Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CITATIONS
READS
857
3 authors, including:
Rabindra Kumar Pradhan
61 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
40 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Article
Effect of WorkLife
Balance on Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour:
Role of Organizational Commitment
1
2
Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, India.
PhD Scholar, Department of Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, India.
Corresponding author:
Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur 721 302, India.
E-mail: rkpradhan@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in
2S
Keywords
Worklife balance, organizational citizenship behaviour, organizational commitment
Introduction
Twenty-first century is witnessing the issues of worklife balance (WLB) because of demographic and
social changes resulting in creation of a diverse workforce. This is evident with the penetration of
working women into the workforce, rise in dual career family in one side and in the other side the
progressively dissolving psychological contract between the employer and employee, namely, job
security happening across business sectors. In this connection, it is assumed that innovative work time
and human resource (HR) policies with an orientation towards WLB can possibly lead for a positive
impact at organizational level which may include enhanced employee performance, reduced absenteeism level, better recruitment and retention potential as well as greater overall time efficiency.
Contemporary research progresses have been made in advancing the conceptual rigour and empirical
attention for WLB as this construct offers organizations to help in increasing job satisfaction among
employees and career accomplishment collectively. In the context of organizational commitment (OC)
and citizenship behaviour, it is believed that when a management strategy relieves the undue interference
from one domain (i.e., work), the demands of the second domain (family) may be better met and proves
to be less disruptive to the first domain (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1999). This is because the ultimate
purpose of WLB is to have a harmonious and holistic integration of work and family so that individual
professionals can achieve their potential across domains in which they live (Singh, 2004).
Extant research has clearly revealed that organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is critical for
the success of todays organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000) as it inherently
strives from its employees to extend their discretionary behaviours in the form of OC beyond the expected
normal duties. However, this kind of anticipated behaviour of employees is somehow silently contradicting the notion of WLB. Unfortunately, a major gap in the WLB literature is the absence of a strong
theoretical foundation for linking workfamily balance to organizational outcomes, such as OCB and
OC. Therefore, our research findings shed light on whether WLB can impact the demonstration of OCB
in a work setting. The first primary step that we have undertaken is to argue that WLB results in positive
emotions which may potentially promote committed actions within organizations in various ways,
including engaging in discretionary behaviour/citizenship orientation. This is followed through hypothesizing WLB with OCB and the association of these two variables is further mediated by OC.
We have assumed OC as a mediator, from the view point that the construct will help employers to discover ways of enhancing the work life of their employees. This is followed with discussions, managerial
implications and scope for future research.
Pradhan et al.
3S
women remained within the private domain as caretakers of home and children. Historically, the WLB
lingo was generally perceived by that generation as the absence of workfamily conflicts. Drawing
the previous nominal definition, Clark (2000) has defined WLB as the extent to which individuals
are equally engaged in and are equally satisfied with work and family roles.
However, the changing scenarios at workplaces coupled with changes in socio-economic levels
later across the globe have led to imbalance of people overall. Todays organizations faces intense
competition on a global basis and because of this, the employees working with them are experiencing
increasing performance pressures. The high performing organizations to meet the standards have
raised their expectation regarding, time, energy and work commitment from its employees (Burke,
2010). Precisely, globalization characterized by increasing requirements at the job level and changing
social attitudes has made balancing of work and personal life of people very much challenging.
The specific expression workfamily balance was first used in UK in late 1970s to define an
individuals stability between work life and personal life. Over the past years, there was a change
in terminology from workfamily balance to present WLB, which acknowledges that besides family,
people are occupied with multiple roles in their personal and professional life to fulfil various goals. The
revised term worklife balance (WLB) till date remains to be inconsistently defined. Kalliath and
Brough (2008) in this connection have mentioned that despite the contradiction in the definition, a large
part of literature has defined worklife balance as being either the absence of worklife conflict or
worklife spill over. This is predominantly influenced with less-defined role with the genders creating
the opportunity for more worklife spillover. Quick, Henley and Quick et al. (2004) have substantiated
that the spillover effect has experienced people to suffer with apprehension about their life issues
during work hours as they feel guilty about the intrusion of their personal life on their work life, and at
the same time they do experience more worry about their job during their family hours. This finding has
triggered us to explore an in-depth understanding on the behavioural dimension influencing the construct
of WLB. We believe that this will become first such strategic attempt in the area of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology to understand how WLB leads towards fostering human effectiveness and
organizational productivity.
