Chapter - 5

Family Related Variables

and Work Life Balance

CHAPTER 5
FAMILY RELATED VARIABLES AND WORK LIFE
BALANCE
5.1.

INTRODUCTION
The relationship between family related variables and work life balance, and the

differences in work life balance of working professionals at varied levels of family

related variables are discussed in this chapter. Descriptive statistics - mean, median,
standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis were calculated to study the nature of
distribution of scores for family related variables (household responsibility, spouse
support and parental demands). Pearson product moment correlations were computed to
study the correlations between family related variables (household responsibility,
spouse support and parental demands) and work life balance and its dimensions. For the
variable of parental demands (number of children) point biserial correlation was
calculated. In addition, one way analysis of variance was used to study the significance
of differences among the high, average and low groups (categorized on the basis of
M0.5) on each of the family variables with respect to the work life balance and its
three dimensions namely work interference with personal life, personal life interference
with work and work/personal life enhancement. Wherever F-values were found to be
significant, t-test was applied to study the significance of differences between means of
various groups.

5.2

NATURE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Tables 5.1 shows the descriptive statistics - mean, median, standard deviation,

skewness and kurtosis for family related variables. The distribution of scores on

129

household responsibility (HHR) were found to be significantly positively skewed

(Sk=.87) at .01 level of significance. The kurtosis (Ku=1.13) was also found to be
significant at .01 level. Thus, the curve was found to be platykurtic.
Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for family related variables
Family related variables
Statistics

HHR
(N=308)

SS
(N=147)

PD
(N=102)

Mean

14.06

20.10

18.04

Median

14.00

20.00

18.00

Std. Deviation

4.79

4.97

4.61

Skewness

0.87

-0.02

-0.56

Std. Error of Skewness

0.14

0.20

0.24

Kurtosis

1.13

-0.82

0.86

Std. Error of Kurtosis

0.28

0.40

0.47

Minimum

Maximum

30

28

30

Sk Significant at 0.01 level

Ku Significant at 0.01 level

HHR
.359
- 0.452 to .978

SS
.516
- 0.761 to 1.287

PD
.617
- 0.960 to 1.486

The scores on spouse support (SS) ranged between 9 and 28.The mean and
median were found to be 20.10 and 20.00 respectively. The value of skewness
(Sk=-.02) for the score on spouse support was found to be insignificant at .01 level and
the distribution of scores was thus found to be normal. The value of kurtosis (Ku= -.82)
was found to be significant at .01 level. The curve was thus found to be leptokurtic.
The distribution of scores on parental demands (PD) was found to be normal
and within limits at .01 level (Sk=-.56). The value of kurtosis (Ku =.86) was found to be
insignificant at .01 level.

130

5.3 HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITY (HHR) AND WORK LIFE

BALANCE
The correlation between household responsibility and work life balance and its
dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels
of household responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed
below.
(a)

Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance and

its dimensions
The variable of House hold responsibility (HHR) was found to be negatively

correlated (Table 5.2) with WLB Total and its three dimensions namely, WIPL, PLIW
and WPLE. However, the correlations were not significant either at .05 or at .01 level.
Table 5.2: Correlations between household responsibility and work life balance
and its dimensions
Work Life Balance

Correlation with HHR ( N=308)

-0.01

-0.05

WPLE

-0.05

WLB Total

-0.04

WIPL
PLIW

* Significant at the 0.05 level .

** Significant at the 0.01 level.
1
Higher score means lesser interference.

The results indicate that household responsibility is not related to work life
balance. Hence, Hypothesis HFa(i) that there will be significant correlation between the

131

household responsibility and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working
professionals in IT and ITES industry stands rejected.
(b)

Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of

household responsibility
Insignificant F-values (Table 5.3) show that there were no significant

differences among IT and ITES working professionals with low, average and high
household responsibility (HHR) on the dimensions of WIPL (F= .10), PLIW (F=1.36),
WPLE (F= 2.82) and on WLB Total (F = .62).
Table 5.3: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels
of household responsibility
Work Life
Sources of Variance
Balance

