The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
23,3
236
Effort-reward imbalance,
over-commitment and work-life
conflict: testing an expanded
model
Gail Kinman
Received April 2007
Revised August 2007
Accepted November 2007
University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK, and
Fiona Jones
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Although the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model of job stress has gained support in
predicting employee health, it has rarely been examined in the context of the work-home interface.
This study aims to test an expanded ERI model in predicting work-life conflict (WLC) in university
employees. Three hypotheses relating to the ERI are tested. It is also predicted that lower
organisational support for work-life balance, less schedule flexibility and lower levels of separation
between work and home life will lead to increased work-life conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – In this cross-sectional study, 1,108 employees working in UK
universities completed questionnaires assessing ERI, WLC, schedule flexibility, employer support and
work-life separation/integration.
Findings – Strong main effects of job-related efforts, rewards and over-commitment on WLC are
found. A significant two-way interaction (effort £ reward) and some evidence for a three-way
interaction effort £ reward £ over-commitment) are observed. Perceived schedule flexibility and
work-life integration also make significant contributions to the variance in WLC. The final model
explains 66 per cent of criterion variance.
Research limitations/implications – As the study is cross-sectional, causal relationships cannot
be established.
Practical implications – This study extends knowledge of the ERI model as a predictor of WLC.
More research is required into ways in which effort-reward inequity and over-commitment might
threaten work-life balance, together with the working practices and organisational factors which
might modify this threat.
Originality/value – The ERI model has rarely been examined in the context of the work-home interface.
The importance of effort-reward imbalance and over-commitment to WLC has been highlighted.
Keywords Sociology of work, Role conflict, Stress, Personal health, Employees
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2008
pp. 236-251
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940810861365
Introduction
Several models of occupational stress have been formulated in an attempt to explain
relationships between features of the working environment and employee wellbeing.
One such model is the effort-reward imbalance model (ERI; Siegrist, 1996). The ERI
model postulates that strain results from a perceived imbalance between the level of
effort employees perceive that they put into their work and the rewards that they
receive. The experience of effort-reward imbalance is considered to be more frequent in
employees who are excessively committed (or over-committed) to their work.
The ERI model is gaining increasing attention by researchers in the field of
occupational health psychology. It has advantages over many other models of work
stress, such as the job demand-control (JDC) model, as it incorporates an individual
difference component and acknowledges the importance of a wider range of
employment conditions (such as pay, career opportunities and job security) to
employee wellbeing. Owing to a general erosion of job security and status and
enhanced opportunities for schedule flexibility and self-regulation, it has also been
argued that the ERI model is a particularly appropriate model through which to
investigate stress in contemporary organisational settings (De Jonge et al., 2000).
The ERI model has had considerable success in predicting the health status of
employees (Van Vegchel et al., 2005). It has been suggested that the ERI framework
should be utilised to examine other outcomes of relevance to contemporary working
life (Theorell, 2006). The potential for conflict between the work and home domains has
increased amongst employees in most sectors of the economy (Lewis and Cooper, 2005);
its negative impact on employee wellbeing has also been highlighted (Kinman and
Jones, 2001). Managing the conflict between work demands and family responsibilities
has been recognised as a critical challenge for employees and organisations (Kossek
and Ozeki, 1999). For several reasons discussed later in the present paper, the ERI
model has clear relevance to the work-home interface. Accordingly, the present study
aims to enhance knowledge of the ERI model by examining its performance as a
predictor of perceived conflict between work and home. As perceived support for
work-life balance and individual working practices, such as integration/segmentation,
have been associated with work-life conflict (Kinman and Jones, 2001), this study
further aims to examine whether these factors account for additional variance in
work-life conflict over and above that explained by the three ERI components (i.e.
efforts, rewards and over-commitment).
According to Siegrist (2001), between 10 and 40 per cent of the workforce experience
some degree of effort-reward imbalance. Owing to the model’s emphasis on wider
economic forces, however, some occupational groups might be more likely than others
to perceive inequity between efforts expended at work and rewards received. The
present study utilises a sample of employees working in UK universities. For a number
of reasons explained later in this paper, this sector is currently experiencing working
conditions whereby the ERI model might be a particularly salient predictor of strain.
The effort-reward imbalance model
The ERI model postulates that it is not merely effort (i.e. workload or other job demands)
that leads to strain, but a perceived imbalance between the effort that employees believe
they put into their jobs and the rewards that they receive (Siegrist, 1996). The model
explicitly differentiates between extrinsic effort (i.e. situational factors that make work
more demanding, such as heavy responsibilities and frequent interruptions) and intrinsic
effort (an individual difference variable also termed over-commitment). Rewards are
distributed to employees by three “transmitter” elements:
(1) money (appropriate salary);
(2) esteem (sufficient respect and support); and
(3) security/career opportunities (adequate promotion prospects, job security and
status consistency) (Siegrist, 1996).
