The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12: 252–274, 2009

Copyright © The Society of Psychologists in Management

ISSN 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online
DOI: 10.1080/10887150903316305

Work-Life Job Analysis: Applying

1550-3461
1088-7156
HPMJ
The Psychologist-Manager Journal
Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, September 2009: pp. 0–0

a Classic Tool to Address

a Contemporary Issue
Valerie J. Morganson, Debra A. Major, and Kristina N. Bauer
Work-Life Job
Morganson, Major,
Analysis
and Bauer

Old Dominion University

This paper draws from the work-life and human resources research literatures and
introduces Work-Life Job Analysis (WLJA) as a tool to leverage work-life balance
within organizations. WLJA is based upon the AET (Arbeitwissenschaftliches
Erhebungsverfahren zur Tätigkeitsanalyse) a German-developed job analysis
procedure used to analyze stress and strain. WLJA is comprised of a questionnaire
to analyze the context of the work and a task analysis to assess the work performed
in order to identify areas of work-life enrichment and conflict. We provide a
theoretical and research basis for the tool, provide step-by-step instructions for
application, and illustrate the procedure by analyzing a tenure-track faculty position
at a university. As shown by the results of our application, WLJA can be used to
enhance a position and to intervene where work-life conflict exists. WLJA is a
strategic and scientifically-based tool for work-life intervention that enables
psychologist-managers to accommodate specific work-life balance needs.

Regardless of family status or demographic characteristics, all individuals are

challenged to strike a balance between the frequently competing demands of their
work lives and personal lives. While an enormous amount of literature has
accumulated to understand how work and other life roles conflict and to identify
the symptoms, antecedents, and consequences of conflicting roles (Eby, Casper,
Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005), very little research has been directed
toward its resolution. Likewise, research has described how personal life and
work roles can positively influence one another (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard,
2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmark,

Correspondence should be sent to Valerie J. Morganson, 250 Mills Godwin Building, Department
of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529. E-mail: Vmorgans@odu.edu
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 253

2007), but has not provided practical tools to capitalize on the outcome. Major
and Cleveland (2007) recognized this gap in the literature and suggested using
the tools of Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology as a remedy. In I/O, best
practice recommends employing job analysis as a first step toward the resolution
of a workplace problem. We propose Work-Life Job Analysis as an assessment
tool to precede meaningful work-life intervention. In this article we provide
background to explain the utility of WLJA and illustrate step-by-step directions
for application by using the tool to analyze a tenure-track professor position at a
university.

Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance is the fulfillment of role-related expectations in work and
personal life domains. The majority of the work-life literature has focused on the
absence of work-life balance or “work-life conflict” (WLC). WLC is a form of
interrole conflict in which work and personal life role demands are mutually
incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Although early researchers focused
on the spheres of work and family interfering with one another, the contemporary
view recognizes that individuals’ personal life demands, more broadly than fam-
ily role demands, may be a source of conflict for workers. WLC is recognized as
a frequently occurring and ubiquitous problem that will likely continue to persist in
modern society (Eby et al., 2005). It is associated with numerous organizationally-
relevant outcomes. A meta-analysis found strong negative relationships between
WLC and job and life satisfaction across a variety of samples (Kossek & Ozeki,
1999). People with high levels of conflict tended to be less satisfied with their
jobs. In another quantitative review of the literature, Allen, Herst, Bruck, and
Sutton (2000) found that WLC was associated with various work-related, family-
related, and stress-related outcomes. WLC was associated with lowered job
satisfaction and commitment; it was also positively related to turnover. Another
meta-analytic study examined specific family friendly benefits and found that
greater WLC was associated with a decrease in productivity, job satisfaction, and
work schedule satisfaction (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999).
WLC and absenteeism were positively related.
The conceptual domain of the work-life interface has expanded beyond a
conflict perspective and has begun to explore how work and life can positively
influence one another. Several positive constructs have been proposed including
positive spillover (Edwards & Rothbard 2000), facilitation (Wayne et al., 2007),
and enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The concept underlying all of these
constructs is that experiences in one role may improve the quality of life in the other
role. A recent study found that positive spillover from work to family was related to
better mental health and higher job and family satisfaction (Hanson, Hammer, &
Colton, 2006). Work-family enrichment is positively related to job satisfaction,
254 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

family satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, &

Grzywacz, 2006). In another recent study, facilitation uniquely predicted work
outcomes (job performance, affective commitment work satisfaction, job search
behaviors), non-work outcomes (home performance, home commitment, home
satisfaction, global life satisfaction), and stress outcomes (emotional exhaustion,
depressive complaints; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, & Mooijaart, 2007).
In sum, research examining work-life issues from a conflict perspective as
well as from a positive enhancement perspective has identified numerous out-
comes of work-life balance. The vast body of research therefore supports that
organizations stand to benefit from recognizing and accommodating employees’
work-life needs. In terms of efforts to address WLC, research shows that employ-
ees appreciate flexible work arrangements, work-life programs, and flexible
career paths regardless of their own family structure (Altman & Post, 1996;
Grover & Crooker, 1995; Honeycutt & Rosen, 1997). Moreover, mutual influ-
ence is a reality; employers and employment relationships influence employees’
personal lives and employees’ personal lives have implications for organizational
outcomes (Major, Cardenas, & Allard, 2004). Thus, taking steps to actively man-
age the work-life interface provides mutual benefit (Major & Germano, 2006).
The current paper limits its focus to work spilling into life both because it is
more common than life spilling into work (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992;
Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Rotondo, Carlson, & Kincaid, 2003) and because
it is a greater leverage point for employers seeking to reduce stress and impact
the outcomes of WLC. Research suggests that work domain predictors (e.g.,
work social support, work involvement, work role conflict, work time demands,
work role ambiguity) have a greater role in mitigating work interference with
life, compared to life interference with work (Michel & Hargis, 2008).