To debate the novelty in our research question, we have explored from related literature of I/O
psychology that many researchers have commonly agreed that WLB is significantly related to an
individuals psychological well-being, which is an indicator of balance between the workplace role and
the role in ones personal life (Marks & Dermid, 1996). The significance over such findings was
primarily dependent on organizations investment for employees lives which correspondingly gets
personified by workers through displaying their sense of belongingness for their job and organization
(Jena & Pradhan, 2014). In this context, Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) have noted that when
a professional is able to identify their role and personal needs with organizational values and goals, their
attachment gets much stronger. It is believed that organizations showing concern for their employees
lives through worklife balance programs can enhance and stabilize an employees perception about
their employer in return (Grover & Crooker, 1995). This has given us a firm belief that in an organizational context, WLB initiatives could potentially encourage employees to exert extra effort and get them
committed in the form of OCB.
4S
of OCB, finding job satisfaction to be the best predictor in an organizational set-up. The popular
dimensions to measure OCB has been proposed later by Organ (1988) through postulating five fundamental factor models: altruism (being helpful); courtesy (being polite and courteous); conscientiousness
(attention to detail for preventing/minimizing errors); civic virtue (demonstrating interest and involvement); and sportsmanship (acceptance of changes and perform without complaining). The proposed
dimensions of Bateman & Organ (1983) on citizenship behaviour recommended a different underlying
behavioural principle in an organizational context. This is because altruism or helping co-workers builds
the work system to be more dynamic because an employee can offer ones unutilized time for assisting
their colleagues on their key tasks. Acts of civic virtue propels employees for providing suggestions
on saving resources, cutting down the costs which may influence individual efficiency and organizational productivity. Conscientiousness breeds individual employees compliance with company policies,
enhancing reliability and maintaining consistency in ones work schedules. Sportsmanship disseminates
an individuals strength from complaining about trivial matters. Williams and Anderson (1991) have
critically evaluated the dimensions proposed by Bateman and Organ (1983) and have grouped altruism
and courtesy as individual-directed behaviour (OCB-I) and the other three, that is, conscientiousness,
civic virtue and sportsmanship, as organization-directed behaviour (OCB-O). Later by Van Dyne et al.
(1994), the concept of OCB has been dissected to provide a clear cut understanding of the construct
stating it as extra-role behavior that benefits the organization and is intended to benefit the organization, which is discretionary and goes beyond existing role expectations.
It is believed that if OCB gets rewarded, the levels of OCB will ascend across the organization
over time. At the same time, in the context of WLB, we have assumed that the consideration of OCB
(silently denoting overtime) will become an organizational norm and this will no longer become spontaneous keeping it as a voluntary expectation from its employees. Research evidence in this context has
recently termed these kind of organizational practice as citizenship pressure which is impacting negatively on employee stress levels (Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap & Suazo, 2010) causing worklife imbalance.
In behavioural context, citizenship behaviour may reveal power motives wherein power-oriented
citizens gain visibility and support for such behaviours and this may derive them with extrinsic rewards,
promotions, etc. At the same time, a handful of professionals gets discouraged and disengaged as they
did not like to play politics to get ahead in the corporate rat race (Chien, Lawler & Uen 2010). However,
in a positive note, (Smith, Organ & Near 1983) has said that through enforcing OCB professionals
can derive the strength of collectivism and mutual trust, and with this belief they are likely to engage
in behaviours for making a difference in their respective organizations.
Pradhan et al.
5S
Lambert et al., 2006), however, Organ (1988) has argued that OCB is distinct from a related construct
like OC. This is because OCB refers to a particular class of employee behaviour, whereas OC is
essentially an attitude-based construct (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979).
In a simpler way, citizenship behaviour improves organizations functioning by lubricating its social
machinery and thereby promoting the attitudinal aspect of its people in the form of commitment to
ones job (Pathardikar & Sahu, 2011; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Based on social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964), research has indicated that those employees who are treated well by their organization respond well by engaging in citizenship behaviour. Chiaburu and Harrison (2008) in their research
have shown that if a co-worker is supportive of another employee, there will be a kind of analogous
effect on the other employee for getting engaged in organizational citizenship behaviour-individual
(OCBI). This kind of attitude aligns with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) where if employee-X
does something for employee-Y, employee-Y will feel like he needs to do something for employee-X.