Effort-reward
imbalance
237
JMP
23,3
238
Whereas perceptions of fair and appropriate rewards are expected to promote
employee wellbeing, the model predicts that perceived inequity in terms of costs (high
efforts expended at work) and gains (low rewards received) are experienced as stressful
and will compromise health and wellbeing over the long term (Siegrist, 2005).
The ERI model further predicts that effort-reward imbalance at work will be
experienced more frequently by employees who are excessively preoccupied with, and
overly committed to, their work. Over-commitment is defined as “a set of attitudes,
behaviours and emotions that reflect excessive striving in combination with a strong
desire to be approved of and esteemed” (Siegrist, 2001, p. 55). According to Siegrist, an
employee who is highly over-committed will respond inflexibly to situations of high
effort and low reward at work and will, therefore, be more prone to strain than a person
in the same situation who is less committed.
Effort-reward imbalance and strain
Although significant main effects of high effort and low reward on strain are
anticipated, three hypotheses relating to the ERI model have been formulated:
(1) the extrinsic ERI hypothesis, which maintains that high efforts combined with
low rewards results in strain over and above that accounted for by efforts and
rewards independently;
(2) the intrinsic over-commitment hypothesis, which states the higher the level of
over-commitment the greater the strain; and
(3) the intrinsic interaction hypothesis, whereby the negative impact of
effort-reward imbalance on employee wellbeing is stronger in employees who
are over-committed (Siegrist, 1996; Van Vegchel et al., 2005).
Cross-sectional and longitudinal research provides evidence for the extrinsic ERI
hypothesis, whereby a co-manifestation of high effort at work and low reward has been
found to predict cardiovascular risk factors and psychiatric disorders (e.g. Stansfeld
et al., 1999; Siegrist, 2001). Other studies have related effort-reward imbalance to less
serious outcomes such as psychosomatic symptomatology, sleep disturbances, fatigue,
problem alcohol consumption, absenteeism and turnover (Bobak, 2005; Hasselhorn
et al., 2004; Fahlen, 2006; Hanebuth et al., 2006; Van Vegchel et al., 2001; Siegrist, 2005).
Research evidence for the role played by over-commitment in predicting strain is,
however, mixed and inconclusive. Some evidence has been provided for the intrinsic
over-commitment hypothesis, whereby employees who are more over-committed tend
to report poorer physical and psychological health (Fahlen, 2006; Niedhammer, 2006;
Van Vegchel et al., 2005), but other studies fail to find support this prediction (Ertel
et al., 2005; Kuper et al., 2002; Hanebuth et al., 2006). As yet, the intrinsic interaction
hypothesis has been little examined and the available studies have yielded
contradictory findings (De Jonge et al., 2000). The present study aims to test all
three of the ERI hypotheses in predicting work-life conflict, prior to testing the
expanded model described below.
Work-life conflict and effort-reward imbalance
Work-life conflict is a form of inter-role conflict whereby the fulfilment of role demands
emanating from one domain (i.e. work) interferes with fulfilling role demands in
another domain (i.e. home or leisure activities) (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Conflict
between work and other life domains may take several forms, but that derived from
time devoted to the work role (known as time-based conflict) and that derived from the
strains produced by this role (known as strain-based conflict) are thought to be of key
importance (Netemeyer et al., 1996).
The relevance of the ERI model to the work-home interface is clear. It is plausible
that high levels of job-related effort and over-commitment to the job role might result in
perceived conflict between work and home. It is also likely that employees who believe
that their efforts and achievements at work are not counterbalanced by the rewards
they receive may be less likely to tolerate intrusion into their home lives than those
who work under more equitable conditions. Moreover, as previous studies have found
that effort-reward imbalance can lead to negative affective reactions (Van Vegchel et al.,
2005), perceived inequity could also manifest itself as strain-based work-life conflict.
As yet, only one published study can be located that has examined the ERI
construct in the context of the work-home interface. Franche et al. (2006) assessed the
impact of specific working conditions (including the ratio of effort to reward) and
work-life conflict on the mental health of female employees. Evidence was found for a
mediating effect of work-to-family conflict on the relationship between high
effort-reward imbalance and negative health status. The findings are promising, but
more research is required that explicitly aims to test the performance of the full ERI
model in the context of the work-home interface.
Whilst the components of the ERI model are plausible predictors of conflict between
work and other life domains, other variables are also likely to be important. The
present study investigates whether specific working practices (i.e. work-life
segmentation/integration), schedule flexibility and organisational support for
work-life balance predict variance in work-life conflict over and above that
accounted for by the ERI.
