-Employed and Salaried

Employees. The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol.5(1), pg. 83–96.

210. Gottleib, B., Kelloway, K., and Fraboni, M. (1994). Aspects of Elder Care

that Place an Employee at Risk. Gerontologist, Vol.34, pg. 815-821.

211. Goyal, M. (2007). Employees Whine of No Work-Life Balance. The

Economic Times dated 2nd January, 2007. Retrieved from

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-01-02/news/28448432_1_wor

k-life-balance-meritocracy-wrong-lessons, accessed on 3rd March 2008.

212. Grady, G., and McCarthy, A.M. (2008). Work-Life Integration:

Experiences of Mid-Career Professional Working Mothers. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol.23(5), pg. 599-622.

213. Graves, L. M., Ohlott, P. J., and Ruderman, M. N. (2007). Commitment to

Family Roles: Effects on Managers’ Attitudes and Performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol.92, pg. 44-56.

214. Green, F. (2001). It’s Been a Hard Day’s Night: The Concentration and

Intensification of Work in Late Twentieth-Century Britain. British Journal of

Industrial Relations, Vol. 39, pg. 53-80.

215. Greenhaus, J. H., and Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on Work, Family,

and Gender: Current Status and Future Directions, In Powell, G. N. (Ed.),

Handbook of Gender and Work (pg. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

216. Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W.(1990). Effects of Race

on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career

Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.33(1), pg. 64-86.

217. Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W.(1990). Effects of Race

on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career

Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.33(1), pg. 64-86.

233

218. Greenhaus, J.H., and Beutell, N.J. (1985). Organizational and Family

Social Support and Work-Family Conflict. Academy of Management Journal,

Vol.10, pg. 76-88.

219. Greenhaus, J.H., and Powell, G. (2006). When Work and Family are

Allies: A Theory of Work and Family Enrichment. Academy of Management

Review, Vol.31(4), pg. 72-92.

220. Greenhaus, J.H., and Powell, G.N. (2006). When Work and Family are

Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichment. Academy of Management Review,

Vol.31(1), pg. 72-92.

221. Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M., and Shaw, J.D. (2003). The Relationship

between Work-Life Balance and Quality of Life. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

Vol.63, pg.510–531.

222. Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W.M. (1990). Effects of

Race on Organizational Experience, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career

Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.16, pg. 129-137.

223. Greenlee, J. and Scharlach, A. (2007). Caregivers’ Characteristics and

Needs. retrieved from cssr-pw01.berkeley.edu/pdfs/famcare_03.pdf, accessed on

12th August 2009.

224. Grote, D. (1996). The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal. New

York: AMACOM.

225. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-Family Spillover and Health During

Midlife: Is Managing Conflict Everything? American Journal of Health

Promotion, Vol.14(4), 236-243.

226. Grzywacz, J. G., and Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, Work, Work-Family

Spillover and Problem Drinking During Midlife. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, Vol.62(2), pg. 336-348.

227. Guest, D. E. (1998). Is the Psychological Contract Worth Taking

Seriously?. Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol.19, pg. 649-664.

228. Guest, D. E. (2001). Human Resource Management: When Research

Confronts Theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol.12(7), pg. 1092-106.

234

229. Guest, D. E. (2001). Perspectives on the Study of Work-Life Balance. A

Discussion Paper. 2001 ENOP Symposium, Paris, March 29-31. Retrieved from

www.ucm.es/info/Psyap/enop/guest.htm., accessed on 30th April 2008.

230. Guest, D.E. (2002). Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance.

Social Science Information, Vol. 41(2), pg. 255-279

231. Guest, R. H. (1979). Quality of Work Life-Learning from Tarrytown.

Harvard Business Review, Vol.57(4), pg. 76-89.

232. Gupta, K., and Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business Unit Strategy,

Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy

Implementation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.27, pg. 25-41.

233. Gupta, M., and Sharma, P. (2010). Factor Credentials Boosting Quality

of Work Life of BSNL Employees in Jammu Region. Asia Pacific Journal of

Research in Business Management, Vol. 1(1), pg. 110-118.

234. Gupta, N., and Beehr, T.A. (1979). Job Stress and Employee Behaviours.

Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol.23(3), pg. 373-

387.

235. Gupta, N., and Jenkins, G.D. (1985). Dual-Career Couples: Stressors,

Strains, and Strategies. In Beehr, T. A., and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.), Human Stress

and Cognition in Organizations, pg. 141-176

236. Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., and Klepa, L. (1991). Rational Versus Gender

Role Explanations for Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.76(4), pg. 560-568.

237. Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L., and Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of

Changes in Job Characteristics on Work Attitudes and Behaviors: A Naturally-

Occurring Quasi-Experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, Vol.21, pg. 289-304.

238. Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the Design

of Work: Test of a Theory. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance,

Vol.16, pg. 250-279.

239. Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, M.A:

Addison-Wesley.

235

240. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, R.L.

(2009). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th Ed., Pearson Education, Inc.

241. Hammer, L.B., Allen, E., and Grigsby, T. (1997). Work-Family Conflict

in Dual Earner Couples: Within-Individual and Crossover Effects of Work and

Family. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol.50, pg. 185-203.

242. Handbook on Staff Matters, State Bank of India, Personnel and HRD

Department, Local Head Office, Lucknow; Vol.IV, pg. 23, 33.

243. Handbook on Staff Matters, State Bank of India, Vol.1, pg. 171-184.

244. Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., and Colton, C. L. (2006). Development

and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Work-Family Positive

Spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.11(3), pg. 249-265.

245. Harbour, J.L. (1997). The Basics of Performance Measurement. New

York: Productivity, Inc.

246. Hatton, A. (2005). The Case for Work Life Balance: Closing the Gap

between Policy and Practice. 20:20 Series, Hudson, Australia and New Zealand,

pg.3-24.

247. Havlovic, S. J., (1991). Quality of Work Life and Human Resource

Outcomes. Industrial Relations, Vol. 30(3), pg. 469-479.

248. Hawkins, P., and Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in the Helping

Professions. An Individual, Group and Organisational Approach (2nd Ed.). UK:

Open University Press.

249. Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed

to Measure Work Life Balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource

Management, Vol.13(1), pg. 85-91.

250. Hayward, B. A. (2005). Relationship between Employee Performance,

Leadership and Emotional Intelligence in a South African Parastatal

Organisation. Thesis Submitted to Department of Management, Rhodes

University

251. Heinrich, C. J. (2002.) Outcomes-Based Performance Management in

the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness.

Public Administration Review, Vol.62(6), pg. 712-725.

236

252. Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., Slocum, J.W., Staude, G., Amos, T.,

Klopper, H.B., Louw, L., and Oosthuizen, T. (2004). Management: Second South

African Edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

253. Hendrey, C. (1995). Human Resource Management: A Strategic

Approach to Employment. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

254. Heneman, H.G. (1974). Comparisons of Self and Superior Ratings of

Managerial Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.59, pg. 638-42.

255. Heneman, H.G., and Judge, T.A. (2003). Staffing Organizations, Mcgraw

Hill, Middleton, MI, 76-85.

256. Hennessy, K.D., and Lent, R.W. (2008). Self-Efficacy for Managing

Work-Family Conflict: Validating the English Language Version of a Hebrew

Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, Vol.16, pg. 370-384.

257. Herman, J.B., and Hulin, C.L. (1972). Studying Organizational Attitudes

from Individual and Organizational Frames of Reference. Organizational

Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol.8, pg. 84-108.

258. Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., and Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-Family

Conflict in the Dual-Career Family. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Vol.51, pg. 51-75.

259. Higgins, C., and Duxbury, L. (2001). National Work – Life Conflict

Study. Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa.

260. Higgins, C.A. and Duxbury, L.E. (1992). Work-Family Conflict: A

Comparison of Dual Career and Traditional Career Men. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol.13(4), pg. 389-411.

261. Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L.E., and Lyons, S. (1992). Coping with

Overload and Stress: Men and Women in Dual-Earner Families. A Comparative

Analysis. Information Systems Research, Vol.3(2), pg. 173-190.

262. Higgins, L.E., Duxbury, C.A., and Lee, C. (1994). Impact of Life-Cycle

Stage and Gender on the Ability to Balance Work and Family Responsibilities.

