Research Paper- Work Spillover into Family Life.

INTERIM ASSESSMENT PAPER

TOWARD A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WORK SPILLOVER INTO FAMILY LIFE

As Presented by GROUP 26/1/2011

Research Assignment - Work Spillover into Family Life

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ABSTRACT

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.4 Relevance of the Study

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.2 Review of Related Studies

2.3 Rational for the Present Study

2.4 Statement of Hypothesis

2.5 Operational Definition

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Population and Sample

3.2 Instrument / Material

3.3 Study Design

3.4 Procedure

3.5 Scoring

Group 2 Research


CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Data Presentation, Analysis & Results

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Recommendation & Conclusion

REFERENCES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

GROUP DETAILS

5.1

Group 2 Research


CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO WORK SPILL OVER

1.1 Background to the Study

Every organization’s dream is to achieve organizational success. In today’s fast pace

competitive society, there is a significant underlying issue in every organization

across all staffing levels that surround the issues of work life integration. It is more

than a buzzword or HR Policy; it is a key component in understanding work

retention, job satisfaction and career development for individuals that lead to

organizational support.

It is no longer about balance because balance implies that work and life are opposites of each other,

instead employees and employers need to view work-life as a well-integrated whole.

In Ghana, there is a growing concern in organizations about work life integration because it crosses

over in other issues of the business and retains certain quality staff, staff retention/turnover, health,

and wellness of employees and productivity.

The strongest factors are associated with an employee’s ability to integrate work and family life

with a supportive supervisor and work place culture. Work influences an employee’s personal life.

In Ghana, work-family life strategies are initiatives by employers to attract the talented workforce

needed to compete, to retain and to make them productive in the face of growing family and

personal issues. Initiatives include programs, practices, policies, training and cultural changes that

enable employees to stabilize responsibilities at work with obligations and opportunities in their

personal lives.

Group 2 Research


1.2 Statement of the Problem

In Ghana, family life and professional life are more and more difficult to reconcile. Several

challenges in professional life and in family life are the origin of more and more incompatibilities

between these two spheres of life. It has become more and more difficult for many employees to

reach a balance between the two, hence the prevalence of work spillover into family life.

Work – family conflict create several challenges for individuals, organizations and the society as a

whole in Ghana. A conflict due to the incompatibility of time slots allowed to family and

professional responsibilities (“Time – based conflict”). A conflict due to the sum of efforts which

the individual must provide in the field of job and in the field of family (“Strain – based conflict”)

and finally, a conflict due to incompatibility of behaviors which the individual must adopt in both

spheres. In other words, behaviors that are functional in one sphere can turn out to be dysfunctional

in the other one (“Behavior – based Conflict”) (Greenhaus & Bentel, 1985). The question is, would

time-based conflict, strain-based conflict, and behavior-based conflict impact an individual’s

functioning in his family life.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The study focused on the following objectives:

To examine work spillover into spouse relationship

To examine work spillover into family leisure

To examine work spillover into parenting

To examine work spillover into domestic obligation.

Group 2 Research


1.4 Relevance of the Study

There are continuous changes in organizations as well as in an employee’s life. Meeting all these

changes is difficult for both employees and organizations. These changes create work-family

conflicts that have implications for both employees and organizations because work family conflict

spillover creates disturbances in both domains (work and family) and could result in negative

outcomes such as fatigue, absenteeism at work and turnover. Based on these factors it has become

important to research into issues that bring about work spillover into family life and to see how best

these issues can be addressed to make employees function well in both spheres.

Group 2 Research


CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Framework

Work-Family spillover means the extent to which engagement in other areas (Organisational work/ Family) affect the engagement in other area (Family life/ Organisational work) there is positive and negative work spill over into family life. Various types of work spillover into family life are negative (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Small & Riley, 1990). There are two views regarding faculty workload. According to the optimistic view, devotion to work is self-imposed because they love their work. According to the alternative view, professors feel themselves trapped into excessive institutional and professional expectations (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004).

Relationships between work and family come in many patterns which are; separate pattern, mutual pattern and blending pattern. These patterns can be explained by role theory, spillover theory, compensation theory and boundary theory.

2.1.1) Separate spheres pattern - roles theory

Role is defined as expected behaviors come from some social status as the separate spheres pattern; it sees family and work as a distinctive system that come from sex role difference, domestic area for women and public area for men (Zedeck 1992), role segmentation from different expectations on men and women. Sex role has psychology and social dimension. Women are expected to be good wife and mother. Men are expected to work for family. Such social expectation is not changed much as society development. Further, family and work should remain separate in order to function properly and the division of labor by sex should be maintained in order to avoid conflict, work and family are separated, absolutely from each other and not effected each other (Lambert, 1990).

2.1.2) Mutual pattern - spillover theory and compensation theory

Spillover theory recognizes that systems may have spillover effects on the other, as experiences gained from family area may have effects on work (Belsky et al., 1985; Crouter, 1984b).At the same time membership in the two systems often cause strain and overload for individuals, families, and work units.

Spillover can be positive or negative:

Positive spillover refers to fact that satisfaction and achievement in one field may bring both satisfaction and achievement in another field.

Negative spillover refers to the fact that difficulties and depression in one field may bring the same emotion in another field

Group 2 Research


Generally, the spillover effects pattern shifts attention from the effects of social institutions on each other to the effects of family members on each other, ignoring the social and political consequences of the context in which family and work are located.

Compensation theory is contrast with spillover (Zedeck, 1992). It shows what is provided by one makes up for what is missing in the other (Evans and Bartolome, 1984). The theory also views workers as actively seeking greater satisfaction from their work or family life as a result of being dissatisfied with each other (Lambert, 1990). So there is an inverse relationship between work and family such that work and non-work experiences tend to be contradicted. It further proposes that individuals make differential investments of themselves in the two settings (Champoux, 1978), as denial experienced in work are made up or compensated for in non-work activities.

2.1.3) Integration pattern - boundary theory

Sue Campbell Clark (2000) the researcher who believes there is a boundary between work and family. Three forms of boundary in boundary theory are mental boundary, time boundary and physiological boundary. Individuals are border-crossers who make daily transitions between the field of work and home. Boundary theory is widely used in work and family issues such as work at home, flexible time, etc (Desrochers, Sargent, 2002), as a result Individuals try to find a suitable boundary between work and family.

Boundary is characterized by permeability, flexibility and blending:

Permeability refers to the bound one role can penetrate to another. For example, operator working in call center is not allowed to private phone.

Flexibility refers to extension boundary between roles. For example, telecommuting female also play a mother role.

When permeability and flexibility both exit in two or more roles, blending happens.

