Relationship Bewteen Work-Family Balance and Employee Well-being

Question: Discuss about the Relationship Bewteen Work-Family Balance,Employee Well-being and Job Performance for Men and Women. Answer: Introduction As a consequence of the profound changes taking place in families and the labour market, balancing work, and family is an increasing workforce demand (Mercure and Mircea, 2010). In the last decades, labour conditions have changed; long working hours make it difficult to meet family responsibilities, and job insecurity has increased (Rhnima et al., 2014). Similarly, changes have also occurred in families, such as the increase in dual-earner households and in the number of families with dependent family members or single parent families. In this context, when work interferes with family, work-to-family conflicts (WFC) arise (Lin, 2013; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Background Organizational efforts to improve employee well-being through the development of work-family policies may help solve this problem. Work-family policies include work practices aimed at balancing work, family (Lpez-Ibor et al., 2010), and personal demands (Felstead et al., 2002). Researchers have gathered evidence of a positive relationship among work-family policies and job performance in socially supportive companies (Biedma-Ferrer and Medina-Garrido, 2014; van Steenbergen and Ellemers, 2009; Anderson et al., 2002). In line with these findings, this study was seeking to analyse the impact that different work-family policies have on job performance. As such, we designed a model for identifying the effects that different types of work-family policies have on well-being of employees and, ultimately, on job performance. However, according to some authors, the mere presence of work-family strategies is not enough for employees to attain a work-family balance (Yeandle et al., 2002; Budd and Mumford, 2005). Based on this finding, a distinction was made in our study between the existence and employees awareness of work-family policies, and true access to these policies. Industry Background This study provides added value to the existing works on work-family strategies in various forms. First, the effects that the existence and employees awareness of work-family policies have on job performance were separately assessed from the effects that the actual uptake of work-family policies without reprisals have on job performance (Baxter and Chesters, 2011; McDonald et al., 2005). In the existing literature, a distinction is not made between the adoption and the actual implementation of work-family policies (McDonald et al., 2005). As stated above, it is not enough that work-family policies are available, but employees must be aware of their existence and be provided true access to them (Budd and Mumford, 2005; Yeandle et al., 2002) without reprisals (Gray and Tudball, 2002; Bond, 2004). True access to work-family policies requires a helpful work-life organizational philosophy (Las Heras et al., 2015; Sivatte and Guadamillas, 2014). Second, we present an unpublished model for determining the relationship among the existence of and access to work-family policies and job performance as mediated by employee well-being. In third place, the probability that WFC arise and work-family policies are implemented to solve them may differ across sectors (Allen et al., 2015). It would be interesting to analyse the influence of work-family procedures on job performance in the sectors such as the banking sector where employees are subject to more pressure in terms of results (Burke, 2009; Rosso, 2008), as they are more vulnerable to WFC and consequently more urgently require the implementation of work-family policies. The benefit of this study is that it examines the relationship between work-family policies and job performance in the banking sector, a scarcely studied sector (e.g. van Steenbergen and Ellemers, 2009). Finally, the decision to focus our study on the banking industry was based on the dramatic impact that the eco nomic and financial crisis had on this sector in Spain. The crisis was accompanied by major restructuring and downsizing, offices closing (Alam et al., 2015; Maudos, 2012), and increased working hours and pressure exerted on employees in a traditionally stressful sector (Ariza-Montes et al., 2013). An additional effect of the financial crisis is that organizations now devote fewer resources to the execution of work-family strategies (Miheli? and Tekav?i?, 2014). Research aim The focus of this research was to develop existing examination on work-family projects and employment fulfillment. The consequences of the review give a more noteworthy comprehension of the connections between these develops by tending to the overall research address for this review: What work-life adjust techniques accomplish revenue driven association use to expand the occupation fulfillment of affirmations agents Research questions The study main focus was to expand on the existing research on relationship between balancing work and family, well-being of employees and job performance for men and women. The study results will provide an understanding of the relationships of the research topic Does a relationship exist between work-family balance and employee wellbeing? Does the overall relationship between work-family balance and employee wellbeing different by gender? What work-family balance approaches have you used to increase job fulfilment of your employees? What work-family balance approaches appear to affect the job fulfillment of your workers in the most substantial ways? Research Objectives To determine if a relationship exists among work-family balance and worker wellbeing? To determine if a relationship among work-family balance and worker wellbeing differs by gender? To determine whether the work-family balance tactics that will be used to improve job fulfilment of your employees? To determine whether work-family balance tactics appear to affect the job fulfillment of workers in the most