is work-life balance influenced by control and schedule

1

Is work-life balance influenced by control and schedule

type, and does it affect various job outcomes?

Master Thesis Human Resource Studies

Tilburg University

Dr. M. Verhagen

Dr. A. Vossen

Theme:

HR Metrics – Free Choice

Name:

C.A.L.M. Beaujean

Project Period:

February 2011 – November 2011

2

Preface

This master thesis is written as completion of my Social and Behavioural sciences master degree at the

University of Tilburg. In this preface I will explain why I choose this topic and I would like to thank

some people who made it possible for me to complete this study.

After finishing the bachelor Personeelwetenschappen, I applied for the master Human Resource

Studies. During these master studies I went on exchange for one semester, was part of the ESN-

Tilburg board for one full-time year, and was a full-time trainee at Nedalco B.V.

After that, it was time for my final master thesis. The theme was a free choice, which I chose because I

wanted to write my thesis for an organization. I wanted to make sure the result would be used within at

least one organization, and of course it was a possibility to see an organization from the inside. In my

opinion this complements a theoretical study. Together with the HR department of CurTec.BV the

exact topic was chosen after which the whole research process began.

Now, after more than three years of being a master student, I am handing in my master thesis in order

to graduate from the study Human Resource Studies. This not only means that new challenges and

opportunities are coming my way, but it also means my student life ends.

This master thesis could not have been accomplished without the support of some important people.

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor, dr. Marinus Verhagen, for his

time, guidance and support throughout the process of compiling this thesis. In addition, I would like to

thank my second supervisor, dr. Ad Vossen, for his time and his useful feedback. Finally, I would like

to thank my family and my friends for their support and encouragement throughout the entire program

of Human Resource Studies.

Karin Beaujean

Tilburg, November 2011

3

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction and research question ...................................................................................................... 6

2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Control over work schedule and its effect on work-life balance ................................................... 8

2.2 Schedule type and work-life balance ............................................................................................. 9

2.3 Schedule type as a moderator on the relation of control over work schedule and work-life

balance ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Work-life balance and its effect on job outcomes ....................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.4.2 Turnover intention ................................................................................................................ 12

2.4.3 Organizational commitment………………………………………………………………..13

2.5 Control variables ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.6 Graphical representation of hypotheses ....................................................................................... 17

3. Method .............................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Research set up ............................................................................................................................ 18

3.2 Population and sample................................................................................................................. 18

3.3 Instruments and their construct validity and reliability ............................................................... 19

3.4 Statistical analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25

3.4.1 Preparation of the data set .................................................................................................... 25

3.4.2 Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 25

4. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 27

4

4.2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses ................................................................................... 29

4.3 Additional analyses ..................................................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Correlation matrix including all subscales ........................................................................... 34

5. Conclusion and discussion ................................................................................................................ 36

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 36

5.2 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 37

5.3 Limitations and implications for further research ....................................................................... 41

5.4 Practical implications .................................................................................................................. 44

6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................... 58

5

Abstract

This study focuses on the work-life balance of employees. It measures to what extent control over work

schedules and various schedule types influence an employee’s work-life balance and investigates to

what extent work-life balance influences three job outcomes: job satisfaction, turnover intention and

organizational commitment. A response group (N=94) working at two production organizations in

either a standard day schedule (office employees) or in a three-shift schedule (production employees)

completed a questionnaire. Various hierarchical regression analyses revealed that for this sample

control does not influence work-life balance, after controlling for schedule type. The subscale ‘control

over taking time off’ however does influence work-life balance and job satisfaction with work-life

balance as a mediator positively. With that production employees have on average a lower work-life

balance than office employees, and job satisfaction is positively influenced by work-life balance while

turnover intention and organizational commitment are not. Results and limitations of this study are

discussed and recommendations for further research and practice are made.

Key words: Schedule type, production versus office employees, control over work schedules, work-life

balance, job outcomes, job satisfaction, turnover intention, organizational commitment

6

1. Introduction and research question

A new trend among the younger working generation is rising, in which employees aspire more

influence and control over their work conditions (Adkins, 2002; Charles and Harris, 2007). Their work

ethos has changed: employees are becoming more independent, are more often self-employed and are

more demanding than ever before. In order to attract this group of employees it is important to create a

flexible work environment matching employees’ personal needs.

Another change has taken place among the workforce born right after World War II. This large group

is aging and is reaching retirement age. However a large group still has some years of work left, and

because older employees tend to get tired more rapidly (Kooij, 2010), and need more time to recover

after a working day, their desire to work fewer hours grows as they age. With the entering of women

at the labour market, and as a consequence an increase in dual earner families, more employees and

families are faced with the challenge to manage both work and life responsibilities (Adkins, 2002;

Golden, 2001; Greenblatt, 2002). This pressure, occurring by having to be at two places at the same

time, can lead, according to various studies (e.g. Allan, Loudoun and Peetz, 2007; Pichler, 2008; Rau

& Hyland, 2002; White, Hill, McGovern and Smeaton, 2003), to unacceptable levels of conflict

between work and non-work demands. In order for employees to be satisfied at both work and private

life, a balance between work and life needs to be created (Greenblatt, 2002).

Therefore, new trends at work are emerging. More and more organizations give employees a

remuneration to perform a certain task instead of a payment to work a certain amount of hours, or give

them the opportunity to work flexible hours, work at home, and/or work part time in duo or trio jobs

(Greenblatt, 2002; Halpern, 2005; Pichler, 2009). These interventions, called ‘Flexible working’ (in

Dutch: het Nieuwe Werken) are designed by organizations to improve the work-life balance of their

employees. A better work-life balance is argued to improve the state of both employees and the

organization itself. Research has shown that it positively influences various job outcomes, such as job

satisfaction and turnover intention (Cascio and Boudreau, 2008; Greenblatt, 2002; Reynolds, 2005;

Sang, Ison and Dainty, 2008), which assumingly results in organization profits. This balance between

7

work and life is expected to be partly determined by the amount of control employees perceive to have

over their work schedule and the formation of their work schedule (Golden, 2001; Karasek, 1979).

More control over their own work schedule entails that when an employee wants to take off certain

hours, days or weeks, the request must be taken into account and seriously considered by the

organization (Allan et al., 2007). At the same time, it entails that employees can indicate the amount of

hours they desire to work and at what times the employee wants to work.

The level of control that potentially can be given to employees depends on the nature of the work.

Over the past few years a growing number of organizations have made use of flexible work

arrangements such as self scheduling and increased flexibility in starting and ending work times. In the

production industry however, this is more difficult. Production organizations are usually operating day

and night and often even 24/7. In those organizations standard work times are necessary and it is not

easy for an organization to take everyone’s preferences into account. But how are control and work-

life balance exactly related and does this differ per schedule type? And how does work-life balance in

turn influence various important job outcomes (Beutell, 2010; Wilson, Polzer-Debruyne, Chen and

Fernandes, 2007)? This article will elaborate on these relationships.

This leads to the following research question:

Is work-life balance mediating the relationship between control over work schedule and schedule type

on the one hand, and job outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational

commitment) on the other hand?

In the next sections first the various concepts and their relationships will be explained. Thereafter,

employees working with a variety of schedule types will be asked to complete a survey with questions

about their work-life balance and level of control. The focus will lie on production organizations

because various schedule types are often present in such organisations. The results will be outlined in

the results section after which limitations and recommendations will be presented.

8

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Control over work schedule and its effect on work-life balance

Over the past few decades, researchers have spent a great deal of time studying the work-life balance

of employees. What happens when people combine work with the responsibilities of personal or

family life (Reynolds, 2005; Pichler, 2009)? Work-life balance is most often described as “the absence

of unacceptable levels of conflict between work and nonwork demands” (Greenblatt, 2002: p 179). It

arises when employees want to divide their time between work and personal life in a different way

than currently is the case but are unable or find it difficult to do so (Tausig and Fenwick, 2001).

It is argued that a condition to improve the work-life balance is that employees have some control over

their work schedules (Beutell, 2010; Halpern, 2005; Karasek, 1979; Tausig and Fenwick, 2001).

According to the Individualization Theory, social actors are becoming more individual-based over the

years. As a result, acquiring more control is becoming more vital in order for people to make their own

decisions (Charles and Harris, 2007; Smart and Shipman, 2004). Dimensions of control are control

over taking time off – both expected and unexpected time off –, control over the number of work

hours and control over the starting and finishing times and control over time off (Allan,et al., 2007).

With that, the effect of control also depends on the extent that employees use their control. Without

obtaining and utilizing this control, managements’ interventions belonging to the flexible working

trend to improve the balance between work and life have little to no effect. In order for them to be

effective, the interventions should make it easier to combine work with personal life. Only when

employees have control, the interventions are expected to improve the work-life balance because

employees are able to adjust their work times around their personal commitments and responsibilities.

Tausig and Fenwick (2001) found that with perceived schedule control the work-life conflict occurs

less often, independently of schedule type. The Job Demand-control Model of Karasek (1979) and the

follow up Demand-control-support Model of Theorell and Karasek (2000) imply more or less the

same; the authors state that a stressful job can result in lower-quality family interaction, and thus the

9

balance between work and life decreases. When workers however believe to have control over this

stressful situation, their work-life balance improves. With control is – in the model of Theorell and

Karasek – meant all ways to have control over work. In this research however only control over one’s

work schedule is meant. However, because this is an aspect of the overall concept of control it is

expected to also be positively related. Thus, when work-life conflict is present, being able to control

the situation would decrease the negative effect of the conflict.

� This leads to hypothesis 1: Control over work schedule positively influences work-life balance.

2.2 Schedule type and work-life balance

When work occurs in another form than a traditional day schedule (e.g. night and weekend shifts) it

can lead to discontinuities between work and personal life (Beutell, 2010; Wilson et al., 2007). The

schedule determines what hours an employee has to work, but also when the employee is off and able

to plan non-work activities. Schedules are often standardized with set working hours or starting time.

There are five schedules types that occur most often: the standard day schedule (mainly office

employees), two-shift schedule, three-shift schedule, four-shift schedule, and five-shift schedule (all

production employees). Employees working in a standard day schedule usually work from say 8:30??)

9 to 5. Employees working in a two-shift schedule often work mornings or evenings and their schedule

usually rotates every other week. When working in three or more shifts, working during the night is

often part of the schedule and when working in four or five-shift schedules working in the weekends

does also occur. For employees working in standard work schedules it is easier to plan non-work

activities than for employees working in rotating and non-standard schedules, because the first

mentioned group always has evenings and weekends off while for the latter group their free time

changes. On top of that, their starting and finishing times are often more flexible, as long as they work

enough hours each week, which has positive outcomes on their work-life balance (Haar, 2007;

Greenhaus and Powell, 2006). In production organizations however, employees are expected to come

in during the day and night at fixed times, and possibly even in the weekends and some receive their

schedule only some time in advance. They have fixed start and ending work times because the new

work shift has to redeem the old shift. Along with increased stress and fatigue that comes with

10

nonstandard work-schedules (Dembe, Delbos, Erickson and Banks, 2007) it makes the planning of

non-work activities more complicated which could result in a decrease of work-life balance (Wilson et

al., 2007).