Border theory posits that the boundaries between roles can be conceptualised and
measured in terms of their flexibility and permeability. Flexibility refers to the extent
to which a role can be “enacted in various settings and at various times”, whereas
permeability represents the degree to which an individual can be “physically located in
one role’s domain but psychologically and/or behaviourally involved in another role”
(Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 474). When the boundary between two role domains is flexible
and permeable these domains are considered to be integrated, whereas if the boundary
is inflexible and impermeable they are segmented. Ashforth et al. (2000) maintain that
work and family roles can be placed on a continuum ranging from high segmentation
to high integration. Although subject to individual differences in context and
individual preference, employees whose work and home roles are highly integrated
frequently report more work-life conflict than those whose roles are more segmented
(Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1999; Olson-Buchanan and Boswell, 2006).
To a large extent, employees are responsible for maintaining an acceptable degree
of separation between the work and home domains. Nonetheless, organisations clearly
have some responsibility for helping their employees achieve this aim. In general, the
perception of a supportive organisational culture that aspires to promote work-life
balance has been associated with lower levels of work-life conflict (Allen, 2001;
Thompson et al., 1998). More specifically, however, it has been argued that control over
where, when and how an employee works may be one of the most critical predictors of
work-home conflict (Kossek and Lambert, 2004.) It is recognised that rigid work
Effort-reward
imbalance
239
JMP
23,3
240
scheduling with low levels of timing control may undermine family functioning (Haas,
1999). Conversely, schedule flexibility (or the ability to adapt working hours to meet
personal and/or family needs) may increase the ability of employees to cope with the
competing demands of the work and non-work domains (Sullivan and Lewis, 2006).
There is some evidence that employees who work flexibly report better work-life
balance and less strain (Brough et al., 2005; Fox and Fallon, 2003). As yet, however,
most studies tend to compare objectively defined flexible workers with those who work
conventional hours rather than examine the impact of perceived schedule flexibility
(Kossek et al., 2005).
The adverse effects of perceived inequity between job-related efforts and rewards,
together with a tendency towards over-commitment, might be compounded in
employees who:
.
perceive less support from their employers to help them balance the demands of
their work and home lives;
.
have less separation between work and home; and
.
perceive lower levels of flexibility to work where and when they choose.
These issues will be examined in the present study.
Work-life conflict, effort-reward imbalance, and university employees
This study utilises a sample of university employees. For several reasons, this
occupational group constitutes a particularly appropriate sample for the present study.
Academic work is essentially “unbounded” and incorporates a wide range of roles –
each with potentially competing demands (Fisher, 1994). These factors are likely to
result in increased perceptions of work-life conflict in the sector (Wortman et al., 1991).
Indeed, several studies conducted in the UK and other countries provide evidence that
university employees encounter particular difficulties in maintaining an acceptable
work-life balance (Doyle and Hind, 1998; Winefield et al., 2003).
A review of the literature on the working conditions of university employees
suggests that the ERI model is a particularly salient framework through which to
examine job stress in this context. Research findings suggest that employees of UK
universities generally perceive their jobs as having become increasingly more
demanding as a result of expanded student numbers, restructuring and mergers,
increased commercialisation, enhanced external scrutiny and reductions in funding
(Kinman and Jones, 2003, Kinman et al., 2006). Heavy workload and time and resource
constraints are frequently highlighted as the most stressful aspects of academic and
academic-related work, but other more specific demands include:
.
long working hours;
.
too much administrative paperwork;
.
lack of support;
.
obtaining research funding and finding time for research;
.
frequent interruptions;
.
rapid change;
.
poor leadership and management; and
.
poor salary and lack of promotion prospects (e.g. Blix et al., 1994; Thorsen, 1996;
Hogan et al., 2002; Fisher, 1994; Abouserie, 1996; Doyle and Hind, 1998; Kinman,
2001; Kinman and Jones, 2003; Tytherleigh et al., 2005).
Many of these stressors are key components of the extrinsic effort dimension of the ERI
model (Siegrist, 2001). Previous studies conducted in the university sector in the UK
have also highlighted low levels of many of the reward components of the ERI model
(i.e. salary, esteem and job security/career opportunities) as problematic (Association of
University Teachers, 2001; Tytherleigh et al., 2005). In particular, the central
importance of professional recognition and respect to the wellbeing of academic
employees has been emphasised (Cross and Carroll, 1990; Kinman et al., 2006; Gillespie
et al., 2001; Winter and Sarros, 2002).
Aims of this study
This study aims to extend knowledge of the ERI model to the work-home interface.
More specifically, the three ERI hypothesis outlined above will be tested as a predictor
of work-life conflict in a sample of employees working in UK universities. It is also
predicted that lower organisational support for work-life balance, less schedule
flexibility and lower levels of separation between work and home life will result in
increased work-life conflict.
