Asian J.

Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

ISSN 0976-495X (Print) www.anvpublication.org

2321-5763 (Online)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Impact of Individual, Social and Organizational Factors on Work-Life

Balance: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Manufacturing and Service Sector
Kshitija Mittal1, Dr. Karminderjit Singh2, Dr Geetika Sharma3
1
Research Scholar, I.K.G.P.T.U, Kapurthala, Punjab, India
2
Associate Professor, LM Thapar School of Management, Thapar University, Dera Bassi Campus
3
Head Deptt. of Management, SUSCET, Tangori, Mohali, Punjab
*Corresponding Author E-mail: kshitija213@gmail.com, karminder@thapar.edu,
Drgeetikasharma.sus@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:
The relationship between Work-Life Balance (WLB) and the various constituent factors and its consequent
impact has been studied separately in different settings/industries, but not as a cross-sectional analysis across the
manufacturing and service sectors. Through the current study, an attempt has been made to determine the
relationship between individual, family and social, and organizational factors and the WLB in the manufacturing
and service sector to decipher the consequent impact.
Responses were sought from 150 middle and senior level employees working in the various manufacturing and
service sector organizations in the north-western region of India through a structured questionnaire. The results
validate that various factors affect and have a relationship with work-life balance of employees. The results also
reveal the commonalities and differences in the work-life balance across the two sectors.
The study reveals that the studies regarding factors affecting work-life have been an issue of great importance
and concern in the past as well as the current socio-economic scenario. But, there exists a dearth of studies that
portray a comparative analysis of the impact of factors /determinants affecting work life balance in the
manufacturing and service sector. The present study aims to fill this gap. India is emerging as one of the fastest
growing economies of the world, but this phenomenon has not been investigated in a comprehensive manner in
the Indian context. This calls for an in-depth study that examines various individual, family and social, and
organizational factors affecting work-life imbalance and its relationship and sector wise comparative difference
and impact in both in manufacturing as well as service sector in the Indian context.

KEY WORDS: work-life balance, individual, family and social and organizational factors/determinants,
manufacturing, and service sector.

INTRODUCTION: It has been necessitated by the contemporary work

Work plays a central role in the development,
expression, and maintenance of psychological health
(Blustein, 20081). Interface between work and life, the
two most important spheres of an individual's life has
been the object of investigation for researchers
worldwide.
Received on 09.05.2017 Modified on 23.05.2017
Accepted on 06.07.2017 © A&V Publications all right reserved
Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(3):881-892.
DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00137.8
mutations (MacInnes, 20062; Jones, et al. 20063),
specifically the increasing demands on employees, the
rise of consumerism and the power of money and the
negative impact of overwork on life quality at both
personal and professional levels (Harris and Foster,
20084). The increase in female employment, feminism,
higher unemployment among men, low-level service
jobs as well as an intensification of life causes an
increasing pressure between work and private life
(Badura, 20035).