Job Analysis
We propose job analysis, a classic tool for workplace intervention, as a way to
assist workers in balancing their work-life demands, in turn benefiting both
employees and organizations. Job analysis is a process in which individuals make
judgments and collect data to document the requirements of a job and the work
performed. Stated otherwise, job analysis is “the collection and analysis of any
type of job-related information by any method for any purpose. [It] may be
looked at as a way to analyze reality,” (Ash, 1988, p.3). Job analysis provides a
detailed description of particular job duties, responsibilities, necessary skills,
requirements, and the work environment of a given job. Typically, it is done as a
preliminary step and a basis for subsequent actions such as creating job descrip-
tions, redesigning jobs to promote efficiency, evaluating jobs for compensation,
determining training needs, creating performance appraisals, selecting new
employees, determining promotions, and for vocational guidance purposes. Job
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 255

analysis is an important first step to organizational intervention because it helps

ensure that the intervention represents all of the facets of the job. It is a systematic
way to ensure that a workplace intervention (e.g., selection procedure, performance
appraisal, etc.) is valid and accurately reflects the job. Thus, job analysis helps
prevent the organization from wasting its resources on interventions that neglect to
consider important job-related issues or overemphasize job aspects that are irrelevant
or ancillary. Instead, job analysis can be viewed as a building block to create an
intervention that is specifically tailored to the job and organization.

Defining WLJA
WLJA is a tool that aims to identify the components of a particular job that
hinder or facilitate worker fulfillment of personal life roles. Given that examining
positive work-life constructs in addition to conflict is particularly important for
understanding employees’ work and personal lives (e.g., van Steenbergen et al.,
2007), we include both perspectives in our instrument. WLJA identifies areas of
WLC, as well as work-life enrichment (i.e., when the experiences of work role
behavior improve the quality of life in one’s personal life roles). Our instrument
can be used preemptively to improve work-life balance, or it can be used to
address existing WLC issues in organizations.
Although work-life balance is the interaction of work and one’s personal life
and is therefore determined in part by the individual’s unique set of circum-
stances (e.g., number and age of children, skills in time management, and conflict
resolution), there is value in providing general work-life balance job ratings as a
stand-alone construct or description. In support of this assertion, a considerable
amount of research identifies work environment factors related to WLC, many of
which are contextual in nature and all of which represent commonalities of
experiences reported by workers (e.g., Carlson, 1999; Fox & Dweyer, 1999;
Shamir, 1983; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). Furthermore, recent
research suggests that inherent aspects of work contribute to the individuals’
WLC. In a sample of 126 occupations, Dierdorff and Ellington (2008) found that
occupation alone accounted for significant incremental variance in reported
work-family conflict. Specific occupational features explained almost half of the
between occupation variance in work-family conflict (e.g., interdependence and
responsibility for others). WLJA is in line with Dierdorff and Ellington’s (2008)
call for interventions that reap the benefits of turning toward specific work-role
requirements in order to mitigate WLC.

Application of Work-Life Job Analysis

Although WLJA may be performed in multiple ways depending on the job
analyst’s purpose and preference, the current article offers one technique that is
256 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

intended to be broadly suited to the many potential applications of job analysis.

Since the AET forms the framework of the suggested analysis, a brief overview
of its structure and history is provided, followed by a detailed description and
application of the proposed WLJA method.

The AET (Arbeitwissenschaftliches Erhebungsverfahren zur

Tätigkeitsanalyse)
The method that we present derives its structure from the AET. The name of
the analysis is translated as the “ergonomic task analysis data collection proce-
dure” (Rohmert & Landau, 1983). It is a German-developed method that arose
out of the need to comply with legal standards for insuring industrial safety and
quality of working life (Rohmert, 1988). The theory behind it is consistent with
WLJA because it is based upon the ergonomic stress and strain concept and
emphasizes the degree of compatibility between humans and their work for
leveraging productivity (Rohmert & Landau, 1988). The AET considers both
objective stress factors (stress due to tasks and the environment) and subjective
factors (stress on the worker, also called strain). Although it has historically
been used to examine human-equipment interface, the AET can be used for pur-
poses from production of forces to production of information (Rohmert, 1988).
The AET breaks into three parts: work systems analysis, task analysis, and job
demand analysis. Work system analysis comprises the largest segment of the
analysis and is the most relevant to WLC, especially the third dimension of the
work systems analysis portion: the physical and social environment. This
dimension contains items about the physical work environment, the organiza-
tional and social working environment (e.g., position of work within the organi-
zation, operation process, position of the work within the organizational
structure), and the benefit system, all of which are common themes in work-life
literature.

Content overview
The WLJA method presented in this article contains two sections, which
resemble the first two segments of the AET. The first section, a questionnaire,
yields a description of the job characteristics and describes the context in which
job tasks are performed. The second segment, a task analysis, captures the
content of the job itself. The third segment of the AET assesses the physical
demands of work. While taking a granular approach to analyzing physical
demands may be appropriate for the purposes of the AET (e.g., safety), many of
the questions were irrelevant to work-life issues. Thus, for the sake of parsimony,
many of the questions within the third segment were omitted; we included physical
demands within the questionnaire section of WLJA.
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 257

Questionnaire. The questionnaire yields a description of the job character-

istics and the context in which the job tasks are performed. These details are less
frequently accounted for in traditional job analysis procedures, but are relevant
to work-life balance. Appendix A provides a summary of the content and serves
as a guide for job analysts. The content that was retained from the AET is
supported by empirical work-life research, as we will discuss. Based upon the
literature, supplemental items were added to account for other work-life relevant
factors.
Within the questionnaire, Section 1 accounts for the predictability and
variability of the work routine and the hours and time demands of work—all of
which have repeatedly been implicated as predictors of WLC (e.g., Fox &
Dwyer, 1999; Parasurman & Simmers, 2001; Shamir, 1983). Section 2 of the
questionnaire contains several job characteristics relating to workers’ needs.
The personal enrichment provided by the job, adequacy and quantity of feed-
back, availability of training, and perceived job security have all been found to
impact workers’ experiences of domain conflict (e.g., Barling & MacEwen,
1992; Doby & Caplan, 1995). Section 3 pertains to the worker’s position within
the organization. These questions derive content validity from research linking
WLC with responsibility for others and amount of autonomy in one’s job
(Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008; Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001). Additionally,
the number of contacts with whom the incumbent interfaces and responsibility
for others are germane to work role overload, which is associated with inter-
domain conflict (e.g., Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008; Doby & Caplan, 1995). The
physical and mental demands of work comprise Sections 4 and 5 of the ques-
tionnaire, respectively. The inclusion of these items is based upon the crux of
much of the research on WLC—work strains spillover and affect the home
domain (cf., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985); myriad studies serve as evidence of
this effect (e.g., Doby & Caplan, 1995; Jackson, Zedeck, & Summers, 1985).
Section 6 was constructed based on research showing that having a mentor at
work, receiving social support from coworkers and supervisors, and perceiving
that the organization supports workers’ personal life-role responsibilities
reduces work-to-life conflict (e.g., Allen, 2001; Anderson, Coffey, & Beverly,
2002).