substantial ways? Hypothesis Based on the connection among work-family policies and work performance, and taking into account both the existence of and access to different types of work-family policies the following hypotheses was postulated: The more strongly an employee perceives that work-family policies based on working time flexibility exist, the better his/her job performance. The more strongly an employee perceives that work-family policies based on long paid and unpaid leaves exist, the better his/her job performance. The more strongly an employee perceives that work-family policies based on flexibility in the work location exist, the better his/her job performance. The more strongly an employee perceives that work-family policies based on employee and family support services exist, the better his/her job performance. Research Methodology Methodology is the procedures and how the study will be conducted in order to attain precise results. It points out the targeted population, selected population and how sample will be taken from the field i.e. sampling techniques to be used. It shows the data collection instruments used in the survey such as questionnaires and observations and gives reason why these were chosen and not the others. Sample and data collection Fieldwork was focused on the banking sector in Australia, a sector with a total of 192,265 employees. Collected of data were done using a closed-question, self-administered questionnaire. Respondents were sent an e-mail containing a link to the web-based questionnaire. Pre-testing was conducted to improve the efficacy and design of the questionnaire, prevent ambiguity, and improve measurements. Data were collected from three organizations. Organization representatives were requested to take part in the study and informed that the final aggregated results would be provided to them once they were available. A total of 1,565 questionnaires were returned by respondents, who were representative of the entire Australian population in terms of geography. In all, 54 questionnaires were withdrawn from analysis due to incomplete or missing data. Of the resulting 1,511 effective respondents, 42.4 per cent were female and 75.9 per cent had child or elder care responsibilities that required work- family balance. The mean age was 43.7 years (SD 8.9), and mean seniority in the company was 18.7 years (SD 11.2). Measurements The linkage between theoretical constructs and empirical data is described by the measurement model (Fornell, 1982). Two types of relationships are identified in this model: the common latent construct model (reflective indicators), i.e. when pointers represent an unobserved theoretical construct to which they are related; and the aggregated latent construct model (formative indicator), where construct modelling is based on indicators or measurements. Mackenzie et al. (2005) proposed four questions for distinguishing common latent constructs from aggregated ones: what is the course of causality between the construct and its indicators? Are construct indicators interchangeable in conceptual terms? Are indicators correlated among themselves? And, do all pointers have the same construct antecedents and consequences The application of these criteria to all constructs justifies the use of the reflective model, since all indicators are representations of the unobserved theoretical construct they reflect, they share a common theme, are interchangeable, and are strongly correlated. Except for job performance, multiple indicators based on respondents rating of a series of statements on a five-point Likert scale were used, where 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree. First, to measure the existence of work-family policies in an organization, an adapted version of the Families and Work Institute (2012a,b) scale was used. The adapted scale consisted of five indicators of respondents perceptions. Thus, respondents were asked whether work-family policies were available, whether information on work-family policies was provided to them by the organization, whether they were aware of the work-family policies, whether they knew of someone who had used them and, finally, whether they had ever used work-family policies (e.g. I have the working time flexibility my personal and family responsibilities I need to be met). The respective coefficients for each group of work-family policies were: 1=0.836, 2=0.800, 3=0.884, 4=0.924 for flexi-time, long paid and unpaid leaves, flexi-place, and family support services, respectively. To measure the variable accessibility, a two-item scale (1=0.819, 2=0.792, 3=0.851, 4=0.885) based on the contributions by Anderson et al. (2002) and the Families and Work Institute (2012a,b) was designed. In this scale, respondents have to rate how they perceive access to work-family policies in their organization and they are asked whether they can use them without reprisals (e.g. If I used work-family support resources, it would have negative consequences for my career, with an inverse scoring system). Employee well-being was measured by use of an adapted version of the reflective four-item scale (1=0.962, 2=0.962, 3=0.974, 4=0.977 for flexi-time, long paid and unpaid leaves, flexi-place, and family support services, respectively) designed by Boshoff and Mels (2000) and Warr (1990). This scale was based on the respondents perception of work stress, job satisfaction, motivation to perform his/her tasks and organizational commitment (e.g. I often feel anxious and stressed inside and outside my workplace, with inverse scoring, or My main satisfactions in life come primarily from my job). Finally, respondents perception of their own job performance was measured by asking them to rate their job performance. In line with the recommendations of Boshoff and Mels (2000), the item My organization gets the better of me in terms of job performance was included in the questionnaire ( was not applicable, since it was a one-item construct). Methods Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2014), hypothesis