This relationship between schedule type and work-life balance can also be explained with help of the

Job-demands-resources Model (Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

The Job-demands-resources Model assumes that stress can be the result of both job demands and job

resources which are present in every occupation. In this study, the work schedule is an example of a

job demand where a non standard schedule demands more of an employee than working in a day

schedule. A work schedule thus requires sustained effort and could have psychological costs as a result

because it informs an employee when to be present at work. Especially working in a rotating schedule

expects employees to be flexible which is energy consuming (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Working

(non)standard hours is a commitment that could lead to time-based conflict because time devoted to

work is not available for family (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). When the demands of the job schedule

are higher, more resources are necessary in order to achieve the same balance between work and life.

Thus when working non-standard working hours, it is expected that the work-life balance is lower than

when working in a standard schedule leaving other things aside.

� This leads to hypothesis 2: Schedule type influences the work-life balance of employees, with a

standard day schedule leading to a better work-life balance than a rotating non-standard

schedule.

2.3 Schedule type as a moderator on the relation of control over work

schedule and work-life balance

As stated before, schedule type is expected to influence work-life balance directly, but schedule type

might also have a moderating effect on the relationship between control and work-life balance.

An employees’ free time depends largely on the schedule type applicable to the employee. As

mentioned before, if a work schedule is unpredictable and rotates, it is more difficult to plan non-work

11

activities (Wilson et al., 2007). In order to still be able to attend social events and activities, it is

important that employees have control over their working hours and (are able to) change this shift into

another time or day (Haar, 2007). Therefore, it is argued that having more control over the work

schedule is more important when working non-standard hours than when a standard schedule is

applicable to the employee. The Job-demands-resources Model (Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke

2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) states the same when presuming that schedule type is a demand,

while having control is a resource. Working in a rotating shift schedule, which is often the case for

production employees, demands more of an employee than working during the day. This would lead to

a lower work-life balance as argued before. In order to restore the balance, resources are needed. In

this study, having control over the formation of the work schedule is an example of a resource and

becomes more important according to this model when working non-standard hours. Thus, schedule

type is expected to have a moderating effect on the relationship between control and work-life balance

where a rotating shift schedule lowers the work-life balance in comparison to a standard day schedule.

Although it can be argued that schedule type moderates between control and work-life balance, not all

researches found a significant effect. A research of Tausig and Fenwick (2001) for instance, finds that

control has a positive influence on work-life balance independently of schedule type. Thus, according

to this research for every schedule type the strength of the relation between control and work-life

balance is the same. This makes it interesting to investigate this hypothesis in this setting.

� This leads to hypothesis 3: Type of work schedule moderates the relationship between control over

work schedules and work-life balance with standard day schedules leading to a stronger, positive

relationship between control and work-life balance than rotating non-standard schedules.

2.4 Work-life balance and its effect on job outcomes

Various studies have looked at how work-life balance affects the behaviour and attitudes of

employees. Strong correlations were found between work-life balance and various job outcomes. Most

often a substantial effect on job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational commitment was

12

found (Cascio and Boudreau, 2008; Greenblatt, 2002; Haar, 2008; Reynolds, 2005). In the next

paragraphs these relations will be explained.

2.4.1 Satisfaction

“Job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as

achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values” (Locke, 1969: 316). Its positive

influence by work-life balance is found in various researches (Beutell, 2010; Haar, 2008; Sang et al.,

2008). The reason for this expected causality is easily explained when taking a work-life conflict as

starting point: When employees perceive a conflict between work and personal life, this means that

they cannot properly fulfil both parts. They have to make a choice, which is often combined with an

unpleasant emotional state and a feeling of failure. Either work or private life will not receive the

attention that is needed and a feeling of guilt might arise towards the party that ‘lost’ because that task

is not completed correctly. This leads to dissatisfaction (Sang et al., 2008; Beutell and Wittig-Berman,

2008). With that, the ‘spillover’ model (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991) states that the level of

satisfaction in one role spills over to other roles meaning that being dissatisfied in one role will

increase the chance of feeling dissatisfied in another role. Being dissatisfied on its term influences an

employee’s performance negatively which is not desirable. Again, the above highlights the importance

of a good work-life balance.

2.4.2 Turnover intention

Another important variable influenced by the work-life balance is turnover intention (Sang et al.,

2008). Turnover intention, which is “the relative strength of an individual's intent to leave the

organization” (Kumar and Gupta, 2009: p. 3), is positively influenced from the organization’s point of

view by work-life balance, according to a study of both Greenblatt (2002) and Sang et al. (2008).

Thus, when work-life balance is higher, the intention to leave the organization is smaller. The relation

becomes more obvious when looking at the relationship the reversed way: When the work-life balance

is low, conflict between the two arises, and employees get the feeling that something has to change.

Because either work or personal life has to change in order to improve the work-life balance, it is

likely that the employee chooses to change his job, as it is easier to change the working environment

13

than someone’s whole personal life. Because the costs of turnover are very high ranging from the costs

of nonwork time and attracting a new employee (Cascio and Boudreau, 2008), it should be avoided.

2.4.3 Organizational commitment

Besides turnover intention and satisfaction level, work-life balance also influences the level of

organizational commitment (Reynolds, 2005). Organizational commitment can be defined as “the

relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”

(Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979: p. 226). Although this link has been much less explored than for

instance the link with satisfaction (Allen, Herst, Bruck and Sutton, 2007), some research would imply

that the two are positively correlated and that work-life conflict leads to lower levels of organizational

commitment (Haar, 2008). Halpern (2005) only finds a positive relation when employees also have

control over their work schedule, whereas others do not find a link at all (Wiley, 1987; O’Driscoll,

Ilgen and Hildreth, 1992).

With organizational commitment is meant that employees remain with an organization because they

want to, or because they perceive they need to. As a result, committed employees are loyal in return

for a range of benefits and support (Halpern, 2005) which leads to positive organizational outcomes.

Meyer and Allen (1991) divided organizational commitment in three – nowadays widely used –

dimensions: affective, continuance and normative organizational commitment. One’s affective

commitment is high when one feels emotionally attached to an organization (Mowday et al., 1979).

Employees with a strong affective commitment link themselves to the organization (Mowday et al.,

1979), and stay with their employer because they want to. An employee’s continuance commitment is

high when the employee stays with an organization because he needs to. The cost of leaving would be

too high. Normative commitment refers to employees who remain working for an organization

because they feel they ought to in respect to the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Thus they do

not feel committed because of the characteristics of their job or the organization they work for, but

because they feel that leaving the organization will harm the organization to a great extent and

therefore do not dare to leave. Because in this last dimension the emphasis lies on the organization and

14

not so much on what the employee wants this dimension does not contribute to what is meant with

organizational commitment in this study.

Argued is that work-life balance and organizational commitment are related by means that a conflict

between work and life might be perceived by employees as a failure of the organization for not

providing the needed support and therefore might lead to lower levels of commitment (Haar, 2008).

This is especially the case for affective and continuous commitment, since the employee in those cases

outweighs the advantages against the disadvantages without taking the consequences for the

organizations into account.

� The above leads to the following hypotheses:

4a: Work-life balance positively influences job satisfaction.

4b: Work-life balance negatively influences turnover intention.

4c: Work-life balance positively influences organizational commitment.

Because, as mentioned in paragraph 2.1, control is expected to have a positive effect on work-life

balance, and work-life balance in turn is expected to have an effect on the behaviour and attitudes of

employees (e.g. Greenblatt, 2002; Reynolds, 2005), it is implicated that control also has an indirect

effect on job outcomes via work-life balance. Although the literature only mentions the indirect effect

on job satisfaction (Haar, 2008) an effect on turnover intention and organizational commitment is

expected as well.

� This leads to the following hypotheses:

5a: Work-life balance mediates the positive relation between control and job satisfaction.

5b: Work-life balance mediates the negative relation between control and turnover intention.

5c: Work-life balance mediates the positive relation between control and organizational

commitment.

15

Finally, an indirect effect of schedule type on the three job outcomes with work-life balance as a

mediator is expected. Although not many studies have investigated this relation (Haar, 2008), finding

out how the variables affect each other is interesting for both employer and employee. Because both

the direct effect between schedule type and work-life balance (Beutell, 2010; Wilson et al., 2007) and

work-life balance and the job outcomes job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational

commitment exist according to the literature (Beutell, 2010; Haar, 2008; Sang et al., 2008), it makes

sense that the indirect effect is significant as well.

� This leads to the final hypotheses:

6a: Work-life balance mediates the relation between schedule type and job satisfaction, with a

standard day schedule leading to higher satisfaction level than a non-standard rotating schedule.

6b: Work-life balance mediates the relation between schedule type and turnover intention, with a

standard day schedule leading to a lower turnover intention level than a non-standard rotating

schedule.

6c: Work-life balance mediates the relation between schedule type and organizational

commitment, with a standard day schedule leading to a higher level of commitment than a non-

standard rotating schedule.

2.5 Control variables

To control for spuriousness between the hypothesized relations mentioned in the previous paragraphs,

the following variables will be controlled for: gender, age, care responsibilities and living together

with a partner.

Gender. Gender is added as control variable because although in many couples both the man and

female work full time, the women in general are still carrying out a disproportionate share of the

household and care responsibilities (Charles and Harris, 2007; Coltrane, 2000; Loudoun and Bohle,

1997). According to various authors the unequal division of domestic labour leads to a lower level of

work-life balance for women (Gallie and Russell, 2009; White, et al., 2003). Although not all

16

researchers find this correlation (Beutell, 2010; Reynolds, 2005), it is interesting to add gender to this

research as a control variable.

Age. It is expected that there is a difference between the perception of younger and older employees

when it comes to desired control, and the way they deal with non-standard work schedules (Adkins,

2002; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Charles and Harris, 2007). For example, older employees tire

more rapidly (Kooij, 2010) and therefore prefer to work in standard work-schedule over a non-

standard rotating schedule. On the other hand, younger employees expect significantly more control

and freedom than the baby-boom generation does (Dempster, 2003 from Allan, Loudoun and Peetz,

2007). This implies that employees of a different age can have a different perception of work-life

balance (Lewis, Smithson and Kugelberg, 2002). Young workers for instance attach more value to

work-life balance than older generations (Lewis et al, 2002; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Thus it is

expected that younger people attach more value to control over their work schedule than older

employees and therefore in order to get the same balance between work and life, younger employees

need more control. This is why age is added as a control variable.

Care responsibilities. Care responsibilities will also be added as a control variable. Under this

category falls taking care of children and/or elderly relatives. Parents often have a hard time

combining work with raising their children (Golden and Figart, 2000; Pocock and Clarke, 2004;

Pocock, 2006). Due to the increasing number of dual earner families, this is becoming a greater

problem (Greenblatt, 2002). Especially females who usually perform a larger part of family and

household duties (Charles and Harris, 2007; Coltrane, 2000; Loudoun and Bohle, 1997) experience

this difficulty (Young and Wright, 2001). Reason is that work and care responsibilities are both time

consuming and important and often overlap (Pocock, 2006; Tausig and Fenwick, 2001). Therefore, it

is expected that care responsibilities can influence work-life balance negatively (Gallie and Russell,

2009).