881
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017
In this context, it’s important to investigate: how the
imbalance between work and life is caused and what are
the determinants affecting the balance in the two spheres
of life and work amongst the employees working in
manufacturing and service sector? Thus the present
study examines the relationship between determinants
and work life balance and impact of several determinants
on work-life imbalance of employees in the two sectors
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
Work-Life Balance:
The WLB has been conceptualised as ‘satisfaction and
good functioning at work and home with a minimum of
role conflict' (Campbell-Clark, 20006). Boundaries
between the two are mental constructions of the borders
between activities, such as work and personal life, and
employees vary in the extent to which they prefer to
keep these activities separate (segmentation) or have
them overlap (integration) (Clark, 20007). If "Work" is
normally conceived as paid employment than "life"
usually includes activities outside of work (Health,
pleasure, leisure, family and spiritual development)
(Guest, 20018).
Work-life balance is a multi-dimensional notion whose
hard core is formed by the work-family balance and of
other areas of life beyond family, as well (Jones et al.,
20063; Shah, 20149). The underlying assumption of role
theory is that resources are scarce (Kahn et al., 196410)
and involvement in work, therefore, leaves individuals
with a limited amount of resources (both physical and
psychological) for their non-work roles. The two main
aspects of Work–life balance are a) lack of time and
scheduling conflicts (Work-to-family interference/
Family-to-work interference) b) feeling overwhelmed,
overloaded or stressed by the pressures of multiple roles
(Health Canada, 200811). Stein (200712) identified
achievement and enjoyment as the two key concepts at
the core of an effective work-life balance. Bird (2003)13
defines WLB by taking into consideration what does not
constitute a work-life balance, "Work-Life Balance does
not mean an equal balance. There is no perfect, one-size
fit all balance. It is different for each of us because we
all have different priorities and different lives".
Conflicting priorities and lack of time can inevitably
influence the employees. Hence they can end up over
tired, lacking in concentration or suffering from ill
health. To handle with these conflicting demands,
individuals need to be informed about how they balance
work and life (Loghran, 200214; Torun, 200715). Hobson
et al. (2001)16, suggested that employees, who have more
direct decision over their work and their working time,
feel less stressed and are more satisfied and loyal. Thus,
embracing various Work/life balance strategies can
enhance the autonomy of workers in coordinating and
882
integrating the work and non-work aspects of their lives
(Felstead et al., 200217). Recently, the terms "work-life
enrichment," "work-life facilitation” and “employee
well-being” have been introduced, which stress on
positive interdependence and satisfaction between work
and life (Li et al., 201418).
Factors affecting WLB:
Work life balance has generally been determined on the
basis of a wide conglomerate of factors like the
individual, family, social, organizational, etc. Burke and
Greenglass (1999)19 highlighted the influence of support
variables from the work domain and the family domain
on work-family conflict. Lin (2008)20 suggested four
classifications of social support i.e. family support
(parents, brothers and sisters, relatives, spouses and
children); friend support (classmates and friends); co-
worker support (colleagues in the workplace); and
supervisor support (direct supervisor in the workplace.
Kreiner et al., (2009)21 suggested physical, behavioral,
time-based and communicative tactics to achieve
frontiers between work and home.
Earlier studies also suggest some factors influencing
employee well-being, most of which emphasize
individual factors such as job stress, personality and
work-family balance (Lapierre and Allen, 200622;
Schaufeli et al., 200823) or job characteristics such as job
demand (De Jonge and Schaufeli, 199824; Macky and
Boxall, 200825). Andrijana Mušura, Mirna Koričan and
Siniša Krajnović (2013)26 in their study, examined
personal external (age, gender, marital status, children);
work external (years of current employment, working
hours, job position, company size); personal internal
(self-esteem, internal and external locus of control);
work internal (job satisfaction, employee control, work-
related stress); and WLB policies (flexible working
hours, work from home, sport facilities, childcare
facilities) as variables in their study of WLB.
Individual factors:
Many studies have highlighted the importance of
individual factors in determining the status of work-life
balance of an employee. Studies have confirmed the
positive versus negative consequences of the satisfaction
versus frustration of the basic psychological needs (Deci
and Ryan 200027). Related to this, Baard, Deci and Ryan
(2004)28 observed that the perceived support of
autonomy was linked with greater intrinsic needs
satisfaction. A number of studies found a negative
correlation between self-esteem and work-life conflict
(Nikandrou, Panayotopoulou and Apospori, 200829); but
in their meta-analysis, Eby et al. (2005)30 depicted a lack
of understanding on how the perception of self and the
work situation is impacting work-life conflict.
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017
Family and Social Factors:
Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba (2006)31 found that the
family domain i.e. having a supportive partner enhances
the employee's ability to balance work and family. Thus,
help from a spouse was found to improve individual role
stress and enhance well-being (Beutell and Greenhaus,
198332). Social support in the work context is composed
of organizational support and support by a supervisor
and co-workers (Yoon and Thye, 200033). When facing
Work life imbalance, people seek emotional or
substantial support through formal or informal resources,
called “social support," which include supervisor, co-
workers, and relatives, and friends, etc. Furthermore,
some research studies divided the source dimensions of
social support into work and non-work social support
(Allen, et al. 199834 and Wadsworth, 200335). House
(1981)36 identified nine sources of social support i.e.
spouse, partners, relatives, friends, neighbors,
supervisor, co-workers, and service providers and
professional institutions. Cassel (1976)37 found that
social support can reduce work pressure and promote
physical and mental health.
Organisational factors:
In the increasingly demanding world of work, more and
more employees need to be supported in their roles, and
yet companies are often resistant to reducing work-
family conflict and increasing work-family enrichment
(Demerouti, et al., 200138). Research studies have
emphasized that by providing a ‘family-friendly', work
environment organizations can significantly benefit in
terms of decreased turnover intentions, increased
organizational commitment (Grover and Crooker,
199539; Thompson et al., 199940) and increased job
satisfaction (Allen, 200141; Breaugh and Frye, 200742).
Greenhaus, Ziegert, and Allen (2012)43 observed that
support at work is beneficial for integrating work-family
roles. Supervisory supportive practices such as granting
flexibility for subordinates to handle family duties at
work (e.g., taking a brief leave of absence) could
alleviate feelings of work-family conflict. A supportive
workplace was found to be important for balancing
family and work. Job autonomy, as the important
supportive resource from the organization, allows
employee's significant control over their work to shape
schedules and to remain actively involved in the lives of
their life.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND Locus of control was found to be having a direct impact
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT:
The pressures and demands of work are reflected both in
longer hours, more exhaustion and the less scope for
“quality” family time. Eighty-three percent of employees
reported going to work even while sick, citing heavy
workload, need to conserve time off to meet family
needs and a work environment where taking time off is
883
“risky” as their rationale (Zheng, et al., 201544). The
‘struggle to juggle’ is taking a toll on companies,
families, and workers, which is showing up as increased
job stress, declining physical and mental health,
increased absenteeism, declining job satisfaction,
weakening employee commitment, lower workplace
morale, and reduced satisfaction with family life (Stein,
200712). Between 1977 and 2002, the combined weekly
work hours of dual-earner couples with children
increased by an average of 10 hours per week, from 81
to 91 hours (Bond, et al., 200245).
Shaji, et al. (2015)46 carried out a gender wise
comparative study of the factors contributing to the
employee work-family conflict working in the IT
companies and found no substantial gender wise
significant difference in the impact of work-life family
conflict (though it was measured more in women due to
their dual responsibility). Nevin Deniza, Simge Denizb,
Öznur Gülen Ertosun (2012)47 segregated the women
workforce in the banking sector into two categorizes
namely work-oriented and family-oriented to find out the
factors affecting the perception of women employees
and found that significant relationships existed between
demographic variables and the perception of woman-
friendliness. Subramaniam and Saravanan. (2012)48,
made an investigation to find out the factors affecting
quality of work life of employees working in banking
sector and found that factors like quality on personal
anticipatory, quality on motivational insights, quality on
job freedom, quality of workplace, quality on branch
operations and quality on working conditions explain the
poor work-life quality of employees in the workplace.
Panatika, et al. (2011)49 measured the difference in level
of work-family conflict being faced by school teachers in
Malaysia, on the basis of demographic factors such as
gender, marital status, and type of school etc. and found
that work interfered more with the family life than vice
versa and that the Work family conflict had a negative
impact on life satisfaction, mental health, and turnover
intentions. Tewathia (2014)50 found that work had an
adverse effect on health and sleep of both the genders
and identified the flexible working hours, work from
home, child care facilities at the workplace, supportive
work environment as factors which the employees
perceived would improve their work-life balance for a
sustainable business performance.
on the work-life conflict (Noor, 200651). In another study
conducted among accountants, female externals reacted
more negatively to conflicts and were more likely to
hand in their resignation (Reed, Kratchman and
Strawser, 1994)52. But, both studies showed different
levels of impact and different correlations with
demographic variables, calling for further investigation.
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017
Gomez, et al. (2010)53 examined the how social support,
job satisfaction are related to work–family balance and
found that the males supported and allowed females to
work to avoid family questions and complications
caused by the joint family system. Thompson and
Aspinwall (2009)54 studied the influence of four
work/life benefits i.e. childcare, telecommuting,
eldercare, flextime and found that the Childcare benefits
influenced 58%, flextime influenced 33%,
telecommuting 26%, and eldercare benefits 33% of the
respondents in the job choice decisions of fresh
graduates. Cegarra-Leiva, et al. (2012)55 in an empirical
study of metal industry SMEs of Southeast Spain found
that a WLB supportive culture mediates the effect of the
availability of WLB practices on outcomes for
employees as well as organisational performance.
Liang-Qiu WU, Dan Yan, ( 2012)56, examined the
relationship between the social support at work and
home (e.g., supervisor support, autonomy support,
coworker relationship and spouse support) and work-
family balance and found that social support has a
significantly negative effect on work-family conflict and
significantly positive effect on work-family facilitation.
The basic psychological needs satisfaction of
competence, autonomy, and relatedness mediate the
negative relation between social support and work-
family conflict and the positive relation between social
support and work-family facilitation. Schieman and Reid
(2009)57 found that those in senior management
positions (those with greater job authority) had greater
work-home interference and thus enhanced levels of
stress. Warr (2005)58 found that freedom, and decision-
making latitude, and control over ones' (or another's)
work, seemed to be the most influential attributes in
positive workplace wellbeing for senior managers.
Netemeyer, et al. (1996)59 found a positive relationship
between number of weekly hours devoted to work and
WL/LWC.
Wang, et al. (2012)60 while exploring the effects on follows:
WFC (“family to work” and “work to family” conflict)
to job performance under different sources of social a. To examine the difference in the Individual, Family
support from nurses working in hospitals in Taiwan
found that sources of social support all had positive
influences on job performance; “friend support”
strengthened the negative effect on“family to work”
conflict to job performance and “co-worker support” had b. To study the relationship between work-life balance
a moderating effect on the relationship between “work to
family” conflict and job performance. Fujimoto, et. al
(2013)61 studied how the overtime reduction affects
engineers' sense of fulfillment in work and personal life, c. To depict the comparative impact of various
depression and perceived health and found that overtime
reduction had both positive and negative effects, on one
hand, it enhances the time adequacy for engineers'
private life, and on the other hand it significantly
reduced their sense of fulfillment at work. Dobrotić and
Laklija (2009)62 too found that the larger number of
working hours, stress at work, and fear of losing one’s
job are the best predictors of work-life conflict. Shift
work too is linked to a series of acute and chronic effects
on human beings as proportion of shift workers suffering
from sleep disturbances is usually above 50% compared
to 5-20% for day workers; and the corresponding fatigue
further lead to psychological problems: irritation, anger,
depression, and mental stress (Rao and Ummul, 2012)63.
On similar lines Babu, et al. (2010)64 found a positive
correlation between employee stress reduction and flexi-
time. Ljungblad, et al. (2014)65 observed that employers
with more favourable employee ratings of the
psychosocial work conditions, as well as of specific
health-promoting measures had better self-rated health
and lower sickness absence level among employees.
Based on these studies following hypotheses were
formulated:
H1: There is no significant difference between
Individual, Family and Social, and Organizational
determinants affecting work-life balance amongst the
employees working in manufacturing and service sector.
H2: There is no relationship between WLB and
Individual, Family and Social and Organizational
determinants affecting the work-life balance amongst the
employees in the manufacturing and service sectors.
H3: Individual, Family and Social and Organizational
determinants have no significant impact on the
employee’s work life balance in the manufacturing and
service sectors.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
Through this empirical study, an endeavour has been
made to understand the relationship between Individual,
Family and Social and Organizational determinants and
work-life balance of employees working in various
organizations in the manufacturing and service sectors.
The specific objectives of the present study are as
and Social and Organizational factors/ determinants
affecting the work-life balance amongst the
employees working in manufacturing and service
sector.
and Individual, Family and Social and
Organizational determinants affecting employees
working in the service and manufacturing sector.
Individual, Family and Social and Organizational
determinants on the employee’s work life balance.
884
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pearson correlation, t-test, ANOVA and forward