Method
Participants
Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 5,000 academic and academic-related
staff employed within universities in the UK. This sample was drawn at random from
the membership database of the association that represents the largest proportion of
university academic staff in the UK (The Association of University Teachers, or AUT).
In total, 1,108 completed questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of
22 per cent.
Fifty-five per cent of respondents were male. The majority of respondents were in
the older age groups 45-49 years (18 per cent), 50-54 years (17 per cent) and 55-59 (17
per cent). Analysis of staffing figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency
(2004) confirmed that the gender balance and age profile of respondents in the present
survey corresponded broadly with that of the wider population of staff in the UK at
that time[1]. The majority of the sample (90 per cent) was employed on a full-time basis
and held permanent contracts (82 per cent).
Measures
Background information was obtained, including age and gender. Multi-item measures
were used to assess the components of the ERI model and work-life conflict.
Effort-reward imbalance. Scales from the effort-reward imbalance (ERI)
questionnaire developed by Siegrist (1996) were used to measure extrinsic effort,
rewards and over-commitment. A five-item measure of extrinsic efforts and a six-item
measure of over-commitment were used. Examples of items measuring extrinsic effort
and over-commitment are “I have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload” and
“People close to me say I sacrifice too much for my job”, respectively. A ten-item scale
was used to measure esteem, financial, and status rewards. An example of an item that
assesses reward is “My job promotion prospects are poor”. These scales have been
Effort-reward
imbalance
241
JMP
23,3
242
shown to have good psychometric properties (Siegrist et al., 2004). All items were
scored on a five-point scale. Mean scores were taken across items with a higher score
signifying higher efforts, rewards and over-commitment (Cronbach’s a: efforts ¼ 0:83;
over-commitment ¼ 0:92; rewards ¼ 0:88).
Work-life separation/integration. A single item assessed the extent to which
respondents perceived their home and work lives to be separated/integrated.
Respondents were asked to indicate on a nine-point scale (where 1 denoted total
separation and 9 represented total integration) the extent to which their work and home
lives were separated/integrated.
Schedule flexibility. A three-item scale examined the extent of perceived schedule
flexibility. An example of an item is “How well does your working schedule and the
degree of flexibility in this schedule meet your personal needs?”. Responses were
requested on a four-point scale where 1 represented “not at all” and 4 denoted “very
much so”. Mean scores were computed across items with high scores representing
more schedule flexibility (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:87).
Organisational support for work-life balance. A single item measured the level of
support provided by employers to aid work-life balance. Responses were requested on
a four-point scale where 1 represented no support and 4 represented high support.
Work-life conflict. A seven-item scale adapted from a measure developed by
Netemeyer et al. (1996) was utilised. Although this scale encompasses aspects of
time-based and strain-based conflict, it was designed as a unidimensional measure.
Responses were requested on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 7 ¼
“strongly agree”). Mean scores across items were computed with higher scores
denoting higher levels of work-life conflict (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:92).
Analysis
The majority of studies that have tested the ERI model have utilised categories or
ratios of various types in order to calculate high/low effort, high/low reward and/or
develop an index of effort-reward imbalance. A review of the literature on the ERI
model by Van Vegchel et al. (2005) highlights the risks in utilising arbitrary cut-off
points and dichotomising continuous variables. These authors recommend that future
research should utilise continuous variables and employ hierarchical linear regression
techniques in order to test the interactions implied in the ERI model. They further
argue that utilising an interaction term (rather than the commonly used ratio term) to
assess effort-reward imbalance is more likely to yield significant effects. This study
follows these recommendations.
Results
Table I shows the correlations between the components of the ERI model (i.e. efforts,
rewards and over-commitment), work-life separation/integration, schedule flexibility,
employers support for work-life balance and the outcome variable work-life conflict.
Job-related efforts were negatively associated with rewards and positively associated
with over-commitment (both p , 0:001). Significant relationships were observed
between the three components of the ERI model and work-life conflict (all p , 0:001):
i.e. respondents who reported higher efforts, lower rewards and greater
over-commitment reported higher levels of work-life conflict. Significant negative
relationships were also observed between work-life conflict and schedule flexibility
Efforts
Rewards
Over-commitment
Work-home separation/integration
Schedule flexibility
Employer support
Work-life conflict
2.67
2.16
2.73
5.53
2.71
1.53
4.43
Means
0.89
0.94
0.59
2.27
0.77
1.03
1.45
SD
0.00
20.45 * * *
0.60 * * *
0.30 * * *
20.26 * * *
20.11 * * *
0.63 * * *
1
Note: One-tailed correlations: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Variable
0.00
20.37 * * *
20.18 * * *
0.23 * * *
0.17 * * *
20.43 * * *
2
0.00
0.46 * * *
2 0.29 * * *
2 0.16 * * *
0.73 * * *
3
0.00
2 0.18 * * *
2 0.11 * * *
.51 * * *
4
0.00
0.23 * * *
2 0.35 * * *
5
7
0.00
6
0
20.20 * * *
Effort-reward
imbalance
243
Table I.