An increased demand in one domain, either work or family, can cause strain on the other because of the overlap in these two roles and spouses’ limited time and energy; this is known as the resource drain hypothesis (Heller & Wastson). When one role affects a person’s ability to contribute as a family member, spouse, or employee, this concept is referred to as “spillover.” Spillover, or the transmission of attitudes or reactions, can have a positive or negative outcomes (Mauno & Kinnunen , 1999; Rogers & May, 2003; Schulz, et.al, 2004; Song, Foo, & Uy, 2008).When spillover follows the path of work to home, it begins with a job stressor- moving from affecting one’s occupational well-being to his/her overall well-being and, finally, to his/her spouse’s marital well-being (Mauno & Kinnunen, 1999). However, high amounts of spillover are conversely shown to be a result of increase job satisfaction, healthy communication patterns, and cohesive family structures.

Group 2 Research


2.2 Review of Related Studies

Parasuraman and Simmers (2001) studied that how work and family role features affected work-family conflict. He also studied indicators of psychological well being among males and females workers who are self employed or organizationally employed. In that study, employment type and gender were independent variables. They concluded that as compared to the organizational employees, self employed employees enjoy more self-sufficiency, and flexible working hours which leads to more job involvement and job satisfaction however they also experience more work-life conflict and less family satisfaction. Grzywacz et al. (2002) stated in his research on work-family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in adult labor force that female workers reported higher level of positive spillover from work to family than did males. They test hypothesis regarding the distribution of work-family spillover by social structural context. Education was only attached with one type of work-family spillover and proved that less rather than more; education was associated with less negative spillover from work to family. In a research conducted on two hundred and three teachers to see the relationship between work-family culture, work-family conflict, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Pearson correlations indicated that there was negative relation of OCB and work-family conflict while OCB was positively related with work family culture, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Work-family culture indicated both organizational commitment and OCB, and that organizational commitment did not settle the relationship between work family culture and OCB. The findings were helpful for schools to foster a positive work-family culture (Bragger et al., 2005).

Stress affects the physical and emotional well being of employees as well as organisational effectiveness (Sauter, Murphy & Hurrell, 1992). Research by Menon and Akhilesh (1994) showed that stress reactions have implications for the individual as well as the organisation. Stress can no longer be considered merely as the individual’s or manager’s problem. Stress affects the individual’s adjustment with others and can in turn affect performance and production of the entire organisation. Organisations are realising the potential harmful effects of stress in terms of decreased motivation, lowered performance levels, mental and physical ailments that excess stress cause (Menon & Akhilesh, 1994). It is now accepted that prolonged or intense stress can have a negative impact on an individual’s mental and physical health (Johnson et al., 2005).

Research conducted by Cooper and Marshall (1976), identified six categories of stressors which would impact on occupational stress, namely: intrinsic factors of work, individuals role in the organisation, relationships at work, career development, organisational structure and climate, and work-home interaction. Based on Cooper and Marshall’s research stressors may differ within various work environments, depending on the demands and resources that exist in the specific work context (Rothmann, Mostert & Strydom, 2006). More and more research has been conducted to re-evaluate work stressors. According to Sauter et al. (1992) work stressors could include: lack of control over work , excessive time pressures, excessive or inflexible working hours, too much or too

Group 2 Research


little work or responsibility, confusion about duties and responsibilities, lack of job variety and interest, inadequate training and possibilities for learning new skills, poor work-life balance, difficult relationships at work, lack of support and lack of contact with colleagues, organisational confusion, restructuring, job change, and uncertainty over job prospects. Also, physical conditions such as high noise levels, overcrowding in the workplace or a lack of privacy have been associated with stress (Fairbrother & Warn, 2003).

According to research by Oosthuizen and Koortzen (2007) the causes of stressors arising outside the work situation for firefighters were characterised by marital dysfunction and divorce, limited time with family, problems with children, and lifestyle factors such as the abuse of alcohol, excessive smoking and lack of exercise. Further issues include long shifts, which interfere with sex lives, loss of friends (non firefighters), and suicide of colleagues or family members, lower social status, anger and frustration at home or in the family, emotional, intellectual and physical exhaustion, wives being alone at night and not being available to help the family when needed.

Researchers have tested the impact of work and family benefits which comprise of flexible schedules, childcare assistance, parental leave, childcare information and parental leave on organization commitment and have shown that there is greater organizational commitment if employees have an easy access to work life policies (Grover & Crooker, 1995). Many of Previous studies showed that today employee’s seek a job with value and importance for work-life benefits (McCrory, 1999). Cappelli (2000) has indicated that several factors were considered important and have a direct affect for the well- functioning of employee’s retention. They were career opportunities, work environment and work-life balance (Shoaib et al., 2009). A lot of studies have reported the effect of non-work factors such as job stress and exhaustion on workers makes him to shift from the organization and such roles that create job stress, work-family clashes and lead the employee to leave the organization. The personal attributes of the employee, the level of support employees receives at job, the industry norms and the management of these components in the workplace will through its impact on work-family conflicts that can effect job contentment and organizational commitment and ultimately lead to employee turnover (Rowley & Purcell, 2001; Mulvaney et al., 2006; Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007). So work-life balance is necessary to retain employees.

Work-family conflict means a conflict of work and family interrelated roles. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) stated that work family conflict occur when contribution in work role creates problems in contribution of family role. He said that work-family conflict could arise from tough time demands, stress originated in one role spillover to other role disturbing the quality of life, and behaviors that were appropriate in one domain but are considered as inappropriate in other domain. When demands from family and work are equally mismatched and meeting demands of one field created difficulties in meeting demands of another field, it led to work-family conflict (Bruke & Greenglass, 1987; Gary, 1991). Work-family conflict resulted in psychological disturbances in employees. Piotrkowski (1979) focused on the psychological and structural interference as working long hours at work will lose employee’s energy at home. According to (Burke, Weir & DuWors, 1980) the wives of the senior administrators perceived that their husbands‟ occupational demands are affecting their home such as stress on communicating. Impact of work-family conflict was studied

Group 2 Research


among working women in Taiwan and findings showed that work-family conflict was strongly linked with lower job and family satisfaction, greater stress and more severe physical ailments (Lu, 2007). Mental health can be disturbed due to minor differences in the work family understanding. Researchers found consistent positive relationship between long working hours, work load and work-family conflict (Pleck et al., 1980; Keith & Schafer, 1980).

Negative affectivity (NA) is an individual’s tendency to experience high levels of subjective distress, depression, nervousness, anxiety, and feelings of anger, contempt, disgust, and fear. Stoeva et al. (2002) studied the relationship between NA and work-family conflict among 148 senior civil servants in Hong Kong. NA resulted in job and family stress. Job stress led to work-to-family conflict while family stress led to family-to-work conflict. They found that high-NA individuals experience more work-to-family conflict and more family-to-work conflict than low-NA individuals. According to a study conducted in Toronto, Canada, home to work conflict was positively associated with anxiety and depression among employed males and females, and the effects of home-to-work conflict were felt by both males and females, females tend to experience greater anxiety associated with spillover than did men-even after statistically controlling for a range of both non-work-related and work-related conditions and it also revealed that conflict and distress were strongly associated among people with independent jobs, among women with routine jobs and among men in harmful environment (Schieman et al., 2003).