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: regression analysis. The statements on Individual
Research Instrument: determinants, Family and Social determinants,
A structured questionnaire was prepared for the purpose Organizational determinants (33) and on Work life
of collecting the primary data. The reliability and balance (21) were grouped on the basis conclusions
validity of the research instrument was determined prior drawn from the review of literature done during the
to conducting the survey through a pilot study, wherein a research. The analysis was carried out using statistical
sample of 30 respondents was interviewed using the software IBM-SPSS-20.
instrument. The Cronbach alpha score was calculated
and found to be 0.837, which was well above the DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
required level of 0.70. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the Demographic Statistics: Description of the sample
data collected from 150 respondents too was found to be distribution:
.787, which indicates the reliability of the data collected Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents (77.2%)
for the study. belonged to the service sector. The majority of the
respondents were male; 93.1% in the case of the
Sampling Plan: manufacturing sector and 77.2% in the case of the
The research was conducted in the major cities and service sector. The majority of the respondents working
industrial hubs of the northwestern region of India. Non- in the service sector had work experience less than five
probability, Convenience Sampling method was years, and 31% of the respondents belonging to
employed for selecting the respondents for the study. manufacturing sector had experience in the range of 5-10
Responses were sought from 150 middle and senior level years. 46.7% of respondents belonging to service sector
employees working in manufacturing and service sectors and 31% of respondents from the manufacturing sector
through a standardized questionnaire. The sectors were in the age group of 30 to 40 years. Nearly two-third
included in this study were banking, education, telecom, of the respondents were married. Half of the respondents
pharma, automobile, and consumer goods. belonging to service sector had an income of Rs.25,000
to Rs.50,000, and 41.4% of the respondents belonging to
Data Analysis: manufacturing sector had income in the range of
The primary data was statistically validated to test the Rs.50,000 to Rs.75,000.
hypotheses by employing tools like chi-square, Karl
Table 1: Sample Distribution (Sector wise classification of the respondents)
Sector
Service Manufacturing Total
Male 71 77.2% 54 93.1% 125 83.3%
Gender
Female 21 22.8% 4 6.9% 25 16.7%
Less than five years 46 50.0% 14 24.1% 60 40.0%
5 to 10 years 29 31.5% 18 31.0% 47 31.3%
Experience 10 to 15 years 7 7.6% 13 22.4% 20 13.3%
15 to 20 years 4 4.3% 5 8.6% 9 6.0%
More than 20 years 6 6.5% 8 13.8% 14 9.3%
20 - 30 1 1.1% 1 1.7% 2 1.3%
30 - 40 43 46.7% 18 31.0% 61 40.7%
Age 40 - 50 34 37.0% 17 29.3% 51 34.0%
50 - 60 7 7.6% 15 25.9% 22 14.7%
Above 60 7 7.6% 7 12.1% 14 9.3%
Married 68 73.9% 45 77.6% 113 75.3%
Marital Status
Unmarried 24 26.1% 13 22.4% 37 24.7%
Below 25000 6 6.5% 2 3.4% 8 5.3%
25000 - 50000 46 50.0% 18 31.0% 64 42.7%
Income 50000 - 75000 37 40.2% 24 41.4% 61 40.7%
75000 - 100000 1 1.1% 10 17.2% 11 7.3%
Above 100000 2 2.2% 4 6.9% 6 4.0%
Total 92 100.0% 58 100.0% 150 100.0%

Normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test)
To check the normality between the data, Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test is applied. P-values for individual
determinants, family and Social determinants,
organizational determinants and Work life balance are
885
.276, .222, .058 and .924, respectively; which are greater
than 0.05 (5% level of significance). Hence the results
indicate that data of individual determinants, family and
Social determinants, organizational determinants and
Work life balance are normally distributed.
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

Table 2: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Individual Family and Social Organisational Work life
Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors balance
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .994 1.048 1.330 0.549
p-value .276 .222 0.058 0.924
Level of Work Life Balance in Manufacturing and Service sector

Cross Tabulation was performed to explore the current imbalance. A significant number of respondents reported
level of work-life balance amongst the respondents imbalance in their work and family life, but the
working in the service and manufacturing sector. 60.8% incidence of imbalance was higher in the case of
of respondents working in service and 44.8% in employees working in the service sector than in the
manufacturing sector reported experiencing work-life manufacturing sector.
Table 3: Cross tabulation
BS21 Total
SD D N A SA
Count 13 43 21 14 1 92
Service
% within Sector 14.1% 46.7% 22.8% 15.2% 1.1% 100.0%
Sector
Count 2 24 16 11 5 58
Manufacturing
% within Sector 3.4% 41.4% 27.6% 19.0% 8.6% 100.0%
Count 15 67 37 25 6 150
Total
% within Sector 10.0% 44.7% 24.7% 16.7% 4.0% 100.0%

RESULTS: RESEARCH FINDINGS: value for Individual Determinants was 2.2932 and
Hypotheses Testing: 2.4789 and mean values for work-life balance were
Determinants affecting Work Life Balance in 2.8810 and 3.0392 in the service and manufacturing
Manufacturing and Service sector. sector respectively. This indicates that the level of
individual determinants, affecting the level of Work life
The t-test was employed to compare the averages of the balance of employees working in the manufacturing
responses from those working in the service and sector is higher as compared to those working in the
manufacturing sector with respect to the various service sector. The t-value and p-value between the
determinants and work life balance. Work life balance of means of two sectors were found to be 2.394 and 0.018
the employees was found to be significantly different in and 2.089 and 0.038 (p-value<0.01), which is significant
the two sectors for Individual level determinants/factors. at 1% level.
The results reported in Table 4 indicate that the mean
Table 4: Group Statistics: Compare (t-test)
Std. Std. Error t- p-
Sector N Mean
Deviation Mean value value
Service 92 2.2932 .47431 .04945 .018*
Individual Determinants/Factors 2.394
Manufacturing 58 2.4789 .44357 .05824
Service 92 2.6528 .46677 .04866 .185
Family and Social Determinants/ Factors 1.331
Manufacturing 58 2.7657 .56299 .07392
Service 92 2.4587 .54668 .05700 .289
Organisational Determinants/ Factors 1.065
Manufacturing 58 2.5603 .60338 .07923
Service 92 2.8810 .40848 .04259 .038*
Work life balance 2.089
Manufacturing 58 3.0392 .51267 .06732
*p value < or = .05= significant

The null hypothesis is rejected, and thus there is a

Determinants/factors. The results of interrelationship
significant difference between Determinants affecting
between the variables presented in Table 5 indicate that
work-life balance amongst employees working in the work-life balance of employees had significant
manufacturing and service sector. positive relationship with Individual Determinants (r=
434** , p-value<.0.01), Family and Social Determinants
Relationship between work life balance and (r=.473** , p-value <.0.01) and Organizational
Determinants/Factors Determinants (r=.526**, p-value <.0.01). Thus work life
balance of employees has significantly strong and
Pearson correlation was employed to determine the positive relationship with all Individual, Family and
relationship between the Work-life balance and the Social and Organisational Determinants.