testing was performed by the use of a structural equation model based on the PLS-SEM approach. The methodology selected more specifically, the data collection methods employed and the constructs tested and the indicators used were appropriate for empirically examining the correlations among theoretical variables related to organizational work-family support (Casper et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2010). SmartPLS 3.0 software was used to perform data analysis (Ringle et al., 2014) and mean values were attributed to missing data using the criterion of replacement with average value. Although the parameters of the measurement model and the structural model were measured in a single step, as recommended by Chin (2010) and Hair et al. (2014) for the presentation of results were adopted. Accordingly, measurement model testing was performed first, followed by the evaluation of significance among parameters. As such, the validity a nd reliability of measurements was guaranteed before any conclusions were drawn on the relationships among constructs. Measurement model testing In this section, we examine whether the study variables (or indicators) measured the theoretical concepts correctly. Given that all constructs were reflective, reliability was analyzed first; i.e., whether the indicators actually measured what they were intended to measure. Next, validity was evaluated; i.e., whether measuring was consistently performed. In the reliability analysis, the reliability of each item was examined separately by assessing factor loadings (). For an indicator to be definitely incorporated in the measurement model of a construct, it must have a factor loading ?0.707. This involves the shared variance between the construct and its indicators being greater than the error variance. Some authors consider that this empirical rule (?0.707) should not be so rigid in early stages of scale design (Hair et al., 2014) and conclude that an indicator with a factor loading ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 can be deleted from a scale if deletion results in the average variance extracted (AVE) or composite reliability (CR) exceeding the minimum threshold value established (AVE=0.5; CR=0.7). Consequently, weak indicators can be occasionally maintained for their contribution to the validity of the content analysis measure. In any case, clearly weak indicators (?0.4) must always be discarded. In this study, all indicators of the measurement model were maintained, although two indicators did not reach the minimum threshold value established (?0.707). This decision was based on the fact that the AVE for all latent variables exceeded 0.5, which means that it was not necessary to delete these variables to reach the minimum threshold value for AVE. Therefore, as these two indicators contribute to the validity of the content, they were maintained. The reliability of the scale was assessed to verify the internal consistency of all indicators when measuring the concept. Scale reliability was evaluated using Cronbachs coefficient and CR. Nunnally (1978) considered 0.7 adequate for indicating modest reliability and a stricter 0.8 for basic research. All constructs comfortably exceeded the threshold established for Cronbachs and CR, all except Cronbachs for the variable Access 2, which was 0.792 and would be considered acceptable. Construct validity was assessed by examining convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity indicates that a set of indicators signifies one and the same underlying construct, which can be demonstrated through their uni-dimensionality (Henseler et al., 2009). Convergent validity is assessed through the AVE, which provides a measure of the proportion of variance that can be explained by its indicators with respect to variance accounted for by measurement errors. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend a threshold value for AVE0.5, which means that 50% of the construct variance can be explained by its indicators but not by the indicators of the other constructs. As shown in Table II, an AVE0.5 was obtained for all constructs. This means that more than 50% of the variance in the construct can be accounted for by its indicators. Discriminant validity examines to what extent a given construct differs from other constructs. Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell-Larcker, 1981), which is based on the idea that, in a given model, a construct should share more variance with its indicators than with other constructs. Consequently, an effective method for assessing discriminant validity is demonstrating that the AVE for a construct is greater than the variance that the construct shares with other constructs of the same model; in other words, the correlations among constructs are lower than the square of the AVE. The study found out that the square of the AVE for all latent variables was greater than the correlation among variables. This means that all constructs were more strongly correlated to their indicators than to those of the other constructs. Conclusion This study makes a theoretical and empirical contribution to better understand the impact that the existence of and true access to work-family policies have on job performance, mediated by employee-well-being. More specifically, this study assesses the effects of different types of work-family policies on employee-well-being and job performance. The first group of work-family policies encompasses working time flexibility policies (flexi-time). The second group consists of long paid and unpaid leave policies. The third group includes policies providing flexibility in the work location (flexi-place). Finally, the fourth group embraces employees and family support services. Work-family policies were evaluated from two perspectives: the existence and employees awareness of work-family policies; and true access to work-family policies. The results obtained indicate that the existence of and access to work-family policies do