Work-family role pressure incompatibility Greenhaus & Beutell (1985)

Earlier work-family conflict was primarily as a unidimensional construct, Research (Frone, Russell, and Cooper, 1992) suggested that it was reciprocal, naturally in that work could interfere with family. At present (work-to-family conflict; WFC) and family can interfere with work (family-to-work conflict; FWC).WFC and FWC are generally considered prominent but also have related constructs. Researcher has primarily investigated how work interferes or conflicts with family.

2.2.1) Role conflict model (Multidimensional Measure of Work-Family Conflict)

In this model, work-family conflict is based on role conflict. This model views work-family conflict separately into work and family. This role conflict model was provided by Kopelman et al. (1983) it showed that work conflict and family conflict had a positive relationship with inter-role conflict and these three kinds of conflict individually had a negative relationship with job and family satisfaction and in the last, job and family satisfaction were related to life satisfaction positively.

2.2.2) Sex Difference model (Model of work-family conflict)

Later, the previous model, role conflict was extended by Higgins, Duxbury and Irving (1992), they developed a more extensive and complete one. They added two more former variables, which are role involvement and role expectation, and they also substituted quality of work and family life for job and family satisfaction in order to eliminate the weakness–the lack of a significant relationship between work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Higgins, Duxbury and Irving (1992) paid attention to sex difference in work-family conflict.

Group 2 Research


After that many researchers make it possible to view work-family conflict in the sight of sociology, they study the sex effects to conflict far more than role involvement and role expectation. Social judgment for men usually comes from work role. If men involve much in family, it will differ from social expectation which will lead to work-family conflict in a high degree. Social judgment for women usually comes from family role. If women involve much in work, it will differ from social expectation which will lead to work-family conflict in a high degree.But this model still views work-family conflict statically. The roles of men and women are in a change which leads to new role expectation and so contents of work-family conflict for men and women are in a change accordingly.

2.2.3) Double Direction model(Model of work-family conflict)

A Double Direction model by Frone (1992) adds stressors variable and depression outcomes to work-family conflict model.This model gives a way to think work-family conflict in a double direction. Job stressors and FWC increase job distress (positive) while job involvement reduces job distress (negative).

Family stressors and WFC increase family distress (positive) while family involvement reduce family distress (negative). Both of Job and family distress increase depression (positive).

2.3 Rational for the Present Study

These studies certainly do not represent all of the research on work spillover into family life, but

they do represent a summary of what is known. While much remains to be understood, the present

investigation was conducted in an effort to address the untapped areas in past research and to

broaden the array of work spillover into family life, taking into consideration the Ghanaian context.

The past researches failed to take into consideration work spillover into domestic obligation. It is

believed that domestic obligation is more likely to be related to work spillover into family life.

Several challenges at work place will definitely impact domestic obligation. Another interesting

area that has not been explored by researchers is family leisure. It is believed that there is

discrepancy in work roles and family leisure.

Group 2 Research


2.4 Statement of Hypothesis

1. Excessive work load has a positive correlation to work spillover in to family life.

2. Long working hours has a positive correlation to work spillover into family life.

3. Organizational Climate has a positive correlation to work spillover into family life.

4. Organizational Leadership has a positive correlation to work spillover into family life.

2.5 Operational Definition

Family: A group comprising a husband and wife and their dependent children, constituting a

fundamental unit in the organization of society.

Work: Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or

accomplishment of something.

Financial: An established organization or foundation which manages money capital and

Institution credit

Impact of Work Spillover: There is a positive correlation between work spillover and family life.

Group 2 Research


CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Population and Sample

The population for the present study was made up of male and female employees in financial

institutions in Accra. Considering the fact that most organizations in Ghana are situated in Accra,

this population had all the characteristics needed in the present study.

The age range of the population was between 18 to 65. A sample of One Hundred and Fifty

employees was randomly selected from a list of financial institutions in Accra. A total of 150

questionnaires (APPENDIX II) were distributed to 15 financial institutions with the sample of 10

to each institution.

Participants were selected through random stratified sampling. The sampling approach allowed

researchers to examine married, single, divorced and the widowed in financial institutions. This

ensured proper representation of the targeted group.

3.2 Instrument / Material

The study adopted 150 Questionnaires designed by Small and Riley (1990). The scale assessed the

extent of spillover of work demands into four family roles.

3.3 Study Design

The study examined the effects of four (4) dependent variables on work spillover into family life.

The dependent variables are:

Family Leisure

Group 2 Research


Parenting

Spouse Relationship and

Domestic Obligation

The independent variables are:

Excessive Work Roles

Long Working Hours

Organizational Climate and

Organizational Leadership

3.4 Procedure

Research graduates wrote a letter (APPENDIX I) to the Human Resource Departments of the

selected Organizations. When permission was granted, the researchers gathered the contact

information of employees from the Human Resource Offices. A specified number of employees (in

the banks) consisting of male and female couples were randomly selected based on the list of

employees given by each organization using a table of random numbers.

The researcher introduced him or herself to the prospective respondents and explained to them the

purpose of the study and then sought their consent to participate in the study. Each participant was

assured of confidentiality, privacy and anonymity.

Each participant was administered a questionnaire and was asked to tick the responses that applied

to their perception of spillover. The participants were given ample time to complete and return the

questionnaire. The questionnaires were then taken back for scoring and analysis.

3.5 Scoring

The researchers used the 5 point Likert-type scale where 1=Strongly Agree and 5=Strongly

Disagree.

Group 2 Research


CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of the analysis and finding which the researchers obtained from the field. This is as a result of the investigation undertaken through the administration of One Hundred fifty (150) questionnaires at selected financial institutions comprising Eight Traditional Banks, Five Insurance Companies and Two Fund Management Companies. Ten questionnaires were administered evenly among the selected financial institutions to observe uniformity.

The presentation involves tables and graphs with the number of respondents and their views expressed on each of the questions asked. The questions were divided into two main groups: The Biographic Data and the Empirical Data which captured data on work stressors such as Excessive Work Roles, Long Working Hours, Organizational Climate and Organizational Leadership as against the impact on Family Life which was also sub-scaled into; Spouse, Child, Leisure and Domestic Obligations.

A measure developed by Small and Riley (1990), was adopted which assess the extent of spillover of work demands into four non-work roles. These are Spouse, Child, Leisure and Domestic Obligation. The measure based on the scarcity hypothesis, which contends that individuals have finite amount of energy. When an individual is involved in multiple social roles, these roles tend to drain or burnout in their roles as a worker, spouse and parent

Item; Responses are obtained using a 5point Likert-type scale where 1= Strongly Agree and 5= strongly Disagree.

