Refereed Paper Presentation
Word Count: 5346
Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:
An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.
Dr Mark Wickham
&
Miss Melissa Parker
University of Tasmania
School of Management
Locked Bag 16
Hobart Campus
Tasmania
AUSTRALIA, 7001
Mark.Wickham@utas.edu.au
(Work): 03 6226 2159
(Fax): 03 6226 2808
1
Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:
An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.
ABSTRACT.
The effective management of employees’ work-life balance requires organisations to
recognise and account for the array of non-work roles that impact their working-lives (Estes,
2004; Higgins & Duxbury, 2005; Howard, D’Onofrio & Boles, 2004). Despite the literary
attention given to the ‘work-life balance’ in recent years, however, contemporary authors still
note the concept’s inadequacy both in terms of its definition and administration (Hyman &
Summers, 2004; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). In order to explore the definitional boundaries of
contemporary ‘work-life balance’, this paper adopts an Organisational Role Theory (ORT)
perspective. In particular, this paper will undertake an examination of ORT’s role-taking,
role-consensus, and role-conflict assumptions, and present some strategies for preventing or
remedying work-life imbalance issues in the workplace.
The findings of this research indicate that the work-life balance’ literature needs to
incorporate a distinction between ‘work-family’ and ‘work-life’ roles, and the manner in
which each impacts on an individual’s working-life. It also suggests that in order to manage
these discrete impacts effectively, managers need to incorporate the concepts of ‘the multifaceted employee’, ‘employer facilitation’ and ‘compartmentalisation’ into their strategic
management of the ‘work-life balance’.
Key Words: Work-life balance, Organisational Role Theory, Strategic HRM.
2
Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:
An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.
INTRODUCTION.
The effective management of employees’ work-life balance (WLB) requires organisations to
recognise and account for the array of non-work roles that impact on their working-lives
(Estes, 2004; Higgins & Duxbury, 2005; Howard, D’Onofrio & Boles, 2004). Despite the
literary attention given to the WLB in recent years, however, contemporary authors still note
the concept’s inadequacy both in terms of its definition and administration (Hyman &
Summers, 2004; Lewis, Rapoport & Gambles, 2003; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). In order to
explore the definitional boundaries of contemporary WLB, this paper adopts an
Organisational Role Theory (ORT) perspective. In particular, this paper will explore ORT’s
role-taking, role-consensus and role-conflict assumptions, and present strategies for
preventing or remedying work-life imbalance issues in the workplace.
LITERATURE REVIEW.
The Work-Life Balance Concept.
The importance of managing an employee’s WLB has increased markedly over the past 20
years (De Bruin & Dupuis, 2004). Changes in the definition of ‘normal working hours’, the
demographic make-up of the labour force (i.e. gender, ethnicity, dual career couples, and
religion), and the very nature of the employment contract have necessitated an increased
organisational concern for their employees’ well being (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In order
to achieve a WLB, leading western organisations have tended to adopt policies such as on-site
child-care facilities, on-site gymnasiums, telecommuting opportunities, and even on-site
sleeping quarters for the employee and their family (Hacker & Doolen, 2003; Hyman &
Summers, 2004). Each has attempted to increase the flexibility by which employees can
effectively enact their work-roles whilst simultaneously enabling them to enact their family-
3
based roles to the extent necessary. Ideally, the WLB concept requires organisations to
effectively integrate employees’ work and non-work roles such that levels of multiple-role
conflict, and the associated stress and job-dissatisfaction, are minimised or avoided (De Bruin
& Dupuis, 2004; Greenblatt, 2002).
Why is the WLB Concept Still an Issue?
Despite the best intentions of organisations to implement WLB policies, there remains
considerable contention about their effectiveness in delivering flexibility and reducing stress
and job-dissatisfaction in the workplace (Eates, 2004; Kirrane & Buckley, 2004).
Researchers have identified two empirical shortcomings within the WLB literature that have
served to undermine its theoretical usefulness. The first relates to the WLB literature’s almost
exclusive focus on the work-family interface. Buzzanell et al, (2005) notes that the WLB
literature typically portrays role conflicts for white, married, professional and managerial
women, with little reference to the many other demographics represented in the modern
organisation. Shorthose (2004) and Wise and Bond (2003) go so far as to state that the WLB
discipline is essentially flawed, as it is ‘one-dimensional’, assumes a unitary perspective, and
that its underlying management has been one of maintaining status-quo rather than supporting
the development.