Descriptive statistics and
correlations between ERI
components and other
study variables
JMP
23,3
244
and employer support (both p , 0:001). In terms of working practices, respondents
whose work and home lives were more integrated tended to report significantly higher
levels of work-life conflict (p , 0:001).
In order to examine the predictors of work-life conflict, a hierarchical multiple
regression equation was computed whereby the mean-centred independent variables
were entered in seven steps. At the first step, gender was entered to control for any
effects. Job-related efforts and rewards were entered in step two to examine their main
effects. The third step tested the extrinsic ERI hypothesis by entering a two-way
interaction between efforts and rewards. The fourth step tested the intrinsic
over-commitment hypothesis, by entering over-commitment in order to examine its
direct effects. In the fifth step, the three-way interaction term efforts £ rewards £
over-commitment was entered in order to test the intrinsic interaction hypothesis.
Employer support for work-life balance, perceived schedule flexibility and work-life
separation/integration were entered in the sixth and final step. Table II presents the
results of these analyses.
Gender, entered in Step 1 of the equation, failed to account for any significant
variance in work-life conflict. The main effects of efforts and rewards entered in Step 2
accounted for 42 per cent of the variance in work-life conflict. An examination of the
betas indicated that both job-related efforts and rewards were significant (p , 0:001)
but efforts made the strongest contribution. A significant two-way interaction between
efforts and rewards (Step 3) was observed that explained 2 per cent of variance in
work-life conflict, thus supporting the extrinsic ERI hypothesis. The intrinsic
over-commitment hypothesis was supported by the main effects of over-commitment
making a unique contribution to the variance of 17 per cent (Step 4). Some evidence
was also found to support the intrinsic interaction hypothesis of the ERI model with a
significant three-way interaction between efforts, rewards and over-commitment but at
0.4 per cent its contribution to the variance was minimal (Step 5). Employer support for
work-life balance, schedule flexibility and work-life integration (entered in the sixth
and final step) together accounted for just over 5 per cent of variance. An examination
of the betas indicated that schedule flexibility and work-life separation/integration
were significant predictors (both p , 0:001) and that the latter variable was made the
strongest contribution. The final model explained a total of 66 percent of the variance
in work-life conflict.
Discussion
This study aimed to extend knowledge of the ERI construct as a predictor of work-life
conflict – an issue of considerable relevance to contemporary organisations. Three
hypotheses relating to the model were tested suggested by Siegrist (1996) prior to
examining an extended model that encompassed organisational support for work-life
balance, schedule flexibility and work-life separation/integration. Findings indicate
that the components of the ERI model are powerful predictors of work-life conflict.
University employees whose reward expectancies are not fully met tended to report a
poorer work-life balance than those who worked under conditions of greater equity, on
average, reported more conflict between their work and home lives. As hypothesised
by the model, some evidence was found that the experience of effort-reward imbalance
at work is potentially more damaging to work-life balance in employees who exhibit a
particular pattern of coping with work demands characterised by excessive
Predictors
Gender
Step 1 R 2
Gender
Efforts
Rewards
Step 2 R 2 change
Gender
Efforts
Rewards
Efforts £ rewards
Step 3 R 2 change
Gender
Efforts
Rewards
Efforts £ rewards
Over-commitment
Step 4 R 2 change
Gender
Efforts
Rewards
Efforts £ rewards
Over-commitment
Efforts £ rewards £ over-commitment
Step 5 R 2 change
R 2 change
Betas
Effort-reward
imbalance
0.00
0.000
0.417 * * *
2 0.00
0.54 * * *
2 0.18 * * *
245
2 0.01
0.88 * * *
2 0.63 * * *
0.69 * * *
0.022 * * *
2 0.01
0.46 * * *
2 0.40 * * *
0.42 * * *
0.53 * * *
0.017 * * *
2 0.01
0.34 * * *
2 0.26 * *
0.19
0.64 * * *
0.46 * * *
0.004 * *
Gender
Efforts
Rewards
Efforts £ rewards
Over-commitment
Efforts £ rewards £ over-commitment
Employer support
Schedule flexibility
Work-home separation/integration
Step 6 R 2 change
2 0.00
0.34 * * *
2 0.25 * *
0.07
0.49 * * *
0.34 * *
2 0.03
2 0.09 * * *
0.22 * * *
0.048 * * *
Total R 2
0.66
Notes: n ¼ 1; 108; p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001
commitment to work. The study also found evidence that lack of perceived schedule
flexibility and higher levels of work-life integration are independent risk factors that
further compromise work-life balance.