Sum of Squares

Between Groups
WIPL

8.62

4.31

Within Groups

13479.46

305

44.20

Total

13488.08

307

40.02

20.01

Within Groups

4487.55

305

14.71

Total

4527.57

307

Between Groups

118.16

59.08

Within Groups

6394.81

305

20.97

Total

6512.97

307

Between Groups

151.24

75.62

Within Groups

37069.93

305

121.54

Total

37221.17

307

Between Groups
PLIW

WPLE

WLB
Total

Mean
Square

df

df 2, 305 F significant at

.05 *
3.03

.01 **
4.68

132

F
0.10

1.36

2.82

0.62

Further, Table 5.4 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES
working professionals at varied levels of household responsibility.
Table 5.4: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals
at varied levels of household responsibility

Work Life Balance HHR

WIPL

PLIW

WPLE

TOTAL WLB

Low
Average
High
Total
Low
Average
High
Total
Low
Average
High
Total
Low
Average
High
Total

Mean

Std. Deviation

97
128
83
308
97
128
83
308
97
128
83
308
97
128
83
308

30.44
30.82
30.77
30.69
21.68
21.86
20.99
21.57
19.41
18.19
17.95
18.51
71.54
70.87
69.71
70.77

6.82
6.72
6.32
6.63
3.92
3.70
3.94
3.84
4.72
4.79
4.05
4.61
11.22
10.98
10.87
11.01

The findings of the earlier studies (Aryee, 1992; Hyman et al., 2003) lend
support to the findings of the present study. Aryee (1992) did not find any significant
effect of household chores responsibility on job-homemaker conflict and explained this
by the fact that most respondents had hired help to take care of domestic chores.
Hyman et al. (2003) found that household responsibility had no effect on any of the
intangible indicators of extension of work into household and family life. The results of
the present study too may be explained by the fact that in India domestic helpers are
easily available at an affordable price and most of the families hire them, hence the

133

household work does not result in any interference of personal life with work or
interference of work with personal life.
Hence, Hypothesis HFa(ii) that there will be significant differences among the
mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of household
responsibility on work life balance and its dimensions is rejected.

5.4 SPOUSE SUPPORT AND WORK LIFE BALANCE

The correlation between spouse support and work life balance and its
dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels
of spouse support on work life balance and its dimensions are discussed below.
(a)

Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its
dimensions
Spouse support was found to be significantly positively correlated with the

dimensions of PLIW (r=.29, Table 5.5) and WPLE (r=.33) and with WLB Total
(r=.24).
Table 5.5: Correlations between spouse support and work life balance and its
dimensions

Work Life Balance

Correlation with SS ( N=147 )

-0.01

PLIW

0.29(**)

WPLE

0.33(**)

WLB Total

0.24(**)

WIPL

* Significant at the 0.05 level.

** Significant at the 0.01 level.
1
Higher score means lesser interference.

134

The findings indicate that higher the spouse support, higher is the overall work
life balance and lesser is the interference of personal life with work and higher is the
work/personal life enhancement and vice versa. The IT and ITES working professionals
with high spouse support in terms of household work, emotional support, child care
and positive attitude towards spouses work tend to have less interference of personal
life with work, high work/personal life enhancement and high overall work life
balance.
The findings of the earlier studies by Frone et al. (1992), Aryee (1992), Frone et
al. (1997), Aryee et al. (1999) and Kim and Ling (2001) lend support to findings of the
present study. Frone et al. (1992) found lack of spouse support to be positively related
with family to work conflict. Aryee (1992) reported a negative relation between spouse
support and job spouse conflict. Frone et al. (1997) reported that family related support
(spouse and other family members) may reduce family to work conflict by reducing
family distress and parental overload. Aryee et al. (1999) found spouse support to be a
negative predictor of work family conflict. Kim and Ling (2001) found emotional and
attitudinal support of the spouse to be negatively related to job spouse conflict. The
results of the present study are also consistent with the findings of Suchet and Barling
(1986).
Hence, Hypothesis HFb(i) that there will be significant correlation between the
spouse support and work life balance (including its dimensions) of working
professionals in IT and ITES industry is accepted for the dimensions of personal life
interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life
balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal
life.