The second relates to the literature’s inability to clearly define the array of non-work roles that
impact employees’ working-life. Elloy and Smith (2004) and Spinks (2004), for example,
state that because an individual’s non-work roles are inherently ambiguous and idiosyncratic,
organisations are incapable of understanding how their enactment (or otherwise) impacts each
individual. Spinks (2004), in particular, suggests that organisations are either incapable (or
unwilling) to understand their workforce in sufficient detail, and have instead defaulted to a
‘one-size-fits-all’ policy regime that has simply enabled employees to ‘stay at work longer’
4
rather than enable them to enact their non-work roles. The inadequacy of current WLB policy
regimes is highlighted by Kiger’s (2005) study that revealed that less than two percent of
employees actually participate in available WLB programs. Dex and Smith (2002) cite two
main causes for this low figure. The first relates to equity, with many employees reporting
that they did not wish to appear a ‘special case’ or to require ‘special treatment’ to their
colleagues. The second is that the wide range of policies adopted by organisations have been
based on an ill-informed conceptualisation of contemporary WLB, and that this has led to its
ineffective formalisation in human resource management practices.
The contribution of the WLB literature, therefore, appears limited in its ability to provide a
useful framework for both academics and practitioners alike (Hyman & Summers, 2004).
Despite its name, the WLB literature remains largely focused on the work-family interface
and fails to accurately identify and define the array of non-family roles that impact on an
individual’s working-life (Hacker & Doolen, 2003; Mellor, Mathieu, Barnes-Farrell &
Rogelberg, 2001; Noor, 2004; Pocock, 2005). In order to overcome these issues, Elloy and
Smith (2003: 63) suggest that an effective conceptualisation of the WLB requires:
…an holistic approach to human resource management, which implies a greater
awareness of the total context of worker’s daily lives, not just those hours they spend at
work.
Research Opportunity: Applying an ORT Lens to the WLB Issue.
In response to Elloy and Smith’s (2003) call, we adopt Noor’s (2004) recommendation to
apply an ORT lens to the WLB issues above. The origins of ORT can be traced back to the
work of Katz and Kahn (1966) in their seminal work The Social Psychology of Organizations,
which provided a conceptualisation of employee’s role-adoption and role-behaviours.
Specifically, ORT focuses on the roles that individuals enact in social systems that are preplanned, task-oriented, and hierarchical, and therefore form a vital function in the
achievement of organisational goals (Biddle, 1986). According to ORT, the assigned work-
5
roles must be conferred and/or adopted by each individual employee in order for an
organisation to function effectively as a social entity. As a social entity, an organisation
comprises a nexus of distinct functional groups of employees that have specific work-roles to
enact. Under ORT, these distinct functional areas form a ‘role-set’ for the employee, and
determine the specific role-behaviour that the employee is expected to enact in their given
context (Katz & Kahn, 1966). As such, the enacted set of role-behaviours essentially mirrors
the expectation of other relevant employees, and implies two important points. The first is that
each individual employee both confers and accepts a ‘role’ that is reflective of the
organisation’s culture and norms of behaviour. The second is that for an organisation to
function effectively and efficiently, the array of ‘roles’ must be effectively communicated,
understood, and agreed by all of its employees (Katz & Kahn, 1966).
In order to control for manifest disagreement (i.e. any variation between role-expectation and
actual role-enactment), ORT provides a review framework known as ‘role-episodes’. A roleepisode refers to any interaction between employees whereby role-expectations and rolebehaviours are manifest in measurable consequences. Where deviance from expected roleenactment is detected (e.g. excessive absenteeism, failure to perform, etc.) management
functions such as ‘performance reviews’ or ‘retraining’ allow the organisation to re-confer or
clarify role-expectations upon the deviant employee (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The role-episode
review process is necessarily dynamic; therefore role-sending and role-receiving continue
until the perception of role-enactment conforms to the role-expectations. The role-episode
review function is underpinned by the following assumptions:
 that an employee will ‘take’ or accept a role that is conferred upon them by members
of the organisation (the role-taking assumption); and
 there will be consensus regarding the expectations of all roles (the role-consensus
assumption); and
 the belief that role-conflict will arise if expectations are not consensual (the roleconflict assumption) (Biddle, 1986).