Living together with a partner. The final variable controlled for in this research is living together

with a partner. According to Hilbrecht (2010), the quality of life is lower in situations that are different

from traditional role expectations such as not having a partner. It is likely that people living alone

distribute their free time differently than couples that do live together, which has an impact on the

work-life balance. Additionally, when liv

among two adults, after which more free time remains. Therefore, it is expected that employees who

do not live together with a partner need more control over their work hours in order to achieve the

same work-life balance as employees who do live together with a partner.

2.6 Graphical representation of hypotheses

To create an overview of the variables involved in this research and how th

graphical representation of the hypotheses

The two hypotheses that are not clearly depicted in the figure are the indirect relations: Hypothesis 5

indicates that control has a positive influence on the three job outcomes with work

mediator; Hypothesis 6 indicates that schedule type

balance as mediator, where working in a standard day schedule leads to a more positive outcome than

working in a non-standard rotating schedule.

17



life balance. Additionally, when living together, household responsibilities can be divided



life balance as employees who do live together with a partner.

Graphical representation of hypotheses

To create an overview of the variables involved in this research and how they may be

graphical representation of the hypotheses is depicted below (figure 1).

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the hypotheses


indicates that control has a positive influence on the three job outcomes with work

mediator; Hypothesis 6 indicates that schedule type influences the job outcomes with work


standard rotating schedule.



ing together, household responsibilities can be divided



may be related, a

Graphical representation of the hypotheses


indicates that control has a positive influence on the three job outcomes with work-life balance as

influences the job outcomes with work-life


18

3. Method

In this paragraph the research methods that are used to test the hypotheses will be explained. First an

overall picture of the general setup of the research will be presented. Then the population and sample

are described. After that, the instruments that are used to measure the constructs used in this research

are defined and evaluated.

3.1 Research set up

In order to test the research design, a questionnaire is created (Appendix A). This questionnaire will be

distributed among various organizations or production branches where the five different schedule

types are present. The questionnaire entails questions about the employees’ personal situation, work-

life balance and perceived control. Additionally, scales to measure job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and turnover intention will be included.

The model that is presented will be tested using a cross-sectional survey design, which means that the

data is gathered at one point in time using a questionnaire (Bryman, 2004).

3.2 Population and sample

A response group where all five schedule types (standard day schedule, two-shift schedule, three-shift

schedule, four-shift schedule and five-shift schedule) are represented by a group of 50 or more

employees per schedule type is aimed for. With a response group this size it is expected that the results

would show a quite good picture of the complete situation (Costello and Osborne, 2005).

Unfortunately, in the end, only two production organizations were willing to cooperate and only 160

employees received the questionnaire of which 96 were returned. This is a response rate of 60 %. Of

the 102 approached employees working at organization A 76 employees completed the questionnaire

(response rate is 75%). The respondents working at this organization can be divided in an office group

working standard working hours (47 employees with a response rate of 81%), and a production group

working in 3 shifts (29 employees with a response rate of 66%). Also a production branch of 68

employees working at a large production organization was asked to complete the questionnaire. Due to

various reasons however, only 29% completed the questionnaire. Because this group also worked in a

19

three shift schedule, all respondents worked either in day shifts (office) or in a three shift schedule

(production).

After screening the data two questionnaires were not used due to an excessive amount of missing data.

The remaining 94 suitable questionnaires were organized into a database and used for further analysis.

From now on, those who reacted will be referred to as ‘respondents’. In total 47 respondents are

working in a standard day schedule, and 47 respondents work in a rotating three shift schedule: none

of the respondents matched one of the other three schedule types. Of this group, 73 respondents are

male while 21 respondents are female. The average age was 45 varying from 26 to 64. 68 respondents

are living together with a partner, of which 47 partners also had a job (35 of them working over 24

hours per week). 42 respondents have children under 18 years old and 11 respondents had other care

responsibilities - such as care for aging parents - of on average 10 hours a week. The average tenure is

approximately 14 years. 78 respondents work full time, while 15 respondents work between 10 and 34

hours a week. 42 respondents had a Dutch MBO degree, 24 respondents have a Dutch HBO or WO

degree, while 15 respondents only finished primary or secondary school and 13 respondents had a

Dutch LBO degree.

When comparing the respondents of organisation A with those of organization B the proportion of

gender and age are approximately the same. Education level and the number of part time workers are

somewhat higher for organization A, but because office employees also belong to this group this is

expected. The tenure of organization B is 4.5 years higher with 19.6 years. In organisation B

significantly more respondents are living together with a partner (77% compared to 55 % in

organization A), while the respondents of organization A more often have children of 18 years and

younger than in organization B. The number of children of 12 years and younger and the number of

hours of care for other relatives is for both groups more or less the same.

3.3 Instruments and their construct validity and reliability

In order to test the hypotheses, a questionnaire was created based on existing scales measuring work-

life balance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. The Cronbach’s alpha

is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency or reliability of a sample of respondents.

20

An α of .70 and higher indicates a good reliability (Pallant, 2005). An alpha of less than .50 is

considered insufficient. The scales used before in other studies have been tested in previous research

and showed an alpha of at least .70 (i.e. Gröpel and Kuhl, 2009; van Veldhoven and Meijman, 2008;

De Gilder, van den Heuvel and Ellemers, 1997; Valentine, Greller and Richtermeyer, 2006) which

indicates a good reliability. The scale measuring control however is self-developed and therefore the

reliability and validity are not known beforehand. Therefore, a small group of respondents is asked to

look at this scale to see whether there are ambiguities. According to them, the statements and

questions were clear and straightforward and they understood what was supposed to be measured. In

table 1 an overview of all Cronbach’s alpha’s is presented.

Before measuring the reliability in this setting a factor analysis is used to see whether the correlating

items of one scale describe variability and it creates the possibility to reduce data by identifying a

number of factors which together explain approximately the same percentage of variance as the

complete scale did (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2005). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim measure of sampling

adequacy (KMO) criterion needs to be .6 or higher to indicate that the homogeneity of the scale is

sufficient. When this is the case there appears to be some underlying structure in the data. Secondly,

the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity needs to be significant which is the case when its associated

probability is less than .05. This test indicates that the correlation matrix is no identity matrix.

The scales used in this questionnaire measure the following concepts:

Work-life balance. To measure work-life balance two scales of Gröpel (2006) and Netemeyer, Boles

and McMurrian (1996) both used in a research of Gröpel and Kuhl (2009) were used. The first

subscale consists of 6 items of which “Because of my job, I neglect my friends and family” is an

example. There were five possible answers to indicate ranging from ‘I totally disagree (1)’, to ‘I totally

agree (5)’. The second subscale includes two subscales measuring work-to-family conflict and family-

to-work conflict with both five questions. An example item of each scale is: “The amount of time my

job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities” and “I have to put off doing things at

21

work because of demands on my time at home” respectively. Participants answered all items using a

5-point Likert-type scale from ‘I totally disagree (1)’ to ‘I totally agree (5)’.

A reliability analysis and factor analysis showed that the alpha of the total scale (all 16 items) is very

high with .95 with a KMO of .94 and a significant outcome for the Bartlett’s Test (p = .00). However,

the whole scale consisted of four components with an Initial Eigenvalue of >1. The two separate

subscales Work to Family and Family to Work, as used in research of Netemeyer, Boles and

McMurrian (1996) found an alpha of .97 with a KMO of .95 with only one component with an Initial

Eigenvalue of >1. This indicates that the items of both scales are viewed as one variable. The total

explained variance of this component is 78.7 per cent. Therefore, it was decided to aggregate these

two subscales with both 5 items into one scale measuring the work-life balance of employees, while

ignoring the work-life balance subscale of Gröpel (2006).

Control. Control is measured by means of a self-developed scale because no existing suitable scale

was found. In a brainstorm session questions were defined in order to find an acceptable answer to the

question: “To what extent do employees experience that they have control over the formation of their

work schedule?” In total twelve items were created with five possible answer categories ranging from

‘I totally disagree (1)’ to ‘I totally agree (5)’. The items fall under four categories: Taking time off;

number of working hours; start and ending times; and making use of control. Item 18, 19, 20 and 23

belong to category ‘taking time off’; item 24, 25 and 27 belong to category ‘number of working

hours’; item 17, 21, 26 and 28 belong to category ‘starting and ending times’. Item 22, 24, 25 and 27

also belong to the category ‘making use of control’. An example item is: “When I want my shift to

start later, this is possible.” After the scale was formed a small group of respondents was asked what

they thought the questions were trying to measure and whether the questions were clear and

straightforward. It appeared that all questions were clear and it was apparent what they were supposed

to measure.

Because this scale is self-developed the reliability and validity of the scale were not known

beforehand. After analysing the data it was clear that this scale as a whole is not a good indicator of

22

control with an alpha of only .15 and a KMO of .57 with 4 components with an Eigenvalue of >1.0.

After deleting four of the initial twelve items however (question 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28

remained), the alpha increased to .62 with a KMO of .63, a significant Bartlett’s Test and three

components. The total explained variance of these three items is 67.0 per cent. Item 22, 24, 25 and 27

belong to the first component, measuring ‘making use of control’. Item 18 and 20 belong to the second

component measuring ‘taking time off’, and item 21 and 28 belong to the category ‘starting and

ending times’. The fourth dimension ‘number of working hours’ is not found in the factor analysis, but

the three items belonging to this category also fit with the description of ‘making use of control’.

Schedule type. Schedule type was indicated with one question: In which schedule type do you

currently work, with five categories being: standard day schedule, two-shift schedule, three-shift

schedule, four-shift schedule and five-shift schedule. The respondents only indicated that they were

working in either a day schedule or three-shift schedule, after which the variable could be coded 0 for

standard day schedules (office workers), while 1 stands for working in a three shift rotating schedule

(production workers).

Job satisfaction. The scale used to measure job satisfaction is created by van Veldhoven and Meijman

(2008). This scale is derived from the VBBA scale of Veldhoven and Meijman created in 1994. It

contains six questions and its response categories range from ‘I totally disagree (1)’ to ‘I totally agree

(5)’. An item from this scale is: “I enjoy my work?” This scale originally consisted of 6 items. The

reliability analysis indicates an α of .78, while the factor analysis on this scale shows a KMO of .66.

The Bartlett’s Test again showed a significant result. Two components have an Eigenvalue of >1 with

2.9 and 1.5, which together explain 74 per cent of the total variance. When looking at the Screeplot

and after rereading all six items it was decided to retain both components for this analysis and thus not

delete any items from this scale.