Task analysis. A basic task analysis comprises the second portion of the
content of WLJA. Certain job tasks may be linked to interdomain conflicts
(Major & Cleveland, 2007). For example, tasks involving deadlines or travel
might be associated with higher WLC. The task analysis used in this WLJA
differs from the one suggested by the AET because it is not based upon a taxon-
omy. The relative lack of structure of WLJA lends it to identifying a unique and
broad set of tasks.
258 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

PROCEDURE

Figure 1 serves as an overview and summary tool for performing WLJA. The
procedure involves four phases. In the first phase, the job analyst introduces the
procedure to participants, acquainting them with essential information about
work-life balance. In the second phase, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) describe
the organizational and social environment by completing the questionnaire and
task analysis; the descriptors that result are compiled into a survey. In Phase III,
SMEs complete the survey and data are analyzed and interpreted. The fourth and
final phase consists of applying the results toward a workplace intervention.
We opted to analyze a tenure-track position at a university to demonstrate
WLJA. WLC has been identified as a major problem among tenure-track faculty
(e.g., American Council on Education, 2005; Sorcinelli & Near, 1989). Higher
education institutions across the nation have adopted policies in an effort to
promote work-life balance among tenure-track faculty (Quinn, Lange, &
Olswang, 2004). The widespread issue of WLC among professors, in addition to

Survey Creation Data Analysis Implementation

Introduction
& Administration & Closure

Job analyst A panel of Means and Participants

overviews SMEsmeets to standard meet with job
WLJA project create deviations are analyst to
and provides descriptors for calculated for debrief and
tutorial about questionnaire each item and plan
the WLC and and task list category
enrichment Workplace
Descriptors are Tasks and interventions
The group used to create a categories are are designed
agrees on a survey for ranked based on the
timeline and SMEs results
schedules Sub-group
future meetings analyses are Data are
SMEsrate each performed gathered to
item on WLC validate WLJA-
and enrichment based
scales interventions

Gather information about Create survey (writing

Clean data and content Place results in tables to
the position and prepare instructions, compiling
code tasks into ease interpretation
to overview process for descriptors, and including
meaningful categories
SMEs demographic questions)

FIGURE 1 Work-life job analysis procedure overview chart.

 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 259

the authors’ own observations, suggested that the position was an ideal candidate
for WLJA.
The authors served as SMEs to compile the survey content. We recruited a
sample of 32 tenure-track faculty from throughout the university (e.g., psychol-
ogy, political science, management), including both pre-tenure (n = 15) and
post-tenure (n = 17) faculty. E-mails were sent to deans and associate deans
requesting that they forward an invitation to faculty explaining the project and
containing a link to a Web-based survey where faculty could anonymously par-
ticipate. The study underwent ethical review and was granted exempt status from
an institutional review board. We draw from this study to demonstrate each of the
phases of WLJA in the sections that follow.

Phase I
During Phase I, the job analyst gathers information about the position to begin
creating the questionnaire from Appendix A (hereafter referred to as the
questionnaire) and task list. To do this, the authors searched the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET; http://online.onetcenter.org/) using the following
terms: psychologist, teacher, professor, data analyst, researcher. O*NET is a
comprehensive, online database of information about many different occupations
(Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007). This database has been successfully
utilized in selection research (e.g., Jeanneret & Strong, 2003) and is therefore an
appropriate method for initial data collection. As a preliminary search for tasks
and work conditions, other sources of information can be utilized, such as exist-
ing job analyses, organizational charts, pay grade and benefit information, and
observations of work conditions.
As part of Phase I, the job analyst must provide an overview of the WLJA
process and its purposes. To this end, the authors created a tutorial about WLC
and enrichment. Definitions of WLC and enrichment were given, followed by
further instruction that enrichment is not simply the absence of conflict. The fact
that both can be present simultaneously was made explicit. Examples of conflict
and enrichment were also given. This tutorial was embedded in the final survey,
which is described in Phase II.

Phase II
Phase II begins with the creation of the final survey encompassing items from
both the questionnaire and the task analysis. A panel of anywhere between two
and eight SMEs should be formed, depending upon availability and the size of
the position in question. Coworkers and supervisors who have observed work
intrusions into personal life, symptoms of stress, and organizational contextual
factors might serve as useful data sources. For the current job analysis, a panel of
260 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