135

(b)

Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of

spouse support
From the Table 5.6, it is evident that F-values were found to be significant for

the dimensions of personal life interference with work (PLIW; F=6.20) work/personal
life enhancement (WPLE; F=7.90), and for overall work life balance (WLB Total;
F=5.02) indicating that there were significant differences among IT and ITES working
professionals with low, average and high spouse support on the two dimensions,
namely PLIW and WPLE and on WLB Total.
Table 5.6: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels
of spouse support

Work Life
Balance
WIPL

PLIW

WPLE

WLB
Total

Sources of
Variance

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between Groups

156.44

78.22

2.43

Within Groups

4632.46

144

32.17

Total

4788.90

146

Between Groups

171.09

85.55

Within Groups

1988.19

144

13.81

Total

2159.28

146

Between Groups

242.77

121.39

Within Groups

2212.98

144

15.37

Total

2455.76

146

Between Groups

981.16

490.58

Within Groups

14087.30

144

97.83

Total

15068.46

146

df 2, 144 F significant at

.05 *
3.06

.01 **
4.75

136

6.20(**)

7.90(**)

5.02(**)

Table 5.7 shows the results of the t-ratios calculated to find out the significance
of differences between means. Significant differences were observed between IT and
ITES working professionals with low and high spouse support on the dimensions of
PLIW (ML=19.83, MH=22.56, t=3.47, p=.01), WPLE (ML=17.51, MH=20.73, t= 4.11,
p=.01) and on WLB Total (ML=68.57, MH =74.42, t=2.85, p=.01).
Table 5.7: Significance of differences among mean scores on work life balance of
IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support
Work
Life
Balance

WIPL

PLIW

WPLE

WLB
Total

t significant at
df 100
df 98
df 90

SS

Mean

Std.
Group
Deviation differences

t-ratios

Low

47

31.23

5.24

Low-average

Not applicable

Average

55

29.05

6.27

Low-high

Not applicable

High

45

31.13

5.33

Average-high

Not applicable

Total

147

30.39

5.73

Low

47

19.83

3.87

Low-average

1.92

Average

55

21.25

3.62

Low-high

High

45

22.56

3.67

Average-high

1.78

Total

147

21.20

3.85

Low

47

17.51

3.36

Low-average

1.63

Average

55

18.75

4.18

Low-high

4.11(**)

High

45

20.73

4.14

Average-high

2.38(*)

Total

147

18.96

4.10

LOW

47

68.57

9.53

Low-average

0.25

AVERAGE

55

69.05

9.95

Low-high

2.85(**)

HIGH

45

74.42

10.19

Average-high

2.66(**)

Total

147

70.54

10.16

.05 *
1.98
1.98
1.99

.01 **
2.63
2.63
2.63

137

3.47(**)

Significant differences were also observed between professionals with average

and high spouse support on the dimensions of WPLE (MA=18.75, MH=20.73, t= 2.38,
p=.05) and on WLB Total (MA=69.05, MH=74.42, t=2.66, p=.01 level). However, no
significant differences were found between professionals with low and average spouse
support on any of the dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (ML=31.23,
MA=29.05), PLIW (ML=19.83, MA=21.25), WPLE (ML=17.51, MA=18.75) and on
WLB Total (ML=68.57, MA= 69.05).
The mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals with high spouse
support were significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with low spouse
support on the dimensions of PLIW, WPLE and on WLB Total and were also
significantly higher than the mean scores of professionals with average spouse support
on the dimension of WPLE and on WLB Total. The results thus showed that the IT and
ITES working professionals with high spouse support had less interference of personal
life with work as compared to IT and ITES working professionals with low spouse
support and also had higher work/personal life enhancement and higher overall work
life balance than the IT and ITES working professionals with low and with average
spouse support.
From the results, it can be concluded that in case of professionals having high
spouse support in terms of household work, childcare, positive attitude towards work,
there is lesser interference of personal life with work and both work and personal life
complement each other and as a result, there is high level of work life balance as
compared to those, who have low spouse support.

138

Hence, Hypothesis HFb(ii) that there will be significant differences among the
mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of spouse support on
work life balance and its dimensions is accepted for the dimensions of personal life
interference with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life
balance. However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal
life.

5.5 PARENTAL DEMANDS AND WORK LIFE BALANCE

Parental demands were measured by the number of children and by the
responsibility of taking care of children. The correlation between parental demands and
work life balance and its dimensions; and differences among IT and ITES working
professionals at varied levels of parental demands on work life balance and its
dimensions are discussed below.
(i)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of children)
and work life balance and its dimensions
To compute the correlation between parental demands (in terms of number of
children) and work life balance and its dimensions, the IT and ITES working
professionals with and without children were coded as 1 and 0 respectively.
No significant correlations (Table 5.8) were found between parental demands
(in terms of number of children) and work life balance and its dimensions. The results
thus indicate that there is no relationship between parental demands and work life
balance.