Turnover intention. A scale by Valentine, Greller and Richtermeyer (2006) was used to measure the

turnover intention. This scale was composed of three items, with an example question being: “I think

about moving to another company”. The scale estimates to which extent respondents are considering

23

to leave the organization. The items had answering categories ranging from ‘I totally disagree (1)’ to ‘I

totally agree (5). Factor analysis shows that the three items load on one component and the alpha (α =

.74) indicates that this is a reliable scale with an implicated good validity. The total variance explained

is 68.8 per cent. Therefore, nothing in this scale has been altered.

Organisational commitment. To measure organizational commitment two scales were used which

each measure a different aspect of organizational commitment: affective organizational commitment

and continuance commitment. Both scales were developed by De Gilder, van den Heuvel and Ellemers

(1997) and translated to Dutch from the Meyer and Allen OCQ questionnaire (1991). The answers

could be indicated on a 5 point-Likert scale (1= ‘I totally disagree’, 5 = ‘I totally agree’). An example

item is: “I have the feeling that I do not have enough alternatives to quit now”. The initial alpha of

both the subscales is .56. After deleting item 45, the alpha increased to .60 but with three components

with an Eigenvalue of <1. After also deleting item 30 the alpha was .59 with a KMO of .53 and a

significant outcome of the Bartlett’s test (p=.00). It revealed two components of which the items

belonging to the first component were all measuring continuance commitment and the items of the

second component measure affective commitment. In total the components explained 53.5 per cent of

the explained variance. Although the alpha did not exceed the boundary of .60 it was decided to keep

this scale in the analysis. Reason for this is that a larger number of respondents is likely to have had a

positive influence on the alpha.

In table 1 an overview of the scales, the number of items belonging to each scale, and the Cronbach’s

alpha as displayed. In appendix B also the Cronbach’s alpha of each subscale can be found.

Scale Number of items Cronbach’s alpha

Work-life balance 10 .97

Control over work schedule 8 .62

Job satisfaction 6 .78

Turnover intention 3 .74

Organizational commitment 8 .59

Table 1: Reliability of scales

24

Control variables

Age. Age was indicated by means of an open question asking for a respondent’s age in years.

Gender. In order to distinct the males from the females a dummy variable is created with 0 indicating

a male and 1 indicating a female.

Living together with a partner. In the questionnaire a question was inserted which asks the

respondent whether he/she lived together with a partner. A dummy variable was created where 0

indicated ‘yes’, and 1 indicated ‘no’.

Care responsibilities. The control variable care responsibilities was divided into two subcategories:

Taking care of children and taking care of other relatives. The first subcategory was measured with the

questions: “How many children of 12 years and younger are living in your household?” And: “How

many children of 18 years and younger are living in your household?” The second subcategory was

indicated with: “How many hours per week do you spend on taking care of other relatives?”

Education level. To measure the education level of respondents one item was added to the

questionnaire: What is the highest education level you completed? Answer categories were Dutch

education levels ranging from lowest (primary school) to highest education level (University degree):

1. Basisonderwijs, 2. Middelbaar Onderwijs, 3. Lager Beroepsonderwijs (MBO), 4. Middelbaar

Beroepsonderwijs, 5.Hoger Beroepsonderwijs (HBO), 6. Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (WO).

Tenure. Tenure was indicated by means of an open question asking for the respondents’ tenure in

years.

Organization. The data was collected at two organizations and when the questionnaires were

returned, it was coded at which organization the respondent was an employee. Organization A

received code 0, while organization B received code 1.

25

3.4 Statistical analysis

3.4.1 Preparation of the data set

After collecting the data, they were entered into a SPSS data file. However, first it had to be checked

whether missing values and errors occurred. Two questionnaires were removed due to an excessive

amount of missing data. Second, the reversed items needed to be recoded before entering into SPSS.

Finally, the dataset was checked on outliers. The test of normality showed that the data set was not

perfectly normally distributed. However, because the distribution was close enough to normality it was

treated as normally distributed.

3.4.2 Analyses

To examine whether correlation exists between the variables, Pearson’s product-moment correlations

are computed (Pallant, 2005). All possible control variables and main variables were included, to

determine which control variables were probably influencing the main variables and therefore

manipulating the hypothesized relationships.

A regression analysis was necessarily performed as well to be able to control for the effect of external

variables (Field, 2009). For this research various separate hierarchical regression analyses were

conducted: one to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, three to test hypotheses 4a and 5a, 4b and 5b and 4c and

5c, and three to test hypotheses 6a, 6b and 6c, while controlling for the control variables that correlate

significantly or strongest with the dependent variable and/or independent variable(s) of the regression

analysis.

The first multiple regression analysis was conducted to analyze the relationships between the

independent variables control and schedule type and the dependent variable work-life balance, while

making use of hierarchical regression blocks (Pallant, 2005). In the first block the main variables

control and schedule type were added as independent variables while work-life balance was added as

dependent variable. The second block contained the control variables that correlate significantly with

the main variables. The third block measures the moderating effect of schedule type on the

relationship between control and work-life balance (hypothesis 3). In this block the interaction term

26

between control and schedule type was added to test the moderating effect. This method is known as

the ‘product variable approach’ (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

To test hypothesis 4a and 5a, 4b and 5b, 4c and 5c, and 6a, 6b and 6c six individual regression

analyses were conducted. In these analyses job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover

intention respectively were added as dependent variables whereas work-life balance and control or

schedule type were added as independent variables. The (strongest) significantly correlating control

variable(s) were added as independent variables in block 2. With the output of the hierarchical

regression analysis the direct effect between control and work-life balance (hypothesis 1) is tested

while controlling for the significantly correlating control variables. With the help of the Sobel test

equation the mediating effect will be tested.

27

4. Results

4.1 Correlations

Pearsons correlations are calculated in order to examine whether correlations exists between the

variables (Pallant, 2005). The correlations are presented in table 2.

What is striking when looking at these findings, is that the control variables age, gender and care

responsibilities do not correlate with any of the main variables, in contrast to what was proposed in the

theory. Living together with a partner was expected to be positively correlated with work-life balance

but no significant correlation is found. It does however positively correlate with two job outcomes:

with satisfaction the correlation is -.21 (p<.01) indicating that when living with a partner the

satisfaction level is higher than when living without a partner; and with turnover intention the

correlation is .25 (p<.05) indicating that when living with a partner the turnover intention is smaller

than when living without a partner. Although no theory was found describing the relation between the

main variables and tenure, this research shows significant results with various variables: control (-.22,

p<.01), work-life balance (-.29, p<.01), organizational commitment (-.29, p<.01) and schedule type

(.21, p<.05). This latter correlation entails that when working in a three-shift schedule, the tenure is

higher than when working in a standard day schedule. Finally, organization correlates strongly with all

main variables (correlation between -.23 and -.82) except for turnover intention (r = .03, p = n.s.).

Therefore, in order to make sure that the variance in the dependent variable can be ascribed to the

independent variable of the hypotheses, and not to organization, it is necessary to control for

organization in the regression analyses.

When looking at the main variables it becomes clear that the three job outcomes correlate strongly

with each other: the correlation between job satisfaction and turnover intention is -.50 (p<.01),

job satisfaction and organizational commitment correlate with a correlation of .45 (p<.01), and

the correlation between organizational commitment and turnover intention is -.27 (p<.01).

The mean scores of the variables seem to be normal: The means of work-life balance and job

satisfaction are fairly high compared to the mean of turnover intention which is much lower. Control

28

Table 2. Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviations and Pearson correlations

Mean SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Schedule type (0 = standard day schedule, 1 = three-shift) .52 .50 0-1

2. Control (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 2.55 .85 1-5 -.56**

3. Work-life balance (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.66 1.33 1-5 -.56** .50**

4. Satisfaction (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 4.00 .91 1-5 -.59** .43** .71**

5. Turnover intention (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 1.71 .87 1-5 .20° -.13 -.17 -.50**

6. Org. commitment (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.25 .65 1-5 -.37** .28** .29** .47** -.27**

7. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) .22 .42 0-1 -.05 .15* -.01 -.05 .06 .00

8. Age (in years) 44.82 8.70 26-64 -.07 .01 .02 .14 -.18 -.14 -.34**

9. Education level (1 = lowest, 6 = highest) 3.82 1.19 1-6 -.36** .16 .11 .17 -.05 -.29** .15 -.18°

10. Tenure (in years) 13.76 10.88 1-38 .21* -.22** -.29** -.12 -.04 -.28** -.25* .61** -.36**

11. Living with a partner (0 = yes, 1 = no) .28 .45 0-1 .02 -.11 -.14 -.21* .25* -.03 .01 -.28** .01 -.10

12. # children <18 .79 .96 0-3 -.01 .13 .12 .03 -.01 .04 -.01 -.10 -.03 -.23* -.41**

13. # children <12 .46 .83 0-3 .04 .12 -.01 -.05 .02 -.07 .14 -.29** .09 -.27** -.26** .75**

14. # hours care relatives 1.20 4.31 0-30 .11 -.08 .05 .02 .03 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.03 .03 .04 .01 -.10

15. Organization (0 = Org. A, 1 = Org. B) .21 .41 0-1 .50** -.49** -.82** -.65** .03 -.23** -.03 .01 -.03 .28** .20° -.21* -.07 .06

N = 94 °. Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

29

scored slightly below the midpoint while organizational commitment scored somewhat above the

midpoint. The standard deviation of the main variables is not very high (only work-life balance has a

standard deviation of >1), which means that there is not much variance in the answers the respondents

gave. This makes it harder to find significant results when testing the hypotheses.

4.2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses

In order to test the influence of control over work schedule and schedule type on work-life balance

(hypotheses 1 and 2) and the moderating effect of schedule type on the relationship between control

and work-life balance (hypothesis 3) a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. The

results are presented in table 3. The first block included the main variables control and schedule type

which explained 34 per cent of the variance in work-life balance (p<.01). In block 2 the control

variables correlating significantly with work-life balance, control and/or schedule type were added.

These variables were tenure (respectively r = -.29, p<.01; r = -.22, p<.01; r = .21<.05) and organization

(respectively r = -.82, p<.01; r = -.49, p<.01; r = .50, p<.01), after which 70 per cent was explained

(p<.10). In the 3rd

block the interaction term between control and schedule type was added to test the

moderating effect (hypothesis 3). The explained variance in block 3 is still 70 per cent (∆R² = .00, p =

n.s.).

When looking at the results it becomes clear that the first hypothesis ‘Control over work schedule

positively influences work-life balance’ is not confirmed. When controlling for the control variables

and schedule type the strength of the relationship is not significant which means that control does not

apparently influence work-life balance (H1: ß = .05, p = n.s.). Hypothesis 2, which states that

employees working in rotating non-standard schedules have a lower work-life balance than employees

working in a standard day schedule is confirmed (H2: ß = -.18, p<.01). Hypothesis 3, which includes

the moderating effect of schedule type on control and work-life balance, is not significant after

controlling for organization (H3: ß= -.19, p = n.s.). This means that for production workers the effect

of control on work-life balance would not be stronger than for office employees.