Family Relations, Vol.43, pg. 144-150.

263. Hodson, R. (1985). Working in ‘High-Tech’: Research Issues and

Opportunities for the Industrial Sociologist. Sociological Quarterly, Vol.26(3),

pg. 351-364.

237

264. Hodson, R., and Roscigno, V. J. (2004). Organizational Success and

Worker Dignity: Complementary or Contradictory?. American Journal of

Sociology, Vol.110(3), pg. 672-708.

265. Holbrook, Sheila K. (2005). Development and Initial Validation of the

Work-Family Facilitation Scale. Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2928. Retrieved

from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=3927andcontext=etd, accessed on 12th May 2010.

266. Holloway, J., Francis, G., and Hinton, M. (1999). A Vehicle for Change?

A Case Study of Performance Improvement in the “New” “Public Sector”. The

International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.12(4), pg.351-365.

267. Holloway, J., Lewis, J., Mallory, G. (1995). Performance Measurement

and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

268. Hopkins, K. M. (1997). Supervisor Intervention with Troubled Workers:

A Social Identity Perspective. Human Relations, Vol.50, pg. 1215–1238.

269. Hosseini, S.M.,   Jorjafki, G.M., and Ashrafi, A.M. (2010). Quality of

Work Life (QWL) and its Relationship with Performance. Conference

Proceedings of Advanced Management Science (ICAMS), 2010 IEEE

International Conference 9-11 July 2010, pg.559 – 562. 

270. House, J.S., and Wells, J.A. (1978). Occupational Stress, Social Support

and Health. in Mclean, A., Black, G., and Colligan, M. (Eds.), Reducing

Occupational Stress: Proceedings Of A Conference (Publication No. 78-140, pg.

8-29). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

271. Howard, F. (2008). Managing Stress or Enhancing Wellbeing? Positive

Psychology's Contributions to Clinical Supervision. Australian Psychologist,

Vol.43(2), pg 105-113.

272. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The Structural Equation Modelling Approach: Basic

Concepts and Fundamental Issues. In Structural Equation Modelling: Concepts,

Issues, and Applications, Hoyle, R. H. (Editor). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pg. 1-15.

273. Http://Www.Aiboc.Org/ , accessed on 12th August 2011, 15th November

2010.

238

274. Http://Www.Scribd.Com/Doc/24487141/History-Of-Banking-In-India ,

accessed on 12th August 2010 and 15th November 2010.

275. Http://Www.Scribd.Com/Doc/35847069/Comparative-Study-Of-The-

Public-Sector-Amp-Private-Sector-Bank , accessed on 14th July 2009.

276. Http://Www.Standardchartered.Co.In/_Documents/Tools-Utilities/

Anualresult10.Pdf , accessed on 10th December 2010).

277. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in

Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.

Structural Equation Modeling, Vol.6(1), pg. 1-55.

278. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes in

Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.

Structural Equation Modelling, Vol.6(1), pg. 1-55.

279. Hughes, J., and Bozionelos, N. (2007). Work-Life Balance as Source of

Job Dissatisfaction and Withdrawal Attitudes: An Exploratory Study on the

Views of Male Workers. Personnel Review, Vol.36(1), pg. 145-154.

280. Hughes, P. (2010). The Social Report 2010. Ministry of Social

Development, New Zealand., retrieved from www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz,

accessed on 28th December 2011.

281. Hunter, J. E., and Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative

Predictors of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, Vol.96, pg. 72-98.

282. IBA (2008). Indian Banking Year Book. Mumbai: Indian Banks'

Association.

283. Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., and Badawy, M.K. (1994). Work

Experiences, Job Involvement, and Quality of Work Life among Information

Systems Personnel. MIS Quaterly, Vol.18(2), pg. 175-202.

284. Isen, A. M., and Baron, R. A. (1990). Positive Affect and Organizational

Behavior. In Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in

Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

285. Islam, M.Z., and Siengthai, S. (2009). Quality of Work Life and

Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from Dhaka Export Processing

239

Zone. Proceedings of ILO Conference on Regulating for Decent Work, The

International Labour Office, Geneva, July 8-10.

286. Jackson, M. (2002). What’s Happening at Home: Balancing Life, and

Refuge in the Information Age, Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books.

287. Jackson, S. E., and Schuler, R. S. (1985). A Meta-Analysis and

Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work

Settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.36, pg.

16-78.

288. Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., and Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an

Understanding of the Burnout Phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.71(4), pg. 630-640.

289. Jacobs, J. A., and Gerson, K. (2000). Do Americans Feel Overworked?:

Comparing Ideal and Actual Work Time, In Parcel, T. L., and Cornfield, D. B.

(Eds.), Work and Family: Research Informing Policy (pg. 71–95). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

290. Jagannath, L., and Akhila, P.R. (2009). Predictors of Quality of Work

Life of Sales Force in Direct Selling Organisations. The ICFAIAN Journal Of

Management Research, Vol.8(6), pg.51-59.

291. Jain, S., and Shukla, G. (2002). A Not So Golden Handshake, retrieved

from Http://Www.Banknetindia.Com/Issues/Bsvrs.Htm , accessed on 7th August

2010.

292. Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative Behavior and Job Involvement at the Price

of Conflict and Less Satisfactory Relationships with Co-Workers. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol.76, pg. 347–364.

293. Jayashree, R. (2010). Stress Management with Special Reference to

Public Sector Bank Employees in Chennai. International Journal of Enterprise

and Innovation Management Studies, Vol.1(3), pg. 34-39.

294. Jenkins, D. (1981). Current Trends and Directions, Ontario Ministry of

Labour, Quality of Working Life Centre, Occasional Paper No. 3., retrieved from

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/ , accessed on 23rd March 2009.

240

295. Jenkins, R. (1991). Demographic Aspects of Stress, In: Cooper, C.L., and

Payne, R. (Eds) Personality and Stress: Individual Differences in the Stress

Process (Chichester, Wiley).

296. Jenkins, R., and Elliot, P. (2004). Stressors, Burnout and Social Support:

Nurses in Acute Mental Health Settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

Vol.48(6), pg. 622-631.

297. Jha, B. K., Gupta, S. L., and Yadav, P. (2008). Use and Effectiveness of

New Technologies in Indian Banking: A Study. The ICFAI Journal of Services

Marketing, Vol.6(1), pg. 6–22.

298. Jick, T.D., and Mitz, L. (1985). Sex Differences in Work Stress.

Academy of Management Review, Vol.10 (3), pg. 408-420.

299. Joshi, R.J. (2007). QWL of Women Workers: Role of Trade Unions.

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.42, pg. 3–5.

300. Judge, T., and Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual Differences in the Nature

of the Relationship between Job and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Occupational

and Organisational Psychology, Vol.67(2), pg. 101-108.

301. Judge, T.A., Boudreau, J.W., and Bretz, R.D.Jr. (1994). Job and Life

Attitudes of Male Executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.79(5), pg. 767-

782.

302. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., and Rosenthal, R.A.

(1964). Organizational Stress. New York: Wiley.

303. Kaiser, H.F., and Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy Mark IV. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, Vol.34(1), pg. 111-117.

304. Kalra, S., and S. Ghosh, (1984). Quality of Work Life: A Study of

Associated Factors. The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol.14(3), pg. 341-349.

305. Kalra, S.K. and Ghosh, S., (1983). Quality of Work Life: Some

Determinants. Indian Management, pg. 19-21.

306. Kamal, R., and Sengupta, D. (2008) Job Satisfaction and Performance in

Banks. Prajnan, Vol. 37(2), pg. 229-245.

241

307. Kamath, K.V., Kohli, S.S., Shenoy, P.S., Kumar, R., Nayak, R. M., and

Kuppuswamy, P.T., and Ravichandran, N. (2003). Indian Banking Sector:

Challenges and Opportunities. Vikalpa, Vol.28(3), pg. 83-99.

308. Kandasamy, I., and Sreekumar, A. (2009). WRKLFQUAL: A Tool for

Measuring Quality of Work Life. Research and Practice in Human Resource

Management, Vol.17(1), pg. 59-70.

309. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: a critical

review and agenda for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

310. Karasek, R., and Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work Stress, Productivity,

and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.

