CHAPTER FIVE: WORK-LIFE BALANCE (WLB)
5.4 Elements of balance: satisfaction and involvement
5.4.1 Satisfaction balance
In their definition of WLB, Greenhaus and Allen (2006) state that WLB is the degree of compatibility between a person’s efficiency and satisfaction in the performance of work and family roles to the things that matter most to him/her. The definition focuses on the individual and his/her priorities in line with the fulfilment and efficiency achieved in performing work- life roles. Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) criticised Greenhaus, Allen, and Spector (2006) definition of WLB; suggesting that their definition laid too much emphasis on satisfaction in both domains (family and work). They claim that defining the concept in this perspective (satisfaction) seems to have shut out the individual from the domains of work and family (where the activities are performed); and entraps him/her in role performance at work and at home. They queried if WLB is a mental or behavioural construct. They however suggested that seeing the concept from the view of the individual makes it a psychological construct in line with (Greenhaus et al., 2006). Despite the criticisms of these scholars (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007), the present study adopts the satisfaction balance as the measure for WLB but integrates the strategies in place to assist employees address work and family stressors. This way, the study removes the entrapment issue that the scholars (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007) were concerned about.
According to Grzywacz and Carlson (2007), it is problematic to define WLB from the satisfaction standpoint as it poses realistic challenges in terms of advancing useful and viable interventions to augment satisfaction in the two domains of work and life. They further assert that satisfaction like similar assumptions which can only be meaningful to the individual, is by
103
nature, reflective and continuously in a state of flux due to the emergence of new events (Gergen, 1973; Spence, 1944).
The analysis and criticisms of Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) are important although they are not entirely correct. Their observation regarding isolating the individual from the domains where he performs activities (work and family) seems to be exaggerated because satisfaction is not a stand-alone variable. It is dependent on the goings-on at work and at home, therefore, if the partners in role performance are unhappy with the satisfaction that an individual has achieved at work/home, it cannot be truly said that the individual has achieved satisfaction balance. Therefore, the issue of isolation has been addressed by the present study in integrating the issue of WLBS and stressors (work and family) into the work-life equation. Although they (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007) agree that WLB is fashioned by personal and relative variables;
they deduce that the construct is not purely psychological. Their definition of WLB is: the achievement of expectations associated with roles which are distributed between individuals and their role-partners at work and at home (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007, p. 458). Their definition does not seem to have considered that the expectations of role-partners are subjective and may be difficult to measure and are therefore empirically challenging. However, their identifying their role-partners’ input into the satisfaction and achievement equation has been acknowledged and integrated into the present study.
In this study, the researcher is of the opinion that satisfaction balance is achieved when the individual employee feels satisfied with the work and family situation. This satisfaction is based on the time (expressed in number of hours) he/she spends at work and with his/her family as well as the degree of involvement with work and family roles respectively irrespective of the number of such hours (time) or the size of involvement. It excludes all elements of guilt and conceit that could be associated with neglecting one role for the other as a result of an attempt to compensate the shortcomings in one domain with the benefits of another domain. In this context, this researcher agrees with the report by Darcy et al. (2012) that WLB is not a one size fits all concept; rather, it is a subjective concept that should be designed by the individual to suit his/her objectives of achieving satisfaction, with regard to involvement and time.