30

Table 3 – Regression analysis of Work-life balance on Control and Schedule type

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Control .27** .05 -.06

Schedule type -.40** -.18* -.36

Tenure -.05 -.05

Organization -.69** -.68**

Control * Schedule type -.19

R² .36 .70 .70

F-Value 25.82 52.32 41.68

R² change .36** .34** .00

F-Value R² change 25.82** 50.64** . 20

Dependent variable: Work-life balance

° = Significant at the .10 level (2-tailed)

* = Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

** = Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

N = 94

In order to test the second part of this study where both the direct effect of work-life balance on the

three job outcomes, as well as the indirect effect of control and of schedule type on the job outcomes

with work-life balance as mediator are tested, in total six hierarchical multiple regression analyses

were conducted. Of course while doing so, in order to control for spuriousness, the control variables

correlating significantly with the main variables of the regression were controlled for.

The first regression analysis measured the influence of work-life balance on job satisfaction

(hypothesis 4a), and control on satisfaction with work-life balance as mediator (hypothesis 5a). Block

one contains the main variables: job satisfaction as dependent variable and work-life balance and

control over work schedule as independent variables (R²=.51, p<.01). After controlling for tenure

(correlations between .12, p = n.s. and .29, p<.01 with the main variables of this regression), schedule

type (correlations between -.45, p<.01 and -.59, p<.01), organization (correlations between -.27, p<.01

and = -.82, p<.01), and the other two job outcomes turnover intention (correlation between .03, p = n.s.

and -.50, p<.01) and organizational commitment (correlations between -.23, p<.05 and .47, p<.01) in

model 2 the explained variance is 75 % (∆R² = .25, p<.01). The effect of work-life balance on

satisfaction is .28 (β = .28, p<.01), confirming hypothesis 4a. This entails that a higher work-life

31

balance leads to a higher level of job satisfaction. The direct effect of control on job satisfaction is not

significant with a beta of .05. The Sobel test showed that the mediating effect of work-life balance

between control and job satisfaction is not significant either, with a Z-value of .65 (p = n.s.), for which

reason hypothesis 5a is rejected.

To measure the strength of the relationship between work-life balance on turnover intention, control

on turnover intention and the indirect effect of control on turnover intention via work-life balance

another hierarchical multiple regression analysis was executed. Work-life balance and control explain

only 3 per cent of the variance in turnover (p = n.s.). After controlling for tenure (correlations between

-.04, p = n.s. and -.29, p<.01), schedule type (correlations between .20, p<.10 and -.56, p<.01) and

organization (correlations between .03, p = n.s. and -.82, p<.01), and the other two job outcomes job

satisfaction (correlations between -.17, p<.10 and -.65, p<.01) and organizational commitment

(correlations between -.23, p<.05 and .29, p<.01) in block 2 the explained variance is 40 % (∆R² =

.36, p<.01). The strength of the relationship between work-life balance and turnover intention is not

significant (β = -.01, p = n.s.), rejecting hypothesis 4b. The direct strength of control on turnover

intention is .05 (p = n.s.). These results are systematically shown in table 4.With help of the Sobel test

hypothesis 5b was tested and revealed no significant results (Z-value = -.03, p = n.s.) Therefore,

hypothesis 5b is also rejected.

The next regression analysis measured the influence of work-life balance and control on organizational

commitment. The results are presented in table 4. The first block contains the main variables work-life

balance and control (R² = .11, p<.01). Tenure and organization and the main variable schedule type

were added as control variables in block 2 because they correlated significantly (correlations

respectively between -.27, p<.01 and -.29, p<.01; between -.23, p<.01 and -.82, p<.01; and between -

.37, p<.01 and -.56, p<.01). With that the two other job outcomes job satisfaction and turnover

intention were also added due to strong correlations (correlations between -.27, p<.01 and -.65, p<.01;

and between .03, p = n.s. and .47, p<.01) respectively. This second block explained 31 per cent of the

variance in commitment (∆R² = .20, p<.01). The block shows that the strength of the relation between

32

work-life balance and organizational commitment is not significant with a beta of -.11 (p = n.s.),

rejecting hypothesis 4c. The direct effect between control and organizational commitment is not

significant either (ß = .09, p = n.s.). With another Sobel test hypothesis 5c can be rejected with a Z-

value of -.46 (p = n.s.).

Table 4 – Regression analysis of Satisfaction, Turnover intention and Organizational commitment on Work-life

balance

Job satisfaction Turnover intention Org. commitment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Work-life balance .66** .28** -.15* -.00 -.20° -.11

Control .10 -.05 .05 -.05 .19 .09

- Tenure -.13 -.01 -.26**

Schedule type -.18** -.08 -.11

Organization -.33** -.51** .20

Turnover intention -.35** / .54**

Job satisfaction / -.85** .00

Org. commitment .20** -.00 /

R² .51 .75 .03 .40 .11 .31

F-Value 46.28 36.32 1.50 8.03 5.49 5.48

R² change .51** .24** .03 .37** .11** .20**

F-Value R² change 46.28** 16.45** 1.50 10.33** 5.49** 4.99**

° = Significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed)

* = Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** = Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

To test hypotheses 6 three final regression analyses were conducted. The results can be found in table

5. In the first block the main variables work-life balance and one of the job outcomes were added. The

second block contains the control variables correlating significantly with the main variables plus the

two other job outcomes. With the Sobel test the mediating effect of work-life balance between

schedule type and the three job outcomes was tested. For job satisfaction it became clear that the

mediating effect was indeed significant (Z-value -2.22, p<.05). This entails that for office employees

the relation between work-life balance and satisfaction is stronger than for production employees. For

the job outcomes turnover intention and organizational commitment no significant effect of the

mediation was found. For these variables work-life balance was no mediator between schedule type

and these two job outcomes. Because the direct effect between work

intention and organizational commitment respectively was already not significant, this finding is not

surprising.

Table 5 – Regression analysis of Job s

life balance

Job satisfaction

Model 1

Work-life balance .55**

Schedule type -.28

Tenure

Control

Organization

Turnover intention

Job satisfaction

Org. commitment

R² .56

F-Value 56.02

R² change .56**

F-Value R² change 56.02**




The significant results of all regression analyses are systematically presented in figure

Figure

33

and these two job outcomes. Because the direct effect between work-life balance and turnover

ion and organizational commitment respectively was already not significant, this finding is not

Job satisfaction, Turnover intention and Organizational commitment on

Job satisfaction Turnover intention Org. commitment

Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1

.28** -.09 -.00 .12

-.18 .15 -.08 -.30**

-.13** .01

-.05 .05 .20°

-.33** -.51**

-.35** /

/ -.85**

.20** -.09 -.00

.75 .03 .40 .15

36.32 1.50 8.03 7.73

.20** .03 .36** .15**

13.22** 2.17 9.95** 7.73**

tailed)

tailed)

tailed)

results of all regression analyses are systematically presented in figure

Figure 2 – Research model including the results of the regression analyse

life balance and turnover

ion and organizational commitment respectively was already not significant, this finding is not

and Organizational commitment on Work-

Org. commitment

Model 1 Model 2

-.11

-.11

-.26**

.09

.20

.54**

-.00

/

.31

5.48

.16**

4.05**

results of all regression analyses are systematically presented in figure 2.

esults of the regression analyses

34

The indirect hypothesis (H. 6) indicating that schedule type influences the job outcomes with work-life


working in a non-standard rotating schedule is partially confirmed: The mediating effect of work-life

balance between schedule type and job satisfaction was found to be significant (Z-value -2.22, p<.05).

On the other job outcomes no indirect effect was found.

4.3 Additional analyses

4.3.1 Correlation matrix including all subscales

Because no relations were found between control and work-life balance, even though this relation was

highly expected, an additional correlation matrix including all subscales was made to see whether one

of the subscales of control (making use of control; taking time off; and starting and ending times)

correlates with work-life balance. The subscales of organizational commitment (affective commitment

and continuous commitment) were also added to this matrix. In Appendix C, table C3 the correlation

matrix can be found.

What stands out when looking at the correlation matrix is that only ‘making use of control’ and

‘control over starting and ending times’ of the control scale correlate significant with each other (r =

.28, p <.01). The other two subscales do not correlate significantly, indicating that these scales do not

influence each other substantially. The two subscales of organizational commitment do not correlate

significantly with each other either (r = -.01, p = n.s.).

Furthermore, the subscale ‘control over taking time off’ does significantly correlate with work-life

balance (r = .77, p<.01) while the other subscales do not. This correlation is therefore higher than the

correlation of the whole scale of control with work-life balance. Because of this finding it is

interesting to conduct another hierarchical regression analysis with ‘control over taking time off’ as

independent variable and work-life balance as dependent variable. Schedule type, tenure and

organization were added in block 2 as control variables. In table C1 in Appendix C the results are

shown.

35

The results show that ‘control over taking time off’ does indeed have an effect on work-life balance

with a beta of .39 (p<.01). Because ‘control over taking time off’ and work-life balance, and work-life

balance and job satisfaction have a significant effect on each other, it is interesting to also test the

indirect effect of ‘control over taking time off’ on job satisfaction with work-life balance as mediator.

The Sobel test shows a Z-value of 2.45 (p<.05) which is significant. ‘Control over taking time off’

thus influences job satisfaction with work-life balance as mediator.

When looking at the subscales of organizational commitment, the correlation matrix shows that only

the subscale affective commitment correlates significantly with the main variables. Therefore, it

becomes interesting to analyse the relation between work-life balance and affective commitment. If

this relation is significant, the mediating effect of work-life balance between the relation of the

subscale control over taking time off and affective commitment will be investigated as well. A

hierarchical regression analysis (see table C2) shows that only job satisfaction and affective

commitment influence each other. Thus, work-life balance does not affect the subscale affective

commitment and analysing the indirect effect of affective commitment on job satisfaction is not

necessary anymore.

36

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1 Conclusion

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between both control over work schedule and

schedule type on work-life balance, and their effect on three job outcomes: job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and turnover intention. Investigating these relationships is based on data

from a questionnaire conducted at two production organizations. In total 94 respondents have

completed and returned the questionnaire and fulfilled the requirements belonging to this study. After

preparing the dataset for analysis and calculating Pearson’s correlations, multiple hierarchical

regression analyses were conducted in order to test the various hypotheses.

The first hypothesis “Control over work schedule positively influences work-life balance.” was

rejected (β = -.05, p = n.s.). The subscale control over taking time off however, did affect work-life

balance significantly. Hypothesis 2 stating that employees working standard day shifts have a better

work-life balance than employees working in a rotating three-shift schedule is confirmed (β = -.18,

p<.01). The moderating effect of schedule type on the relation between control and work-life balance

was found to be not significant (β = .19, p = n.s.). Thus the effect of control on work-life balance is no

stronger for production workers than for office workers, which rejects what was hypothesized. The

moderating effect was however found for the subscale ‘control over taking time off’. Of the fourth

hypothesis measuring the impact of work-life balance on various job outcomes, only the effect on job

satisfaction (β = .28, p<.01) could be confirmed. The impact of work-life balance on turnover intention

and organizational commitment was not confirmed. Hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c stated that control had

an indirect effect on the job outcomes with work-life balance as mediator. These hypotheses were all

rejected. Finally hypotheses 6a, 6b and 6c stating that schedule type had an indirect effect on the job

outcomes with work-life balance as mediator. Of these hypotheses only the effect on job satisfaction

was found to be positive; the other two were rejected.