BIO DATA ANALYSIS

Organisation( Table 4.1)

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent

Valid Zenith Bank 10 6.7 6.7 6.7

UBA 10 6.7 6.7 13.3

DataBank 10 6.7 6.7 20.0

Intercontinental Insurance 10 6.7 6.7 26.7

Group 2 Research


NSIA Insurance 10 6.7 6.7 33.3

SIC 10 6.7 6.7 40.0

Star Assurance 10 6.7 6.7 46.7

Star Life 10 6.7 6.7 53.3

UniBank 10 6.7 6.7 60.0

EcoBank 10 6.7 6.7 66.7

GCB 10 6.7 6.7 73.3

SEM Capital 10 6.7 6.7 80.0

Trust Bank 10 6.7 6.7 86.7

Prudential Bank 10 6.7 6.7 93.3

ADB 10 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, May 2011

Table 4.1 above is a distribution of the number questions administered at each institution with the corresponding percentages. From the table, it can clearly be observed that; out of the total of sample size of one hundred and fifty (150) questionnaires administered, all were returned accordingly and processed representing 100% returns rate.

Figure 1

Group 2 Research



Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the gender distribution of the sample used by the researchers. This indicates that; 60 out of the 150 respondents were female representing 40%, whiles 90 of the them were Females which constituted 60% of the total sample size under consideration.

Age (Table 4.3)


Valid 18-25 Years 14 9.3 9.3 9.3

26-35 Years 67 44.7 44.7 54.0

36-45 Years 48 32.0 32.0 86.0

46-55 Years 16 10.7 10.7 96.7

56-65 Years 5 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0


Table 4.3 is the Age distribution of the sample size used which clearly indicates that, even though 44.7% belonged to the age group 26-35 years which is the highest percentage score on the distribution, it does also demonstrate that the distribution was fairly represented. Ages 36-45 years constituted 32.0% to register as the second highest percentage score. Respondents between the 46- 55 years follow up with a percentage score of 10.7, whereas respondents between the ages of 18-25 years were 9.3% and age 56-65 years was 5%. Ages 66 and above had not registered a score at all.

The Marital Status of respondents were captured as part of the bio-data to determine the extent to which work spillover impacts on the various cohorts. Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5 demonstrate both frequencies and percentage score in tabular and graphical representation.

In Table 4.4, it can be observed that 95 of the respondents reported to be married, and 51 said they were singles representing 63.3% and 34.0% respectively. Only two out the sample reported to be Divorced, Widower registered 2 respondents indicating 1.3% score for Divorced and Widower. However the no score for Widows at all.

Group 2 Research


Marital Status (Table 4.4)


Valid Married 95 63.3 63.3 63.3

Single 51 34.0 34.0 97.3

Divorced 2 1.3 1.3 98.7

Widower 2 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0


Figure 4.5

Source: Field Survey, May, 2011

Group 2 Research


The researchers sought to analyze the dependant that each respondents caterers for and its impact on the quality of their family life as a result of the level of stress that is spilled over from the work domain. The data that was capture is therefore resented in Table 4.6 below.

Number of Dependants (Table 4.6)


Valid 1 21 14.0 14.0 14.0

2 32 21.3 21.3 35.3

3 24 16.0 16.0 51.3

4 31 20.7 20.7 72.0

5 7 4.7 4.7 76.7

More than 5 16 10.7 10.7 87.3

Not Applicable 19 12.7 12.7 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0


From the table above; It is clearly indicative that 32 respondents out of the total of 150 carters for at least 2 dependants which represents 21.3% and is closely followed by respondents who carter for 4 dependants which also registered 20.7% with frequency of 31. Respondents with a dependency level of 3 reported a frequency of 24 also representing 16.0%. From the researchers’ sample size, respondents who catered for only 1 person constituted 14.0% with a frequency of 21 respondents. The researchers’ made for provision for respondents who are single and would have a high tendency of this question not being applicable to them, 19 respondents did indicate that this particular question was not applicable to them registering percentage score of 12.7%. Respondents with more than 5 dependants scored 10.7% which also constitutes a frequency of 16 respondents. Finally dependency level of 5 counted for 7 respondents also making 4.7%

Figure 4.7 Level of qualification of respondents.

This aims at showing the theoretical competence of a respondents and to see if there is a correlation between their level of education and ability to handle stress the emanates from the work place. This is presented graphically on Figure 4.7 below.

Group 2 Research



It is observed from the diagram above that respondents’ with First Degree and Postgraduate Degree scored 46.0% and 36.0% constituting 82% of the entire population sample. Respondents whose level of education was not captured by the questionnaire said they had some other form of qualification scored 9.3% whereas respondents with Higher National Diploma (H.N.D) registered 7.3%. Respondents with A-Level was the least recorded and with a percentage score of 1.3% representing 2 responses.

This is further illustrated clearly in Table 4.8 below.

Level of Education ( Table 4.8)


Valid A-Level 2 1.3 1.3 1.3

HND 11 7.3 7.3 8.7

First Degree 69 46.0 46.0 54.7

Post Graduate Degree 54 36.0 36.0 90.7

Others 14 9.3 9.3 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction:

This section presents quantitative data and the results of the data collected from the respondents. A

simple random sample was use to select 150 respondents from the various organizations in the

Greater Accra Metropolis.

PRESENTATION OF DATA ON VARIABLES

Taking Work Home Affects time spend with my Spouse

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 62 41.3 41.3 41.3

Agree 46 30.7 30.7 72.0

Not Sure 15 10.0 10.0 82.0

Disagree 23 15.3 15.3 97.3

Strongly Disagree 4 2.7 2.7 100.0

Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


I close so late that i hardly interact with my kids before they sleep


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 53 35.3 35.3 64.7

Not Sure 22 14.7 14.7 79.3

Disagree 24 16.0 16.0 95.3


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


I have to work hard that i don't have any time for my hobbies


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 56 37.3 37.3 62.0

Not Sure 20 13.3 13.3 75.3

Disagree 30 20.0 20.0 95.3


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Excess work roles prevent me from achieving my domestic obligations


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 56 37.3 37.3 52.7

Not Sure 34 22.7 22.7 75.3

Disagree 29 19.3 19.3 94.7


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


I get home so late important issues with my spouse are discussed on phone the next

day


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 47 31.3 31.3 42.7

Not Sure 30 20.0 20.0 62.7

Disagree 47 31.3 31.3 94.0


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Working on weekends affects my hobby time and social activities


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 68 45.3 45.3 69.3

Not Sure 15 10.0 10.0 79.3

Disagree 27 18.0 18.0 97.3


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


I work long hours because working late is perceived as a mark of seriousness


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 17 11.3 11.3 19.3

Not Sure 23 15.3 15.3 34.7

Disagree 59 39.3 39.3 74.0


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


The inability of my salary to meet my family obligations creates tension between me

and my spouse


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 39 26.0 26.0 32.0

Not Sure 51 34.0 34.0 66.0

Disagree 41 27.3 27.3 93.3


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Lack of job satisfaction creates between me and my children at home