three SMEs was used to develop a list of descriptors for the questionnaire and the
task list. To develop descriptors for the questionnaire, SMEs were provided with
Appendix A and asked to think of aspects of their work that describe each
question. Some questions generated multiple survey descriptors or items,
whereas others generated only one. Because the questionnaire is designed to
apply to all job types, sections or specific questions from the questionnaire may
not be relevant for all jobs. In this particular application, for instance, item 23
from Appendix A was not relevant for tenure-track faculty; professors at the uni-
versity are not responsible for casualty or loss. To develop task statements, SMEs
were provided with a list of preliminary tasks and asked to generate additional
items that describe the job. Before creating the final survey, redundant items
were eliminated and SMEs were again consulted to ensure comprehensiveness.
The second part of Phase II is the administration of the final survey to a
representative sample of job incumbents. In addition to including the tutorial in
the survey, instructions must be provided for each section. These include defini-
tions of the scales for conflict and enrichment on each page, as well as specific
instructions on how to rate the items from the questionnaire and the task list. In
the current application, the tutorial was presented first. Items from the question-
naire were presented grouped by section followed by task statements. Partici-
pants received the following instructions for questionnaire items, “The following
are statements that generally characterize the position of tenure-track faculty.
Please rate each statement on how much it contributes to your (1) work-life con-
flict and (2) work-life enrichment. If you come across a statement that does not
characterize your job please select ‘does not apply’ rather than indicating that the
item does not contribute to conflict or enrichment.” Similar instructions were
given for task statements except tasks were described as, “a work activity that is
directed at completing a specific work objective. Tasks make up the daily routine
of an employee.” Each item was simultaneously rated for conflict and enrichment
using side-by-side scales. Response options indicated frequency on six-point
scale ranging from 1 (does not occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently). Finally,
demographic items, including age, gender, department, current position, tenure-
track status (non-tenure, pre-tenure, or post-tenure), organizational tenure (i.e.,
years worked at the university), marital status, and number of dependents, were
presented in order to be able to characterize the sample and analyze the results by
subgroup if n size permitted.

Phase III
The focus of Phase III is analyzing and interpreting the survey results to identify
areas of conflict and enrichment. We used a qualitative approach to analyzing our
data due to our sample size. First, we clustered tasks into meaningful groups
using a deductive, “open-coding” approach (Denzin, 2000; Strauss & Corwin,
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 261

TABLE 1
Sample Task Statements in Each Task Cluster

Items

Mentoring
Mentoring undergraduate or graduate students
Providing performance feedback to graduate students and faculty
Research
Developing and maintaining a research agenda
Analyzing data gathered from research studies
Service to the field
Giving guest lectures and invited talks
Engaging in professional service by acting as an editor or peer-reviewer (e.g., for conferences,
journals, and books) and by serving as a volunteer or elected member of a committee within
a professional organization
Teaching
Preparing lectures for undergraduate or graduate students
Delivering lectures to undergraduate or graduate students
University obligations
Attending faculty meetings
Assisting with the selection of new faculty members

1990). Following procedure for qualitative research, we defined emergent themes

in the data. Task clusters included: research, mentoring, service to field, teaching,
and university obligations. Next, data were content analyzed by two coauthors to
place items into their respective clusters according to emergent themes (Denzin,
2000). Inter-rater reliability for responses was good. In total, we agreed upon
89% of the 94 codings. We calculated a Cohen’s Kappa using software available
on the Internet (Geertzen, 2009). The Cohen’s Kappa was .86. We discussed all
discrepant codings and placed them in agreed upon clusters. Table 1 presents
sample items for each task cluster. Questionnaire items were grouped into sec-
tions and subsections as they are presented in Appendix A. Each number under a
section header is a subsection; multiple items for each subsection were presented
in the survey from Phase II.
We computed means and standard deviations for all questionnaire items,
sections, and task statements. Individual items, task clusters, questionnaire sec-
tions, and questionnaire subsections were then rated according to their means as
low (below 3), medium (from 3 to 4), or high (4 and above) on conflict and
enrichment. These rankings are intended to serve as a heuristic aide for interpret-
ing the results of this study. The means in our data ranged from 1.71 to 4.77; this
is reflected in our rankings. However, the range for another occupation may be
wider (e.g., 1 to 6). When comparing across occupations, job analysts should
focus on the means rather than rankings because they provide more information
262 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

TABLE 2
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank for the Task Clusters

Conflict Enrichment

Cluster M SD Rank M SD Rank

Mentoring 2.94 1.46 Low 3.60 1.58 Medium

Research 2.86 1.44 Low 3.16 1.54 Medium
Service to the Field 3.27 1.51 Medium 3.64 1.61 Medium
Teaching 3.57 1.54 Medium 3.48 1.41 Medium
University 3.07 1.47 Medium 2.89 1.54 Low
Obligations

Note. The number of task statements in each cluster are: Mentoring (3), Research (16), Service to
the Field (3), Teaching (10), and University Obligations (15); the scale ranged from 1 (does not
occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently).

and are the truest representation of the data. Our rankings are relative; it is possi-
ble to draw other ranking distinctions around the means to serve as comparison
points. Means and rankings (so long as they are applied consistently) may be
used to compare WLC and enrichment between positions. They can then be used
to determine which positions are associated with higher WLC or enrichment.
However, to compare across positions, the standard deviations of ratings should
be similar. We discuss the meaning of standard deviations later in this paper.
Because (1) it would take several pages to comprehensively list items and
their results and (2) the focus of this manuscript is presenting the WLJA instru-
ment itself, we present a portion of our results. A full report is available upon
request. Table 2 lists the means, standard deviations, and ranking of each task
cluster. As shown in Table 2, teaching received the highest mean conflict rank-
ing. In contrast, research received the lowest mean conflict ranking. The highest
and lowest mean enrichment scores were for service to one’s field and university
obligations, respectively.
Table 3 lists the means, standard deviations, and rankings of each question-
naire section and subsection. Regarding conflict, physical and mental demands
were the greatest sources of conflict in terms of sections. Of the questionnaire
subsections, the largest contributors to WLC were electronic accessibility and
urgency of decisions, whereas the lowest contributors were social support and
duration of breaks. Faculty at this university appear to have relatively good
support mechanisms in place. Regarding enrichment, needs fulfillment and work
conditions were the greatest sources of enrichment in terms of sections. Of the
questionnaire subsections, the largest contributors to work-life enrichment were
the degree of freedom to structure one’s day and autonomy, whereas the lowest
contributors were physical demands and urgency of decisions. However, the
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 263

TABLE 3
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank for the Questionnaire Sections and Subsections