37

5.2 Discussion

The first hypothesis stating that control over work hours is positively correlated with work-life

balance, was tested with a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. While controlling for tenure,

organization and schedule type, it was measured to what extent control affected work-life balance.

This relationship was not significant which would mean that when employees experience to have more

control over the formation of their work schedule, their work-life balance does not significantly

increase nor decrease. The hypothesis was thus rejected. This result was unexpected because of theory

(Beutell, 2010; Halpern, 2005; Karasek, 1979; Tausig and Fenwick, 2001) and the trend ‘Flexible

working’ which gives employees more freedom and control at work so that employees are better able

to combine their private life with their work, state otherwise. In addition, it is not in line with the Job

Demand-control Model of Karasek (1979) and the follow up Demand-control-support Model of

Theorell and Karasek (2000) who state that the negative effect of a stressful job on the work-life

balance is decreased when employees perceive to have more control over their work. A reason for this

finding could be the strong correlation between organization and the main variables of this research.

The results show that organization explains already 69 per cent of the variance in work-life balance

where organization A scores much higher than organization B. Additionally, the scale measuring

control was self-developed and was expected to be completed by mainly production employees

working in rotating shifts. Some of the items which together form the control scale are therefore only

applicable to production employees working in shifts which made it difficult to interpret the results.

Two examples are: ‘I regularly switch my work shift with a colleague when this suits me better’ and

‘when I want to work extra shifts this is possible’. Because in contrast to what was expected half of the

respondents are office workers working standard day hours, the reliability of the original scale was

lower than expected. Therefore, it should be tested whether the results are different for production

versus office employees. This will be done in hypothesis 3. With that it was investigated whether a

subscale of control might influence work-life balance significantly. This effect was indeed found for

the subscale control over taking time off, which was the only one of the three subscales correlating

very strongly with work-life balance. This indicates that either the whole scale of control is not

completely reliable, or that only control over taking time off influences work-life balance.

38

The second relationship tested (hypothesis 2) was between schedule type and work-life balance: The

schedule type influences the work-life balance of employees, with a standard day schedule leading to a

better work-life balance than a rotating non-standard schedule. Even with the strong influence of

organization on work-life balance, schedule type explains a significant part of the variance in work-life

balance, confirming the hypothesis. This entails that indeed office workers working in day shifts are

better able to combine work and private life than production employees who are working in a three-

shift schedule. This is in line with the theory (Beutell, 2010; Haar, 2007; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006;

Wilson et al., 2007) and the Job-demands-resources Model (Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker and

Demerouti, 2007). Questioned is however, whether this effect can be ascribed to schedule type

(standard day schedule versus three-shift schedule), or to function type (production versus office

work).

With help of the Job-demands-resource Model (Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007)

hypothesis 3 is also explained, stating that for production workers the effect of control on work-life

balance is stronger than for office workers. The results however show that this effect is not significant,

rejecting the hypothesis. Although the direct effect of control on work-life balance was found to be not

significant, it was expected that when taking the schedule type into account a significant effect would

be found. This is not the case, meaning that control does not influence work-life balance regardless of

the schedule type (standard day schedule versus three-shift schedule) applicable to the respondent.

With that, because the number of respondents is very small and organization correlates strongly with

control, schedule type and work-life balance, it is difficult to find a variable explaining a significant

variance of work-life balance while controlling for organization. Tausig and Fenwick (2001) did not

find an interaction effect of control and schedule type on work-life balance, which would be in line

with the findings of this study, although that research does find a significant direct effect of control on

work-life balance.

Hypothesis 4a indicated that work-life balance has a positive effect on satisfaction. A regression

analysis was conducted while controlling for tenure, schedule type, organization, turnover intention

39

and organizational commitment. A significant positive effect was found, confirming hypothesis 4a

which is in line with the theory (Beutell, 2010; Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008; Haar, 2008; Sang et

al., 2008). Hypothesis 5a which pleads for a positive effect of control on satisfaction with work-life

balance as mediator was not confirmed. This finding is not unexpected because the direct effect of

control on work-life balance was already found to be not significant. Unexpected was the small

negative effect of living with a partner on satisfaction indicating that when an employee is living

together with a partner, his job satisfaction level decreases. Although in the theory only the positive

correlation between living with a partner and work-life balance is outlined, one could argue that, if

anything, a positive relation between living with a partner and job satisfaction would be found.

Because the subscale ‘control over taking time off’ was found to influence work-life balance, it was

investigated whether the subscale influences job satisfaction positively with work-life balance as

mediator as well. The Sobel test showed that this effect was indeed significant.

The second regression analysis conducted resulted in the expected negative relationship between

work-life balance and turnover intention (hypothesis 4b). After controlling for tenure, schedule type,

organization, job satisfaction and organizational commitment this effect was however not found to be

significant in contrast to what is proposed in the found literature (Greenblatt, 2002; Sang et al., 2008).

A reason for this finding could be – besides a small response group – the economic crisis that started

in 2007. In many organizations this crisis resulted in layoffs or terminations of (temporary) contracts.

Employees entering an organization very often only receive a temporary contract of six months or a

year. With the unstable economy of the past few years this situation is obviously very insecure.

Employees that have been working for an organization for more than three years automatically receive

a permanent contract which increases their security on a monthly income. This is the case for 82 % of

the respondents (77 % of organization A, and 100 % of organization B). Therefore, although some

respondents indicated that their work-life balance was low, they indicated not to feel the intention to

leave the organization and ending a secure contract, exchanging it for a temporary contract at another

organization. Not even with the intention to increase their work-life balance. The expected indirect

negative effect of control on turnover intention with work-life balance as mediator (hypothesis 5b) was

40

not found either. This is not surprising as the direct effect of control on work-life balance already

showed to be not significant.

The last job outcome, organizational commitment, was expected to be positively influenced by work-

life balance (hypothesis 4c). The outcome showed no significant result after controlling for tenure,

schedule type, organization, turnover and turnover intention, by which the hypothesis is rejected.

Having a good work-life balance does not automatically mean that the work that one has to perform is

experienced as positive. As mentioned in the theory, organizational commitment arises when the effort

of the employee is in balance with the benefits and support the employee receives in return. When the

work results in enough free time for private life, so that the employee can find a good balance between

work and life, the commitment could still be low when the employee feels that the amount of effort he

puts in the work, is more than the benefits he receives consequently.

The relation between control and organizational commitment mediated by work-life balance was not

found. This finding is not in line with a research of Halpern (2005). However, as with the previous job

outcomes this finding was not unexpected after not finding a significant direct effect between control

and work-life balance, and work-life balance and organizational commitment.

The last hypotheses tested (H. 6), tested the effect of schedule type on the three job outcomes with

work-life balance as mediator. After controlling for control, tenure, organization and the two

remaining job outcomes the Sobel test showed that only the effect on job satisfaction is significant.

Thus, although the theory did not describe this relation, an indirect effect on job satisfaction was

found, which is interesting. Future research could address this. When working in a standard day

schedule, the work-life balance is higher than when working in a three-shift schedule, and its

correlating level of job satisfaction is in turn again higher when working in a standard day schedule

compared to working in a three-shift schedule. Because the direct effect between work-life balance

turnover intention and organizational commitment were not found to be significant in previous

regression analyses, not finding an indirect effect was not surprising.

41

In conclusion, the answer of the research question of this study: ‘Is work-life balance mediating the

relationship between control over work schedule and schedule type on the one hand, and job outcomes

(job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational commitment) on the other hand?’ is that work-

life balance does not mediate the relation between control and the three mentioned job outcomes, but

an effect is found for the subscale control over taking time off. This subscale influences job

satisfaction positively with work-life balance as mediator. The mediating effect of work-life balance

was also found between schedule type and job satisfaction but not for the other two job outcomes.

5.3 Limitations and implications for further research

When interpreting the results, there are a number of weaknesses and restrictions hindering the internal

and external validity of the results and corresponding conclusions.

To start off with two of the scales used in this study to measure the various concepts: firstly, the

control scale. Because the scale measuring control over work schedules was self-developed and had

not been tested before usage, the reliability and internal validity of this scale were not known

beforehand. When analysing the results four of the twelve items had to be deleted in order to find a

sufficient alpha. However, the remaining items load on all four dimensions which indicates that at

least all four dimensions are represented within the remaining eight items of the scale. Assumingly the

reason for having to delete a third of all items is that, as mentioned before the scale was self-developed

and not tested before. Additionally, it was created to be completed by production employees working

in rotating shifts. Because 50 per cent of the respondents worked a standard day schedule where

rotation of shifts does not occur, some items could not be completed by them.

Secondly, the scale measuring organizational commitment had a much higher alpha in previous

research than in this research. The explanation for this can only be speculative. Possibly some items

were composed too vaguely, which could have lead to misinterpretations. Whereas highly educated

employees mastering the Dutch language would have probably understood all questions correctly, this

might not have been the case for some of the production employees completing the scale. Therefore,

production employees might have interpreted the questions differently which then resulted in giving

wrong answers. Also, one of the organizations in question had recently been taken over by a foreign

42

company, which might add to job insecurity feelings. With that, with a small group of respondents,

misinterpretation by only a few could result in major outcome changes. In future research it is wise to

reconsider how to compose the questions and look more thoroughly for ambiguities.

Another limitation concerns the design of this study. This study is conducted in a cross-sectional

perspective: All data used is gathered at a single point in time. If the study were longitudinal the data

would be gathered at multiple times, which makes it possible to measure an effect more naturally.

However, due to the limited time span of this master thesis, longitudinal research was not an option

whereas a cross-sectional design was the best alternative. Secondly, the results are solely based on

self-report questionnaires. This could lead to incorrect conclusions due to some implications such as

completing the questions in a random order, or giving socially desirable answers. This last implication

might be enforced because – even though complete anonymity was guaranteed – some of the questions

and statements in the questionnaire are very personal and sensitive and it was suggested that the

answers of some employees have been influenced by this.

A second reason for preferring longitudinal research is because it can provide insights regarding

causality. This study shows several significant relations, but it is not always clear what the time

ordering of the factors is. However, the findings of this study are in line with the expectations, which

makes it likely that the directions of the relations are the same as proposed in the hypotheses.

Although most previous research implicates the same relations as hypothesized in this research, many

of those researches are cross-sectional as well (for instance with researches about the relation between

work-life balance and job satisfaction: Beutell, 2010; Haar 2008; Sang et al., 2008), which again

makes it hard to find evidence for causal relationships. Although more researchers suggest an effect of

work-life balance on job satisfaction, both directions seem plausible. Therefore, a longitudinal design

would be a good way to provide the needed insight regarding this matter.