It is believed that the sharing of responsibilities may create an ideal WLB for both X and Y. In a
connected world of work, job-sharing colleagues can play an important role to help each other for
balancing time between work and personal life. Through this kind of discretionary effort, co-workers
can extend emotional support to one another and may address their WLB issues.
At the same time, research findings have suggested that the absence of social exchange rapport
between individual and individual and with the organization could cause higher turnover, lower commitment and lower citizenship behaviour (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). In a study with professional
academicians on semblance of conflict between work and personal life, Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki,
Kutcher, Indovino and Rosner (2005) have found a negative impact on OCB stating that the more role
conflict an employee is feeling, the less likely he or she will engage in OCBs. Therefore, many organizations of twenty-first century are vehemently promoting their HR policies to address the WLB need
as a part of social exchange relationship with their employed professionals. The policies devised by a
handful of multinational corporations (MNCs) are primarily helping employees to cope with time
pressures with the objective to enhance the autonomy through coordinating and integrating work
and non-work aspect of ones lives (De Cieri, Holmes, Abbott, & Pettit, 2005; Kotowska et al., 2010).
On the context of great place to work, earlier studies by Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis-LaMastro
(1990) have indicated that employees tend to personify their organizations the extent to which the
organizations values their contribution and cares about their well-being simultaneously.
6S
Measures
A set of standardized tools were used for data collection on WLB, OCB and OC. All these tools
were presented in the form of questionnaires to participants for exercising their options. Each questionnaire consisted of certain statements or questions and was answered on Likerts five point rating scales
varying from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4) and strongly
agree (5).
Worklife Balance Scale
The scale was proposed by Pareek and Joshi (2010) which consisted of 36 items for measuring the
areas of personal needs, social needs, time management, team work, compensation and work itself.
The internal consistency reliability was found to be a = 0.71 (0.72 = social needs, 0.63 = personal needs,
0.69 = time management, 0.77 = team work, 0.71 = compensation and benefits and 0.79 = work).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale
The scale consisting of 24 items was primarily based on the conceptual work of Organ (1988) and
was developed by Podsakoff et al., (1990). There were five reverse scored items in this scale and these
item numbers were 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. The rest of the items were positively scored. Due care was
7S
Pradhan et al.
Table 1. Summary of Factors, Abbreviations and Reliability of the Instruments (n = 206)
No. of Items
Cronbachs Alpha
(a)
SN
PN
TM
TW
CB
6
6
6
6
6
0.72
0.63
0.69
0.77
0.71
W
Alt
COU
CON
CV
SPRTS
AC
NC
CC
6
5
5
5
4
5
6
6
6
0.79
0.83
0.81
0.79
0.85
0.77
0.82
0.83
0.74
Concepts
Factors
Abbreviations
Social Need
Personal Need
Time Management
Team Work
Compensation and
Benefits
Work
Altruism
Courtesy
Conscientiousness
Civic Virtue
Sportsmanship
Affective Commitment
Normative Commitment
Continuance Commitment
Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour Scale
Organizational Commitment
Scale
Source: Authors own findings.
taken in these aspects while analyzing the items for statistical analysis. The internal consistency of the
scale was a = 0.85 (Altruism = 0.83, Courtesy = 0.81, Conscientiousness = 0.79, Civic Virtue = 0.85,
Sportsmanship = 0.77).
Organizational Commitment Scale
The scale measured the three-dimensional commitment dimensions proposed by Allen and Meyer
(1990). Each of the affective, normative and continuance commitment dimensions were composed of
six items and they were developed in the form of an instrument by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993).
There were 18 items in total and internal consistency reliability was found to be a = 0.79 (i.e., for affective commitment [0.82], continuance commitment [0.74] and normative commitment [0.83]).
Responses in the items elicited from the sample were averaged to yield composite scores of each
scale for total respondent statistical analysis. A summary of all the scales is presented in Table 1,
showing (i) the major constructs used in the study, (ii) their factor-analytically derived dimensions
with (iii) abbreviations, the number of items constituting the factors and (iv) the Cronbachs alpha
coefficients indicating the internal consistency of WLB, OCB and OC.