Conflict Enrichment

M SD Rank M SD Rank

Work Conditions 3.35 0.67 Medium 3.71 0.96 Medium

Work Hours/Schedule 3.66 1.07 Medium 3.40 0.74 Medium
Continuity of work 3.42 0.02 Medium 3.96 0.23 Medium
Duration of break time 2.81 0.23 Low 3.22 2.02 Medium
Flexible working hours 3.57 0.70 Medium 3.77 0.95 Medium
Degree of freedom to structure 2.97 0.24 Low 5.13 0.35 High
one’s own workday
Work related travel 3.37 0.21 Medium 3.49 0.97 Medium
Commuting time and method 3.17 0.29 Medium 3.62 1.02 Medium
Needs Fulfillment 3.15 0.52 Medium 4.12 0.77 High
Personal enrichment 2.95 0.22 Low 4.61 0.20 High
Autonomy 2.83 1.49 Low 4.91 1.33 High
Respect 3.52 1.45 Medium 4.03 1.28 High
Training 3.57 1.41 Medium 3.90 1.51 Medium
Job Security 3.13 1.03 Medium 3.40 1.14 Medium
Position within the Organization 2.91 0.80 Low 3.55 0.97 Medium
Managerial Functions 2.39 1.06 Low 2.90 1.25 Low
Exercising staff functions 3.97 1.43 Medium 3.71 1.47 Medium
Contacts within University 3.05 0.29 Medium 4.00 0.67 High
Mental Demands 3.42 0.60 Medium 3.22 0.62 Medium
Precision and accuracy 3.73 1.44 Medium 3.47 1.38 Medium
Complexity 3.63 1.43 Medium 4.07 1.48 High
Urgency of decisions 4.03 1.17 High 2.38 0.90 Low
Responsibility 2.94 0.65 Low 3.49 0.33 Medium
Influence 3.35 0.02 Medium 3.77 0.60 Medium
Interdependence 3.67 0.47 Medium 3.42 0.78 Medium
Conflicts 2.96 0.31 Low 2.66 0.33 Low
Electronic accessibility 4.77 1.45 High 3.14 1.38 Medium
Physical Demands 3.60 1.63 Medium 2.34 1.20 Low
Social Support 2.77 0.22 Low 3.57 0.75 Medium

Note. Sections are bolded; subsections are indented; rankings of the subsections within each sec-
tion are italicized; the scale ranged from 1 (does not occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently).

physical demands subsection contained only one item, “Using a computer for
long hours, which can lead to eye strain and headaches.”
Tables 4 and 5 present a sample of high, medium, and low items for the ques-
tionnaire and task analysis, respectively. In total for the questionnaire items,
there were 18 high, 13 medium, and 21 low conflict items. There were 8 high, 25
medium, and 19 low enrichment items. In total for the task list, there were 2 high,
264 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviations for a Sample of the High, Medium, and Low Task
Statements for Conflict and Enrichment

Item Item cluster M SD

High Conflict
Evaluating and grading students’ class work, Teaching 4.23 1.43
laboratory work, assignments, and papers
Responding to email from current students University 4.23 1.65
Obligations
Medium Conflict
Developing and maintaining a research agenda Research 3.93 1.54
Attending faculty meetings University 3.83 1.21
Obligations
Low Conflict
Completing IRB applications in order to Research 2.97 1.85
conduct research
Obtaining grant money to fund research and Research 2.93 1.72
graduate students
High Enrichment
Attending professional conferences to present Research 4.61 1.17
research
Keeping abreast of developments in the field Research 4.55 1.50
by reading current literature, talking with
colleagues, and participating in professional
conferences
Medium Enrichment
Preparing lectures for undergraduate or graduate Teaching 3.80 1.54
students
Supervising undergraduate or graduate teaching, Mentoring 3.77 1.65
internship, and research work
Low Enrichment
Responding to email from individuals who are Service to 2.93 1.25
not members of the University Field
Compiling, coding, categorizing, calculating, Research 2.90 1.69
tabulating, auditing, or verifying information
or data

Note. The scale ranged from 1 (does not occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently).

27 medium, and 18 low conflict items. There were 8 high, 18 medium, and 21
low enrichment task items.
Thus far, we have focused upon the means to interpret the scores. However,
the standard deviations provide valuable data for interpretation as well. As with
traditional job analysis approaches, standard deviations can be regarded as a
measure of item reliability. Standard deviations in our sample tended to be
greater than 1 and less than 2. The average standard deviation was 1.46. While
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 265

TABLE 5
Means and Standard Deviations for a Sample of the High, Medium, and Low Questionnaire
Items for Conflict and Enrichment

Item Item section M SD

High Conflict
Responding to e-mails from students, colleagues, Mental Demands 4.77 1.45
and administrators throughout the day and on
weekends (Electronic availability is something
of an expectation.)
Urgent requests that may arise (e.g., from upper Mental Demands 4.03 1.17
administration), especially due to lack of planning
Medium Conflict
The requirements of accuracy and precision (e.g., Mental Demands 3.73 1.44
calibrating research instruments; assessing students’
work)
The high level of complexity in decision making (e.g., Mental Demands 3.63 1.43
in research projects)
Low Conflict
Having the freedom to structure your own work day Work Conditions 2.79 1.52
Interfacing with the Dean Position within the 2.70 1.12
Organization
High Enrichment
The level of social support available from coworkers Social Support 4.50 1.14
Planning and designing research studies Mental Demands 4.20 1.81
Medium Enrichment
Responsibility for students in your classroom Mental Demands 3.72 1.49
The level of social support available from your Social Support 3.48 1.15
supervisor (e.g., Department Chair)
Low Enrichment
Working traditional hours (8-6 Monday through Work Conditions 2.27 1.36
Friday)
Limitation or inability to take breaks during class time Work Conditions 1.79 1.05

Note. The scale ranged from 1 (does not occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently).

there is no rule or standard of acceptability, standard deviations were slightly

higher than in more traditional job analysis applications (e.g., those rating task
items on their importance to performing the job). This was consistent with our
expectations; as we discussed in the introduction, work-life balance is an interac-
tion between an individual and his or her environment. Compared to traditional
job analysis, WLJA may be more impacted by rater idiosyncrasies, but this does
not negate the legitimacy of the findings. In this application of WLJA, reliability
was likely impacted by subgroups within the data. While the items included in
the survey were representative of the university’s tenure-track position, the
emphasis placed on each item likely differs based on situational characteristics.
266 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

For example, the demands of research may be higher in one department com-
pared to another. Likewise, differences in scores may be explained by whether
respondents are pre- or post-tenure. One way to deal with discrepancies in ratings
is to use demographic variables to perform subgroup analysis as we do next.
High standard deviations may serve as indicators that subgroup differences exist.