A next limitation concerns the sample of this study, which consists of employees all working for only

two Dutch production organizations. This makes it hard to generalize the results to the Dutch

workforce operating in the production industry. All organizations have different work methods and

43

cultures influencing the attitudes and behaviour of employees. In this study, organization is controlled

for and influenced the relations between the main variables a great deal. Because organization and

work-life balance correlated strongly and the strength of their relation is very strong with a beta of -

.69, it is difficult to find variables explaining the remaining variance significantly. And, while the

focus was on the different schedule types, only employees working in a standard day schedule and a

three-shift schedule were taken into account. This is a major limitation of the study. The relation

however, did show a significant result. In order to find out whether this result also applies to the other

schedule types, and to find out which schedule type would lead to the best work-life balance, future

research should focus on organizations where employees working in all five schedule types are

represented. This also applies for the indirect effect of schedule type on job satisfaction with work-life

balance as mediator: it is not clear whether this effect can be ascribed to the schedule type, or the type

of work. Only future research were all five schedule types are represented can answer this question.

Another limitation that goes hand in hand with the previous limitation is the sample size: Only 94

respondents contributed to this research which might be a quite weak basis to build on. According to

Stevens (1996), a small sample size can result in an insignificant result due to insufficient power (from

Field, 2009; Pallant, 2005). A size of at least 250 respondents was aimed for, but it was very difficult

to find cooperating organizations for various reasons. Some organizations simply were not interested;

others found it interesting but at a different time; others had their own survey among their employees

which was in some ways overlapping with the questionnaire used for this study; whereas another

group of organizations did not want to cooperate because they wanted to let sleeping dogs lie.

However, for future research it is necessary to use a much larger sample size. Not having found

significant results in the relationship between control and work-life balance, and work-life balance and

turnover intention and organizational commitment could be ascribed to this. Statistically, a larger

sample size increases power of statistical tests and, thus, increases the likelihood to find significant

results. With a response rate of only 29 % in the second cooperating organization (/production branch)

the results of this group could not be generalized to the whole context of that organization branch and

44

questioned can be whether the employees who chose not to participate might have had a different

(positive or negative) view on their work-life balance compared to the others.

Finally, it is expected that not all (production) employees working at organization A and completed

the questionnaire, fully master the Dutch language. This might have resulted in not answering all

questions accurately, changing the overall picture regarding these relating issues. Even though

assistance was available when needed, the assumption is that not everybody who needed it made use

of it and therefore did not answer all questions correctly.

All in all, not many hypothesized relations were confirmed. This study however is good to build on

and has provided a good start in examining the relations between control and schedule type on work-

life balance, and between work-life balance and the three job outcomes. Although the results cannot be

generalized throughout the whole Dutch production workforce it has provided insight in how the

variables mentioned above affect each other, particularly in production organizations.

Because it is interesting for organizations to know whether giving employees more control over their

work schedule influences employees’ work-life balance positively and to find out which schedule type

would lead to the best work-life balance, future research should take the proposed implications into

account. That way the true effects of the variables may be revealed.

5.4 Practical implications

Previous research had already explained and tested the importance of organizations to improve the

circumstances for employees to create a good work-life balance (e.g. Pichler, 2009; Tausig and

Fenwick, 2001). As proposed, this increases the level of job satisfaction of employees which has

positive performance outcomes as a result, which is also the case in this setting (with both production

and office employees as respondents). Therefore, it should again be highlighted that employers should

make an effort to increase the chance for employees to create a good work-life balance.

The findings of this research show that employees working in standard day schedules have a better

work-life balance than employees working in a three-shift schedule. Although it is unclear whether

this effect can be ascribed to the schedule type or the function type, it is an important finding to take

45

into account. As mentioned above, it is important for organizations to try to create a good work-life

balance for employees. Even though the type of work is different for both analysed groups this should

not result in a difference in work-life balance. Both parties should be able to combine both work and

private life to a good extent. If not, production employees (or maybe only employees working in a

three-shift schedule) become less satisfied which could have various negative outcomes as a result.

Employees could for instance work less hard which has negative consequences on the performance

level, or they could be looking for another job where another schedule is applicable. Because

organizations do not want this to occur, they should take to (help) improve the work-life balance of

employees working in a three-shift schedule.

Because the subscale ‘control over taking time off’ influences work-life balance positively, which in

turn influences job satisfaction positively, it is recommended that employers should give employees

more control over the time they wish to take off. This will improve the work-life balance and thereby

the satisfaction level of employees which is beneficial for both employers and employees.

46

6. References

- Adkins, L. (2002). Revisions: gender and sexuality in late modernity. Buckingham and

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

- Allan, C., Loudoun, R., & Peetz, D. (2007). Influences on work/non-work conflict. Journal of

Sociology, 43(3): 219-239.

- Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-

to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 5(2): 278-308.

- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

- Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): 309-38.

- Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to

predict burnout and performance, Human Resource Management, 43(1): 83-104.

- Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its

social and political consequences. London: Sage.

- Beutell, N.J. (2010). Work schedule, work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to work-

family conflict, work-family synergy, and domain satisfaction. Career Development International,

15(5): 501-518.

- Beutell, N.J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for

generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction

outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 507-523.

- Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Cascio, W.F., & Boudreau, J.W. (2008). Investing in People: Financial impact of human resource

initiatives. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc

47

- Charles, N., & Harris, C. (2007). Continuity and change in work-life balance choices. The British

Journal of Sociology, 58(2): 277-295.

- Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social

embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62: 1208-1233.

- Costello, A.B., & Osborne J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and

Evaluation, 10 (7), 1-9.

- De Gilder, D., Van den Heuvel, H., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Het 3-componenten model van

commitment. Gedrag en Organisatie, 10, 95-106.

- Dembe, A.E., Delbos, R., Erickson, B., & Banks, S.M. (2007). Associations between employees’

work schedules and the vocational consequences of workplace injuries. Journal of Occupational

Rehabilitation, 17: 641–651.

- Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.

- Gallie D., & Russell, H. (2009) Work-family conflict and working condition in Western Europe.

Social Indicators Research, 93: 445-467.

- Golden, L., (2001). Flexible work time: correlates and consequences of work scheduling.

American Behavioral Scientist, 44(7): 1157-1178.

- Golden, L., & Figart, D. (2000). Doing something about long hours. Challenge, 43(6): 15-37.

- Greenblatt, E. (2002). Work/life balance: Wisdom or whining. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2):

177-193.

- Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.

Academy of Management Review, 10(1): 76-88.

- Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G.N. (2006). When word and family are allies: A theory of work-

family enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 72-92.

- Gröpel, P., & Kuhl, J. (2009). Work-life balance and subjective well-being: The mediating role of

need fulfilment. The British Psychological Society, 100 (2): 365-375

- Haar, J. M. (2007). Exploring the benefits and use of flextime: similarities and differences.

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 4(1): 69-82.

48

- Haar, J.M. (2008). Work-family conflict and job outcomes: the moderating effects of flextime use

in a new Zealand Organization. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 33(1): 38-54.

- Halpern, D.F. (2005). How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health and save

money. Stress and Health, 21: 157-168.

- Hilbrecht, M.J. (2010). Parents, employment, gender and wellbeing: A time use study.

Dissertation Abstracts International: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(1), 23-48.

- Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (2): 285-308.

- Kooij, D. (2010). Motivation older workers: A lifespan perspective on the role of perceived HR

practices. Academische proefschrift, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

- Kumar, L., & Gupta, G. (2009). Perceived organizational justice, job satisfaction and turnover

intentions: A co-relational study. Gujarat Journal of Psychology, 25: 1-8.

- Lewis, S., Smithson, J., & Kugelberg, C. (2002). Into work: Job insecurity and changing

psychological contracts. In J. Brannen, S. Lewis, A. Nilsen, & J. Smithson (Eds.),Young

Europeans, work and family. London: Routledge.

- Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational behaviour and human performance,

4: 309-365.

- Loscocco, K.A., & Roschelle, A.R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and non-work life:

Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39: 182-225.

- Loudoun, R.J. & Bohle, P.L. (1997). Work/non-work conflict and health in shiftwork: relationship

with marital status and social support, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental

Health, 3(2): 71-77.

- Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 64-98.

- Mowday, R.T., & Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14: 224-247.

- O’Driscoll, M.P., Llgen, D.R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities,

interrole conflict and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 272-279.

49

- Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival manual. McGraw-Hill: Berkshire.

- Pichler, F. (2009). Determinants of work-life balance: Shortcomings in the contemporary

measurement of WLB in large-scale surveys. Social Indicators Research, 92: 449-469.

- Pocock, B. (2006). The labour market ate my babies: work, children and a sustainable future.

Sydney: the Federation Press.

- Pocock, B., & Clarke, J. (2004). Can’t buy me love? Young Australians’ views on parental work,

time and guilt and their own consumption. Canberra: Australia Institute.

- Rau, B.L., & Hyland, M.M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangement: the effects on

applicant attraction. Personnel psychology, 55: 111-135.

- Reynolds, J. (2005). In the face of conflict: work-life conflict and desired work hour adjustments.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 67: 1313-1331.

- Sang, K.J.C., Ison, S.G., & Dainty, A.R.J. (2008). The job satisfaction of UK architects and

relationships with work-life balance and turnover intentions. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 16(3): 288-300.

- Smart, C., & Shipman, B. (2004). Visions in monochrome: Families marriage and the

individualization thesis. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(4): 491-509.

- Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting generational work

values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 363-82.

- Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life

balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2): 101-119.

- Theorell, T., & Karasek, R.A. (2000). The demand-control-support model and CVD: 78-83 in

Schnall, P.L., Bilkae, K., Landsbergis, P., & Baker, D., (eds). The workplace and cardiovascular

desease, occupational medicine: stage of the art reviews, 15(1). Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and

Belfus.

- Valentine, S., Greller, M.M., & Richtermeyer, S.B. (2006). Employee job response as a function

of ethical context and perceived organization support. Journal of Business Research, 59: 582-588.

50

- Veldhoven, M., Meijman, T.F. (2008). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een

vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA). Nederlands Instituut

voor Arbeidsomstandigheden, Amsterdam.

- White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. (2003). ‘High-performance’

Management Practices, Working Hours and Work-Life Balance. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 41(2): 175-195.

- Wiley, D.L. (1987). The relationship between work-nonwork role conflict and job related

outcomes: some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13: 467-472.

- Wilson, M.G., Polzer-Debruyne, A., Chen, S., & Fernandes, S. (2007). Shift work intervention for

reduces work-family conflict. Employee Relations, 29(2):162-77.

- Young, D.S., & Wright, E.M. (2001). Mothers making tenure. Journal of Social Work Education,

37(3): 555-569.

51

Appendix A

Vragenlijst – Werk-privé balans productiemedewerkers

Beste productiemedewerker,

Hierbij ontvangt u een vragenlijst die is gemaakt voor mijn afstudeeronderzoek onder

productieorganisaties. Deze vragenlijst bevat 48 stellingen die gaan over de balans tussen uw

werk en privéleven, uw werkrooster en uw invloed op uw werktijden. Daarnaast wordt, met

behulp van deze vragenlijst, uw algemene tevredenheid met uw werk gemeten.