311. Karasek, R.A. (1998). The New Work Organisation, Conducive

Production, and Work Quality Policy. In Marmot, M. (Ed.), Labour Market

Changes and Job Insecurity: A Challenge for Social Welfare and Health

Promotion (pg. 78-105), Copenhagen: WHO/Europe.

312. Karasek, R.A.Jr. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and

Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol.24, pg. 285-308.

313. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations

(2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

314. Kelly, J.R., and Loving, T.J. (2004). Time Pressure and Group

Performance: Exploring Underlying Processes in the Attentional Focus Model.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.40, pg. 185-198.

315. Kendall, E., Murphy, P., O’ Neill, V., and Bursnall, S. (2000).

Occupational Stress: Factors That Contribute to its Occurrence and Effective

Management. Centre for Human Services, Griffith Univeristy.

316. Kerce, W.E., and Booth-Kewley, S. (1993). Quality of Work Life Surveys

in Organizations: Methods and Benefits. In Sage Focus (Ed.), Improving

Organizational Surveys: New Directions, Methods, and Applications (pg. 188-

209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

317. Kessler, R.C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P.D., Mckenas,

D., Pronk, N., Simon, G., Stang, P., Ustun, T.B., and Wang, P. (2003). The

242

World Health Organisation Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Vol.45(2), pg.156 –174.

318. Khandekar, A., and Sharma, A. (2005). Managing Human Resource

Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Education + Training, Vol.

47(8/9), pg. 628-639.

319. Kheradmand, E., Valilou, M., and Lofti, A., (2010). The Relation between

Quality of Work Life and Job Performance. Middle-East Journal of Scientific

Research, Vol.6 (4), pg. 317-323.

320. Kilfedder, C.J., Poweer, K.G., and Wells, T.J. (2001). Burnout in

Psychiatric Nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol.34(3), pg. 383-396.

321. Kiran, K. (2010). Market Structure Of Indian Banking Sector, retrieved

from http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/101663-Market-Structure-

Indian-Banking-sector.aspx , accessed on 10th May 2011.

322. Kleynhans, R., Markham, L.G., Meyer, W., and Van Aswegen, S. (2006).

Human Resource Management: Fresh Perspectives. Pearson Education: Cape

Town.

323. Knox, S., and Irving, J.A. (1997). An Interactive Quality of Work Life

Model Applied to Organizational Transition. Journal of Nursing Administration,

Vol.27(1), pg. 39–47.

324. Kofodimos, J. R. (1993). Balancing Act. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

325. Komarraju, M. (1997). The Work–Family Interface in India, In

Parasuraman, S. and Greenhaus, J. H. (Eds.), Integrating Work and Family,

Challenges for a Changing World, pg. 104–114. Westport, CT, Quorum Books.

326. Kopelman, R.E., Greenhaus, J.H., and Connolly, T.F. (1983). A Model of

Work, Family and Inter-Role Conflict: A Construct Validation Study.

Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol.32, pg. 198-215.

327. Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in Child Care Assistance Needs:

Employee Problems, Preferences, and Work-Related Outcomes. Personnel

Psychology, Vol.43(4), pg.769-791.

328. Kossek, E. E., Huber-Yoder, M., Castellino, D., and Lerner, J. (1997).

The Working Poor: Locked Out of Careers and the Organizational Mainstream?.

Academy of Management Executive. Vol. 11(1) 76-92.

243

329. Kossek, E. Y., and Nichol, V. (1992). The Effects of On-Site Child Care

on Employee Attitudes and Performance. Personnel Psychology, Vol.45, pg.

485-509.

330. Kossek. E. E., and Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-Family Conflict, Policies, and

the Job-Life Satisfaction Relationship: A Review and Directions for

Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Research. Journal Of Applied

Psychology, Vol.83, pg. 139-149.

331. Kotze, M. (2008). Indicators of the Quality of Work Life (QWL) of

People With and Without Disabilities: A Comparative Study. The International

Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, Vol.8(2), pg.

155-170.

332. Kotze, T. (2005). The Nature and Development of the Construct 'Quality

of Work Life'. Acta Academica, Vol.37(2), pg. 96-122.

333. Koys, D.J.(2001).TheEffectsofEmployeeSatisfaction,Organizational

CitizenshipBehavior,andTurnoveronOrganizationalEffectiveness:AUnit Level,

LongitudinalStudy.PersonnelPsychology,Vol.54(1),pg. 101-114.

334. Krishnamurthy, R. and Ambegaoker, S. (2010). Structuring the

Organisation and Building Effective HR Policies for Successful Bancassurance in

India, retrieved from

Http://Www.Watsonwyatt.Com/Asia-Pacific/Pubs/Apinsurance/Showarticle.Asp

?Articleid=19283, accessed on 19th June 2011.

335. Krueger, P., Brazil, K., Lohfeld, L., Edward, H. G., Lewis, D., and Tjam,

E. (2002). Organization Specific Predictors of Job Satisfaction: Findings from a

Canadian Multi-Site Quality of Work Life Cross-Sectional Survey. BMC Health

Services Research, 2(1):6. Retrieved from Www.Biomedcentral.Com/1472-

6963/2/6 , accessed on May 5, 2010.

336. Kumar, D. (2006). A Study on Job Stress of Nationalised and Non-

Nationalised Bank Employees’. Retrieved from

Www.Indianmba.Com/Faculty_Column/FC231/Fc231.Html accessed on 5th May

2010.

244

337. Kumudha A., and Abraham, S. (2008). Organisation Career Management

and its Impact on Career Satisfaction: A Study in the Banking Sector. ICFAI

University Journal of Bank Management, Vol.7(3), pg.71–84.

338. La Rocco, J.M., House, J.S., and French, J.R.P., Jr. (1980). Social

Support, Occupational Stress, and Health. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, Vol.21, pg. 202-218.

339. Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes Linking Work and Family: A Critical

Review and Research Agenda. Human Relations, Vol.43, pg. 239–257.

340. Larson, R., Dworkin, J., and Verma, S. (2001). Men's Work and Family

Lives in India: The Daily Organization of Time and Emotion. Journal of Family

Psychology, Vol.15, pg. 206–224.

341. Lau, R.S.M., and May, B. E. (1998). A Win-Win Paradigm for Quality of

Work Life and Business Performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly,

Vol.9(3), pg. 211-26.

342. Lee, C., and Hui, C. (1999). Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family

Interface. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, Vol.7(1), pg.

35-51.

343. Leopold, J. (2005) Employee Participation, Involvement, and

Communications. In: Leopold, J., Harris, L., and Watson, T., (Eds). The Strategic

Managing of Human Resource. Essex, England: Prentice-Hall Pearson Education.

pg. 434–60.

344. Levine, M.F. (1983). Self-Developed QWL Measures. Journal of

Occupational Behaviour. Vol. 4, pg. 35-46.

345. Lewis, S., Izraeli, D. N., and Hootsmans, H. (Eds.). (1992). Dual-Earner

Families: International Perspectives. London: Sage, Ltd.

346. Li, A., and Bagger, J. (2008). Role Ambiguity and Self-Efficacy: The

Moderating Effects of Goal Orientation and Procedural Justice. Journal of

Vocational Behaviour, Vol.73, pg. 368-375.

347. Lindkvist, L. (2001). Organizing for Goal Orientation and Learning.

Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/1350507606063440, accessed on 13th April 2010.

348. Loscocco, K.A. (1990). Career Structures and Employee Commitment.

Social Sciences Quarterly, Vol.71, pg. 53-68.

245

349. Macbride-King, J. (1990). Work and Family: Employment Challenge of

the 90s. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.

350. Macroeconomic and Monetary Developments - Second Quarter Review

(2009-10). Reserve Bank of India website.

351. Madhukar, R.K. (1986). Human Resources in Indian Banks. Indian Banks

Association Bulletin, Bombay, September

352. Madsen, S. R., John, C. R., and Miller, D. (2005). Work-Family Conflict

and Health: A Study of Workplace, Psychological, and Behavioral Correlates.

Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol.6(3), pg. 225-247.

353. Malhotra, S. and Sachdeva, S. (2005). Social Roles and Role Conflict: An

Inter-professional Study among Women. Journal of the Indian Academy of

Applied Psychology, Vol.31(1-2), pg. 37-42.