886
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

Table 5: Correlation Values

Correlations (n=150)
Individual Family and Social Organisational Work life
Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors balance
Work life Pearson Correlation .434** .473** .526** 1
balance p-value .000 .000 .000
**p value < or = .01= highly significant,*p value < or = .05= significant

Thus the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternate Relationship between work life balance and
hypothesis that there is a relationship between work life Determinants/Factors in Service Sector
balance and determinants of employees in the two
sectors is supported. Table 6 presents the interrelationship between the
variables for the service sector.
Table 6
Correlations (n=92)
Individual Family and Social Organisational Work life
Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors balance
Work life Pearson Correlation .382** .420**
.441** 1
balance p-value .000 .000 .000
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The results depicted in Table 6, confirm the relationship service sector.

between the dependent variable (work-life balance) and
the independent variables (individual, family and Social Relationship between work life balance and
and organizational determinants / factors). The results Determinants/Factors in Manufacturing Sector
show that work - life balance has a strong significant
positive relationship with individual, family and social Table 7 presents the interrelationship between the
and organizational factors (r=.382, .420, .441,) in the variables for the service sector.
Table 7
Correlations (n=58)
Individual Family Social Organisational Work life
Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors Determinants/ Factors balance
Work life Pearson Correlation .469** .510** .615** 1
balance p-value .000 .000 .000
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The results depicted in Table 7 confirm the relationship Impact of Determinants on Work-life Balance
between the dependent variable (work-life balance) and To examine the impact of (individual, family and social
the independent variables (individual, family and social and organizational determinants/factors on the level of
and organizational determinants / factors). The results work-life balance of the employees, forward regression
show that work - life balance has strong significant was employed all the Determinants. Before employing
positive relationship with individual, family and social the forward regression, the goodness of fit was
and organizational factors (r=.469, .510, .615,) in determined by performing ANOVA on the collected data
manufacturing sector with respect to the level of work-life balance. The F-
value in the Table 8 was found to be satisfactory and
validated the application of regression model on the
work-life balance.
Table 8: ANOVA Findings with respect to level of work-life balance of Employees
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value p-value
Work life 3 Regression 8.600 1 8.600 56.683 .000**
Balance Residual 22.455 148 .152
Total 31.055 149
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The findings of forward regression analysis on the level below in Table 9.

of work-life balance of the employees are tabulated

887
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

Table No 9: Forward Regression Analysis

Model Summary
R Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics
Model R
Square Square the Estimate R2 Change F Change df p-value F Change
1 .526a .277 .272 .38951 .277 56.683 1,148 .000**
2 .584b .341 .332 .37313 .064 14.279 1,147 .000**
3 .621c .386 .373 .36140 .045 10.704 1,146 .001**
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The R2 was found to be .386 (Table 9). The null alternate hypothesis that Individual, Family and Social
hypothesis is rejected, and thus, it can be concluded that and Organisational determinants have a significant
the Individual, Family and Social and Organisational impact on the level of employee work-life balance is
determinants have a statistically significant impact on supported.
the level of employee work life balance. Thus, the
Table 10: Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Collinearity Statistics
Model Coefficients Coefficients t-value p-value
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 1.162 .195 5.958 .000**
Organisational Determinants .251 .062 .313 4.031 .000** .697 1.434
3
Individual Determinants .235 .069 .242 3.415 .001** .840 1.190
Family and Social Determinants .222 .068 .246 3.272 .001** .742 1.348
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The findings in Table 10 show that the independent

variables organizational determinants, family and social Y = 1.162 + 0.251X1 + 0.222X2+ 0.235X3
determinants and individual determinants with the
standardized coefficient of Beta being .313, .246 and Impact of determinants on work-life balance in Service
.242 respectively, have a significant positive impact on Sector
the work-life balance of the employees in the two
sectors. The organizational determinants, family and To examine the impact of (individual, family and social
social determinants and individual determinants, explain
and organizational determinants / factors on the level of
57% of the total variation in the dependent variable i.e.
work-life balance of the employees in the service sector,
level of work-life balance of the employees in both forward regression was employed on all the
service and manufacturing sector. Since **p-value < or =
Determinants. Before employing the forward regression,
.01 and thus, the regression model is a good fit of thethe goodness of fit was determined by performing
data. ANOVA on the collected data with respect to the level
of work-life balance. The F-value in Table 11 was found
Based upon the coefficients we can derive a Model for to be satisfactory and validated the application of
level of work life balance of employees (Y) and regression model on the work-life balance in the service
organizational determinants (X1), family and social sector.
determinants (X2) and individual determinants (X3) is:
Table 11: ANOVA Findings with respect to level of work-life balance of Employees
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value p-value
Regression 2.956 1 2.956 21.757 .000**
1 Residual 12.228 90 .136
Total 15.184 91
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The findings of forward regression analysis on the work- in Table 12.

life balance level of the employees are tabulated below
Table No 12: Forward Regression Analysis
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square p-value F
Square the Estimate R2 Change F Change df
Change
b
1 .441 .195 .186 .36860 .195 21.757 1,90 .000**
2 .502c .252 .236 .35714 .058 6.864 2,89 .010*
3 .542d .294 .270 .34894 .042 5.232 3,88 .025*
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