Strong main effects of job-related efforts and rewards on work-life conflict were
observed. The significant two-way interaction between efforts and rewards also
supports the extrinsic ERI hypothesis in the context of the work-home interface. Two
hypotheses relating to the intrinsic effort component of the model in predicting
work-life conflict were also supported in this study. Previous research that has
Table II.
Hierarchical multiple
regression model
examining the
incremental variance of
the ERI components and
other study variables on
work-life conflict
JMP
23,3
246
examined the role played by intrinsic effort, or over-commitment, in employee
wellbeing has yielded inconsistent findings (Van Vegchel et al., 2005). Although it has
been suggested that over-commitment might not be a risk factor for all occupational
groups (Van Vegchel et al., 2001), the findings of this study suggest that it is a robust
predictor of work-life conflict in university employees that might also exacerbate the
negative effects of effort-reward imbalance. Evidence to support the intrinsic
over-commitment hypothesis and the intrinsic interaction hypotheses as predictors of
work-life conflict was therefore found. Although the variance accounted for by the
three-way interaction between efforts, rewards and over-commitment was minimal, it
has been suggested that even small contributions to the observed variance may be an
indication that there are substantial effects for those at the extremes of a population
(Frese, 1985, p. 314)
The cognitive, emotional and motivational pattern that constitutes over-commitment
(i.e. excessive striving combined with a strong motivation to seek esteem and approval)
signifies high engagement with the work role. The potential for over-commitment to
threaten work-life balance is therefore clear. In the present study, over-commitment
emerged as one of the strongest predictors of work-life conflict. Furthermore, university
employees who were more over-committed to their jobs perceived less separation
between their work and home lives, lower levels of schedule flexibility and less support
from their employers to facilitate work-life balance. Future research should investigate
the mechanisms by which over-commitment manifests itself in the home domain.
Employees who are more over-committed to their work may have less time and energy
available to engage fully in home life and leisure activities; they may also be more likely
to import strain engendered by work into the home environment. It is also possible that
employees who more over-committed perceive their job roles to be more salient than their
family roles. Nonetheless, the fact that they report significantly higher levels of work-life
conflict suggests that an over-committed employee might perceive this tendency as
threatening his or her wellbeing and family functioning.
This study found that work-life integration and lack of schedule flexibility were
independent risk factors for work-life conflict beyond that accounted for by the
components of the ERI model. In accordance with previous research findings (e.g.
Desrochers et al., 2005), respondents with firmer boundaries between their work and
home lives were more likely to have achieved a better work-life balance. Organisations
might help their employees to maintain an acceptable balance between work and home
by offering guidance on strategies to help them maintain greater separation between
the two domains. Schedule flexibility (or the level of control over where, when, and how
an employee works) was also found to be a key predictor of work-life conflict. This
implies that the ability to adapt working hours to meet personal and/or family needs
may help employees cope with the competing demands of the work and non-work
domains. Based on previous research (Allen, 2001), it was anticipated that an
organisational culture that supported work-life balance might protect employees from
work-life conflict. Nonetheless, although participants who perceived greater support
from their institutions tended to report significantly lower levels of conflict, support
did not emerge as a significant predictor in the regression analysis. The mean level of
satisfaction with organisational support for work-life balance was, however, extremely
low (i.e. 1.5 on a four-point scale), suggesting that support in the sector should be
enhanced.
Interventions to minimise work-life conflict based on the ERI model would involve
restoring the balance between efforts expended and rewards received – thus
improving employees’ sense of fairness and reciprocity. In the university sector, such
balance could be achieved by reducing extrinsic efforts and/or enhancing rewards such
as esteem, promotion prospects and job security. It is acknowledged that enhancing
rewards without simultaneously reducing efforts might not necessarily reduce
work-life conflict and might further threaten quality of life outside the working
environment – especially for employees who are more over-committed to the job role.
The findings of this study also suggest that attempts to modify over-commitment
might improve the work-life balance of employees beyond those afforded by structural
improvements. However, finding ways to accomplish this is likely to be a challenge for
occupational health researchers. Siegrist’s (2001, 2005) view that over-commitment is
an intrinsic characteristic of the individual implies that it might not be easily
modifiable. Nonetheless, the stability of over-commitment has not yet been established;
it is possible that this tendency might, to some extent, be encouraged by exposure to
specific working conditions or occupational cultures. Longitudinal research is needed
to investigate the extent to which over-commitment is a state or a trait, and to establish
ways by which it might be modified. Whether such interventions would be successful
under current working conditions in the UK university sector is open to question. A
high degree of commitment to the job role may be required if academics are to meet
personal and professional standards of performance in the face of high levels of
demand emanating from the different aspects of the job role.
