CHAPTER FIVE: WORK-LIFE BALANCE (WLB)
5.4 Elements of balance: satisfaction and involvement
5.5.1 Conflict paradigm
Conflict between work and family has been variously examined in the work-life literature.
Greenhaus and Powell (2003) report that almost all the studies on work-family linkage mainly concentrated on the conflict paradigm. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) in their seminal article defined work/non-work conflict and formulated the components of the concept. The seminal work of Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), which was authored almost thirty years ago, constitutes the foundation upon which the work-family conflict literature is rooted and progressed from (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). The reason why the clash paradigm dominates work-lifestyle writings (Guest, 2002) has its origin in the scarcity-insufficiency concept that presumes that individual endowments like time, vitality, money and care are limited, therefore, if a person dedicates much of his/her endowments to a function or role in an area of life, smaller amount of these endowments will be available for the performance of another role in another given area of life (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974 ). WLB involves managing life’s endowments and workplace benefits to address stressors and achieve meaningful WLB (satisfaction).
Greenhaus and Allen (2011) are of the opinion that work-family conflict is said to have happened if the strains arising from work and family become reciprocally discordant as long as actively participating in a role makes participation in another too hard (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In addition, Byron (2005) proposes that elements present at work, for example, work strain, have the inclination of forecasting family interference with work (FIW). The conflict paradigm explores all aspects of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011).
Research findings to this present time (Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt & Pulkkinen, 2008; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1997) suggest that the contributory connections of work-life relationships plus the transient factor of WFC requires to be better understood. Scholars have reported that the work-life literature is often criticised for the fact that it relies on cross-sectional studies (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood & Lambert, 2007) and report that scholars in the area of
111
work-life have addressed this criticism as shown by the increased number of longitudinal researches recently. They confirm that data collected through longitudinal studies are complex due to varying time structure, though sometimes their result supports the outcome of cross- sectional studies and other times negates the results.
This suggests that the variables involved in the empirical analysis of the work-family interface, and the fact the work-family conflicts are subject to change within a short period of time, could be reasons why more empirical analysis is needed. This study is not examining the connection between WLB and SOC by appraising the conflict paradigm; rather, it explores the influence of stressors on SOC and the implication of WLBS on the achievement of WLB vis-a-viz SOC.
The problem with discussing WLB from the conflict perspective is that it over-simplifies work- life conflict to those conflicts that show up as a result of the performance of work and family roles, thus implying that a person experiencing conflict in the area of work or family is experiencing imbalance. This is line with the report by Netemeyer et al. (1996) that the variation in operationalising work-family conflict by many scholars in different studies, limits the generalisation of the impact of work-family conflict. The WFC paradigm does not explore if truly, conflict connotes imbalance and absence of conflict connotes balance, and it does not explore the relationship between conflict and balance. The perspective does not bother itself with coping abilities of the person in the midst of WFC but concentrates on the regularity of reported feeling of being troubled by various issues associated with work and family respectively (Lyons, 1971; Ram, Khoso, Shah, Chandio, & Shaikih, 2011), which may be underlying signs of weak SOC.
Summarily, exploring WLB from the context of conflict does not investigate the resources that are available to the individual from family and work to address these conflicts (Holmberg et al., 2004). This study acknowledges that there are factors that constitute WFC and therefore result in and/or FIW, though the present study is not based on conflicts and interferences, but on stressors at work and at home which can cause work-life imbalance. The study also appraises the resources available to the individual personally and at work which could assist the individual in managing work-family stressors and achieving WLB. Thus, the present study aims to explore the connection that WLB has to the SOC, in order to ascertain among other things, the extent to which a SOC influences the achievement of WLB.
112 5.5.2 Control paradigm
Some writers investigated WLB from the control paradigm. To Chauhan (2010), WLB involves granting some sort of control to individuals in the areas of how work is done, as well as where and when to work. He stated that: Work-life balance is about people having a measure of control over when, where, and how they work (Chauhan, 2010, p. 184). According to the scholar, registering WLB is not about simply aligning work and the family, but a balance of psychological and socio-cultural standing, at the same time harmonising the individual emotive aptitude seen as the disposition to oversee one’s self and supervise others.
The question here is, does having control result to balance? When control over how work is done and where and when work is to be done is given to an individual who lacks the resources, skill and capacity to manage the freedom to make profitable decisions with respect to work and life; this could negatively affect work performance and possibly satisfaction with family.
Chauhan (2010) based his study on 70 Indian women working in the corporate sector and did not specify how the individual woman could use control over how work is done, or where and when to work to achieve satisfaction with work and family situations. The result was gender based and cannot be generalised. Achievement of targets (performance) does not isolate the fact that an employee is faced with work and family stressors. An achiever may be stressed, and might have gone through family stressors although she had more control at work. This present study suggests that the way an individual comprehends, sees meaning and manages stressors present with her/his work-family domain, plus the resources available to him /her at home and at the workplace, will shape the extent to which the individual will achieve balance (satisfaction). This study recognises that having a measure of autonomy (control) over where and how work is done could enhance an individual’s ability to cope with work-family stressors and ability to achieve meaningful WLB.
5.5. 3 Time paradigm
There are some propositions by scholars that tend to hinge on time required to perform roles in describing WLB. For instance Maxwell (2005) reports that the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry defined WLB as:
Being about adjusting working patterns regardless of age, race, or gender (so) everyone can find a rhythm to help them combine work with their other responsibilities or aspirations (G.
Maxwell, 2005, p. 179).
113
His article was based on the tourism, retailing and finance industries in the UK, noted for working long hours and the roles that managers play in promoting WLB practices in the organisations. The definition by the Department of Trade and Industry was basically focused on working patterns and flexibility so that employees can harmonise their work-life roles. The scholar (Maxwell, 2005) reported various EU legislations backing WLB in Europe as well as government legislations by Great Britain. This means that the government in Europe and Britain regulate time and period of work in those nations so that workers can find a working rhythm at work and at home.
But the present study is based on professional level employees at a municipality in the South African public sector where the employees in this category are noted for working long hours towards making efficient service delivery. Some of these employees work during weekends to ensure that services rendered by the municipality are delivered to the communities when people are at home. Their offices also require them to attend meetings with politicians and community leaders whenever they are needed. The question therefore is, with this kind of ad hoc arrangement of working patterns, are the professional level employees in the municipality able to achieve WLB? Moreover, is the definition by the UK Department of Trade and Industry relevant and able to be practiced in the municipality? Also, are the employees able to cope with the obvious insufficiency of time at work and at home?
In the context of the foregoing, time could be termed a ‘stressor’ which could impair ability to achieve WLB. The task of calculating the number of hours to allocate to different demands in the work and family domains is in itself a stressor. For instance, about a third of the day (8 hours) is officially spent at work, depending on the workplace. An individual is then left with about sixteen hours to distribute between sleep, personal development, and family and community life. Therefore, ascertaining WLB based on the premise of time may be daunting.
This study notes the significance that time and its management may have on an individual employee’s balance but does not examine WLB from the time paradigm. This study explores the relationship that WLB has with a SOC; by determining if individual employees at a municipality in the South African public sector were satisfied with their work and family situations. WLB in this study is based on the satisfaction paradigm.