888
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

As the R2 was found to be .294 (Table 12); the null determinants have a statistically significant impact on
hypothesis is rejected, and thus, it can be concluded that the level of employee work life balance in the service
the Individual, Family and Social and Organisational sector.
Table 13: Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
p-value Collinearity Statistics
Model Coefficients Coefficients t-value
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 1.434 .248 5.791 .000**
Organisational Determinants .184 .079 .246 2.328 .022* .718 1.393
3
Family and Social Determinants .210 .090 .240 2.332 .022* .760 1.315
Individual Determinants .192 .084 .222 2.287 .025* .848 1.179
**p value < or = .01= highly significant

The findings in Table 13 show that the independent Y = 1.434+ 0.184X1 + 0.210X2+ 0.192X3
variables Organizational determinants, Family and
Social determinants and Individual determinants with the
Impact of determinants on work-life balance in
standardized coefficient of Beta being .246, .240 and Manufacturing Sector:
.222 respectively, have a significant positive impact on
To examine the impact of (individual, family and social
the work-life balance of the employees in the Service and organizational determinants/factors on the level of
sector. The organizational determinants, family and work-life balance of the employees in the manufacturing
social determinants and individual determinants, explain
sector, forward regression was employed on all the
22% of the total variation in the dependent variable i.e.
Determinants. Before employing the forward regression,
level of work-life balance of the employees in the the goodness of fit was determined by performing
service sector. Since **p-value < or = .01 and thus, the
ANOVA on the collected data with respect to the level
regression model is a good fit of the data. of work-life balance. The F-value in Table 14 was found
to be satisfactory and validated the application of
Based upon the coefficients we can derive a Model for regression model on the work-life balance in the service
the level of work-life balance of employees (Y), and sector.
organizational determinants (X1), family and social
determinants (X2) and individual determinants (X3) is:
Table 14: ANOVA Findings with respect to level of work-life balance of Employees
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F-value p-value
Regression 5.669 1 5.669 34.089 .000**
1 Residual 9.312 56 .166
Total 14.981 57
**p-value < or = .01= highly significant
The findings of forward regression analysis on the work- Table 15.
life balance of the employees are tabulated below in
Table No 15: Forward Regression Analysis
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics
Model R R Square
Square the Estimate R2 Change F Change df p-value F Change
b
1 .615 .378 .367 .40779 .378 34.089 1,56 .000
2 .666c .443 .423 .38934 .065 6.434 2,55 .014
3 .696d .484 .455 .37830 .041 4.255 3,54 .044
**p-value < or = .01= highly significant

The R2 was found to be .484 (Table 15). The null determinants have a statistically significant impact on
hypothesis is rejected, and thus, it can be concluded that the level of employee work life balance in the
the Individual, Family and Social and Organisational Manufacturing sector.
Table 16: Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients t- p- Interval for B Statistics
Model
Std. value value Lower Upper Toler
B Beta VIF
Error Bound Bound ance
(Constant) .855 .336 2.544 .014* .181 1.529
Organisational Determinants .340 .101 .400 3.380 .001** .138 .542 .681 1.468
3 Individual Determinants .290 .123 .251 2.366 .022* .044 .537 .846 1.182
Family and Social
.215 .104 .236 2.063 .044* .006 .423 .732 1.366
Determinants
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance
**p-value < or = .01= highly significant