6
De Bruin and Dupuis (2004) suggest that by applying ORT’s assumptions to the WLB issue, a
greater understanding about WLB role-taking, role-consensus, and role-conflict can be
achieved.
METHOD.
This research comprised a two-stage process. The first stage included the use of a
questionnaire-survey that was completed by n=102 full-time employees from the Hobart
business community (NB: a 26 percent response rate). The sample included 72 women and 30
men, with a mean age of 36 and range of 22 to 55 years. The questionnaire-survey included
open-ended questions that allowed respondents to provide detailed qualitative feedback
regarding the array of non-work roles that they felt impacted on their working-life. The
recurrent issues arising from the questionnaire-surveys were explored in greater depth during
the second stage of the research, which comprised n=20 semi-structured interviews. The
semi-structured interviews included a standard set of questions asked of each interviewee, but
were designed to allow the researcher latitude to explore unanticipated issues as they arose.
The semi-structured interviews lasted between 15 and 30 minutes each, and were recorded
onto audiotape. The interviewer also took written notes during the interview for the purpose
of contextualising transcribed data during the subsequent coding process.
The interpretation of the data, the construction of ‘category nodes’, and the verification of the
conclusions, were facilitated by the use of the NUD*IST software package. The categories
initially generated from the literature review formed an index system that appears as the
Nodes represented in Figure 1.
7
Figure 1: NUD*IST Index Tree: Nodes Emanating from the Literature Review
(1) Organisational Role Theory
(1 1) The role-taking assumption
(1 2) The role-consensus assumption
(1 2 1) Work-life balance
(1 3) The role-conflict assumption
The primary questionnaire-surveys and semi-structured interview transcripts were then
scrutinised for significant terms, events, and issues located therein according to units of
observation, and coded according to the nodes in the index system. Where it was appropriate,
data were allocated to more than one node for analysis. Again using the NUD*IST software,
the contents of each if the initial index nodes were reviewed to identify common themes that
arose in the primary data. Subsequently, additional nodes were established to categorise the
results of the primary data analysis (see Figure 2 for the complete list of nodes to emerge
from the data analysis).
Figure 2: NUD*IST Index Tree: Nodes Emanating from the Primary Data Analysis
(1) Organisational Role Theory
(1 1) The role- taking assumption
(1 1 1) Acceptance of role
(1 1 2) Non-acceptance of role
(1 2) The role-consensus assumption
(1 2 1) Work-life balance
(1 2 1 1) Sporting-based
(1 2 1 2) Charity-based
(1 2 1 3) Education-based
(1 2 1 4) Socially-based
(1 2 2) Work-family balance
(1 2 2 1) Family-based roles
(1 3) The role-conflict assumption
(1 4) Multi-faceted employees
(1 4 1) Emotional investment
(1 4 1 1) Self-validation
(1 4 1 2) Self-definition
(1 4 1 3) Relationship management
(1 5) Employer facilitation of non-work roles
(1 5 1) Employer recognition
(1 5 2) Open communication
(1 5 3) Employer assistance
(1 6) Compartmentalisation
8
In order to facilitate the theory building process later in the research process, memos were
maintained about the data, their categories, and the relationships between them as they
emerged. Designed to store and organise ideas about the data, they were integrated into the
analytic process. Wilson (1985: 420) suggests that memos assist in the development of
theory in five important ways:





They require that you move your thinking about the idea to a conceptual level.
They summarise the properties of each category so that you can begin to
construct operational definitions.
They summarise propositions about relationships between categories and their
propositions.
They begin to integrate categories with clusters of other categories.
They relate your analysis to other theories.
NUD*IST has a facility for the creation and retention of such memos for later consideration
and analysis. Utilising the memo capability within the NUD*IST package, memo reports
were generated by the software during the analysis of the primary data. From these reports,
the interaction between the parties’ became clearer, the context of the various phenomena
surfaced, causes and effects were revealed. The themes emanating from the primary data
analysis form the basis of the discussion section that follows.
DISCUSSION.