3.48
3.64
3.94
3.81
3.62
3.37
3.98
4.26
4.33
4.28
3.88
3.64
4.19
0.309
0.431
0.341
0.365
0.309
0.505
0.369
0.322
0.254
0.260
0.347
0.304
0.248
SD
1
0.617**
0.494**
0.565**
0.580**
0.685**
0.408**
0.197*
0.252**
0.268**
0.535**
0.808**
0.431**
1
1
0.563**
0.666**
0.601**
0.748**
0.438**
0.190*
0.224*
0.192*
0.587**
0.887**
0.431**
1
0.626**
0.646**
0.375**
0.512**
0.293**
0.317**
0.253**
0.586**
0.741**
0.511**
1
0.647**
0.429**
0.599**
0.261**
0.217*
0.201*
0.671**
0.798**
0.521**
SN
PN
TM
TW
CB
W
Alt
CONS
COU
CV
SPRTS
WLB
OCB
Mean
1
0.467**
0.681**
0.309**
0.166
0.177
0.775**
0.788**
0.572**
1
0.308**
0.206*
0.325**
0.302**
0.457**
0.804**
0.403**
1
0.655**
0.345**
0.377**
0.902**
0.588**
0.871**
Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations of WLB and OCB (n = 206)
1
0.622**
0.515**
0.556**
0.295**
0.847**
1
0.752**
0.284**
0.316**
0.708**
11
12
1
0.300** 1
0.291** 0.730** 1
0.695** 0.815** 0.583**
10
13
9S
Pradhan et al.
Table 3. Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of the Dimensions of WLB Predicting the
Dimensions of OCB
Predictor Variable
Criterion Variable
Social Need
Personal Need
Time Management
Team Work
Compensation and Benefits
Work
Altruism
Conscientiousness
Courtesy
Civic Virtue
Sportsmanship
Adj R2
0.060
0.083
0.052
0.318
0.630
0.012
0.093
0.165
0.161
0.115
0.206
0.141
0.019
0.144
0.262
0.065
0.131
0.215
0.047
0.160
0.172
0.068
0.066
0.192
0.012
0.016
0.042
0.240
0.610
0.044
0.211
0.131
0.183
0.139
0.242
0.189
Figure 1. Strength of association between OCB as the predictor and WLB as the criterion.
Source: Authors own findings.
with the different dimensions of OCB. However, time management, team work and work itself of WLB
questionnaire were found to be predicted with OCB positively. Figure 1 shows the overall strength
of association between OCB as the predictor and WLB as the criterion. The beta value of 0.475 between
WLB balance and OCB is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It shows significantly high association
between the two constructs and WLB predicts 34 per cent of OCB.
To understand the influence of OC between WLB and OCB, a mediation analysis was performed
using the causal-step approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). In addition to it, bootstrapped
confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect was obtained using procedures described by Preacher
and Hayes (2008). The causal variable for the present study is WLB, whereas the outcome variable is
OCB and the proposed mediating variable is the dimensions of OC proposed by Meyer et al. (1993).
Preliminary data screening has suggested that there were no serious defilements of assumptions of normality and a = 0.01 2-tailed is the criterion for statistical significance. Figure 2 presents the total
effect of WLB on OCB is found to be significant at c = 0.474, t = 7.729, p < 0.001, whereas the indirect
effect of WLB on OCB moderated with OC is found to be highly significant at c = 0.7246, t = 16.032
and p < 0.001. This was judged for statistical significance by using the Sobel (1982) test at z = 9.404 and
p = 0.001. Using the SPSS script for the Indirect procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), bootstrapping
was performed; a total of 5,000 samples were requested; a bias-corrected and accelerated CI was
created for both the constructs. For the 95 per cent CI, the lower limit was found to be 0.6037 and the
upper limit was found to be 0.8549.
10S
Discussions
In this study, we have first examined the relationship between WLB and OCB and later both the
variables have been mediated with OC. The results were found to be supportive and consistent with our
objective that WLB is significantly mediated with the dimensions of OC, showing a strong prediction
of OCB. Thus, the findings of the study was in alignment with past research, demonstrating that perceived WLB support mechanisms have a profound influence on employee commitment and productivity
(Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux & Brindley, 2005). Our findings have also supported the empirical
survey carried out by Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (2006) with the bottom line that WLB appears
to promote employees engagement in OCBs which may benefit the organization through positive
affectivity. The significant correlation between teamwork of WLB with all the dimensions of OCB
found in our research is found to be consistent with prior research findings, suggesting that when both
coworkers and supervisors are supportive of an employee, that employee may be more satisfied with his
or her job and develop emotional attachments to the organization (Bragger et al., 2005; Rousseau &
Aube, 2010). The earlier literature review and our findings related to the dimensions of WLB and
employee commitment are found to be relying on the concept of psychological contract (Rousseau,
1995) and social exchange theory (Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996), predicting OCB in return for
perceived usefulness of workfamily benefits. The study has found that WLB strategies deployed by
sample Indian manufacturing organizations are predominantly associated with the findings on tendency
for individual employees to go above and beyond their job profile/role, as well maintain the desire to
stay with their respective organization and increase their attachment with it (Canivet et al., 2010;
Eaton, 2001; Grawitch, Gottschalk & Munz, 2006; Richman, Civian, Shannon, Hill & Brennan, 2008).
