Relationship between Work and Non-Work

In the literature, the intersection between work and non-work roles is a complex system.

However, generally, the work-life interrelationship is discussed from the perspective of role theory which constitutes a conflict perspective and an enrichment perspective (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).

2.3.3.1 Conflict Perspective

According to Kahn et al. (1964), when people receive incompatible role expectations simultaneously, they will experience psychological conflict. Thus, from their research Kahn et al. (1964) proposed role conflict theory which includes four distinct types of role conflict; namely the intra-sender conflict, inter-sender conflict, inter-role conflict and person-role conflict. For this current research, inter-role conflict was considered as a suitable type to support research into the work-family relationships.

In this view, individuals are considered to have fixed amount of psychological and physiological resources. In order to perform their daily role, they need to use these resources. However, individuals may experience conflict when they are involved in multiple roles and there is an imbalance in role participation in the different domains, especially when both domains are considered important to the individual (Frone, Russell,

& Cooper, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Thus, excessive demands in one domain such as work will produce a negative impact on the family domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Gutek, Searles, & Klepa, 1991; Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk, 2001). Work-life conflict is bi-directional in nature. Work demands which interfere with family demands will lead to work-to-family conflict, while family-to-work conflict occurs when family demands interfere with work demands (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Frone, 2003; Greenhaus &

Beutell, 1985; Hammer & Thompson, 2003; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Poelmans, O’Driscoll, & Beham, 2005; Stewart, 2013).

Conflict between these two domains is related broadly to three dimensions; time, strain and specific behaviours (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Griggs, Casper, & Eby, 2013).

Hammer and Thompson (2003) argued that the most common type of conflict among these three dimensions is a time-based conflict which, according to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), is when participation in one role competes for an individual’s time in another role which results in a conflict between the roles. For example, an employee has to work extra hours due to unavoidable work task and thus, he/she fails to attend his/her son’s school concert. If both events are considered important to him/her, work-family conflict is likely to be experienced by the employee.

Strain-based conflict occurs when an individual has difficulties to perform his/ her role due to the strain felt in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For example, when an employee is pressured at his/her work place with the work tasks, he/she will experience symptoms such as anger and worry. He/she might experience negative emotions and might have difficulties in communicating with his/her family members when feeling this type of pressure (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Behavioural-based conflict takes place when the behaviours needed in one role are incompatible with the expected behaviours in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

For example, employees are expected to be very focussed, determined, firm, and objective at work. However, when they return home, they may have difficulties switching gears to engage in their more compassionate, open and flexible role with their family members. Hence, conflict occurs between work and home domains if they are unable to adjust to the expected or necessary behaviours in the work place or at home.

Researchers working in work-life study have identified the consequences of work-life conflict on health, work, and family. For example, in their review of the consequences related to work-family conflict, Allen et al. (2000) indicated a number of work-related outcomes associated with work-to-family conflict which include job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover intentions, absenteeism, job performance and career satisfaction. Numerous studies in varying types of organisations worldwide support these outcomes (Allen et al., 2000; Boyar et al., 2003; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;

Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997; Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Martins, Eddleston, &

Veiga, 2002; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). Additionally, Bohle, Quinlan, Kennedy, & Williamson (2004) found that the increase of work/non-work conflict was due to high work expectations and excessive long working hours while Collinson & Collinson (1997) emphasized the importance of having supportive organisational policies and cultures. Hence, workers will experience conflict if organisational support is not provided and if paid work and non-work responsibilities are considered as different entities.

Kossek and Ozeki (1999) conducted a meta-analysis to examine work-family conflict and work outcomes which include performance, turnover intentions, absenteeism, organizational commitment, work commitment and burnout. The findings demonstrate that conflict which occurs when one’s family tasks interfere with the work domain will result in a negative relationship to work performance and attitudes. In addition, Kossek &

Ozeki (1999) found that, regardless of direction, conflict between work and family relates to higher turnover intention, care-related absence, and a lower commitment to organizations and work. In their model predicting turnover intentions, Boyar et al. (2003)

found both work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict to be significantly related to turnover intentions.

Meanwhile, Goff et al. (1990) in their study examining the impact of on-site childcare on work-family conflict and absenteeism, discovered that the presence of on-site child-care was not related to levels of work-family conflict and absenteeism. However, reduced work-family conflict was associated with lower levels of employee absenteeism. Findings from Frone et al. (1997) showed that family-to-work conflict related to greater alcohol consumption while work-to-family conflict resulted in depression, physical health complaints, and hypertension. Finally, previous studies have also suggested that the work-to-family conflict relates to family outcomes such as lower family satisfaction and marital quality (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; Matthews, Conger, &

Wickrama, 1996; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992). However, a more current perspective on work-life study considers that ‘work’ and ‘non-work’ are interrelated and should not be perceived simply as separate domains. This insight has led to the enrichment perspective (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) in looking at work and family relationships.

2.3.3.2 Enrichment Perspective

Work-family enrichment, like work and family conflict, is also bidirectional (Hill, 2005).

Greenhaus and Powell (2006) and Grzywacz and Marks (2000) proposed that individuals can experience satisfaction when the integration of work, home, and self leads to a sense of balance. As explained by Greenhaus and Powell (2006), work-family enrichment occurs when the quality of life in one domain such as the work role becomes better through the experiences obtained in the other domain. In addition, Clark (2002:25) reported that conflict can be managed when individuals communicate across the border from home to work and from work to home domains. Thus, balance can be achieved because an individual is capable of both integrating and segregating the two domains.