In total, the sample returned a list of 35 non-work roles that they felt impacted on their
working-life. Consistent with the WLB literature the most commonly reported non-work roles
to impact on the working-life was that of being a spouse. Other Family-based non-work roles
that were reported included ‘parent’, ‘being a child’, ‘sibling’, and being ‘extended family’.
Respondents also reported an array of twenty-two non-family roles not represented in the
WLB literature. Table 1 presents the complete list of non-work roles reported by respondents.
9
Table 1: Reported Non-Work Roles of the Respondent Group
1. Spouse
19. Taxi Driver (kids)
2. Parent
20. Sports Official
3. Recreational Sportsperson
21. Grandchild
4. Student
22. Artist
5. Child
23. Traveller
6. Volunteer
24. Consultant
7. Sibling
25. Neighbour
8. Friend
26. Political Advocate
9. Committee Member
27. Justice of the Peace
10. Pet Owner
28. Church Council Member
11. Grandparent
29. Flatmate
12. Aunt/Uncle
30. Musician
13. Self
31. Child-in-Law
14. Carer
32. Financial Controller
15. Mentor
33. Home Maker
16. Godparent
34. Relative
17. Home Renovator
35. Army Reserve Soldier
18. Counsellor
The first-round coding of the data identified five categories of non-work roles that
respondents reported impacted on their working-life: Family-based, Sporting-based, Charitybased, Education-based, and Socially-based roles. It was also found that these non-work roles
impacted working-life in three common ways: ‘time’, ‘skill development’ and ‘stress’, but
with differing effect. In terms of its impact on working-life, Family-based roles required
greater flexibility in terms of the organisation’s workplace practices. This finding was
consistent with the WLB literature in that organisations were aware of their employees’
Family-based roles and accommodated them through workplace policies. However, this
research indicates that respondents felt that this awareness and the subsequent policies served
largely to increase their time at work rather than enabling them to enact the Family-based
roles as they would wish. In addition, respondents noted that the skills that develop in their
Family-based roles such as time management, conflict resolution, and negotiation could be
more greatly appreciated by their organisations. Where respondents reported that
organisational policies impacted their ability to enact Family-based roles or that their Family-
10
based skills were not recognised in the workplace increased levels of stress and dissatisfaction
was reported.
In terms of their Sporting-based roles, respondents reported three impacts on their workinglife. The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of workplace policies to
allow employees to regularly participate in their sporting activities. The second related to the
skills developed by respondents their sporting-based roles (such as leadership and
communication) and their perception that they were not necessarily recognised by their
organisations. The third impact related to the working-life time lost due to injury and travel
requirements. Where respondents indicated that their organisation recognised these three
impacts and facilitated the enactment of Sporting-based roles, greater satisfaction and lower
levels of stress were reported. Conversely, where respondents indicated that their organisation
restricted their ability to enact their Sporting-based roles and ignored the skills developed in
these roles, higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction were reported.
In terms of their Charity-based roles, respondents reported two impacts on their working-life.
The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of organisational workplace
policies to allow employees to participate in Charity-based roles. The second impact related to
the use of specialist skills (e.g. First Aid, Fire Safety etc.) that respondents developed in their
Charity-based roles and the fact that these would be of great value in their workplace. Where
respondents indicated that their organisation restricted their ability to enact their Charitybased roles in favour of enacting their workplace roles, higher levels of dissatisfaction were
reported. Conversely, respondents also indicated that where their organisation failed to
recognise the specialist skills developed in their Charity-based roles, increased levels of
dissatisfaction were reported.
11
In terms of their Education-based roles, respondents reported three impacts on their workinglife. The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of organisational
workplace policies that facilitated employee’s studies, for example, study leave, clear career
progression opportunities, etc. The second impact related to the increased level of work to
complete because of the additional demands of their education program. The third impact
related to the use of the technical skills (such as accounting, finance, law, etc.) developed in
their Education-based roles. Where respondents indicated that their organisation recognised
their Education-based roles and facilitated these roles higher levels of satisfaction and career
advancement opportunities were reported. Conversely, where respondents indicated that their
Education-based roles were not recognised, and in fact had to work unpaid overtime to
perform their required work-roles, greater levels of dissatisfaction were reported.
In terms of their Socially-based roles, respondents reported one impact on their working-life.