354. Marks, S. R., and Macdermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple Roles and the Self:

A Theory of Role Balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.58, pg.

417–432.

355. Marwaha, R., Mahajan, N., and Mahajan, V. (2010). Service Sector: The

Moving Force of Indian Economy. Retrieved from

Http://Conf.Pcte.Edu.In/IMCTWGB2010/Researchpapers/SERVICE

%20SECTOR%20THE%20MOVING%20FORCE%20OF%20INDIAN

%20ECONOMY.Pdf , accessed on 12th November 2010.

356. Maslach C. (1978). Job Burnout – How People Cope. Public Welfare.

Volume:36, Issue:2, Pp. 56-58.

357. Masood, R.Z., and Mahlawat, S. (2012). Impact of Demographic

Variables on the Critical Factors of Work‐Life Balance: An Empirical Study.

Journal of Organisational Management, Vol.1(1), pg. 01-13.

358. Mathew, R. V., and Panchanatham, N. (2011b). An Exploratory Study on

Work-Life Balance of Women Entrepreneurs in South India. Asian Academy of

Management Journal, Vol.16(2), pg. 77–105.

359. Mathew, R.V. and Panchanatham, N. (2009). Influencers and Their Role

in Determining the Work-Life Balance of Employees Working in the Information

Technology Sector. Kegees Journal of Social Science, Vol.1, pg. 17-35.

246

360. Mathew, R.V. and Panchanatham, N. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of

the Impact of Various Dimensions of Work-Life Balance on Organisational

Commitment among Service Sector Employees in India. International Journal of

Management Studies, Vol.17, pg. 129-147.

361. Mathew, R.V. and Panchanatham, N. (2011a). Work-Life Balance

Challenges of Indigenous Health Management Employees in the Medical

Tourism Sector of Kerala, India. Journal of Business Management and

Accounting, Vol.1(1), pg. 99-140.

362. Matteson, M., and Ivancevich, J. (1987). Controlling Work Stress:

Effective Human Resource and Management Strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

363. May, B.E., Lau, R.S., and Johnson, S.K. (1999). A Longitudinal Study of

Quality of Work Life and Business Performance. South Dakota Business Review,

Vol.58(2), pg. 3-7.

364. Messersmith, J. (2007). Managing Work-Life Conflict among Information

Technology Workers. Human Resource Management, Vol. 46 (3), pg. 429-451.

365. Miller, J.G. (1960). Information Input Overload and Psychopathology.

American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.116, pg. 695-704.

366. Millward, N., Bryson, A., and Forth, J. (2000). All Change at Work?

British Employment Relations 1980-1998, As Portrayed By the Workplace.

Industrial Relations Survey Series, Routledge, London.

367. Minehan, M. (1997). The Aging of America: Will Increase Elder Care

Responsibilities?. HR Magazine, Vol.42(7), 184-184.

368. Mirvis, P.H., and Lawler, E.E. (1984). Accounting for the Quality of

Work Life. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol.5, pg.197–212.

369. Mitchell, T., Smyser, C., and Weed, S. (1975). Locus of Control:

Supervision and Work Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.18,

pg. 623-631.

370. Monga, M.L., and Maggu, (1981). Quality of Work-Life: A Study of

Public Sector in India. ASCI Journal of Management, Vol.10(2), pg. 115-137.

371. Moore, J.E. (2000). One Road to Turnover: An Examination of Work

Exhaustion in Technology Professionals. MIS Quarterly, Vol.24 (1), pg. 141-168.

247

372. Morgan, D.G., Semchuk, K.M., Stewart, N.J., and D’Arcy, C. (2002). Job

Strain among Staff of Rural Nursing Homes: A Comparison of Nurses, Aides,

and Activity Workers. Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol.32, pg. 152-161.

373. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., and Schmit, M. J. (1997). A Theory of

Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance. Human

Performance, Vol.10, pg. 71-83.

374. Motowidlo, S.J. (2003). Job Performance, in Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R.,

and Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, (pg. 39-53), John Wiley

And Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

375. Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of Job Performance, in Dillon, R. F.,

and Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) Testing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, (pg.

218-247). New York: Praeger.

376. Nageswar Rao, K. (2007). Indian Commercial Banking : The New

Dynamics ICFAI Univ. Press, Hyderabad.

377. Naithani, P. (2010). Overview of Work-Life Balance Discourse and its

Relevance in Current Economic Scenario. Asian Social Science, Vol 6(6), pg.

148-155.

378. Naithani, P., and Jha, A. N. (2009). An Empirical Study of Work and

Family Life Spheres and Emergence of Work-Life Balance Initiatives under

Uncertain Economic Scenario. Growth, Vol.37(1), pg. 69-73.

379. Nankervis, A. R., Pearson, C. A. L., and Chatterjee, S. R. (2007).

Towards an Integrated Model of Service Orientation in Asia: A Reflective

Perspective, in Jayachandran, C., Juhary, H. A., Chatterjee, S. R., and Chiamsiri,

S. (Eds.), Services Management in Asia Pacific: Issues and Challenges (3-26).

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia: Universiti Utara Malaysia Press.

380. Nargundkar, R. (2009). Marketing Research. (3rd Ed.) Tata McGraw Hill

Education Private Limited, New Delhi

381. Neely, A.D. (1998). Measuring Business Performance: Why, What and

How, Economist Books, London.

382. Neely, A.D., Gregory, M.J., and Platts, K.W. (1995). Performance

Measurement System Design: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.

248

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.15(4), pg.

80-116.

383. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., and Mcmurrian, R. (1996). Development

and Validation of Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict Scales.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81(4), 400-410.

384. Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., and Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the

Work-Family Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee

Performance, and Customer Purchase Intent. Journal of Marketing, Vol.69, pg.

130-143.

385. Newell, S. (2002). Creating the Healthy Organization. Well-Being,

Diversity and Ethics at Work. (1.Ed.) Cornwall: Thomson.

386. Newman, D. A., Kinney, T., and Farr, J. L. (2004). Job Performance

Ratings, in J. C. Thomas (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological

Assessment, Volume 4: Industrial and Organizational Assessment (pg. 373-389).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

387. Nguyen, T.D., and Nguyen, T.T.M. (2011) Psychological Capital, Quality

of Work Life, and Quality of Life of Marketers: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal

of Macromarketing, retrieved from

Http://Jmk.Sagepub.Com/Content/Early/2011/09/21/0276146711422065.Full.Pdf

+Html, accessed on 26th December 2011.

388. Nirenberg, J. (1993). The Living Organization: Transforming Teams into

Workplace Communities. New York: Irwin Professional Publishing.

389. Nobeoka, K. (1995). Inter-Project Learning in New Product

Development. Journal of Academic Management, Vol.38(4), pg. 432-436.

390. Noor, S., and Maad, N. (2008). Examining the Relationship between

Work Life Conflict, Stress and Turnover Intentions among Marketing Executives

in Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.3(11), pg.

93-102.

391. Nordqvist, S., Hovmark, S., and Zika-Viktorsson, A. (2004). Perceived

Time Pressure and Social Processes in Project Teams. International Journal of

Project Managemet, Vol.22(6), pg. 463-468.

249

392. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed.). New York:

Mcgraw-Hill.

393. O’Driscoll, M. (1996). The Interface between In-Job and Off-Job Roles:

Enhancement and Conflict, in Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. (Eds). International

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.11. Chichester: John

Wiley.

394. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good

Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

395. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct

Clean-Up Time. Human Performance, Vol.10, pg. 85-97.

396. Orpen, C. (1981). The Conceptualization of Quality of Working Life.

Perspectives in Industrial Psychology, Vol.7, pg. 36-69.

397. Padmanabhan, A. (2011). In India, Women Bankers Have Broken Glass

Ceiling, retrieved from

Http://Www.Prokerala.Com/News/Articles/A206560.Html accessed on 1st July

2011.

398. Pal, S., and Per Øystein, S., (2006). A Comparative Study of Work and

Family Conflict in Norwegian and Indian Hospitals. Nordic Psychology, Vol.

58(4), pg. 298-314. Doi: 10.1027/1901-2276.58.4.298

399. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement

and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, Vol.67(4),

420-450.

400. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A. (1985). A Conceptual

Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of

Marketing, Vol.49(4), pg. 41-50.

401. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). SERVQUAL:

A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.

Journal of Retailing, Vol.64(1), pg. 12-40.

402. Parasuraman, S., and Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward Reducing Some

Critical Gaps in Work-Family Research. Human Resource Management Review,

Vol.12, pg. 299-312.

250

403. Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y.S., Godshalk, V.M., and Beutell, N.J. (1996).

Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career Success and Psychological

Well-Being. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 48, pg. 275-300.

404. Parasuraman, S., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1985). A Conceptual

Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of

Marketing,Vol.49(4), pg. 41-50.

405. Parish, W. L. and Hao, L. (1991). Family Support Networks, Welfare,

and work among Young Mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

Vol.53(1), pg. 203–15.

406. Patel, T. (2005). The Family in India: Structure and Practice. New Delhi:

Sage.

407. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, pg.

169-186, (2nd Edition) Sage Publications.

408. Paul, A.K., and Anantharaman, R.N. (2003). Impact of People

Management Practices on Organizational Performance: Analysis of a Causal

Model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.14(7), pg.

1246–1266.

409. Perrons, D. (2003). The New Economy and the Work-Life Balance:

Conceptual Explorations and a Case Study of New Media. Gender, Work and

Organization, Vol.10, pg. 65-93.

410. Pincus, J.D. (1986). Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and

Job Performance. Human Communication Research, Vol.12(3), pg. 395-419.

411. Pinder, C. (1984). Work Motivation: Theory, Issues and Applications.

Glenview: Scott, Foresman And Company.

412. Pocock, B. (2001). The Effects of Long Hours on Family and Community

Life: A Survey of Existing Literature. Brisbane: Queensland Department of

Industrial Relations.

413. Pocock, B., and Clarke, J. (2004). Can’t Buy Me Love? Young

Australians’ Views on Parental Work, Time, and Guilt and Their Own

Consumption. Discussion Paper No. 61. Canberra: Australia Institute.

251

414. Podsakoff,P.M.,&MacKenzie,S.B.(1994).OrganizationalCitizenship

BehaviorandtheQuantityandQualityofWorkGroupPerformance.Journalof

MarketingResearch,Vol.31,pg. 351-363.

415. Podsakoff,P.M.,Ahearne,M.,andMacKenzie,S.B.(1997).Organizational

CitizenshipBehaviorandtheQuantityandQualityofWorkGroupPerformanc.Journal

ofAppliedPsychology,Vol. 82(2), pg.262-270.

416. Poe, A.C. (2000). The Baby Blues: Are Your Family-Friendly Policies

Damaging Morale for Some Employees?. Society for Human Resource

Management, Vol. 45(7), pg. 23-27.

417. Porath, C.L., Bateman, T.S. (2006). Self-Regulation: From Goal

Orientation to Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 91(1), 185-

192.

418. Pradhan, J. P., and V. Abraham. (2005). Social and Cultural Impact of

Outsourcing: Emerging Issues from Indian Call Centers. Harvard Asia Quarterly,

Vol.9(3), pg. 22–30.

419. Prasad, G. (2006). The Great Indian Family: New Roles, Old

Responsibilities. India: Penguin.

420. Prasad, P. C. (1977). Foreign Trade and Commerce in Ancient India,

Abhinav Publications, pg. 181.

421. Prince, M., Engle, R.L., and Laird, K. (2003). A Role Conflict, Role

Ambiguity, and Role Strain Model of Job Performance, Job Satisfaction and Life

Satisfaction among Sales and Sales Support Employees at a Pharmaceutical

Company. Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, Vol.16(1),

pg. 59-80.

422. Pritchard, R.D., Holling, H., Lammers, F., and Clark, B.D. (2002).

Improving Organizational Performance with the Productivity Measurement and

Enhancement System: An International Collaboration. Huntington, NY: Nova

Science.

423. Pruijt, H. (2000) Performance and Quality of Working Life. Journal of

Organizational Change Management. Vol.13(4), pg. 389–400.

424. Quick, J.C., Piotrkowski, C., Jenkins, L., and Brooks, Y. (2004). Four

Dimensions of Healthy Work: Stress, Work-Family Relations, Violence

252

Prevention, and Relationships at Work. Cited  in Johnson, N.G., Rozensky, R.H.,

Goodheart, C.D. and Hammond, R. (Eds.) Psychology Builds a Healthy World,

pg. 233-273. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

425. Quick, J.C., Quick, J.D., Nelson, D.L., and Hurrell, Jr. J.J. (1997). 

Preventive Stress Management in Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American

Psychological Association.

426. Quick, J.D., Henley, A.B., and Quick, J.C. (2004). The Balancing Act –

At Work and At Home. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33(4), pg. 426–438.

427. Rachor, M. M. (1998). When Worlds Collide: Elder Care-Giving Poses

New Challenges for Balancing Work and Life. Employee Benefits Journal,

Vol.23(3), pg. 20-23.

428. Raghvan, R.S. (2009) Banks Financial Structure, Chartered Accountant.

Retrieved from http://220.227.161.86/18246april_2009journal.pdf accessed on

21st May 2011.

429. Rahman A. (1984). QWL as Perceived by the Industrial Shift Workers.

Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

430. Rai. S. (2009). Indian Outsourcing Workers Stressed to the Limit.

Retrieved from Http://Www.Zdnet.Com/News/India-Outsourcing-Workers-

Stressed-To-The-Limit/334715. , accessed on 12th August 2009.

431. Rajadhyaksha, U. (2004). Sources of Non-Institutional Support and

Work-Family Conflict in India. International Association for Cross-Cultural

Psychology, X'ian, China, retrieved from

http://www.workfamilyconflict.ca/cms/documents/8/IACCP-ujvala.pdf ,

accessed on 10th May 2011.

432. Rajadhyaksha, U. (2006). Social Support and Work-Family Conflict:

Could the Supportive Indian Family be a Myth?. CWIL Colloquium, Saint

Mary's College, retrieved from

http://www.workfamilyconflict.ca/cms/documents/18/CWILcolloquim-

for_website.pdf , accessed on 10th May 2011.

433. Rajadhyaksha, U. (2012). Work-life balance in South East Asia: the

Indian experience. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, Vol.1(1),

pp.108 – 127.

253

434. Rajadhyaksha, U. and Desai, T.P. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences

of Work-Family Conflict in India. 26th International Congress of Applied

Psychology, Athens, Greece.

435. Rajadhyaksha, U. and Ramadoss, K. (2010). Test of a Causal Model of

Work-Family Conflict in India. Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada,

retrieved from http://www.workfamilyconflict.ca/search.php?search=andp=3 ,

accessed on 10th May 2011.

436. Rajadhyaksha, U. and Velgach, S. (2000). Gender, Gender Role Ideology

and Work Family Conflict in India. Academy of Management, Chicago, IL, USA,

retrieved from

Http://Www.Workfamilyconflict.Ca/Cms/Documents/38/GRI_Paper-

AOM2009.Pdf , accessed on 7th November 2010.

437. Rajadhyaksha, U., and Bhatnagar, D. (2000). Life Role Salience: A Study

of Dual Career Couples in the Indian Context. Human Relations, Vol.53(4), pg.

484-511.

438. Rajadhyaksha, U., and Smita, S. (2004). Tracing a Timeline for Work and

Family Research in India’ In Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.24(2), pg.

1674-1680.

439. Rajpal, N. K. (2011). Efficiency of Public Sector Commercial Banks in

India. International Journal of Research in IT and Management, Vol.1(7), pg.46-

63.

440. Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Mainiero, L., and Umstot, D. (1993).

Strategies of Upward Influence: A Cross National Comparison of Hong Kong

and U.S. Managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol.10(2), pg. 157-

175.

441. Ramasundaram, A., and Ramasundaram, G. (2011). The Role of Work

Family Conflict as a Mediator between Work-Thought Interference and Job

Stress. International Management Review, Vol. 7 (2), pg. 25-34.

442. Ramlall, S. (2004). A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and

Their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. Journal of

American Academy of Business, Vol.5(1), pg. 52-63.

254

443. Ramu G. N. (1989). Indian Husbands: Their Role Perceptions and

Performance in Single-Earner and Dual-Earner Households. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, Vol.49(4), pg. 903-915.