Greenhaus and Powell (2006) associate the term ‘work-family enrichment’ with other related terms such as “enhancement”, “positive spillover” and “facilitation”. In the work-life literature, the differences between all these terms have not been clearly discussed.

However, most terms share a similar definition which explains how the quality of life in one domain is improved through the experiences in another domain. Thus, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) argue that those various terms share a similar idea.

According to Greenhaus and Powell (2006), a resource generated in one role can promote high performance and a positive effect in another role by means of two mechanisms known as ‘instrumental paths’ and ‘affective paths’. Instrumental work-family enrichment takes place when resources in one role such as skills, psychological and physical resources, social capital resources, flexibility, and material resources are transferred directly to another role and increase the performance in the specific domain. For example, when individuals are good at managing their time at their workplace, they will be more efficient in managing household chores and childcare at home. Meanwhile, affective work-family enrichment occurs when resources produced in one role contribute positive affect in that role. As such, positive emotion will be generated in the other domain. For instance, individuals will be in a positive mood and feel happy at home when they are praised for their good task accomplishment at work.

Rothbard (2001) explained that psychological engagement in family life is associated with work engagement for women while psychological engagement such as attention in work was positively related to men’s psychological engagement in family life. Research also has indicated the positive impact of work-related effect. For example, employees experiencing work satisfaction at the workplace will contribute to positive parenting by which participants establish a good relationship with their children. This will assist particularly in the positive development of the children’s emotion (Stewart & Barling, 1996). In addition, Wadsworth and Owens (2007) discovered that an individual will experience a positive spillover from work activities to the home if more social support is received at work, while support received from the spouse and children is positively related to the enhancement of work.

Researchers agree that support from various groups such as family, community, and organization are needed to allow the integration of work and home. (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011; Dale, 2005; Huang, 2006; Md‐Sidin et al., 2010; Van Daalen, Willemsen, &

Sanders, 2006). Therefore, it is important to understand and look into the meaning of such ‘support’ because this has a great impact on work-life management by employees (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011; Warhust et al., 2008). Dale (2005) and Huang (2006) argued that support from family is significantly important in order to be able to achieve work/non-work integration. A study conducted by Dale (2005) among Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers in the UK on social support had similar findings to a study conducted by Huang (2006) among Taiwanese workers. Both studies discovered that it was easy for these employees to obtain support from their family members due to the collectivistic culture of their social context. In the collectivistic culture, the sense of obligation to provide support among family members is strong. However, according to Abendroth and Den Dulk (2011), other sources of support, such as help from extended family members and friends, are less discussed in work-family research.

2.3.3.3 Work-Life Balance

Work-life balance has become a very popular topic in the work-family literature (Lambert

& Kossek, 2005; Maertz & Boyar, 2011; Sturges, 2008). The terms ‘work-life balance’ and

‘work-family balance’ are used frequently among researchers but these terms have not undergone a great deal of analysis. Greenhaus & Allen (2011) pointed out that the meaning of work-life balance remains ambiguous. There are multiple definitions used to describe what the term ‘balance’ refers to (Clark, 2000; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011;

Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007; Lobel, 1991) and according to Reiter (2007), almost every article has a different definition. Since most research seems to equate balance with the absent of conflict, Greenhaus and Allen (2011) raise the question of whether the literature needs to include both concepts of conflict and enhancement.

According to Frone (2003), many authors have associated the term ‘work-life balance’ as a harmonious interface between different life domains. However, the most common

definition refers to “a lack of conflict or interference between work and family roles ” (Frone, 2003: 145). Greenhaus et al. (2003: 513) defined work-life balance as “the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in – and equally satisfied with – his or her work role and family role” while Clark (2000: 751) defines work-life balance as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict”. Greenhaus and Allen (2011) related the term ‘work-life balance’ to the absence of work-family conflict.

They also note high involvement and satisfaction across roles when describing the term.

Rather than ‘balance’, some scholars, e.g. Warhust et al. (2008) have prefered the concept of ‘work and personal life integration or interaction’. Warhust et al. (2008) argued that the term work-life balance implies that work and life are two separate domains and, thus, time should be split equally between both domains. Rapoport et al.

(2002) argued that people may have different priorities in their life and that the aim is not always an even balance between the two. Clark (2000) pointed out that not all individuals want to integrate both domains. Some might prefer to keep both domains strictly separated. In addition, some might experience work and life as separate and balanceable (Eikhof, Warhurst, & Haunschild, 2007).

In short, although the literature in work-life research has generated various types of work-family constructs, these cannot be used without clear definition. Although the constructs seem related to one another, there are still differences when discussing certain areas of work-family interface. The conflict perspective is mostly referred to when explaining the nature of work and family relationships rather than the enrichment perspective or work-life balance (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007;

Kalliath & Brough, 2008).

In the current research, the aim is to understand how the Malay Muslim women academics make sense of their daily work-life interface. Thus, this research employs both positive and negative perspectives in order to obtain a more detailed and holistic understanding of the experiences of these academics. Several prominent scholars in the field (e.g. Frone, 2003; Hill, 2005) have suggested focusing simultaneously on both

conflicting and rewarding aspects of work-life interface in order to gain a more complete examination of the issue. This wider concept reflects the evolution of this current research from an initial concern of work-life balance to an exploration of work-life interface and the complex relationships between these two domains.