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 27 18.0 18.0 20.7

Not Sure 54 36.0 36.0 56.7

Disagree 54 36.0 36.0 92.7


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Lack of timely approval of my leave affects my ability to properly plan my holidays or

vacation with my family


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 62 41.3 41.3 64.7

Not Sure 19 12.7 12.7 77.3

Disagree 26 17.3 17.3 94.7


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Lack of cordial relationship with peers at work, distructs my ability to attend to my

domestic obligations


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 1 .7 .7 .7

Agree 20 13.3 13.3 14.0

Not Sure 42 28.0 28.0 42.0

Disagree 65 43.3 43.3 85.3


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


My superior is so demanding that it stresses me, and this affects the upbringing of

my children


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 21 14.0 14.0 21.3

Not Sure 39 26.0 26.0 47.3

Disagree 71 47.3 47.3 94.7


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


My inability to achieve set goals stresses me, and this affects the relationship between

me and my spouse


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 35 23.3 23.5 27.5

Not Sure 50 33.3 33.6 61.1

Disagree 50 33.3 33.6 94.6


Total 149 99.3 100.0

Missing System 1 .7

Total 150 100.0

Group 2 Research


I feel insecure with my current job and this affects my domestic obligations and

focus.


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 1 .7 .7 .7

Agree 26 17.3 17.3 18.0

Not Sure 40 26.7 26.7 44.7

Disagree 66 44.0 44.0 88.7


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


My inability to withstand organisational pressures creates tension between me and my

spouse and children.


Cumulative

Percent


Agree 22 14.7 14.7 16.7

Not Sure 44 29.3 29.3 46.0

Disagree 60 40.0 40.0 86.0


Total 150 100.0 100.0

Group 2 Research


Frequency Table

Characteristics

% of sample (n=150

) Characteristics

% of sample (n=150)

Gender level of Education

Male 40 A-Level 1.3

Female 60 HND 7.3

Age First Degree 46

18-25 Years 9.3 Post Graduate Degree 36

Group 2 Research


26-35 Years 44.7 Others 9.3

36-45 Years 32 Experience

46-55 Years 10.7 Less than 2 Years 9.3

56-65 Years 3.3 2-4 Years 34

Marital status 5-7 Years 13.3

Married 63.3 8-10 Years 18

Single 34 More than10 Years 25.3

Divorced 1.3

Widower 1.3

The above table shows the characteristics of the respondents. The first characteristic looked at by

this study is the sex distribution of the respondents, 40 percent were males whilst 60 percent were

females. With regards to their age distribution, approximately 9 percent of the respondents were

between 18 to 25 years old, 45 percent were between 26 to 35 years old, 32 percent were between

36 to 45 years, 11 percent between 46 to 55 years old whilst 3 percent between 56 and 65 years old .

On their marital status, 63 percent were married 34 percent were single, 1 percent each were

divorced and were widowers respectively. On levels of educational approximately 1 percent had A

level, 7 percent had HND 46 percent had first degree, 36 percent had post graduate degree whilst 9

percent had other qualifications such as……

Experience in current position, 9 percent had less that 2 years experience in current position, 34

percent had between 2 and 4 years experience, 13 percent had between 5 and 7 years experience, 18

percent had 8 and 10 years experience, whilst 25 percent had more than 10 years experience in

current position.

Business Unit

Frequency Percent

Foriegn Exchange 6 4.0

Group 2 Research


Customer Services 15 10.0

Marketing 26 17.3

Adim / Operations 28 18.7

I.T 5 3.3

Commercial Banking 9 6.0

Personal Banking 3 2.0

Project Management 5 3.3

Salaries 6 4.0

Corporate Banking 16 10.7

Others 31 20.7

Total 150 100.0

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Work Spillover

N 150

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .698

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .715

Before we conduct a non parametric test our data must be normally distributed. In this study one-

sample Kolmogorove-smirnov test was used to check for normality of our data. The null hypothesis

was “data is normally distributed versus the alternative “data not normally distributed”. the decision

rule was “reject the null hypothesis if p-value <0.05 otherwise fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Group 2 Research


From the above table P-value > 0.05. Hence data is normally distributed. Similarly we had a

Cronbalch alpha of 0.85 shown internal consistency of the questions measuring work spillover.

This study seeks to find the correlation between work spillover and excessive work, long working

hours, organizational climate, and organizational leadership. The researchers used the total score of

the variables mentioned. The procedure for calculating and testing for relationship is described

below.

Correlation is one of the most common and most useful statistics. A correlation coefficient (denoted

as r) is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables. r is

computed by the formula below.

r=N∑ xy−(∑ x )(∑ y )

√ [ N∑ x2−(∑ x )2 ] [ N∑ y2−(∑ y )2 ]

Where,

N = number of pairs of scores

∑ xy = Sum of the cross product of the paired scores

∑ x = Sum of x scores

= sum of y scores

= sum of squared x scores

∑ y2= sum of squared y scores

Through mathematical investigations it turns out that r will always be between -1.0 and +1.0. if the

correlation is negative, we have a negative relationship; if it's positive, the relationship is positive.

The Strength of correlation coefficient could be determined and interpreted as follows: correlation

coefficient between 0.00 and 0.19, indicates Slight, almost negligible correlation, between 0.20 and

Group 2 Research


0.39, Low, quite small correlation, 0.40 - 0.69, Moderate correlation, 0.70 - 0.89 High correlation,

0.90 - 1.00 Very high correlation

Once correlation coefficient is computed, one can determine the probability that the observed

correlation occurred by chance. That is, conducting a significance test. Most often the researcher is

interested in determining the probability that the correlation is a real one and not a chance

occurrence. In this case, the researcher will be testing the mutually exclusiveness ie the hypotheses

that:

Null hypothesis: there is no significant relationship between the two variable versus the

Alternative hypothesis: there is a significant relationship between the two variables.

The test statistics is given as

t= r

√ 1−r 2

n−2, having t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom

Decision rule shall be as before: Reject the null hypothesis if p-value < 0.05 otherwise fail to reject the null hypothesis. Decision is then taken and conclusion reached in non statistical terms.