444. Rao, P.K., and Venugopal, P. (2009). Perceptual Factors in Quality of

Work Life of Indian Employees. Paradigm, Vol.13(1), pg. 104-109.

445. Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., and Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond

Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

446. Rastegari, M., Khani, A., Ghalriz, P., and Eslamian, J. (2010). Evaluation

of Quality of Working Life and its Association with Job Performance of the

Nurses. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, Vol.15(4), pg. 224–

228.

447. Reddy, N.K., Vranda, M.N., Ahmed, A., Nirmala, B.P., and Siddaramu, B.

(2010). Work-Life Balance among Married Women Employees. Indian Journal

of Psychological Medicine, Vol. 32, pg. 112-118.

448. Reena, K.K. (2010). Quality of Work Life and Occupational Stress among

the Library Professionals in Kerala. PhD Thesis, University of Calicut, India.

449. Reid, C.A. (1992). An Evaluation of the Quality of Work Life of Clothing

Workers in the Durban Area. Cited in Van der Berg, Y. (2011). The relationship

between Organisational Trust and Quality of Work Life, retrieved from

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/5108/dissertation_van_den_berg_y.

pdf?sequence=1 , accessed on 28th July 2011.

450. Rethinam, G.A., and Ismail, M. (2008). Constructs of Quality of Work

Life: A Perspective of Information and Technology Professionals. European

Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.7(1), pg. 58-70.

451. Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived Organizational

Support: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.87(4),

pg. 698-714.

452. Rice, R.W., Frone, M.R., and Mcfarlin, D.B. (1992). Work-Non-Work

Conflict and the Perceived Quality Of Life. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Vol.13(2), pg. 155-168.

255

453. Richard, O. C., and Johnson, N. B. (2001). Strategic Human Resource

Management Effectiveness and Firm Performance. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, Vol. 12(2), pg. 299-310.

454. Rincy, V., Mathew, I., and Panchanatham, N. (2011). Work-Life Balance

Challenges of Indigenous Health Management Employees in the Medical

Tourism Sector of Kerala, India. Journal of Business Management and

Accounting, Vol.1(1), pg. 99-140.

455. Robbins, S.P. (1993). Organizational Behavior (6th Ed.). New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall International.

456. Robinson, B. (1983). Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. Journal of

Gerontology, Vol.38, pg. 344-348.

457. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Measures of

Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

458. Rosenbaum, M., and Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarian Marriages, Spousal

Support, Resourcefulness, and Psychological Distress among Israeli Working

Women. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol.54, pg. 102-113.

459. Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of

Engagement in Work and Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol.46(4), pg. 655-684.

460. Rothbard, N. P., and Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in Work and

Family Roles: A Test of Identity and Utilitarian Motives. Personnel Psychology,

Vol.56, pg. 699–729.

461. Rotondo, D.M., Carlson, D.S., and Kincaid, J.F. (2003). Coping with

Multiple Dimensions of Work-Family Conflict. Personnel Review, Vol.32, pg.

275-96.

462. Rotter, J.B., (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External

Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, Vol.80, pg. 1-28.

463. Rotundo, M., and Sackett, P. R. (2002). The Relative Importance of Task,

Citizenship, and Counterproductive Performance to Global Ratings of Job

Performance: A Policy-Capturing Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.87, pg. 66 – 80.

256

464. Rout, U. R., Lewis, S., and Kagan, C. (1999). Work and Family Roles:

Indian Career Workmen in India and the West. Indian Journal of Gender Studies,

Vol.6(1), pg. 91-105.

465. Russek, H.I., and Zohman, B.L. (1958). Relative Significance of

Hereditary Diet, and Occupational Stress in CHD of Young Adults. American

Journal of Medical Science, Vol.235, pg. 266-275.

466. Saad, H. S., Juhdi, N., and Abu Samah, A.J. (2008). Employees’

Perception on Quality Work Life and Job Satisfaction in a Private Higher

Learning Institution. International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.4

(3), pg. 23-34.

467. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The Structure of Counterproductive Work

Behaviors: Dimensionality and Relationships with Facets of Job Performance.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol.10, pg. 5–11.

468. Saklani, D. R. (2004). Quality of Work Life in the Indian Context: An

Empirical Investigation. Decision, Vol.31(2), pg. 101-135.

469. Saklani, D.R. (2010). Non-Managerial Perspective of Quality of Work

Life. Journal of Management Research, Vol.10(2), pg. 87-102.

470. Sandhya, K., Choudhary, N.V.B., Kumar, D.P., and Reddy, K.V.K.

(2011). Individual Change Management Initiatives for Better Work Life Balance.

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol.4(7), pg. 848-850.

471. Sanyal, A., and Sinh, B. R. (1982). Improving the Quality of Working

Life. Lok Udyog, November issue, pg. 27-35.

472. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., and Jana, D. (2009). Exploring Work-Life Conflict

in Global Software Development (GSD) Contexts: A Survey of IT Professionals

Based in India. ICIS 2009 Proceedings. Paper 75. Retrieved from

http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/75 , accessed on 30th June 2010.

473. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., and Jana, D. (2010). The Impact of the Nature of

Globally Distributed Work Arrangement on WLC and Valence. European

Journal of Information Systems, Vol.19(2), pg. 209-222.

474. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Ondrus, J., Jana, D., and Ahuja, M. (2011). The

Role of Individual, Family-Related, and Organizational Factors in Shaping WLC

in Offshoring Contexts: A Study of European and Indian IT Professionals. In:

257

Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems,

Brisbane, Australia, 7-11 July, 2011. Retrieved from

http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/162 on 24 January 2012.

475. Sathyanarayana Rao, T.S., and Vishal Indla, V. (2010). Work, Family or

Personal Life: Why Not All Three?. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.52(4), pg.

295–297.

476. Scaife, J., and Walsh, S. (2001). The Emotional Climate of Work and the

Development of Self. In Scaife, J. (Ed.), Supervision in the Mental Health

Professions. A Practitioner’s Guide (pg. 30-51). East Sussex, UK: Bruner-

Routledge.

477. Schalock, R. L. (1997). The Conceptualization and Measurement of

Quality of Life: Current Status and Future Considerations. Journal on

Developmental Disabilities, Vol.5(2), pg. 1-21.

478. Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., Sime, W., and Dittman, D. (1993). A

Field Experiment Testing Supervisory Role Clarification. Personnel Psychology,

Vol.46, pg. 1–25.

479. Schein, H. (1978). Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and

Organizational Needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

480. Schneider, B., and Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and Customer

Perceptions of Service in Banks: Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol.70(3), pg. 423-433.

481. Schoepke, J., Hoonakker, P.L.T., and Carayon, P. (2003). Quality of

Working Life among Women and Men in the Information Technology

Workforce. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th

Annual Meeting, Baltimore, pg. 1379-1383.

482. Schor, J. B. (1991). The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline

of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.

483. Schreuder, A.M.B., and Theron, A.L. (1997). Careers: An Organizational

Perspective. Cape Town: Juta and Co, Ltd.

484. Scobel, D. N. (1975). Doing Away with the Factory Blue. Harvard

Business Review, Vol.53, pg. 132-142.

258

485. Sekaran, U. (1985a). Enhancing the Mental Health of Indian Dual Career

Family. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.22(1), pg. 57-62.

486. Sekaran, U. (1985b). The Perceived Quality of Working Life in Banks in

Major Cities in India. Prajnan, Vol.14(3), pg. 273-284.

487. Sekaran, U. (1992). Middle-Class Dual-Earner Families and Their Support

Systems in Urban India, In Lewis, S., Izraeli, D. N., and Hootsmans, H. (Eds.),

Dual-Earner Families, International Perspectives, pg. 46–61. Newbury Park,

CA, Sage.

488. Selye, H. (1976). The Stress of Life, (Rev. Edn.). New York: Mcgraw-

Hill.

489. Serey, T.T. (2006). Choosing a Robust Quality of Work Life. Business

Forum, Vol.27(2), pg.7-10.

490. Sharma, A., and Pandey, P. N. (1995). Organisational Commitment and

Quality of Work Life: Perception of Indian Managers. Abhigyan, Summer, pg.

39-44.