Therefore, the researcher suggests that the peculiarity and dynamism of each individual’s situation at work and home defines their satisfaction at any given time. For example, if an individual employee allocates a total sum of one hundred percent (100%) to all of his/her work and life needs as follows:
104
TABLE A Satisfaction Involvement Time
a) Work satisfied 35% 35%
b) Family satisfied 25% 25%
c) Self-development satisfied 30% 30%
d) Friends satisfied 5% 5%
e) Leisure/community work satisfied 5% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100%
And another individual decides to share his/her 100% time to work-life domain as follows:
TABLE B Satisfaction Involvement Time
a) Work satisfied 25% 25%
b) Family satisfied 35% 35%
c) Self-development satisfied 25% 25%
d) Friends satisfied 5% 5%
e) Leisure/community work satisfied 5% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100%
If the individual in Table A is satisfied with allocating his/her personal resources to the various entities (needs) in his/her work-life domain as stated, and consistently achieves these marks in his/her daily endeavours, he/she could be said to have achieved WLB. This seems to be in agreement with Kofodimos (1993) definition of WLB as a satisfying, healthy and productive life that includes work, play and love; that integrates a range of activities with attention to self and to personal and spiritual development; and that expresses a person’s unique wishes, interests and values. It contrasts with imbalance of a life dominated by work, focussed on satisfying external requirements at the expense of inner development, and in conflict with a person’s true desires. The concept of satisfaction balance should be viewed as being dynamic as reported by Darcy et al. (2012), since what constitutes balance for an individual is peculiar to him/her.
The subjective feeling of satisfaction by an individual concerning his/her time and involvement with work and family could be contrary to the satisfaction of his family members and employer/colleagues or possibly his/her health. Burke (2009) is of the opinion that most workers would rather work for a shorter period of time, even though only a few of them really
105
understand what they prefer. Although this study is not examining the details of the effect of long hours of work and work addiction on employees’ work and/or family domain, it concerns itself with the satisfaction that the individual derives from distributing his/her time and energy, highlighted by the level of involvement among the various work and family demands and roles.
According to Burke (2009), the lower level employees work for a lesser number of hours than the professional level employees as evidently proven in the developed nations. The same scenario is also the case in South Africa where professional level employees’ work often interferes with their family domain as a result of increased responsibility at work, need to achieve targets and meet deadlines, as well as the need to prove oneself. Hochschild (1997) reports that the reason for increase in the number of hours that professional level employees are required to put into work could include: increased competition, rationalisation and cost reduction leading to heightened workloads/or fewer employees; impact of evolving technologies that makes it possible for workers to work from anywhere at any time; need to prove oneself as being qualified for the next available promotion at work, higher targets, perceived incentives, and the perception by a few employees that work life gives more satisfaction than family life (Burke, 2009).
Some organisations including the municipality in review have given certain categories of employees in their employment technological gadgets like smart phones, android tablets and personal computers (laptops) to make their job easier and the employees themselves more accessible. The 24/7 accessibility to employees through internet and cell phones also increases the interference of work with family and vice versa. Some employees may be happy and feel satisfied with the use of technology both at work and at home irrespective of the purpose for the use, while others may not. Lawler and Hall (1970) presume that individuals whose job features include autonomy and much influence as well as increased levels of challenges may record better satisfaction as a result of the feeling of achievement and development (DeConinck & Bachmann, 2011; Dik & Hansen, 2010). This is supported by a report by Hulin and Blood (1968), that the way that a job is designed affects the degree of satisfaction by employees (Aloysius, 2011; Pierce, Jussila, & Cummings, 2009).
The present study postulates that an employee who feels that he/she has fairly and reasonably distributed his/her time and energy (involvement) between work and family, and is satisfied with the outcome of such distribution, could be said to have WLB, while an employee who feels guilty (not satisfied) about his/her distribution of such resources despite an excellent
106
outcome of effectiveness and performance could be said to have work-life imbalance. For instance, if an employee on vacation decides to attend to official calls and e-mails and does not feel dissatisfied with such work being done while on vacation as well as the effect (whether negative or positive) that such has on his/her family, it could be said that the employee has WLB. This deduction is made from an instance where the inability to attend to a pile-up of mails and incessant calls from the office becomes a stressor to the employee on vacation;
resulting in disturbing thoughts and irritability.
The result could be a scenario where this individual is deprived of the benefits of a vacation. It is therefore suggested that if by attending to the calls and replying to the work mails the employee will find peace and rest, it may be better to do so while on vacation. This does not imply in any way that by consistently working in a family domain or vice versa, a person will have WLB, but that what constitutes balance at any point in time may not constitute balance at another point in time. Burke (2009) is of the opinion that the advantages derived from leave (vacation) on degrees of stress by employees have a tendency to be short-lived. He further reports that “leisure sickness,” emotive and physiological signs are experienced by some individuals during weekends and or leave. Therefore, the workplace could be said to exist not only in a place called the “office” or workplace but also in the mind of individuals.