889
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017
The findings in Table 16 show that the independent
variables organizational determinants, individual
determinants and family and social determinants with the
standardized coefficient of Beta being .400, .251 and
.236 respectively, have a significant positive impact on
the work-life balance of the employees in the
Manufacturing sector. The organizational determinants,
family and social determinants and individual
determinants, explain 34 % of the total variation in the
dependent variable i.e. level of work-life balance of the
employees in the manufacturing sector. Since **p-value
< or = .01 and thus, the regression model is a good fit of
the data.
Based upon the coefficients we can derive a Model for
the level of work-life balance of employees (Y), and
organizational determinants (X1), family and social
determinants (X2) and individual determinants (X3) is:
Y = 0.855+ 0.340X1 + 0.215X2+ 0.290X3
DISCUSSION: CONCLUSION:
More than half of the respondents reported imbalance
with respect to their work and family and social
responsibilities. But, the percentage of respondents
reporting imbalance was significantly higher in the
service sector (60.8%) than those who were associated
with the manufacturing sector (44.8%).
It was observed that there exist a significant difference
between determinants affecting work-life balance
amongst employees working in manufacturing and
service sector. The level of individual determinants,
affecting the Work life balance of employees working in
the manufacturing sector was found higher as compared
to those working in the service sector.
The results of interrelationship indicate that all
Individual, Family and Social and Organisational
Determinants/factors have significant, strong and
positive relationship with work life balance of
employees in both the sectors . The regression analysis
statistically validated that Individual, Family and Social
and Organisational determinants had a significant impact
on the level of employee work life balance in the
Manufacturing as well as Service sector. This study
elucidates the comparative analysis of the Individual,
Family and Social and Organisational
Determinants/factors and its relationship and impact with
the work life balance of employees working in the
manufacturing and the service sector.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The findings of this study have serious implications as it
has been observed that the individual, family and social
and organizational factors have a significant and positive 9.
890
relationship and impact on the work life balance of the
employees in the two sectors. Through this empirical
study, it brings to the attention of practitioners,
businesses, government agencies that we must rise to
this challenge and devise strategies for understanding
and examining the differences and correlations of the
factors affecting work life balance so as to improve,
facilitate and attain better work-life balance. Future
researchers need to undertake more experiment based
empirical research to develop interventions and
strategies that can guide the organizations to develop a
healthy work-life balance on the basis of the study and
facilitating the factors/ determinants affecting it.
LIMITATIONS:
As the sample/data in this research is restricted to
Middle level and Senior Managers, future research
should examine this phenomenon amongst workers,
junior staff other and entry-level managers for
determining the applicability of these results to different
levels in the organization. Another limitation is that
sample size can be increased to include employees from
other sub-sectors of the two sectors. This study also does
not consider the professionally self-employed persons
like Advocates, Doctors entrepreneurs. A separate study
can be undertaken for them as even these self-employed
persons constitute a large portion of workforce and also
face critical work-life imbalance issues.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
We are thankful to IKGPTU, Kapurthala (RIC dept.), for
supporting and promoting this research work.
REFERENCES:
1. Blustein, D. L. The role of work in psychological health and
well-being a conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective.
American Psychologist. 2008; 63 (4): 228–240.
2. MacInnes, J. Work-life balance in Europe: A response to the baby
bust or reward for the baby boomers. European Societies. 2006;
8(2), 223-249.
3. Jones, F., Burke, R.J. and Westman, M. Work-life balance: Key
issues. In East Sussex. Work-life balance: A psychological
perspective, Edited by F. Jones, R.J. Burke and M. Westman.
Psychology Press. 2006; 1-38.
4. Harris, L.A. and Foster, B. The drivers of work-life balance: A
critical review. 2008.[Online]. [Retrieved July 16, 2014],
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/departments/Strategy%20and%2
0Human%20Resource%20Management/airaanz/proceedings/mel
bourne2008/ref/L.%20Harris,%20B.%20Foster.pdf.
5. Badura, Bernhard/Schnellschmidt, Hen-ner/Vetter, Christian
(Ed.): Fehlzeiten. Wettbewerbsfaktor Work-Life-Balance. 2003;
Berlin.
6. Campbell-Clark, S. Work/family border theory: A new theory of
work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000; 53(6): 747-770.
7. Clark, S.C. Work/family border theory: A new theory of
work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000; 53 (6): 747-770.
8. Guest, D. Perspectives on the study of work-life balance:
Discussion paper prepared for 2001. ENOP Symposium. Paris.
2001; March: 29–31. Available from
http://www.ucm.es/info/Psyap/enop/guest.htm.
Shah, S.S. The role of work-family enrichment in work-life
balance and career success: a comparison of German and Indian
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017
managers. Dissertation thesis. Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences. Ludwig-Maximilians-University. Munich,
Germany. 2014.
10. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA.
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Wiley. 1964.
11. Health Canada. Reducing work-life conflict: what works? What
doesn't? 2008. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety (CCOHS) website https://www.ccohs.ca/
12. Stein, S. J. Make your workplace great: the 7 keys to an
emotionally intelligent organization. Wiley. 2007.
13. Bird, J. Work-life balance defined - what it really means! five
steps to better work life balance. Available from
http://www.worklifebalance.com/ worklifebalancedefined.html.
14. Loghan, G. Work-life balance in the northern Ireland civil
service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). 2002.
15. Torun, F. Work life balance: any improve for business. GRIN
Verlag. 2007.
16. Hobson, C.J., Delunas, L. and Kesic, D. Compelling evidence of
the need for corporate work-life balance initiatives: results from a
national survey of stressful life-events. Journal of Employment
Counselling. 2001; 38: 38-44.
17. Felstead, A, Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A and Walters, S.
Opportunities to work at home in the context of work-life
balance. Human Resource Management Journal. 2002; 12(I): 54-
76.
18. Li. Y., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Ahlstrom, D. The rationality of
emotions: a hybrid process model of decision-making under
uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2014; 31(1):
293-308.
19. Burke, R. J., and Greenglass, R. E. Work-family conflict, spouse
support, and nursing staff well-being during organizational
restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1999;
4: 327–336.
20. Lin, P. Y. A research for the relationship between work family
conflict and job performance of international tourist hotel
employees in Taiwan: The moderating effect of social support.
Department of Tourism of Providence University. Unpublished
master thesis. 2008.
21. Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C. and Sheep, M.L. Balancing
borders and bridges: negotiating the work-home interface via
boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal. 2009;
52 (4): 704-730.
22. Lapierre, L.M. and Allen, T.D. Work-supportive family, family-
supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and
problem-focused coping: implications for work-family conflict
and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology. 2006; 11 (2): 169-181.
23. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. Work
alcoholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or
three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Psychology. 2008; 57 (2): 173-203.
24. De Jonge, J. and Schaufeli, W.B. Job characteristics and
employee well-being: a test of Warr’s Vitamin Model in health
care workers using structural equation modelling. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19 (4): 387-407.
25. Macky, K. and Boxall, P. High-involvement work processes,
work intensification and employee well-being: a study of New
Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources. 2008; 46 (1): 38-55.
26. Andrijana Mušura, Mirna Koričan and Siniša Krajnović. Work-
life and life-work conflicting Croatian companies: some
perspectives. International Journal of Organization Theory and
Behavior. 2013; 16 (1): 42-67.
27. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. The “what” and “why” of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11: 227-268.
28. Baard, P., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic need
satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being
in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
2004; 34: 2045–2068.
891
29. Nikandrou, I., Panayotopoulou, L., and Apospori, E. The impact
of individual and organizational characteristics on work-family
conflict and career outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
2008; 23: 576-598.
30. Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., and
Brinley, A. Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis
and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 2005; 66 : 124-97.
31. Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba. Practices of dual earner couples
successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues. Summer 2006; 27(2): 207-234.
32. Beutell, N. l. and Greenhaus, l. H. Integration of home and non-
home roles: Women's conflict and coping behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 1983; 68: 43-48.
33. Yoon, J. and Thye, S. Supervisor support in the work place:
Legitimacy and positive affectivity. Journal of Social
Psychology. 2000; 140: 295-316.
34. Myria Watkins Allen, Patricia Amason, and Susan Holmes.
Social support, Hispanic emotional acculturative stress and
gender. Communication Studies. 1998; 49 (2): 139-157.
35. Wadsworth, L. L. The application of role-identity salience to the
study of social support and work-family interaction. The
university of Utah. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 2003.
36. House, J. S. Work stress and social support. Mass: Addison Wile.
1981.
37. Cassel, J. Social support as a moderator of life stress.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 1976; 38: 300-314.
38. Demerouti, E, Bakker, A, Nachreiner, F ., and Schaufeli. The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2001; 86: 499 -512.
39. Grover, S. and Crooker, K. Who appreciates family responsive
human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies
on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents.
Personnel Psychology. 1995; 48: 271–288.
40. Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., and Lyness, K.S. When work–
family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family
culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and
work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1999; 54:
392–415.
41. Allen, T.D. Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2001;
58: 414–435.
42. Breaugh, J.A. and Frye, N.K. An examination of the antecedents
and consequences of the use of family-friendly strategies. Journal
of Managerial Issues. 2007; 19: 35–52.
43. Greenhaus, Ziegert, and Allen. When family-supportive
supervision matters: Relations between multiple sources of
support and work family balance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 2012; 80: 266-275.
44. Zheng, C., John, Molineux., Soheila, Mirshekary., Simona,
Scarparo. Developing individual and organisational work-life
balance strategies to improve employee health and wellbeing.
Employee Relations. 2015; 37 (3): 354 – 379.
45. Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., and Prottas, D.
Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce.
Families and Work Institute. 2002; Retrieved from,
http://www.familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/nscw200
2summ.pdf.
46. Shaji, J. B. Gautam, and S. Vijayakumar Bharathi. An empirical
study on the factors contributing to work family conflict among
young employees in the IT companies. Indian Journal of Science
and Technology. 2015; 8(S6): 50–60.
47. Nevin Deniza, Simge Denizb, Öznur Gülen Ertosun. The woman-
friendly organization- effects of demographic variables on
women employees’ perception about their companies on work
and family-oriented woman-friendly hrm: a study in banking
industry in Turkey. International Conference on Leadership,
Technology and Innovation Management. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 41: 477 – 484.
48. B. L. Sairam Subramaniam and R. Saravanan. Empirical study on
factors influencing on quality of work life of commercial bank
 Asian J. Management; 8(3): July - September, 2017