There are some limitations inherent in this study. The cross-sectional nature of the
data precludes making firm conclusions about causality. Although considerably less
plausible, it is nonetheless possible that negative assessments of work-life balance are
the cause (rather than the result) of a perception of imbalance between efforts and
rewards and a tendency towards over-commitment. Future studies should adopt a
longitudinal design to more confidently establish the direction of causation between
the ERI components and work-life conflict. The risk of common method variance in
inflating relationships between some of the independent and dependent variables
utilised in this study is also acknowledged. Despite these limitations, this study has
undoubted strengths. The negative implications of effort-reward imbalance and
over-commitment for work-life balance have been confirmed, as has the value of
extending the model to encompass different working practices and perceptions of
support.
More research is necessary to further examine the implications of the ERI model for
the work-home interface. There is evidence that perceptions of working conditions and
work-life conflict are subject to daily variation (Jones and Fletcher, 1996; Butler et al.,
2005). Future research might utilise daily diaries to examine ways in which inequity
between job-related efforts and rewards and a tendency towards over-commitment
might lead to work-life conflict (differentiating between time-based and strain-based
conflict) and the working practices and organisational factors which might modify or
mitigate this threat.
Note
1. The mean age of the sample utilised in the present study was slightly higher than that of the
UK population working in the higher education sector at the time the study was conducted.
Effort-reward
imbalance
247
JMP
23,3
248
References
Abouserie, R. (1996), “Stress, coping strategies and job satisfaction in university academic staff”,
Educational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 49-56.
Allen, T.D. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational
perceptions”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 58, pp. 414-35.
Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. and Fugate, M. (2000), “All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro
role transitions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 472-91.
Association of University Teachers (2001), Implementation of the Fixed-term Work Directive:
Department of Trade and Industry Consultation – A Preliminary AUT Response, AUT
Publications, London.
Blix, A.G., Cruise, R.J., Mitchell, B.M. and Blix, G.G. (1994), “Occupational stress among
university teachers”, Educational Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 157-69.
Bobak, M. (2005), “The association between psychosocial characteristics at work and problem
drinking: a cross-sectional study of men in three Eastern European urban populations”,
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 546-50.
Butler, A.B., Grzywacz, J.G., Bass, B.L. and Linney, K.D. (2005), “Extending the
demands-control model: a daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict,
and work-family facilitation”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 78, pp. 155-69.
Cross, G. and Carroll, D. (1990), Goodwill Under Stress: Morale in UK Universities, Association of
University Teachers, London.
De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R. and Siegrist, J. (2000), “Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and
employee well-being: a large-scale cross sectional study”, Social Science and Medicine,
Vol. 50, pp. 1317-27.
Desrochers, S., Hilton, J. and Larwood, L. (2005), “Preliminary validation of the work-family
integration blurring scale”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26, pp. 442-66.
Doyle, C. and Hind, P. (1998), “Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics”,
Gender, Work and Organisation, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 67-82.
Ertel, M., Pech, E., Ullsperger, P., Von Dem Knesebeck, O. and Siegrist, J. (2005), “Adverse
psychosocial working conditions and subjective health in freelance media workers”, Work
and Stress, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 293-9.
Fahlen, G. (2006), “Effort-reward imbalance, sleep disturbances and fatigue”, International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 371-8.
Fisher, S. (1994), Stress in Academic Life: The Mental Assembly Line, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Franche, R., Williams, A., Ibrahim, S., Grace, S., Mustard, C., Minore, B. and Stewart, D. (2006),
“Path analysis of work conditions and work-family spillover as modifiable workplace
factors associated with depressive symptomatology”, Stress and Health, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 91-103.
Frese, M. (1985), “Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: a causal interpretation”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 314-28.
Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A.H. and Stough, C. (2001), “Occupational stress in
universities: staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress”, Work
and Stress, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 76-80.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Parasuraman, S. (1999), “Research on work, family and gender: current
status and future directions”, in Powell, G.N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work, Sage
Publications, London.
Effort-reward
imbalance
Haas, L. (1999), “Families and work”, in Sussman, M., Steinmetz, S.K. and Peterson, G.W. (Eds),
Handbook of Marriage and the Family, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Hanebuth, D., Meinel, M. and Fischer, J. (2006), “Health-related quality of life, psychosocial work
conditions and absenteeism in an industrial sample of blue- and white-collar employees: a
comparison of potential predictors”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 28-37.
Hasselhorn, H.M., Tackenberg, P. and Peter, R. and the NEXT Study Group (2004),
“Effort-reward imbalance among nurses in stable countries and in countries in
transition”, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 10,
pp. 401-8.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2004), Resources of Higher Education Institutions, Higher
Education Statistics Agency, London.
Hogan, J.M., Carlson, J.G. and Dua, J. (2002), “Stress and stress reactions among university
personnel”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 289-310.