We have also understood that it may be beneficial for the organizations to consider flexible scheduling
as it may help the professionals to alleviate some of the stressors that cause worklife imbalance, such
as time allocation (Batt & Valcour, 2003).
Pradhan et al.
11S
Managerial Implications
The findings of the study have practical implications for organizations and individual employees.
First of all, the present study is a solid first step in offering a better understanding of WLB construct
while expanding the empirical foundations of citizenship behaviour and OC. It is suggested that
organizations with extensive WLB programmes educe discretionary behaviour from its employee
resources and correspondingly bring higher levels of OC and productivity in its fold. However, Pocock,
Van Wanrooy, Strazzari and Bridge (2001) in their findings have stated that the nature of work and
career paths of contemporary organizations demand long hours as a signal of OC, productivity and motivation for advancement. Though working long hours reflects job involvement, commitment and productivity, however, such behaviour stands as an obstacle to meeting family requirements. Tombari and
Spinks (1999) in this connection have urged that management support is critical to WLB initiatives.
Nord, Fox, Phoenix and Viano (2002) have emphasized that HR managers may need to serve as a
communication channel between employees and top management. They have proposed that HR should
communicate with high-level mangers about how the existing assignments are affecting employees
life and organizational performance, and hence, programmes need to be devised supporting more
to the WLB programmes.
Allen (2001) in his findings had indicated that a strong relation between supervisor support and
family-supportive work environments was less likely to experience workfamily conflicts (Thompson &
Prottas, 2006) and employees will have a positive inclination for taking up available worklife/
family programmes initiated by the establishments (McDonald, Brown & Bradley, 2004). Therefore, it
is implicit to support the findings that employee decision to stay with an organization is possible
only when there is WLB (Deery, 2008). Through empirical tests, has confirmed the work of Deery
(2008) that the importance of worklife balance by showing that workfamily balance experiences
increased employees life satisfaction and job satisfaction. Parkes and Langford (2008) have suggested
for creating
worklife alignment through congruent goal and values, looking after the health and safety of employees,
improving reward and performance appraisal system to more accurately reflect performance outcome (rather
than time in the office), developing fair and supportive supervisors, facilitating participation and involvement in
decision-making among all employees, would increase employee engagement, commitment, retention generally
and flow on to greater satisfaction with worklife balance.
12S
Innovative HR policies on worklife benefit programmes such as Happy Friday (employees can leave
their office two hours early on the last Friday of every month), refreshing day-offs (employees can take
two weeks off in every three years to refresh their mind and to have time to spend with families) and
a flexible labour time system (employees can choose work time based on their preferences). These kinds
of benefit programmes will likely influence employees emotions and perceptions in that they will feel
the organizational support of caring about their well-being (Kim, 2014). Considering the significant
positive associations of WLB and citizenship behaviour in this study, it is proposed that organizations
need to think of enhancing the quality of employees work and family lives by redesigning their jobs.
References
Allen, T.D. (2001). Family supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 58(4), 414435.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(2), 118.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1),
11731182.
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 587595.
Batt, R., & Valcour, P. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of workfamily outcomes and employee
turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy & Society, 42(2), 189220.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B., & Suazo, M.M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: Whats a good
soldier to do? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31(2), 835855.
Pradhan et al.
13S
Bragger, J., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., Kutcher, E., Indovino, L., & Rosner, E. (2005). Workfamily conflict, work
family culture, and organizational citizenship behaviour among teachers. Journal of Business & Psychology,
20(2), 303324.
Burke, W. W. (2010). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Canivet, C., Ostergren, P., Lindeberg, S., Choi, B., Karasek, R., Moghaddassi, M., & Isacsson, S. (2010). Conflict
between the work and family domains and exhaustion among vocationally active men and women, Social
Science & Medicine, 70(8), 12371245.
Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J.G., & Kacmar, K.M. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via
the workfamily interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 330355.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis
of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5),
10821103.
Clark, S.C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(1),
747770.
Cohen, A., & Vigoda, E. (2000). Do good citizens make good organizational citizens? Administration and Society,
32(1), 596624.
De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J., & Pettit, T. (2005). Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 90103.
Deery, M. (2008). Talent management, worklife balance and retention strategies. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792806.
Eaton, S. C. (2001). If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived
Productivity. Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series. Retrieved from, http://ksgnotes1.
harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP01
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brindley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB:
Content analysis and review of the literature (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66(3), 124197.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, E.M., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Effects of perceived organizational support on
employee diligence, innovation, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 5159.
Grawitch, M.J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D.C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking
healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 129147.
Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review, 10(1), 7688.
Grover, S., & Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of
family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology,
48(3), 271288.
Jena, L.K., & Pradhan, R.K. (2014). Workplace spirituality and worklife balance: An empirical introspection in
Indian manufacturing industries. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(4), 155161.
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Worklife balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of
Management and Organization, 14(3), 323327.
Kim, H.K. (2014). Worklife balance and employees performance: The mediating role of affective commitment.
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 6(1), 3751.
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). Different strategies for managing the work/non-work interface: A test for
unique pathways to work outcomes. Work and Stress, 13(2), 5973.
Kotowska, E.I., Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., Paillhe, A., Solaz, A., Vignoli, D., et al. (2010). Second European quality
of life survey: Family life and work (pp. 196). Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities.
Lambert, E.G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The impact of work-family conflict
on social work and human service worker job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory
study, Administration in Social Work, 30 (3), 5574.
Marks, S.R., & Dermid, S.M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 58(2), 417432.
14S
McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2005). Explanations of the provisionutilization gap in worklife policy.
Women in Management Review, 20(1), 3755.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of
a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538551.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 14(2), 224247.
Newhall-Marcus, A., Halpern, D.F., & Han, S.J. (2008). Changing realities of work and family. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Nord, W.R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A., & Viano, K. (2002). Real-world reactions to worklife balance programs: Lessons
for effective implementation, Organizational Dynamics, 30(3) 223238.
Nwagbara, U., & Akanji, B. (2012). The Impact of Work-Life Balance on the Commitment and Motivation of
Nigerian Women Employees. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,
2(3), 112.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pareek, U., & Joshi, M. (2010). Training instruments in human resource development & organisational development
(3rd ed.). New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company ltd.
Parkes, L.P., & Langford, P.H. (2008). Worklife balance or worklife alignment? A test of the importance of work
life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organizations. Journal of Management &
Organization, 14(3), 267284.
Pathardikar, A.D., & Sahu, S. (2011). Implications of the organization cultural antecedents on organizational commitment: A study in Indian public sector units. Global Business Review, 12(3), 431446.
Pocock, B., Van Wanrooy, B., Strazzari, S., & Bridge, K. (2001). Fifty families: What unreasonable hours are doing
to Australians, their families and their communities, Retrieved 18 January 2015, from www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and
their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors:
A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal
of Management, 26(2), 513563.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research.
In A.F. Hayes, M.D. Slater & L.B. Snyder (Eds), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for
communication research (pp. 1354). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Quick, J.D., Henley, A.B., & Quick, J.C. (2004). The balancing act: At work and at home. Organizational Dynamics,
33(4), 426438.
Richman, A., Civian, J.T, Shannon, L., Hill, E.J., & Brennan, R. (2008). The relationship of perceived flexibility,
supportive work-life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee
engagement and expected retention. Community Work Family, 11(2), 183197.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contract in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rousseau, V., & Aube, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization:
The moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. The Journal of Social Psychology,
150(4), 321340.
Settoon, R., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support,
leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 219227.
Singh, V. (2004). Managerial strategies for worklife balance. In P.V.L. Raju (Ed.), Worklife balance: Concepts and
perspectives (pp. 5671). Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.
Pradhan et al.
15S
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 653663.
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, C.A., & Prottas, D.J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy,
perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 100118.
Tombari, N., & Spinks, N. (1999). The workfamily interface at the Royal Bank Financial Group: successful
solutionsa retrospective look at lessons learned. Women in Management Review, 14(5), 186194.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765802.
Van Scotter, J.R., Motowidlo, S.J., & Cross, T.C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance
on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526535.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader member exchange:
A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 82111.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601617.