491. Sheel, S., Sindhwani, B.K., Goel, S., and Pathak, S. (2012). Quality of

Work Life, Employee Performance and Career Growth Opportunities: A

Literature Review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol.2(2),

pg. 291-300.

492. Shellenbarger, S. (1998a). Accounting Firms Battle to be Known as Best

Workplaces. Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1998, P. B1.

493. Shellenbarger, S. (1998b). Future Work Policies May Focus on Teens,

Trimming Workloads. Wall Street Journal, December 30, 1998, P. B1.

494. Sherman, H. D., and Gold, F. (1985). Bank Branch Operating Efficiency:

Evaluation with Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Banking and Finance,

Vol.9(2), pg. 297-315.

495. Shetty, S.L. (2008). India’s Economic Structure and Financial

Architecture. International Development Economics Associates, retrieved from

http://www.networkideas.org/ideasact/sep08/S_L_Shetty.pdf , accessed on 23rd

October 2010.

496. Shoenfeld, G. (2005). Work-Life Balance: An MBA Alumni Report,

GMAC Research Reports, retrieved from

259

Http://Www.Gmac.Com/Gmac/Researchandtrends/Surveyresearch/Mbaalumnipe

rspectivessurvey.Htm , accessed on 3rd December 2007.

497. Simpson, R. (2000). Presenteeism and the Impact of Long Hours on

Managers, in Winstanley, D., and Woodall, J. (Eds), Ethical Issues in

Contemporary Human Resource Management, Macmillan, London, pg. 156-71.

498. Sinclair, R. (1998). Involving Children in Planning Their Care. Child and

Family Social Work, Vol.3, pg. 137-142.

499. Singh, B. (2004). Working Women in India. New Delhi: Anmol.

500. Singh, D., and Kohli, G. (2006). Evaluation of Private Sector Banks in

India: A SWOT Analysis. Journal of Management Research, Vol.6(2), pg. 84–

101.

501. Singh, J.P. (1983). QWL Experiments in India: Trials and Triumphs.

Abhigyan, Vol.2(3), pg. 23-27.

502. Singh, J.P. (1984). Motivational Profile and Quality of Corporate Work

Life: A Case of Mismatch. Indian Management, Vol.23(3), pg. 13-20.

503. Singla, R.K. (2006). Business Studies for Class II, VK India Enterprises.

504. Sinha, P., and Sayeed, O. B. (1980). Measuring QWL in Relation to Job

Satisfaction and Performance in Two Organizations. Managerial Psychology,

Vol.2, pg. 15-30.

505. Sirajunisa, K., and Panchanatham, N. (2010). Influence of Occupational

Stress on Work Life Balance among Women Professionals. The Journal Of

Commerce, Vol.2(1), pg. 44-57.

506. Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., and Lee, D. (2001). A New Measure

of Quality of Work Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover

Theory. Social Indicators Research, Vol.55(3), pg. 241-302.

507. Skarlicki, D., and Latham, G. (1995). Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour and Performance in a University Setting. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, Vol.12, pg. 175-81.

508. Skinner, N., and Pocock, B. (2008). Work-Life Conflict: Is Work Time or

Work Overload More Important?. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

Vol.46(3), pg. 303-315.

260

509. Small, S. A., and Riley, D. (1990). Toward a Multidimensional

Assessment of Work Spillover into Family Life. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, Vol.52(1), pg. 51-61.

510. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., and Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational

Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol.68, pg. 653-663.

511. Sodhi, J.S. (1999). Industrial Relations and Human Resource

Management, Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources,

New Delhi.

512. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction:

Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community

Psychology, Vol.13, pg. 693-713.

513. Srinivasan, K. (1991). Women in Banking and Professional Struggles, in

Kalbagh, C. (Ed.) Women and Development, Vol. I, New Delhi, Discovery

514. Standard Chartered Bank, Annual Report, 2009-10, retrieved from

Http://Www.Standardchartered.Co.In/_Documents/Tools-Utilities/Anualresult10.

Pdf accessed on 23rd March 2011.

515. Stathakopoulos, V. (1998). Enhancing the Performance of Marketing

Managers Aligning Strategy, Structure and Evaluation Systems. European

Journal of Marketing, Vol.32(5/6), pg. 536-558.

516. Statistics Canada. (2000). Women in Canada 2000: A Gender Based

Statistical Report. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Cat. No. 89-503-XPE.

517. Stein, B.A. (1983). Quality of Work Life in Action: Managing for

Effectiveness. New York: American Management Association.

518. Stephens, G.K., and Sommer, S.M. (1996). The Measurement of Work to

Family Conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.56(3), pg.

475-486.

519. Stephens, G.K., Szajna, B., and Broome, K.M. (1998). The Career

Success Expectations Scale: An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 58(1), pg. 129-141.

261

520. Stewart, D.W. (1981). The Application and Misapplication of Factor

Analysis in Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18(1), pg.

51–62. 

521. Stoddard, M., and Madsen, S.R. (2007). Toward an Understanding of the

Link between Work Family Enrichment and Individual Health. Journal of

Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol.9(1), pg. 2-15

522. Stoner, C. R., Hartman, R. I., and Arora, R. (1990). Work-Home Role

Conflict in Female Owners of Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Journal

of Small Business Management, Vol.28(1), pg. 30-38.

523. Strawbridge, W.J., Wallhagen, M., Sharma, S., and Kaplan, G. (1997).

New Burdens or More of the Same? Comparison of Grandparent, Spouse and

Adult-Child Care Givers. Gerontologist, Vol.37(4), pg. 505-510.

524. Sturges, J., and Guest, D. (2004). Working to Live or Living to Work?

Work/Life Balance Early in the Career. Human Resource Management Journal,

Vol.14(4), pg. 5-20.

525. Sturges, J., Guest, D., and Mackenzie Davey, K. (2000). Who’s In

Charge? Graduates’ Attitudes to and Experiences of Career Management and

Their Relationship with Organizational Commitment. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, Vol.9 (3), pg. 351-371.

526. Sundaray, B.K., Sahoo, C.K., and Tripathy, S.K. (2010). Employee

Relations, Initiatives and Quality of Work Life: A Study in Power Sector Units,

retrieved from

http://dspace.nitrkl.ac.in/dspace/bitstream/2080/1341/1/Conference+Paper.pdf,

accessed on 13th February 2011.

527. Super, D.E. (1980). A Life-Span, Life-Space Approach to Career

Development. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol.16, pg. 282–9.

528. T. De George, R. (1990). Business Ethics, New York: MacMillan

Publishing Company, 3rd Edn. Pg 346.

529. Talwar, S.P. (2001). Competition, Consolidation and Systemic Stability in

the Indian Banking Industry’ presented at Bank for International Settlement

Meet: retrieved from http://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap04.pdf accessed on

10th June 2010.

262

530. Tausig, M., and Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding Time: Alternate Work

Schedules and Work-Life Balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,

Vol.22(2), pg. 101-118.

531. Taylor, J. (1978). An Empirical Examination of the Dimensions of

Quality of Working Life. Omega: International Journal of Management Science.

Vol.6, pg. 153-160.

532. Taylor, J. (1979). Job Satisfaction and Quality of Working Life: A

Reassessment. In Davis, L., and Taylor, J. (Eds.), Design of Jobs. Santa Monica,

Ca.: Goodyear.

533. Terryberry, S. (1968). The Organization of Environments. Unpublished

PhD Thesis. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms.

534. Testa, M. R., and Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). Service Leader Interaction

Behaviors: Comparing Employee and Manager Perspectives. Group and

Organization Management, Vol.30(5), pg. 456-486.

535. Thakur, M. (2007). Job Satisfaction in Banking: A Study of Private and

Public Sector Banks. The ICFAI Journal of Bank Management, Vol.6(4), pg. 60–

68.

536. The Work Foundation: www.employersforworklifebalance.org.uk

537. Thomas, K. (2000). Unlocking the Mysteries of Intrinsic Motivation. OD

Practitioner, Vol.32(4), pg. 27-30.

538. Thomas, L. T., and Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of Family-Supportive

Work Variables on Work-Family Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.80, pg. 6-15.

539. Thompson, C. A., Beauvis, L. L., and Lyness, K. S. (1999). When Work-

Family Benefits are Not Enough: The Influence of Work-Family Culture on

Benefit Utilization, Organisational Attachment, and Work-Family Conflict.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.54, pg. 392-415.