139

Table 5.8: Correlations between parental demands (in terms of number of

children) and work life balance and its dimensions

Work Life Balance

Correlation with PD2 ( N=147)

.07

-.10

WPLE

.08

WLB Total

.04

WIPL
PLIW

* Significant at the 0.05 level.

** Significant at the 0.01 level.
1
Higher score means lesser interference
2
With children coded as 1, Without children coded as 0

The findings of the study are in contradiction to the findings of an earlier study
by Pleck et al. (1980). The survey study of workers suggested that substantial minority
of workers living in families experienced conflict between work and family life and
parents reported more conflict than other couples.
Hypothesis HFc(i) that there will be significant correlation between the parental
demands (in terms of number of children) and work life balance (including its
dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry is thus rejected.

(i)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or
more children
Table 5.9 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the
dimensions of work life balance, namely, WIPL (F=0.91), PLIW (F=0.63), WPLE
(F=0.62) and for WLB Total (F=0.91).

140

Table 5.9: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2
or more children
Work
Life
Balance

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

59.51

29.75

0.91

Within Groups

4729.39

144

32.84

Total

4788.90

146

18.71

9.36

Within Groups

2140.57

144

14.87

Total

2159.28

146

21.07

10.54

Within Groups

2434.69

144

16.91

Total

2455.76

146

94.58

47.29

Within Groups

14973.88

144

103.99

Total

15068.46

146

Sources of Variance
Between Groups

WIPL

Between Groups
PLIW

Between Groups
WPLE

Between Groups
WLB
Total

df 2, 144 F significant at

.05 *
3.06

0.63

0.62

0.46

.01 **
4.75

The results showed that there were no significant differences among IT and
ITES working professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children either on overall work life
balance or on any of its dimensions.
Table 5.10 shows the mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working
professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children.

141

Table 5.10: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working
professionals with 0, 1 and 2 or more children
Work Life
Balance

PD
(number of children)

Mean

Std. Deviation

68

30.22

5.71

2 or more

34

31.50

4.12

Total

147

30.39

5.73

45

21.73

4.09

68

20.94

3.81

2 or more

34

21.00

3.62

Total

147

21.20

3.85

45

18.47

4.12

68

19.01

4.38

2 or more

34

19.50

3.50

Total

147

18.96

4.10

45

70.00

10.82

68

70.18

9.96

2 or more

34

72.00

9.81

Total

147

70.54

10.16

WIPL

PLIW

WPLE

TOTAL
WLB

Hence, Hypothesis HFc(ii) that there will be significant differences among the
mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands
(in terms of number of children) on work life balance and its dimensions is rejected.
(ii)(a) Correlations between parental demands (in terms of responsibility of
children) and work life balance and its dimensions
Insignificant correlations (Table 5.11) were found between parental demands
and work life balance and its dimensions, thus indicating that parental demands are not
related to work life balance.

142

Table 5.11: Correlations between parental demands and work life balance and its
dimensions
Work Life Balance
WIPL1
PLIW1
WPLE
WLB Total

Correlation with PD ( N=102)

-0.18
-0.15
0.12
-0.10

* Significant at the 0.05 level.

** Significant at the 0.01 level.
1
Higher score means lesser interference.

These findings are in contradiction to the findings of the earlier studies by

Keene and Quadagno (2004), Frye and Breaugh (2004) and Luk and Shaffer (2005).
Keene and Quadagno (2004) found that greater responsibility for childcare predicts less
balance. Frye and Breaugh (2004) found that having child care responsibility was
predictive of family-work conflict. Luk and Shaffer (2005) found parental demands to
be positive predictor of both work interference with family and family interference with
work. Aryee, 1992 and Aryee et al., 1999 also reported similar findings.
Hence, Hypothesis HFd(i) that there will be significant correlation between the
parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children) and

work life balance

(including its dimensions) of working professionals in IT and ITES industry is

rejected.
(ii)(b) Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of
parental demands (in terms of responsibility of children)
Table 5.12 shows that F-values were found to be insignificant for all the
dimensions, namely, WIPL (F=2.84), PLIW (F=3.03), WPLE (F=0.30) and for WLB
Total (F=2.09).