Subgroup comparisons
We computed separate means and standard deviations for pre- and post-tenure
faculty. Pre- and post-tenure respondents rated questionnaire items as similar in
terms of WLC and enrichment. However, a high standard deviation for conflict
(SD = 2.13) and enrichment (SD = 2.02) on the job security descriptor indicated
likely subgroup differences. For the overall sample, job security had a mean of
3.13 for conflict and 3.40 for enrichment. Subgroup analyses revealed better
inter-rater agreement. Job security contributes to conflict for pre-tenure faculty
(M = 4.93, SD = 1.27) more than for post-tenure faculty (M = 3.19, SD = 1.60).
It contributes to work-life enrichment less for pre-tenure faculty (M = 3.14,
SD = 1.61) compared to post-tenure faculty (M = 5.41, SD = 1.18). Conflict
ratings for task clusters were generally similar between the groups. However,
there were slight mean differences regarding enrichment. For pre-tenure faculty,
the highest ranked task cluster was mentoring (M = 3.90, SD = 1.86); it was
followed by service to one’s field (M = 3.51, SD = 1.53). For post-tenure faculty,
the number one enriching task cluster was service to one’s field (M = 3.75,
SD = 1.69); mentoring was a close second (M = 3.61, SD = 1.42). Table 6 high-
lights several other task items rated differently by pre- and post-tenure respondents.

Phase IV
Like traditional job analysis, WLJA can be used as a basis for several subsequent
interventions. Compared to other job analysis techniques, however, the unique
contribution of WLJA is its direct relevance to informing work-life interventions.
In this section we illustrate several ways in which psychologist-managers might
use the results of our example WLJA.

Vocational guidance
Job analysis data are sometimes used for vocational guidance, where counse-
lors and mentors help people match themselves with jobs and careers. Work-life
job analysis supplements traditional job descriptions by providing a summary of
the job domain requirements and an appraisal of the degree to which the job is
likely to be compatible with individuals’ personal lives. Doctoral students often
have several applied and academic career options to consider. Our job analysis
provides important information regarding the work-life benefits and drawbacks
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 267

TABLE 6
Highlights of Differences between Pre- and Post-Tenure Responses

Pre-tenure Post-tenure

Item Item cluster M SD Rank M SD Rank DM

Conflict
Mentoring undergraduate Mentoring 2.54 1.51 Low 3.5 1.41 Medium .96
or graduate students
Engaging in service to the University 2.57 1.51 Low 3.44 1.37 Medium .87
College by [. . .] Obligations
Completing IRB applications Research 3.43 2.1 Medium 2.56 1.55 Low .87
in order to conduct research
Keeping abreast of Research 3.08 1.61 Medium 3.69 1.49 Medium .61
developments in
the field [. . .]
Enrichment
Following IRB and human Research 3.54 1.39 Medium 2.12 1.09 Low 1.42
subjects’ regulations [. . .]
Engaging in service to the University 2.23 1.3 Low 3.29 1.36 Medium 1.06
College by [. . .] Obligations
Attending professional Research 3.5 1.29 Medium 4.47 1.38 High .97
conferences to present
research
Planning and directing studies Research 2.71 2.09 Low 3.41 1.7 Medium .70
to investigate research
agenda

Note. The scale ranged from 1 (does not occur) to 6 (occurs very frequently).

of an academic career at a research-oriented university. As shown in Table 3,

WLC is mitigated by the degree of freedom faculty members have to structure
their own workdays. On the other hand, electronic accessibility contributes to
WLC. Results also show that many features of this career path contribute to high
work-life enrichment, including autonomy, respect, and complexity of the work.
Ideally, such WLJA information would be available for the range of one’s
career options, facilitating informed work-life career choices. The addition of a
work-life balance component to vocational guidance tools such as the O*NET is
one way of creating realistic job previews for work-life balance. A realistic job
preview is the practice of providing prospective employees with both positive
and negative information about the job and organization. Realistic job previews
are associated with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover (Buckley, Fedor,
Verres, Wiese, & Carraher, 1998). Organizations, employees, and families stand
to benefit from expanding job descriptions in this way. Moreover, the integration
of widespread WLC job analysis efforts, especially via O*NET, could be the
beginning of large-scale governmental efforts that many researchers have called
268 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

upon to combat increasing work demands and hours (e.g. de Graff, 2003;
Heymann, 2002; Moen, 2003).

Mentoring
Research demonstrates that adequate mentoring is associated with reduced
WLC (Cohen, Granot-Shilovsky, & Yishai, 2007; Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau,
2001). Mentoring is also a major means by which faculty learn to be effective in
their careers (Perna, Lerner, & Yura, 1995). Our WLJA results reveal several
avenues for mentoring. For instance, as shown in Table 5, responding to a wide
variety of sources throughout the day and on weekends is a source of high WLC.
This suggests that faculty mentors might coach their colleagues to engage in
strategies that make e-mail more manageable, such as only responding to e-mail
once per day and providing students with “e-mail rules” (e.g., consult your
course syllabus prior to e-mailing a question) to reduce the amount of unneces-
sary e-mail.
The differences between pre-tenure and post-tenure faculty responses cap-
tured in Table 6 point to ways in which junior and senior faculty might obtain
mutual benefit from a mentoring relationship. Compared to senior faculty, pre-
tenure faculty members find that contending with Institutional Research Board
(IRB) applications necessary to conduct research involving human subjects are a
greater source of WLC. This is likely a matter of experience and familiarity with
IRB procedures. Thus, a seasoned mentor to guide one through the IRB applica-
tion process provides a mechanism for reducing associated WLC.
Table 6 also shows that compared to pre-tenure faculty, post-tenure faculty
report greater WLC associated with mentoring undergraduate and graduate
students. Pre-tenure faculty are closer to the experiences of students, having more
recently been one themselves than post-tenure faculty. In addition, pre-tenure
faculty may have more enthusiasm and new techniques for engaging students
based on their recent training. Thus, junior faculty may provide a fresh perspec-
tive, serving as role models for senior colleagues in terms of mentoring students
in ways that create less WLC. The results of our application suggest that pairing
junior and senior faculty (e.g., as part of a formal mentoring program) may
benefit both parties.