540. Tremblay, D. G. ( 1991). Computerization, Human Resources

Management and Redirection of Women's Skills', in Eriksson, I.V., Kitchenham,

B.A., and Tijdens, K.G. (Eds), Women, Work and Computerization, Amsterdam,

North Holland

263

541. Tubre, T.C., and Collins, J.M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985)

Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Role Ambiguity, Role

Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.26(1),

pg. 155-169.

542. Tzafrir, S. (2005). The Relationship between Trust, HRM Practices and

Firm Performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.

16(9), pg.1600-1622.

543. Van De Looij, F. (1995). Not Just Money: Quality of Working Life as

Employment Strategy. Health Manpower Management, Vol.21(3), pg. 27-33.

544. Van Der Doef, M., and Maes, S. (1999). The Job Demand-Control-

Support Model and Psychological Well-Being: A Review of 20 Years of

Empirical Research. Work and Stress, Vol.13, pg. 87-114.

545. Van Der Kleij, R., Lijkwan, J.T.E., Rasker, P.C., and De Dreu, C. K. W.

(2008). Effects of Time Pressure and Communication Environment on Team

Processes and Outcomes in Dyadic Planning. International Journal of Human

Computational Studies, Vol.67(5), pg. 411-423.

546. Van Laar, D, Edwards, J., and Easton, S. (2007). The Work-Related

Quality of Life Scale for Healthcare Workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

Vol.60(3), pg. 325–333.

547. Van Sell, M., Brief, A.P., and Schuler, R.S. (1981). Role Conflict and

Role Ambiguity: Integration of the Literature and Directions for Future Research.

Human Relations, Vol.34(1), pg. 43-71.

548. Viswesvaran, C., and Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on Models of Job

Performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol.8, pg. 216 –

226.

549. Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work Role Characteristics, Family Structure

Demands and Work/Family Conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

Vol.50(3), pg. 749-761.

550. Wagner, W., Kirchler, E., Clack, F., Tekarslan, E., and Verma, J. (1990).

Male Dominance, Role Segregation, and Spouses' Interdependence in Conflict: A

Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol.21(1), pg. 48–

70.

264

551. Wai Chai Tai, T., and Robinson, C. D. (1998). Reducing Staff Turnover:

A Case Study of Dialysis Facilities. Health Care Management Review, Vol.23(4),

pg. 21-42.

552. Wakhlu, A. (2008). Building Role Models. NHRD Network Journal, April

2008, retrieved from Http://Www.Pragatileadership.Com/Building%20Role

%20Models.Pdf , on 10th December 2010.

553. Walker, J.W. (1992). Human Resource Strategy. New York: Mcgraw-

Hill.

554. Wall, T.D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S.J., Sheehan, M., Clegg,

C.W., and West, M. (2004). On the Validity of Subjective Measures of Company

Performance. Personnel Psychology, Vol.57(2), pg. 95-118.

555. Wallapa Boonrod, R.N. (2009). Quality of Working Life: Perceptions of

Professional Nurses at Phramongkutklao Hospital. Journal of Medical

Association of Thailand, Vol.92(1), pg. 7-15.

556. Walton, R. E. (1973). Quality of Work Life. Sloan Management Review,

Vol.15(1), pg. 11-12.

557. Walton, R. E. (1974). QWL Indicators: Prospects and Problems, in

Portigal, A.H. (Eds.). Measuring the Quality of Working Life. A Symposium on

Social Indicators of Working Life. Ottawa, March, 19-20.

558. Walton, R.E. (1975). Criteria for Quality of Working Life, in Davis, L.E.,

Cherns, A.B., and Associates (Eds.), The Quality of Working. New York: The

Free Press, Life, Vol.1, pg. 91-104.

559. Walz,S.M.,andNiehoff,B.P.(1996).OrganizationalCitizenshipBehaviors

andtheirEffectonOrganizationalEffectivenessinLimited MenuRestaurants.InJ.B.

KeysandL.N.Dosier(Eds.),AcademyofManagementBestPapersProceedings,pg.

307-311.

560. Warren, J. A., and Johnson, P. J. (1995). The Impact of Workplace

Support on Work-Family Role Strain. Family Relations, Vol.44(4), pg. 163-169.

561. Watson, D., and Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: The

Disposition to Experience Negative Aversive Emotional States. Psychological

Bulletin, Vol.96(3), pg. 465–490.

265

562. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and

Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS

Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.54(6), pg. 1063-1070.

563. Watson, I., Buchanan, J., Campbell, I., and Briggs, C. (2003).

Fragmented Futures: New Challenges in Working Life. Sydney: The Federation

Press.

564. Wesley, J. R. R., and Muthuswamy, P. R. (2005). Work-Family Conflict

in India – An Empirical Study. SCMS Journal Of Indian Management, Vol.2(4),

pg. 95-102.

565. Westley, W.A. (1979). Problems And Solutions In The Quality Of

Working Life. Human Relations, Vol.32(2), pg. 113-123.

566. Westman, M. (2001). Stress And Strain Crossover. Human Relations,

Vol.54(6), pg. 717-751.

567. Wheelan, T.L., Hunger, J.D. (2006). Strategic Management and Business

Policy. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice-Hall.

568. Whetzel, D.L., Wheaton, G.R. (1997). Applied Measurement Methods in

Industrial Psychology. Cleveland: Davis-Black.

569. White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., and Smeaton, D. (2003).

High-Performance’ Management Practices, Working Hours and Work-Life

Balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.41(2), pg. 175-95.

570. Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Pierce, J.R. (2008). Effects of Task

Performance, Helping, Voice, and Organizational Loyalty on Performance

Appraisal Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 93(1), pg. 125-139.

571. Whiting,S.W.,Podsakoff,P.M.,andPierce,J.R.(2008).TheEffects ofTask

Performance,Helping,Voice,andOrganizationalLoyaltyonPerformanceAppraisal

Ratings.JournalofAppliedPsychology,Vol.93(1),125-139.

572. Wiedower, K.A. (2001). A Shared Vision: The Relationship of

Management Communication and Contingent Reinforcement of the Corporate

Vision with Job Performance, Organizational Commitment, and Intent to Leave.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Alliant International University, California,

accessed 15th December 2011.

266

573. Williams, K., and Alliger, G.M. (1994). Role Stressors, Mood Spill-Over,

and Perceptions of Work-Family Conflict in Employed Parents. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol.37(4), pg. 837-868.

574. Williams, L.J., and Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and In-role Behaviors. Journal of Management, Vol.17(1), pg. 601-617.

575. Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E., and Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal

Sense-Making and the Meaning of Work. Research in Organisational Behaviour,

Vol.25, pg. 93-135.

576. www.axisbank.com

577. www.banknetindia.com

578. www.hdfcbank.com

579. www.icicibank.com

580. www.pnbindia.in

581. www.rbi.org.in

582. www.statebankofindia.com

583. www.unionbankofindia.co.in

584. Yasbek, P. (2004). The Business Case for Firm-Level Work-Life Balance

Policies: A Review of the Literature. Wellington, New Zealand: Labour Market

Policy Group, Department of Labour. Retrieved

from http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.pdf. assessed on 10th January

2012.

585. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

586. Yorks, L. (2005). Strategic Human Resource Development. Mason, OH:

South-Western Thomson.

587. Young, R.M. (1993). Methodologies at the Margins: Researching Lesbian

Health, paper presented at the American Public Health Association Annual

Meeting, San Francisco.

588. Zedeck, S. (1992). Work, Families and Organisations. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

267

589. Zedeck, S., and Mosier, K. (1990). Work in the Family and Employing

Organization. American Psychologist, Vol.45, pg. 240-251.

590. Zika-Viktorsson, A. (2002). The Industrial Project. Studies on the work

situation of project members). Doktorsavhandling. TRITA-MMK,. KTH,

Stockholm.

591. Zikmund, W.G. (2010). Business Research Methods, 7th edition, Cengage

Learning (Indian edition)

592. Zubrick, S., Williams, A., Silburn, S., and Vimpani, G. (2000). Indicators

of Social and Family Functioning, Department of Family and Community

Services: Canberra.

268