Om erachter te komen welk werkrooster leidt tot de beste balans tussen werk en privéleven

van productiemedewerkers, en welke mate van invloed op de werktijden leidt tot de beste

werk-privé balans, is deze vragenlijst samengesteld. Ik vraag u allen deze vragenlijst van

ongeveer 10 minuten in te vullen. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Het belangrijkste is

dat u antwoordt op basis van uw eigen situatie en mening, en dat alle vragen worden ingevuld.

Uw antwoorden worden strikt vertrouwelijk en volledig anoniem verwerkt. Ze kunnen dus

niet naar u persoonlijk herleid worden.

Uw medewerking wordt zeer gewaardeerd en is erg belangrijk voor het succes van het

onderzoek.

Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Karin Beaujean

[email protected]

52

Deel A. – Persoonsgegevens

1. Geslacht: O man O vrouw

2. Leeftijd: _____ jaar

3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? O Basisonderwijs

O Middelbaar onderwijs

O Lager beroepsonderwijs (LBO)

O Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO)

O Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO)

O Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO)

O Anders namelijk: _________________

4. Op welke afdeling bent u werkzaam? O kantoor O productie

5. Aantal dienstjaren bij deze organisatie: _____ jaar

6. Omvang dienstverband (volgens contract): _____uren per week

7. Bent u getrouwd/ samenwonend? Ja/nee

8. Heeft u thuiswonende kinderen? Ja/nee

Zo ja, hoeveel en van welke leeftijd? Aantal _____ Leeftijd: __________

9. Draagt u zorgt over andere familieleden?

(Denk hierbij bijvoorbeeld aan zieke ouders.) Ja/nee

Zo ja, hoeveel uur bent u hier gemiddeld

per week aan kwijt? _____uren per week

53

Deel B.

Hieronder worden enkele vragen gesteld over verschillende onderwerpen. Ik verzoek u

vriendelijk deze vragen zo zorgvuldig mogelijk en naar juistheid te beantwoorden. Met uw

antwoorden zal vertrouwelijk worden omgegaan: uw collega’s en direct leidinggevende zullen

uw antwoorden niet te zien krijgen.

Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op de balans tussen uw werk en privéleven.

Voor de stellingen 1 t/m 16 zijn er vijf antwoordmogelijkheden

variërend van “Helemaal mee oneens (1)” tot “Helemaal mee eens

(5)”.

1 2 3 4 5

1 Ik bezoek vaak mijn vrienden en kennissen.

2 De tijd die ik aan mijn werk besteed, maakt het me moeilijk om

aan mijn gezinsverantwoordelijkheden te voldoen.

3 Ik moet taken op mijn werk laten liggen doordat ik

verantwoordelijkheden thuis heb.

4 Naast mijn werk, heb ik geen tijd vrij te besteden.

5

De verantwoordelijkheden in mijn privéleven belemmeren mij

een goede werknemer te zijn (denk aan: op tijd komen, taken

goed uitvoeren, overuren maken).

6 Het uitvoeren van mijn werk kost mij zoveel energie, dat het

moeilijk wordt daarnaast ook aan mijn gezinstaken te voldoen.

7 Ik heb genoeg tijd voor mijn hobbies en vrienden.

8 De verplichtingen naar mijn gezin of partner toe, belemmeren

mij bij het uitvoeren van mijn werk.

9 Door werkgerelateerde verplichtingen moet ik regelmatig mijn

privéplannen wijzigen.

10 Door mijn werk, verwaarloos ik mijn vrienden en familie.

11 Mijn werk conflicteert met mijn privéleven.

12 Ik kom niet toe aan de dingen die ik thuis wil doen door de druk

die ik op mijn werk ervaar.

13 Familiegerelateerde inspanningen belemmeren mij bij het

uitvoeren van mijn werk.

14 In mijn vrije tijd ben ik nog veel bezig met mijn werk.

15 Ik kom niet toe aan de dingen die ik op mijn werk wil doen

door de verwachtingen van mijn gezin of partner.

16 Ik heb genoeg tijd voor mijn familie (partner, ouders, kinderen

etc).

54

Onderstaande stellingen hebben betrekking op de individuele controle op werktijden en de

mate waarin u er gebruik van maakt.

Voor de stellingen 17 t/m 28 zijn er vijf antwoordmogelijkheden,


(5)”.

1 2 3 4 5

17 Wanneer ik later met mijn dienst wil beginnen, is dit mogelijk.

18 Wanneer ik onverwachts niet kan werken, wordt me dat kwalijk

genomen.

19 Ik kan aangeven wanneer ik vrij wil hebben, en hier wordt

rekening mee gehouden bij het maken van het werkrooster.

20 Ik moet voor mijn gevoel te vaak een vrije dag opnemen voor

privégelegenheden.

21 Ik heb veel invloed op de totstandkoming van mijn rooster.

22 Ik ruil regelmatig van dienst wanneer me dat beter uitkomt.

23 Wanneer ik door privé omstandigheden eerder naar huis moet,

is dat geen probleem.

24 Ik bepaal zelf wanneer ik werk.

25 Wanneer ik aangeef dat ik bijvoorbeeld vaker de nachtdienst

wil draaien, wordt hier rekening mee gehouden.

26 Wanneer er veel werk ligt, moet ik (in het weekend)

overwerken.

27 Als ik extra diensten wil draaien, is dat mogelijk.

28 Mijn baas bepaalt wanneer ik werk en op welke tijden.

Onderstaande vraag heeft betrekking op het roostertype dat op u van toepassing is.

Kruis het juiste antwoord aan.

29 Welke van de volgende beschrijvingen komt het best overeen met het werkrooster dat op

u van toepassing is?

O Standaard dagrooster

O Twee ploegenrooster

O Drie ploegenrooster

O Vier ploegenrooster

O Vijf ploegenrooster

Anders, namelijk: ______________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

55

Onderstaande vragen hebben betrekking op uw gedrag en houding ten opzichte van uw

werk.

Voor de stellingen 32 t/m 50 zijn er vijf antwoordmogelijkheden,


(5)”.

1 2 3 4 5

30 Ik voel me niet thuis bij deze organisatie.

31 Ik vind mijn werk nog steeds boeiend, elke dag weer.

32 Ik denk erover om bij een andere organisatie te gaan werken.

33 Ik heb het gevoel dat ik te weinig alternatieven heb om nu

ontslag te nemen.

34 Ik moet telkens weerstand bij mezelf overwinnen om mijn werk

te doen.

35 Ik voel me als een ‘deel van de familie’ in deze organisatie.

36 Het zou voor mij op dit moment moeilijk zijn om weg te gaan

bij deze organisatie, ook al zou ik dat willen.

37 Ik zal de organisatie binnen enkele jaren verlaten.

38 Ik ben bang voor wat er zou kunnen gebeuren als ik mijn baan

opzeg, zonder meteen een nieuwe baan te hebben.

39 Deze organisatie betekent veel voor mij.

40 Ik doe mijn werk omdat het moet, daarmee is alles wel gezegd.

41 Na zo’n vijf jaar heb je het in dit werk wel gezien.

42 Ik ervaar problemen van deze organisatie als mijn eigen

problemen.

43 Ik heb plezier in mijn werk.

44 Er zou teveel in mijn leven verstoord worden als ik nu ontslag

zou nemen.

45 Als ik ontslag neem, wordt het gemakkelijk om een andere

baan te vinden.

46 Het idee dat ik dit werk nog tot mijn pensioen moet doen,

benauwt me.

47 Ik verwacht binnenkort bij een andere organisatie te werken.

48 Ik voel me emotioneel gehecht aan deze organisatie.

56

Opmerkingen:

Wanneer u opmerkingen of vragen heeft met betrekking tot deze vragenlijst, dan kunt u deze

hieronder aangeven:

49

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Einde vragenlijst.

Bedankt voor uw medewerking!

57

Appendix B

Overview of the reliability of the subscales:

Subscale Number of items Cronbach’s alpha

Control: Making use of control 4 .74

Control: Taking time off 2 .69

Control: Starting and ending times 2 .50

Org. Commitment: Affective 4 .71

Org. Commitment: Continuance 4 .54

58

Appendix C

Additional regression analyses:

Table C1 – Regression analysis of Work-life balance on Control over taking time off and Schedule type

Model 1 Model 2

Control: taking time off .68** .39**

Schedule type -.16* -.06

Tenure -.06

Organization -.52**

R² .62 .77

F-Value 72.78 75.65

R² change .62** .16**

F-Value R² change 72.78** 30.83**

Dependent variable: Work-life balance

° = Significant at the .10 level (2-tailed)

* = Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

** = Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

N = 94

Table C2 – Regression analysis of Affective commitment on Work-life balance

Model 1 Model 2

Work-life balance .18 -.02

Control .15 -.16

Tenure .03

Schedule type -.19

Organization .02

Job satisfaction .47**

Turnover intention -.12

R² .09 .28

F-Value 4.49 4.80

R² change .09** .19**

F-Value R² change 4.57** 4.49**




59

Table C3. Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviations and Pearson correlations

Mean SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Schedule type (0 = standard day schedule, 1 = three-shift) .52 .50 0-1

2. Control (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 2.79 .77 1-5 -.56**

3 Making use of control (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 2.01 .96 1-5 -.14 .68**

4 Control: taking time off (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.51 1.27 1-5 -.58** .62** .09

5 Control: start- end-times (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.22 1.11 1-5 -.36** .64** .28** .14

6. Work-life balance (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.66 1.33 1-5 -.56** .50** .06 .77** -.10

7. Satisfaction (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 4.00 .91 1-5 -.59** .43** .01 .72** .12 .71**

8. Turnover intention (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 1.71 .87 1-5 .20° -.13 .16 -.23* -.26* -.17 -.50**

9. Commitment (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.25 .65 1-5 -.37** .28** .16 .29** .11 .29** .47** -.27**

10 Affective commitment (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.36 .82 1-5 -.37** .10 .16 .28** .12 .29** .49** -.35** .70**

11 Continuous commitm. (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) 3.13 .89 1-5 -.06 .16 .07 .05 .07 .03 .07 .02 -.66** -.01

12. Education level (1 = lowest, 6 = highest) 3.82 1.19 1-6 -.36** .16 -.04 .22* .14 .11 .17 -.05 -.29** .10 .28**

13. Tenure (in years) 13.76 10.88 1-38 .21* .22 -.17 -.21* -.03 -.29** -.12 -.04 -.28** -.02 -.38** -.36**

14. Living with a partner (0 = yes, 1 = no) .28 .45 0-1 .02 -.11 -.06 -.15 -.02 -.14 -.21* .25* .03 -.05 .05 .01 -.10

15. Organization (0 = Org. A, 1 = Org. B) .21 .41 0-1 .50** -.49** -.24* -.65** -.01 -.82** -.65** .03 -.23** -.29* .02 -.03 .28** .20°

N = 94 °. Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

is work-life balance influenced by control and schedule

Documents