Resource distribution
Organizations are challenged to distribute resources wisely and are constantly
on the lookout for the opportunity to have “bigger bang for the buck.” WLJA can
be used to determine which types of work-life benefits are most desirable and
which types of resources have an added work-life benefit. For example, attending
professional conferences is essential to faculty member career development and
career success. Professional conferences increase the visibility of one’s research,
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 269

provide an opportunity for learning about the latest advancements in one’s field,
and facilitate networking with colleagues from other institutions. Our WLJA shows
that faculty members consider attending conferences a high contributor to work-
life enrichment (see Table 4), an additional benefit to professional development.
Our WLJA results also show that evaluating and grading students’ work is
considered a high contributor to WLC (see Table 4). This suggests that investing
resources in providing teaching assistants not only facilitates instruction, but may
also help reduce WLC. Also shown in Table 4, the mundane tasks of data
analysis, such as compiling, coding, and tabulating data, are among the faculty
responsibilities that contribute least to work-life enrichment. Providing research
assistants who can complete these tasks contributes to the faculty member’s
ability to build a program of research and may also provide the opportunity for
faculty members to focus on tasks that contribute to greater work-life enrichment.

Organizational policies and practices

Although best practice indicates that careful needs analysis and impact assess-
ment should precede any organizational initiative, work-life ramifications are typi-
cally not considered. Since changes in organizational policies and practices have an
influence on individual behavior and attitudes, examining the potential work-life
impact on employees is worthwhile. WLJA provides data useful in this process.
For example, our WLJA results show that autonomy and the freedom to struc-
ture one’s own workday is associated with low conflict and high enrichment (see
Table 3). From a work-life perspective, this feature of a faculty member’s work is
among the most positive. Thus, organizational policies and practices that ensure
or increase this freedom (e.g., teleworking) are likely to have positive work-life
outcomes. On the other hand, implementing organizational initiatives that curtail
faculty members’ ability to structure their own time (e.g., prescribed daily office
hours) will have negative work-life consequences. Our WLJA results are consis-
tent with research demonstrating that flexibility is a key factor in mitigating
WLC (e.g. Behson 2002; Ralston, 1989).

CONCLUSION

Achieving work-life balance is a major challenge for practice. WLC permeates

organizational boundaries adversely affecting individuals, organizations, and
societies. For example, research suggests that it is related to mental and physical
health outcomes, absenteeism, performance, and turnover (see Eby et al., 2005).
Yet, the scientific work-life balance research is characterized by a strong descrip-
tive and academic bias. Eby et al. (2005), in their monograph reviewing the
literature, found that less than half a percent of the literature was designated to
270 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

coping, and no category emerged to directly address the topic of organizational

intervention. Given that there are no interventions of its kind, WLJA brings a
new level to the available literature: scientific application and intervention.

Implications for Psychologist-Managers

With decades of research behind it, WLJA appeals to those seeking a strategic,
systematic, and content valid tool for application. Organizations presumably
expend considerable resources distributing benefits to combat WLC, administering
training, and paying for turnover due to WLC. WLJA may be used proactively to
embed workers within their organizations for individual and organizational bene-
fit. Just as I/O research has been used to benefit organizations in areas such as
selection, performance appraisal, and leadership, it should be used to leverage
work-life balance. The method presented offers potential gains through increased
reliability and validity of work-life interventions. Additionally, as a participative
approach, it fosters discussion about work-life balance. By bringing the issue to
the table, it may serve as an impetus for supervisor and coworker support and
may increase perceptions of a supportive work environment. We urge psycholo-
gist-managers to utilize WLJA to combat WLC on multiple fronts by informing
job redesign, job evaluation, training, benefit distribution, job description, and
vocational guidance for the betterment of their own organization.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-
family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
5, 278–308.
Altman, B. W., & Post, J. E. (1996). Beyond the “social contract”: An analysis of the executive view
at twenty-five large companies. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead––Long live the career:
A relational approach to careers (pp. 46–71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
American Council on Education. (2005). An agenda for excellence: Creating flexibility in tenure-
track faculty careers. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/
2005_tenure_flex_summary.pdf.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal
workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Manage-
ment, 28, 787–810.
Ash, R. A. (1988). Job analysis in the world of work. In S. Gael (Ed.) and E. T. Cornelius III, E.
Levine, & G. Salvendy (Assoc. Eds.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and
government (Vol. 1, pp. 3–13). New York: John Wiley.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and
compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513.
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 271

Barling, J., & MacEwen, K. E. (1992). Linking work experience with facets of marital functioning.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 573–584.
Behson, S. J. (2002). Coping with family-to-work conflict: The role of informal work accommoda-
tions to family. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 3–27.
Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and work analysis: Methods research
and application for human resource management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buckley, M. R., Fedor, D. B., Verres, J. G., Wiese, D. S., & Carraher, S. M. (1998). Investigating
newcomer expectations and job-related outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 452–461.
Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family
conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236–253.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side
of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Cohen, A., Granot-Shilovsky, L., & Yishai, Y. (2007). The relationship between personal, role, and
organizational variables and promotion to managerial positions in the Israeli educational system.
Personnel Review, 36, 6–22.
de Graaf, J. (Ed.). (2003). Take back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Denzin, N. K. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2008). It’s the nature of the work: Examining behavior-based
sources of work-family conflict across occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 883–892.
Doby, V. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1995). Organizational stress as threat to reputation: Effects on anxiety
at work and at home. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1105–1123.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002) [Monograph].
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000) Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (1999). An investigation of the effects of time and involvement in the rela-
tionship between stressors and work-family conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4,
164–174.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Geertzen, J. (2009). Cohen’s Kappa for more than two annotators with multiple classes. [Computer
software]. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://cosmion.net/jeroen/software/kappa/.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-
family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and families are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies:
The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimen-
sional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
11, 249–265.
Heymann, J. (2002). Can working families ever win? Boston: Beacon Press.
Honeycutt, T. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and salient
identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 271–290.
272 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