143

Table 5.12: Work life balance of IT and ITES working professionals at varied
levels of parental demands
Work Life
Balance
WIPL

Sources of
Variance

Sum of Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between Groups

151.07

75.53

2.84

Within Groups

2634.23

99

26.61

Total

2785.29

101

81.13

40.56

Within Groups

1324.72

99

13.38

Total

1405.84

101

10.28

5.14

Within Groups

1682.54

99

17.00

Total

1692.82

101

Between Groups

400.79

200.39

Within Groups

9502.47

99

95.99

Total

9903.26

101

Between Groups

PLIW

Between Groups

WPLE

WLB Total

df 2, 99 F significant at

.05 *
3.09

3.03

0.30

2.09

.01 **
4.82

The results thus indicate that there were no significant differences among IT and
ITES working professionals with low, average and high parental demands on overall
work life balance or on any of its dimensions.
Further, trend of mean scores (Table 5.13) showed that IT and ITES working
professionals with low parental demands had lesser work interference with personal life
(WIPL; MH=29.72, MA=30.13, ML=32.76), lesser personal life interference with work
(PLIW; MH=19.69, MA=21.33, ML=21.92) and higher overall work life balance (WLB
Total; MH=68.28, MA=71.00, ML=73.60) than the professionals with high and with
average parental demands.

144

Table 5.13: Mean scores on work life balance of IT and ITES working
professionals at varied levels of parental demands
Work Life
Balance
WIPL

PLIW

WPLE

TOTAL WLB

PD (Responsibility of
children)
Low
Average
High
Total
Low
Average
High
Total
Low

Mean

Std. Deviation

25
45
32
102
25
45
32
102
25

32.76
30.13
29.72
30.65
21.92
21.33
19.69
20.96
18.92

3.97
5.85
4.91
5.25
4.18
3.54
3.38
3.73
5.31

Average
High
Total
Low
Average
High
Total

45
32
102
25
45
32
102

19.53
18.88
19.18
73.60
71.00
68.28
70.78

4.08
2.97
4.09
9.90
10.29
8.96
9.90

The plausible reason for the differences not being significant might be that in
India, joint family system is still prevalent in many households and childcare
responsibilities are taken over by grand parents and other members who might be at
home. Even for nuclear families, paid helpers are available at affordable prices to look
after the children.
Thus, Hypothesis HFd(ii) that there will be significant differences among the
mean scores of IT and ITES working professionals at varied levels of parental demands
(in terms of responsibility of children) on work life balance and its dimensions is
rejected.

145

To Conclude,
Hypotheses HFa(i) and HFa(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life
balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference
with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life
balance.
Hypothesis HFb(i) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference
with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.
However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal
life.
Hypothesis HFb(ii) is accepted for the dimensions of personal life interference
with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.
However, it is rejected for the dimension of work interference with personal
life.
Hypotheses HFc(i) and HFc(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life
balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference
with work, work/personal life enhancement and for overall work life balance.
Hypotheses HFd(i) and HFd(ii) are rejected for all the dimensions of work life
balance, i.e., work interference with personal life, personal life interference
with work, work/personal life enhancement and also for overall work life
balance.

146

REFERENCES
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married
professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45(8),
813-835.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict and
well being: the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors
among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
259-278.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., & Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an
integrative model of the work family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
50, 145-167.
Frye, N.K., & Breaugh, J.A. (2004). Family friendly policies, supervisor support, workfamily conflict and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197-219.
Hyman, J., Baldry, C., Scholarios, D., & Bunzel, D. (2003). Work-life imbalance in the
new service sector economy. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2),
215-239.
Keene, J.R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance:
Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociological Perspectives. 47(1), 1-23.
Kim Siew Lee Fean & Ling Seow Choo (2001). Work-Family conflict of women
entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16(5), 204-221.

147

Luk, D.M., & Shaffer M.A. (2005). Work and family domain stressors and support:
within- and cross-domain influences on work-family conflict. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 489-508.
Pleck, J.H., Staines, G.L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.
Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29-32.
Suchet, M., & Barling, J. (1986). Working mothers: Interrole conflict, spouse support
and marital functioning. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 167-178.

148