The Correlation Matrix

All shown so far is how to compute a correlation between two variables. In most studies as this we

have considerably more than two variables. the researcher want to find the correlation between four

variable structure, process, human resource base and service quality. The correlation between all

possible pairs of variables could be put in a table called a correlation matrix as shown in table 4.04

below

Mean

Std. Deviation 1 2 3 4 5

Group 2 Research


Excessive work 14.57 3.54 1

Long working hours 9.17 2.39 .571** 1

Organizational climate 11.72 2.79 .500** .504** 1

Organizational Leadership 10.59 3.01 .425** .414** .579** 1

Work Spillover 46.04 9.28 .817** .761** .809** .768** 1

The above table shows a correlation statistics between scores on work spillover and scores on

excessive work, scores on long working hours, scores on organizational climate, and scores on

organizational leadership. From the result of the analysis, there was high to strong significant

positive correlation between work spillover and excessive work, long working hours, organizational

climate, and organizational leadership (r (150) = 0.817, p < 0.05), (r (150) = 0.761, p < 0.05) (r

(150) = 0.809, p < 0.05) (r (150) = 0.768, p < 0.05) The positive correlations implies that higher

scores on excessive work, long working hours, organizational climate, and organizational leadership

tend to go with higher scores on work sill over and lower excessive work, long working hours,

organizational climate, and organizational leadership go with lower scores work spillover in family

life. The researchers can conclude that excessive work, long working hours, organizational climate,

and organizational leadership had positive impact on work spillover. Increase in any of these factors

had an effect on the family of the respondents.

TWO INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TESTS

This is a statistical technique that is used to determine if there exists any significance difference

between the average values of two variables under study. This test will assume unequal variance for

the variables under study because the values for the various variables under study are taken under

different conditions in the various years under study. This involves the test of the hypothesis;

Group 2 Research


H0: There is no significant difference between scores on work spillover for males and females

H1: There is a significant difference between scores on work spillover for males and females

Significance level

A 5 percent (default) significance level will be used to make decision on this test. criterion

There are two approaches that can be used to make a decision on this test .Thus the critical region

approach and the p-value approach. But the simplest and easiest approach to use is the p-value

approach. If a p-value approach is used then decision rule given below:

Decision rule

Reject H0 (null hypothesis), thus accepting H1 (alternative hypothesis) if the p-value from the data is

less than 5% (thus if p-value<0.05)

Fail to reject H0, thus accepting H1 if the p-values is greater than 5%.

Critical region approach

The appropriate test statistics to use is

Under

Where = Common variance =

= average for males

= average for females

= population average for males

= population average for females

Group 2 Research


The value of this test statistics can be located on the ANOVA table under the heading “t”.

The critical region is of the form

From the student t – table t0.025,44 =1.96

Hence

CR:

Rejection Region Rejection region

- 1.96 0 1.96

Acceptance region.

Decision rule

Reject the null hypothesis if the value of the t falls in the critical region or otherwise.

Group 2 Research


Conclusion

If the null hypothesis is rejected then we accept the alternative hypothesis, it implies that there

exists a significant difference between the profitability before and after the inception of the banking

reform. This should further be reflected in the average values obtained from profitability before and

after the inception of the banking reform.

If we fail to reject the null hypothesis or accept the null hypothesis, then it implies that there is no

significant difference in the values of profitability before and after the inception of the banking

reform. Thus the average values of profitability before and after the inception of the banking reform

should approximately be the same.

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

Work spillover

Male 60 44.8667 9.34184 1.20603

Female 90 43.2889 9.20704 .97051

Group 2 Research


Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)

Mean Differenc

e

Std. Error

Difference

95% C.I

Work spillover

Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed .309 .579 1.02 148 .308 1.57778 1.54350 -1.4723 4.6279

Equal variances not assumed 1.01 125.31 .310 1.57778 1.54803 -1.4858 4.6414

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare scores on work spillover for males and

females. There was no significant difference in the scores public sector workers (M = 44.87, SD =

9.34) and scores for private sector workers (M = 43.29, SD = 9.21) organizational commitment; (t

(150) = -5.01, p > 0.05)

These results suggested that males on the average do not score their work spillover higher or lesser

than females. Hence we can conclude with a high level of confidence that gender does not influence

work spillover into family. Similarly, difference on scored observed on work spillover were not

large (significant) enough for us to conclude that scores on work spillover was high among male

respondents or not.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Analysis of variance was another tool employed by the researcher to compare the average score on

work spillover for other demographic characteristics of the respondents. The test is described below.

The test of significance of the difference between two means can be extended to a test for the

differences between several means of variables of a given population; this technique is called the

Group 2 Research


one-way analysis of variance (Anova). The general procedure is to determine how much of the

variation in our experimental results is caused by population differences and how much is due to

random variability.

The Statistical Model

The samples all came from normal populations with variance σ2.The first sample came from a

population with mean µ1, the second sample came from a population with mean µ2 and the kth

sample came from a population with mean µk. All these observed were independent.

Hypothesis

H0 :=u1=u2=, .. . ,=uk

H1: All the means are not all equal.

Crittical Region

Greater than the upper 5 percent point of the Fk-1, n-k distribution.

Test Statistics

The test Statistics is

F= MSTRMSE

=

SSTRK−1

SSEN−K

≈FK −1 , N −K

And the test statistics becomes and F-test

Where MSTR = between sample mean square and SSE = Residual mean square

SST=∑i=1

a

∑j=1

b

Y ij2 −Y 2

N

SSTR= ∑j=¿ 1

b Yi

ni−

Y 2

N

¿

SSE = SST – SSTR

Group 2 Research


With the degree of freedom for SST,SSTR and SSE being N – 1, k -1 and N – k respectively.

Decision Rule

Reject H0 (null hypothesis), thus accepting H1 (alternative hypothesis) for large values of the F-ratio

in comparison to an F k - 1, N – k distribution at 5% significant level, thus F-ratio > F k - 1, N – k

Fail to reject H0 otherwise.

Age groups Work spillover

P-value 0.704

18-25 Years 41.7857

26-35 Years 44.1642

36-45 Years 43.7292

46-55 Years 46.1875

56-65 Years 41.2

A one-way ANOVA was used to test for difference in work spillover across the eleven business

units. Work spillover was not significantly different across the age groups, F (4, 47) = .831, p >

0.05. Hence difference in scores on work spillover observed was on the average not significantly

different.

Marital status Work spillover

P-value 0.513

Married 44.05

Group 2 Research


Single 44.16

Divorced 41.00

Widower 34.50

A one-way ANOVA was used to test if there exist a significant difference in work spillover cross

marital status of the respondents. Work spillover was not significantly different across the four

marital status, F (3, 146) = 0.77, p > 0.05. Hence scores work spillover does not differ significantly

for the marital status. Further the study can conclude that difference observed with respect to the

marital status of the respondents is not large enough for us to conclude marital status bring about

different level of work spillover.

Levels of Education Work spillover

P-value 0.43

A-Level 55.00

HND 45.55

First Degree 43.13

Post Graduate Degree 44.00

Others 44.64

Once again one-way ANOVA was used to test for difference in work spillover against levels of

education of the respondents. Work spillover was not significantly different across the six levels of

education, F (5, 144) = 0.946, p > 0.05. Hence work spillover does not differ for levels of

education.