Jackson, S. E., Zedeck, S., & Summers, E. (1985). Family life disruptions: Effects of job-induced
structural and emotional interference. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 574–586.
Jeanneret, P. R., & Strong, M. H. (2003). Linking O*NET job analysis information to job require-
ment predictors: An O*NET application. Personnel Psychology, 56, 465–492.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap: A literature
review. Community, Work, and Family, 2, 7–32.
Major, D. A., Cardenas, R. A., & Allard, C. B. (2004). Child health: A legitimate business concern.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 306–321.
Major, D. A., & Cleveland, J. N. (2007). Strategies for reducing work-family conflict: Applying
research and best practices from industrial and organizational psychology. In G. P. Hodgkinson &
J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 22
pp. 111–140). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Major, D. A., & Germano, L. M. (2006). The changing nature of work and its impact on the work-
home interface. In F. Jones, R. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work-life balance: A psychological
perspective (pp. 13–38). London: Psychology Press.
Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conflict and segmenta-
tion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509–522.
Moen, P. (2003). Epilogue: Toward a policy agenda. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couples and
careers (pp. 333–337). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing
work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381.
Parasurman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work-family conflict and well being:
A comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 551–568.
Perna, F. M., Lerner, B. M., & Yura, M. T. (1995). Mentoring and career development among
university faculty. Journal of Education, 177, 31–45.
Quinn, K., Lange, S. E., & Olswang, S. E. (2004). Family-friendly policies and the research
university. Academe, 90, 32–34.
Ralston, D. A. (1989). The benefits of flextime: Real or imagined? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
10, 369–373.
Rohmert, W. (1988). AET. In S. Gael (Ed.) and E. T. Cornelius III, E. Levine & G. Salvendy (Assoc.
Eds.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government (Vol. 2, pp. 843–859).
New York: John Wiley.
Rohmert, W., & Landau, K. (1983). A new technique for job analysis. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., & Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with multiple dimensions of work-
family conflict. Personnel Review, 32, 275–296.
Shamir, B. (1983). Some antecedents of work-nonwork conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 98–111.
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Near, J. P. (1989). Relations between work and life away from work among
university faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 60, 59–81.
Strauss, A., & Corwin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). 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, 54, 392–415.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work-family facilitation:
A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource
Management Review, 17, 63–76.
van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate
each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for men and women. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 279–300.
 WORK-LIFE JOB ANALYSIS 273

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire: Work Condition Items

WORK CONDITION ITEMS

Section 1: Work Hours/Schedule

1. Hours (e.g., start time, end time, overtime, and hours per week)
2. Shift system (e.g., work in single shift in the daytime? Two shifts? Does the shift alternate or is it
continuous? Is there night work)
3. Continuity of work (e.g., Dependant on season of changes of production?)
4. Total duration of break time
5. Flexible working hours
6. Degree of freedom to structure one’s own workday
7. Work related travel
8. Commuting time and method
Section 2: Needs Fulfillment
9. Personal enrichment
10. Autonomy
11. Feedback
12. Training
13. Job security
Section 3: Position within the Organization
14. Type of managerial functions of the incumbent (e.g., none, direct, supervisory, senior, division,
or organization management)
15. Total number of employees for whom the incumbent is responsible (directly & indirectly;
describe the nature of the supervisory relationships)
16. Exercising staff functions (e.g., the incumbent is a technical advisor or aids in decision-making
process)
17. Contacts with persons within the organization
Section 4: Mental Demands
18. Required accuracy and precision of information input
19. Complexity of decisions (Minor to high)
20. Urgency of decisions
21. Responsibility and instructional authority toward persons not employed in the incumbent’s
organization (e.g., a teacher toward students, a physician toward patients)
22. Degree to which incumbent excerpts influence on the quality of work output
23. Extent of responsibility for casualty or loss
24. Responsibility for preventing damage to material and deterioration in quality
25. Responsibility for time losses
26. Responsibility for abstract values
27. Responsibility for caring for others’ well being (e.g., nursing, childcare)
(Continued)
274 MORGANSON, MAJOR, AND BAUER

(Continued)

WORK CONDITION ITEMS

28. Amount of interdependence (i.e., To what extent can others – customers or coworkers – persist
in the worker’s absence? Can substitutions be made in the worker’s absence?
29. Requirements of electronic accessibility outside of work (e.g., Is the worker expected to answer
emails away from work? Must the worker carry a Blackberry or other device?)
30. Likelihood/frequency of conflicts originating from incumbents position in the organization
(e.g., work-related conflicts with colleagues, dismissals, auditing, determining rest allowances)
31. Likelihood/frequency of conflicts originating from persons not employed by the organization
(incompatibility of interests; e.g., forcible hospitalizations, care for ex-convicts, work of police
officers)
32. Likelihood/frequency of conflicts with social standards (e.g., a judge whose decisions are bound
by law, negotiating price agreements within a contract)
Section 5: Physical Demands
33. Stress due to any of the following: postural work, static work, heavy dynamic work, and light
active work
Section 6: Social Support
34. The availability of mentors within your department*
35. The level of social support available from coworkers*
36. The level of social support available from your supervisor (e.g., Department Chair)*
37. The University’s support for work-life issues*

Note. Items have been adapted from A New Technique for Job Analysis (pp. 48–91), by
W. Rohmert and K. Landau, 1983, New York: Taylor & Francis.
*Item is rated in its current form. It does not require generating descriptors.