employees. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2012; 28 (1):

119-127.
49. Siti Aisyah Binti Panatika, Siti Khadijah Zainal Badria, Azizah
Rajaba, Hamidah Abdul Rahmana and Ishak Mad Shaha. The
impact of work family conflict on psychological well-being
among school teachers in Malaysia. International Conference on
Education and Educational Psychology. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 29: 1500 - 1507.
50. Nidhi Tewathia. Work-life balance in the IT sector: A case study
of Delhi. International Journal of Advancements in Research and
Technology. 2014; 3 (7).
51. Noor, N.M. Locus of control, supportive workplace policies and
work-family conflict. Psychologia. 2006; 49: 48-60.
52. Reed, S.A., Kratchman, S.H., and Strawser, R.H. Job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intentions of united
states accountants: the impact of locus of control and gender.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 1994; 7: 31-
58.
53. Solomon Fernando Gomez, Noor Khan, Muhammad Imran
Malik, Muhammad Iqbal Saifc. “Empirically testing the
relationship of social support, job satisfaction and work -family
balance in Pakistani socio cultural set-up. OIDA International
Journal of Sustainable Development. 2010; 2(1): 51-57.
54. Lori Foster Thompson and Kimberly R. Aspinwall. The
recruitment value of work/life benefits. Personnel review. 2009;
38 (2): 195 – 210.
55. David Cegarra-Leiva; M. Eugenia Sánchez-Vidal and Juan
Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. Understanding the link between work
life balance practices and organisational outcomes in SMEs.
Personnel Review. 2012; 41 (3): 359 – 379.
56. Liang-Qiu WU, Dan Yan. Social support, psychological need
satisfaction and work-family balance: an empirical research on it
knowledge employees. International Conference on Information
Management, Innovation Management and Industrial
Engineering. 2012; 249-253.
57. Schieman, S. and Reid, S. Job authority and health: Unrevealing
the competing suppression and explanatory influences. Social
Science and Medicine. 2009; 69(11): 1616-1624.
58. Warr, P. Work, well-being, and mental health. In the Handbook
of work stress, Eds J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway, and M.R. Frone.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2005; pp. 547-574.
59. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., and McMurrian, R. Development
and validation of work-family conflicts and work-family conflict
scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996; 81: 400-410.
60. Mei-Ling Wang, Tzu-Ming Lin, Li-Jane Tsai. Technology
management for emerging technologies. Proceedings of PICMET
'12. 2012; 3631-3639.
61. Tetsushi Fujimoto, Sayaka Shinohara1, Hideki S. Tanaka,
Yoshifumi Nakata. Overtime reduction, work-life balance, and
psychological well-being for research and development engineers
in Japan. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM. 2013; 1510-1514.
62. Dobrotić, I., and Laklija, M. Correlates of Conflicts between
family and work obligations in Croatia. Journal of Social Policy.
2009; 1: 4563.
63. Rao, K. K., and Ummul, Salma. A study on shift work and health.
Asian Journal of Management Research. 2012; 2 (2): 821-826.
64. Babu, S. S., Aryasri, R., and Raj. Impact of flexi-time (a work-
life balance practice) on employee stress reduction in IT Sector
Indian perspective. CAMS Journal of Business Studies and
Research. 2010; April – June.
65. Ljungblad, C.; Fredrik Granström, Lotta Dellve, Ingemar
Åkerlind. Workplace health promotion and working conditions as
determinants of employee health. International Journal of
Workplace Health Management. 2014; 7 (2): 89 – 104.

892