not have a direct effect on job performance but an indirect one mediated by employee-well-being. This was found to be applicable to all groups except for employee and family support services. The existence of this type of work-family policies does not seem to have a direct or indirect effect on job performance or employee-well-being. Yet, once this type of work-family policies has been adopted, it is important that employees perceive they can use them easily, as this has an indirect positive effect on job performance. Timescale Week activity 1-4 Research 5-6 Questionnaire and Interview development 7- 9 Data collection and preparation (includes primary and secondary data) 10-14 Data Analysis and Interpretation 15 Presentation and Submission Resources Libraries Journals The Internet Past students' dissertations Film, tapes and interviews References Alam, L., Conesa, D., Forte, A. and Tortosa-Ausina, E., 2015. The geography of Spanish bank branches. Journal of Applied Statistics, 42(4), pp.722-744. Allen, T.D., French, K.A., Dumani, S. and Shockley, K.M., 2015. Meta-analysis of workfamily conflict mean differences: Does national context matter?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, pp.90-100. Anderson, S.E., Coffey, B.S. and Byerly, R.T., 2002. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of management, 28(6), pp.787-810. Baxter, J. and Chesters, J., 2011. Perceptions of work-family balance: How effective are family-friendly policies?. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(2), p.139. Becker, F.D., 1993. New Working Practices: Benchmarking, Flexible Scheduling, Staffing, and Work Location in an International Context. Cornell University, International Workplace Studies Program. Boshoff, C., 2000. The impact of multiple commitments on intentions to resign: An empirical assessment. British Journal of Management, 11(3), pp.255-272. Budd, J.W. and Mumford, K., 2005. Family-Friendly Work Practices in Britain: Availability and Perceived Accessibility. IZA Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Institute for the Study of Labour. Discussion Paper Series IZA DP, (1662). Budd, J.W. and Mumford, K., 2005. Family-Friendly Work Practices in Britain: Availability and Perceived Accessibility. IZA Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Institute for the Study of Labour. Discussion Paper Series IZA DP, (1662). Burke, R.J., 2009. Working to live or living to work: Should individuals and organizations care?. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, pp.167-172. Casper, W.J., Eby, L.T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A. and Lambert, D., 2007. A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), p.28. Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), pp.295-336. Cloninger, P.A., Selvarajan, T.T., Singh, B. and Huang, S., 2015. The mediating influence of workfamily conflict and the moderating influence of gender on employee outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), pp.2269-2287. Edgar, F., Geare, A., Halhjem, M., Reese, K. and Thoresen, C., 2015. Well-being and performance: Measurement issues for HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), pp.1983-1994. Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A. and Walters, S., 2002. Opportunities to work at home in the context of work?life balance. Human resource management journal, 12(1), pp.54-76. Ferrer, J.M.B. and Garrido, J.A.M., 2014. Impact of family-friendly HRM policies in organizational performance. Intangible Capital, 10(3), pp.448-466. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, pp.39-50. Hair, J.F., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), London, United Kingdom, London. Hale, JL/Householder, BJ/Greene, KL (2003): The theory of reasoned action, in: Dillard, JP/Pfau, M.(Hrsg.): The peruation handbook: developments in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.259-286. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277-319. 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, 36(1), pp.145-154. Ilies, R., Schwind, K.M. and Heller, D., 2007. Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking work and nonwork domains. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 16(3), pp.326-341. Las Heras, M., Bosch, M.J. and Raes, A.M., 2015. Sequential mediation among family friendly culture and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), pp.2366-2373. Lin, A., 2013. The relationship between work/family demands, personality and work-family conflict. The Business Review Cambridge, 21(1), p.274. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Jarvis, C.B., 2005. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), p.710. McDonald, P., Brown, K. and Bradley, L., 2005. Explanations for the provision-utilisation gap in work-life policy. Women in Management Review, 20(1), pp.37-55. Mihelic, K.K. and Tekavcic, M., 2014. Work-family conflict: a review of antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Management Information Systems (Online), 18(1), p.15. Montes, J.A.A., Gutirrez, A.C.M. and Casademunt, A.M.L., 2013. La implicacin emocional de los empleados de banca en Europa. Universia Business Review, 2(38). Rhnima, A., Wils, T., Pousa, C.E. and Frigon, M., 2014. Conflits travail-famille et intention de quitter dans le domaine de la sant. Relations Industrielles, 69(3), p.477. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M., 2014. Smartpls 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp.419-445. Steinmetz, H., Frese, M. and Schmidt, P., 2008. A longitudinal panel study on antecedents and outcomes of workhome interference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), pp.231-241. Swody, C.A. and Powell, G.N., 2007. Determinants of employee participation in organizations family-friendly programs: A multi-level approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(2), pp.111-122. Van Steenbergen, E.F. and Ellemers, N., 2009. Is managing the workfamily interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), pp.617-642.