Group 2 Research


Number of years in Job Work spillover

P-value 0.934

Less than 2 Years 46.29

2-4 Years 42.33

5-7 Years 45.55

8-10 Years 43.04

More than10 Years 44.95

Another one-way ANOVA was used to test for difference in work spillover across the five groups

of years spent in job. Work spillover was not significantly different across the five groups, F (4,

145) = 0.934, p > 0.05. Hence scores on work spillover does not differ for the number of years spent

in job. Hence conclude that difference observed is not across the number of years spent in job to

were not large enough for the researcher to conclude that years spent in job influences work

spillover.

Business Unit Work spillover

P-value 0.005

Foreign Exchange 44.33

Customer Services 48.20

Marketing 45.92

Adim / Operations 43.43

I.T 44.40

Commercial Banking 42.33

Group 2 Research


Personal Banking 34.67

Project Management 34.80

Salaries 48.17

Corporate Banking 37.06

Others 46.00

Testing further for difference in work spillover, it was significantly different across business units,

F (10, 139) = 2.698, p > 0.05. Hence work spillover into family differs significantly across the

eleven business units. In conclusion business unit influenced significantly the scores on work

spillover. Using the average scores the business unit that experience the highest work spillover is

customer service and employees work at salaries followed by other business units, and then

marketing as the third business unit to experience work spillover.

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 RECOMMENDATION & CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATION:

Work expectations may create stress and make it difficult for life situations. With the various assumptions of work- life relationships, research has stated that companies should view work life as a conflict and adjust their practices accordingly. Therefore companies must respond to the situations separately and implement various programmes and methodologies that can support their employees with an encouraging arrangement of work and life.

All employers large and small, public and private can provide a supportive work environment, however it may not meet the needs of each person. There should be flexible working benefit by addressing their individual situations rather than stereotyping them as problem employees. Companies should implement and support a variety of family friendly services in once family life

Group 2 Research


and geared towards balancing the relationship between life and work to reduce stress, increase productivity and retain loyalty of employees.

CONCLUSION:

This paper provides empirical support for the multidimensionality of workspill over into family

life. The findings of the present study adds a new perspective on the basis of domestic

obligations, and also goes on to prove to the fact that, males on the average do not score

their work spillover higher or lesser than females. Hence we can conclude with a high level of

confidence that gender does not influence work spillover into family life. Similarly, difference on

scored observed on work spillover were not large (significant) enough for us to conclude that scores

on work spillover was high among male respondents or not. However the study suggested

that; workers between the ages of 26 45 years of age suffers most from work

spillovers. The 4 sub-scaled variables which are; Spouse, Child, Leisure and Domestic

Obligations that were investigated appeared to have in significant results, Indicating that all four

areas of family life could be equally affected from work spill over. The researchers can conclude

that Excessive Work Roles, Long Working Hours, Organizational Climate, and Organizational

Leadership had positive impact on work spillover. Increase in any of these factors had an effect on

the family of the respondents.

Group 2 Research


REFERENCES

2. Bragger, J.D., Srednicki, O.R., Kutcher E.J., Indovino.L, Rosner E, (2005), “Work-Family Conflict, Work-Family Culture, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Teachers”. Journal of Business and Psychology. 20 (2), 303-324. 3. Bruke, R. J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R. F., Jr. (1980). “Work demands and administrators and spouse well-being”. Human Relations, 33, 253-278. 4. Cappelli, P. (2000). “A Market-Driven Approach to Retaining Talent”. Harvard Business Review. 78(1), 103–112.

8. Gary L. H.(1991), “Balancing work and family: A literature and resource review”. Family relations, 40 (3), 348-353 Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business Vol. 1, Issue. 2, February 2011(pp.18-29) 26 10. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. 11. Grover, S. L. & Crooker, K. J. (1995). “Who appreciates family-responsive human resources policies: the impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parent and non-parents”. Personnel Psychology. 48(2), 271-289. 12. Grzywacz J.G., Almeida D.M., and McDonald D.A., (2002). “Work-Family Spillover and Daily Reports of Work and Family Stress in 16. Jacobs J.A and Winslow S.E. (2004). “Overworked Faculty: Job Stresses and Family Demands”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 596, 104-129. 17. Johnson, M. (2000), “Winning the People War, Talent and the Battle for Human Capital”. Copyright Licensing Agency, London. 18. Keith, P. M., & Schafer. R. B. (1980). “Role strain and depression in two-job families”. Family Relations, 29, 483-488. 19. Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland”. Human Relations. 51, 157-177. 24. Lu, Y. Y. (2008). “The impact of work-family conflict on working women in Taiwan: the effects of organizational support”. [QUT Thesis] (2007). ID Code: 16536; Department: Faculty of Health; Institution: Queensland University of Technology

Group 2 Research


26. Marks, A., & Scholarios, D. (2001). “Work-life integration and the psychological contract: An examination of work outcomes for software professionals”. Department of Human Resource Management. 27. McCrory, A. (1999). “Workstyles”. Computerworld, 65-66. 28. McCrosky, J. (1982). “Work and families: What is the employer‟s responsibility”? Personnel Journal. 61, 30-38. 29. Milkie, M. A., & Peltola, P. (1999). “Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing act”. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 476-490. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business Vol. 1, Issue. 2, February 2011(pp.18-29) 27

30. Mitchel, J.O. (1981). “The Effect of Intentions, Tenure, Personal, and Organizational Variables on Managerial Turnover”. The Academy of Management Journal, 24 (4), 742-751. 31. Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (1999). “Having it all: Overall work/life success in two-earner families”. Research in the Sociology of Work, 7, 109-139. 32. Morrell, K., Clarke, J.L., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). “The Role of Shocks in Employee Turnover”. British Journal of Management, 15, 335–349. 33. Mulvaney, R., O‟Neill, J., Cleverland, J., & Crouter, A. (2006). “A model of work-family dynamics of hotel managers”. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 66-87. 34. Namasivayam, K., & Zhao, X. (2007). “An investigation of the moderating effects of organisational commitment on the relationships between work-family conflict and job 35. Nicole, E. A. (2003). “The difficulty of leaving work inside the prison walls: An explanatory analysis of female correlational officer identity”. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL. 36. Noor S. and Maad, N. (2008). “Examining the Relationship between Work Life Conflict, Stress and Turnover Intentions among Marketing Executives in Pakistan”. International journal of Business and Management. 3(11), 43-56. 37. Ontario Women‟s Directorate. (1991). “Work and family: the crucial balance”. Ottawa: Ministry of community and Social Services. 38. Parasuraman S. & Simmers C.A. (2001). “Type of Employment, Work-Family Conflict and Well-Being:A Comparative Study”. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22 (5) 551-568. 39. Paris, H. (1989). “The corporate response to workers with family responsibilities”. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada. 40. Piotrkowski, C. (1979). “Work and family system”. New York: Free Press. 41. Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). “Conflicts between work and family”. Monthly labor review, 103(3), 29-31. 42. Raabe, P. H., & Gessner, J. C. (1988). “Employer family supportive policies: Diverse variations on the theme”. Family Relations, 37, 196-202. 43. Rau, B.L., & Hyland, M.M. (2002). “Role Conflict & Flexible arrangements: The Effects on Attraction Applicant”. Personnel Psychology. 55. 44. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). “Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature”. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87, 698–714. 45. Richer, S.F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerandi, R.J. (2002). “A Motivational Model of Work Turnover”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 32 (10), 2089-2113.