Jones, F. and Fletcher, B.C. (1996), “Taking work home: a study of daily fluctuations in work
stressors, effects on mood and impacts on martial partners”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 89-106.
Kinman, G. (2001), “Pressure points: a review of stressors and strains in UK academics”,
Educational Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-92.
Kinman, G. and Jones, F. (2001), “The work-home interface”, in Jones, F. and Bright, J. (Eds),
Stress: Myth, Theory and Research, Prentice-Hall, London.
Kinman, G. and Jones, F. (2003), “Running up the down escalator: stressors and strains in UK
academics”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 22-37.
Kinman, G., Jones, F. and Kinman, R. (2006), “The wellbeing of the UK academy: 1998 to 2004”,
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Kossek, E. and Lambert, R. (2004), Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural and
Psychological Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Kossek, E. and Ozeki, C. (1999), “Bridging the work-family and productivity gap: a literature
review”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Kuper, H., Singh-Manoux, A., Siegrist, J. and Marmot, M. (2002), “When reciprocity fails:
effort-reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning
within the Whitehall II study”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 59,
pp. 777-84.
Lewis, S. and Cooper, C. (2005), Work-Life Integration: Case Studies of Organizational Change,
Wiley, Chichester.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81, pp. 400-10.
Niedhammer, I. (2006), “Psychosocial work environment and mental health: job-strain and
effort-reward imbalance models in a context of major organisational changes”,
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 111-9.
249
JMP
23,3
250
Olson-Buchanan, J. and Boswell, W. (2006), “Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration and
segmentation between work and nonwork”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68,
pp. 432-45.
Siegrist, J. (1996), “Adverse health effects of high effort-low reward conditions at work”, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 27-43.
Siegrist, J. (2001), “A theory of occupational stress”, in Dunham, J. (Ed.), Stress in the Workplace:
Past, Present and Future, Whurr Publishers, London.
Siegrist, J. (2005), “Social reciprocity and health: new scientific evidence and policy implications”,
Psychoneuroendocrinology, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1033-8.
Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I. and Peter, R. (2004),
“The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons”, Social
Science & Medicine, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1483-99.
Stansfeld, S., Fuhrer, R., Shipley, J.J. and Marmot, M. (1999), “Work characteristics predict
psychiatric disorders: prospective results from the Whitehall II study”, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 302-7.
Sullivan, C. and Lewis, S. (2006), “Relationships between work and home life”, in Jones, F.,
Burke, R. and Westman, M. (Eds), Managing the Work-Home Interface: A Psychological
Perspective, Taylor & Francis, London.
Theorell, T. (2006), “New directions for psychosocial work environment research”, Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 113-5.
Thorsen, E.J. (1996), “Stress in academe: what bothers professors?”, Higher Education, pp. 471-89.
Tytherleigh, M., Webb, C., Cooper, C. and Ricketts, C. (2005), “Occupational stress in UK higher
education institutions: a comparative study of all staff categories”, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 41-61.
Van Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., Bosma, H. and Schaufeli, W. (2005), “Reviewing the effort-reward
imbalance model: drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies”, Social Science and
Medicine, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1117-32.
Van Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., Meijer, T. and Hamers, J. (2001), “Different effort constructs and
effort-reward imbalance: effects on employee well-being”, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 128-37.
Winefield, A.H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J. and Boyd, C. (2003),
“Occupational stress in Australian university staff”, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 10, pp. 51-63.
Winter, R.P. and Sarros, J.C. (2002), “The academic work environment in Australian universities:
a motivating place to work?”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 242-58.
Wortman, C., Biernat, M. and Lang, E. (1991), “Coping with role overload”, in Frankenhaeuser,
M., Lundberg, U. and Chesney, M. (Eds), Women, Work and Health: Stress and
Opportunities, Plenum Press, London.
Further reading
Daniels, K. and Guppy, A. (1994), “An exploratory study of stress in a British university”, Higher
Education Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 135-44.
Goldberg, D. and Williams, P. (1988), A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire,
NFER-Nelson, Windsor.
About the authors
Gail Kinman is Reader in Occupational Health Psychology in the Department of Psychology at
the University of Bedfordshire, UK. She is a Chartered Psychologist who conducts research into
aspects of job stress, work-life balance and the nature and impact of emotional demands in the
workplace. She works mainly with public sector organisations including universities, nurses,
teachers and police. Gail Kinman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
gail.kinman@beds.ac.uk
Fiona Jones is a Senior Lecturer in Health and Occupational Psychology at the Institute of
Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, UK. She is a Chartered Health Psychologist and
conducts research on the topic of work stress, work life balance and on aspects of health
behaviour, including the impact of work stress on health behaviours.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Effort-reward
imbalance
251