This impact related to the increased levels of stress and dissatisfaction in their working-life, as
they were unable to access their social support networks due to the time spent enacting their
work-roles. This was most markedly noted in instances where respondents were expected to
work unpaid overtime in order to enact their work-roles to the standard required by the
respondent’s direct supervisors.
An analysis of the specific impact each non-work role had on respondents’ working-life
resulted in the detection of three major themes, each of which having important implications
for both ORT and the effective management of the WLB. The three themes identified from
the data included the ‘multi-faceted employee’, ‘employer facilitation’, and
‘compartmentalisation’. The first key theme identified was that of the ‘multi-faceted
employee’. The research findings indicated that the respondent group enacted an array of
non-work roles that included both Family-based and non-Family roles, and that each served to
12
fulfil specific needs within the individual. The reported ‘fulfilment’ was identified to have
three components: self-validation, self-definition, and relationship management. Selfvalidation refers to the extent to which the respondents felt that the enacted roles reinforced
their sense of self-worth. Self-definition refers to how the respondents felt the enacted roles
reflected them as an individual. Relationship management refers to the extent that respondents
felt that they were able to interact with their self-defined support networks. The following
respondents exemplified these components:
They are an integral part of ‘me’. I get self-validation from fulfilling these roles for others,
in particular the volunteer role.
They define my society and the social networks that I interact in.
I feel that my activities and achievements help define who I am. I do not wish to be
defined purely by my paid work.
‘Spouse’ and ‘parent’ are the roles that I have taken which involve commitment, trust and
ongoing effort and involvement. They are also the two main sources of satisfaction,
enjoyment, and sense of worth that I have.
Respondents reported that when the enactment of work-roles came at the expense of the
fulfilment experienced in their non-work roles, the likelihood of dissatisfaction and turnover
in the workplace increased:
When I was working at a much higher senior management level in a previous position for
14 years it was very difficult. I would need to take work home constantly and this
impacted on my parenting role significantly. I changed positions for this reason.
Ideally, I would like to work part-time to be able to do all the things I want to do, such as
spend time with my family and do volunteer work, but unfortunately, I have to work to
live.
The second key theme identified related to ‘employer facilitation’. Employer facilitation
refers to the extent an employee perceives that their firm recongises the existence and
importance of their non-work roles, and the extent to which they believe their firm affords
them opportunities to enact them. This theme had three components: ‘recognition of
employee’s non-work roles’, ‘open communication’, and ‘employer assistance’. The
recognition of employee’s non-work roles referred to the extent that employers recognised the
13
array of non-work roles that employees enacted. Open communication referred to the extent
that employees and employers communicated in terms of these roles and how it may
potentially impact the employee’s working-life. Employer assistance referred to the extent
that employers assisted employees in facilitating the enactment of non-work roles. These
components were exemplified by the following respondents:
They are aware of some impacts, but not all.
It doesn’t occur to people that when you have a young family you have other roles as
well.
I mainly discussed a non-work role that eventuated through work that boosted my role in
the interview. I am a mentor to a student … They were very supportive and impressed that
I had taken this on, as well as try and study. They have even offered me a vehicle on
occasions for getting to the college during the day for workshops.
Moving into that new role, I felt I needed to be honest about my priorities and they
respected that and said they would work with me to balance it. They said they wanted to
retain me in that workplace and were prepared to introduce flexible working arrangements
to do that.
I was pretty annoyed with them. I mentioned that my long work hours were interfering
with my home life and so they bought me a laptop to work at home instead of in the
office.
Respondents reported that where the organisation failed to recognise and/or engage in
communication regarding non-work roles, and/or did not facilitate their enactment,
respondents indicated increased dissatisfaction and intention to leave. The dissatisfaction and
intention to leave was exemplified by the following:
They weren’t [flexible] up until 12 months ago, but we got a new general manager who is
much more family and flexible friendly, which has had a huge impact on me. I was
previously looking to change to a company with more flexibility, but now I am happy to
remain where I am.
I have thought about leaving, but they are paying for my university fees, which is an
incentive to stay.