In support of this claim, Goodman (2012) reports that balance is different for everybody and is altered throughout life by the phases and stages a person goes through. She also suggests that the issue of harnessing the inspiration and force of work with care for self and the realisation of self, have to originate from an individual’s internal elements (resources). Furthermore, she postulates that the power of a medical career with both its pressures and rewards makes our work also very intimately the essence of our lives (Goodman, 2012, p. 26). This author seems to have accepted the medical practice work and all its attendant stressors and satisfiers to have ultimately come to the conclusion that their work (as medical doctors) assumes the important position of being equal to their lives. The question that begs for an answer here is: does Goodman speak of a balance or satisfaction?
According to Darcy et al. (2012), various factors assume different salience to individuals based on the stage of a person’s life and career. This is in line with the assumption of the present study that a person’s WLB today may not be seen or appreciated by the same person in probably two or three years’ time as a result of the improvement that he/she may have recorded in his/her career as well as age, gender, and other demographic variables. This is one of the reasons why
107
the present study suggests that WLB is a journey that has different rest-stops and destinations;
and that as individuals consistently take steps one at a time via the instrument of a strong SOC and relevant WLBS and support, they will arrive there (WLB) no matter the intensity of stressors from work and family domains. The assumption should allay the fears attributed to the myth that employees who are highly involved with their jobs have the tendency to give less attention and care to their families (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). This is in opposition to the position of Darcy et al. (2012) that increased degree of involvement with work will heighten the probability that a person will face work-life imbalance.
To Adams, King and King (1996), associations between job and family spheres may have imperative impact on satisfaction with work and life, also, the degree of a worker’s involvement with family and job functions connects to the association (King, Taft, King, Hammond, & Stone, 2006). Supporting the argument,Burke (1988) reports that increased job interference with family associates closely with mental exhaustion and reduced satisfaction with work (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Higgins and his cohorts in their studies report that work with interference with family (WIF) significantly associates with family-connected results (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Higgins & Duxbury, 1992; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992).
From literature, there is observed contention among scholars that the family and work spheres could originate stress which impacts vital mental and physiological results (Adams, King, &
King, 1996; Ahmad, 2008; Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Day & Chamberlain, 2006; Frone et al., 1992).
The stress originating from family could interfere with the performance of work and vice versa.
A study conducted among a sample of 220 professional persons discovered that work interfering with family (WIF) resulted in lesser satisfaction among employees. Strong evidence from literature supports the assumption that work-family conflict is related to a decrease in the degree of satisfaction with family (Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Beutell & O'hare, 1987;
Bhowon, 2013; Coverman, 1989; Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985;
Holahan & Gilbert, 1979). Scholars who examined work involvement and work satisfaction are of the opinion that both relate clearly and negatively (Lee, 2015; Lin, 2013; Rabinowitz &
Hall, 1977; Sekaran, 1989; Wiener, Muczyk, & Gable, 1987; Wiener & Vardi, 1980). Sekaran (1989) reports that individuals who are highly involved with their work demonstrate well sculpted excellence in their work as a result of the great impact that factors present in the environment and within the individual may have on their outcomes.
108
Although there are myriads of studies on WLB (Greenhaus et al., 2006; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Guest, 2002; Burke, 2009), there is a scarcity of studies examining the impact of work and family stressors on SOC, as well as the connection of WLB and SOC. The intention of the researcher was to glean from the abundant literature on WLB, SOC and WLBS as well as work and family stressors to advance knowledge of the connection between WLB and SOC. This is in order to assist HR practitioners in the workplace formulate WLBS that are salient and focused in addressing work and family stressors and assisting employees achieve, reclaim and/or maintain WLB.