Group 2 Research


46. Riley, D. (2006). “Turnover Intentions: The Mediation Effects of Job Satisfaction,Affective Commitment, & Continuance Commitment”. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master ofApplied Psychology. 47. Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). “„As cooks go, she went‟: is labour churn inevitable?” International Journal of Hospitality Management. 20, 163-85. 48. Schieman S., McBrier D.B., Gundy K.V. (2003). “Home-to-Work Conflict, Work Qualities, and Emotional Distress”. Sociological Forum. 18 (1). 137-164. 49. Shoaib M, Noor A, Tirmizi S.R, Bashir S. (2009) “Determinants of employee retention in telecom sector of Pakistan”, proceedings 2nd CBRC Lahore, Pakistan 50. Small, S. A., & Riley, D. (1990). “Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover into family life”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52, 51-61. 51. Soon, A., Quazi, H.A., Tay, C., & Kelly, K. (2005). “Studies on the Impact of Work-Life Initiatives on Employee & Firm Performance”. Executive Report for Public release. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business Vol. 1, Issue. 2, February 2011(pp.18-29) 28 52. Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus (2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior 53. Thompson, C.A., Andreassi, J., & Prottas, D. (2003). “Work-Family Culture and Climate”. 54. Valcour, P.M., & Batt, R. (2003). “Work-Life Integration: Challenges and Organizational Responses”. FacultyPublications. 310-331. 55. Warner, A. (2005). “Why we should care about work-family conflict causes and consequences”? Human Resources Professional Association. online: http://www. omconsult.com 56. West, L.S. (2007). “Examining the relationship between employee-superior conflict and voluntary turnover in the workplace: A comparison of companies across industries. Master of Science (Psychology)”. 49 57. Yammarino, F.J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds.) (2004). “Research in Multi-level Issues: Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Processes”. 3 58. Yasbek, P. (2004). “The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: a review of the literature”. Labour Market Policy Group. Department of Labor

Group 2 Research


APPENDIX I

The Human Resource ManagerName of Financial InstitutionAddress of Financial Institution

2nd May, 2011

Dear Sir/Madam

PERMISSION TO ENGAGE EMPLOYEES TO ANSWER QUESTIONNAIRES

We wish to request your permission to engage employees of your organization to assist us in completing the attached questionnaire.

As part of our requirements for a successful completion of our coursework, we the students of The University of Ghana Business School to conduct a research on the topic: “Towards a Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Work Spillover Into Family Life-A Case Study Of Financial Institutions In Ghana”, and would require the assistance of your employees in the process of answering our questionnaires.

We would greatly appreciate your support in the administration of our questionnaires.

Counting on your co-operation.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Group 2 Research


………………………(Head of Group)

Group 2 Research

QUESTIONNAIREGENERAL INFORMATIONWe are conducting this study for our Research Term Paper as Executive MBA (Masters of Business Administration) students of UGBS (University of Ghana Business School) and your responses will be much appreciated. To complete the questionnaire kindly tick (√) the appropriate response that best describes your views.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between Work andFamily life Overspill or Work-Life balance in Financial Institutions in the Ghanaian Economy.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Please be rest assured that this survey is purely for academic purposes only and information provided will be used in all confidentiality, no individual respondent will be identified.

A. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

Please tick (√) the appropriate response that best describes your views

1.0 General Information

1.1Gender

1.2 Age 1.3 Marital Status

Married WidowSingle Widower

Divorced

1.4 Dependants 1.5 Level of EducationSenior Secondary School First Degree

A - Level Postgraduate Degree Higher National Diploma Some Certificates

1.6 Number of Years in the JobLess than 2 Years 5 – 7 Years

2 – 4 Years 8 – 10 YearsMore than 10 Years

1.7 Please Select your Business UnitBond Trading Commercial Baking Foreign Exchange Personal Baking

Male Female

18 - 25 Years 46 - 55 Years

26 - 35 Years 56 – 65 Years

36 - 45 Years 66 & Above

1 42 53 More than 5


Customer Services Project ManagementMarketing Salaries Admin / Operations Corporate Baking

I.T OthersB. WORK SPILLOVER INTO FAMILY LIFE

2.0 Excessive Work RolesStrongly Agree

Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

2.1 Taking work home affects time spent with my spouse.2.2 I close so late that I hardly interact with my children before I sleep.

2.3 I have to work so hard that I don’t have any time for my hobbies.2.4 Excessive work roles prevent me from achieving my domestic obligations.

3.0 Long Working HoursStrongly Agree

Agree Not Sure

Disagree Strongly Disagree

3.1 I get home so late, important issues with my spouse are discussed on phone the next day from the office.3.2 Working on weekends affects my hobby time and social activities like attending wedding.3.3 I work long hours because working late is perceived as a mark of seriousness.

4.0 Organizational Climate

Strongly Agree


4.1 The inability of my salary to meet family obligations creates tension between me and my spouse.4.2 Lack of job satisfaction at work creates tension between me and my children at home.

4.3 Lack of timely approval of my leave affects my ability to properly plan my holidays or vacation with my family.4.4 Lack of cordial relationship with peers at work, destructs my ability to attend to my domestic obligations.

5.0 Organizational LeadershipStrongly Agree


5.1 My superior is so demanding that it stresses me, and this affects the upbringing of my children.5.2 My Inability to achieve set goals stresses me and this affect the relationship between me and my

Group 2 Research


spouse.5.3 I feel insecure with my current job and this affects my domestic obligations and focus.5.4 My inability to withstand organizational pressures creates tension between me and my spouse and children.

Thank you for your time and efforts!!!

Group 2 Research


GROUP DETAILS

NAME INDEX NO. COMPANY

Jameratu Bagonluri 10360211 [Immigration ASI]

Abdulai Habib 10360174 [Metro TV]

Augustina Gyimah 10359346 [SEM Capital Ltd]

Prospero Edjeani 10360490 [Bank of Ghana]

Henrietta Osei 10360111 [Int Wapic Insurance]

Daniel Bugyei 10360425 [Star life Assurance]

Mary Anane 10360690 [Zenith Bank GH Ltd]

Yvette Selinam Dzikunu 10360114 [NSIA Gh. Insurance]

Damaris Tanoh-Rivers 10360351 [SAGE Petroleum Ltd]

Ayande A.B. Prosper 10360344 [Winipros Ltd ]

Stella Addo 10360230 [Crown Agents Gh. Ltd]

Group 2 Research

Research Paper- Work Spillover into Family Life.

Documents

Transcript of Research Paper- Work Spillover into Family Life.