The third key theme related to ‘compartmentalisation’. In this research, compartmentalisation
refers to the attempts by employees to minimise the impact between their working-life and the
enactment of their non-work roles. Specifically, respondents reporting compartmentalisation
efforts indicated that they were doing so in order to reduce role-conflict in their working-life,
14
and not to hide the fact they enacted multiple-roles. This theme was exemplified by the
following comments:
I try to have a clear separation between work and home life.
Cram in as much activity before and after work. I make a mental choice to do all this
activity and I also make a mental choice to try not to make it have an impact.
I have to actively resist the temptation (internal) and pressure to work more or do further
study in order to manage my work-life balance.
I ‘attempt’ to finish work, go home and leave work at work.
I keep the two separate as much as I can.
Compartmentalisation tactics included both cognitive and behavioural components.
Cognitively, respondents reported their compartmentalisation efforts as the selective nondisclosure of non-work roles to their colleagues. Behaviourally, respondents reported their
compartmentalisation efforts as including refusal to work overtime, refusal to ‘take work
home’, refusal to allow family members to visit them at work, and refusal to socialise with
their work colleagues. Respondents reported that where their attempts to compartmentalise
were unsuccessful, and that this led to role-conflict, they indicated experiencing a greater
level of stress and dissatisfaction. This perception was exemplified by the following
respondent:
In my private life I’m always going through what I’m trying to do at work and when I’m
at work I’m wondering about other things such as is my son okay at school today, he had
the sniffles this morning, he’s not getting sick is he; and I can’t concentrate totally on
work. I sometimes lose my train of thought during work processes.
ORT and the WLB: Reconceptualising the Role-taking and Role-consensus Assumptions.
Given the need to explore the tenets of the WLB, the key themes of the ‘multi-faceted
employee’ and ‘employer facilitation’ can be used to inform a reconceptualisation of the roletaking and role-consensus assumptions. Firstly, the ‘multi-faceted employee’ theme
necessitates that the WLB literature incorporate a more comprehensive array of non-work
roles that impact on employees’ working-life, and not just those associated with family duties.
15
The research indicates that three components of the ‘multi-faceted employee’ (i.e. selfvalidation, self-definition, and relationship management considerations) influence employee
decisions and ability to enact work-roles, and therefore must be considered within any
framework of effective human resource management. The recognition that organisations
employ ‘multi-faceted employees’ requires managers to expand their understanding of the
manner in which employees’ construct their role-sets. It also requires managers to recognise
the manner in which family and non-family-based roles influence employees’ ability and
motivation to enact their work-roles to the standard required. Where managers were unable to
do this, respondents in this study indicated higher levels of stress, dissatisfaction, and intent to
leave the workplace.
Secondly, the ‘employer facilitation’ theme necessitates that the WLB literature incorporate
the three distinct role-groups (i.e. Work-role, Work-family, and Work-life) along with ‘open
communication’ into its tenets. It is important to note that both the Work-family and Worklife role-groups had varying influences on respondents ability and motivation to enact their
Work-roles, and that managers need to be aware of the ‘whole person’ in their efforts to
manage their workforce holistically. As individual employees will construct role-sets
according to their specific circumstances, managers must be equipped to detect individual
differences for the effective construction of role-consensus in the workplace. Whilst this may
appear a challenge to managers in larger organisations, respondents indicated that they only
expected their organisations be aware of a small number of non-work roles they felt as
important to their well being. Where respondents felt as though they were treated as ‘onedimensional’, they reported higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction in their working-life. A
second implication for managers is that they need to remain aware of how the influences of an
employee’s array of non-work roles change over time. Respondents indicated that their roles
tend to change over their lifetime, and that accommodations made to them by their
16
organisation needed to similarly change to remain relevant to their wellbeing in their working
lives.
The Management of the WLB and Role-Conflict.
The issue surrounding the management of role-conflict was based on the WLB literature’s
inadequate account of the manner in which employees enact their multiple-roles. Given this
issue, the key themes of the ‘compartmentalisation’ and ‘employer facilitation’ inform a
reconceptualisation of this issue. Firstly, the ‘compartmentalisation’ theme necessitates that
the WLB literature incorporate the tendency for employees to physically separate the
enactment of their non-work roles (i.e. Work-Family and Work-Life roles) from their Workroles. This research found that where possible, conflicting work and non-work roles were
physically separated from each other, so that the boundaries between their working and nonworking lives did not overlap. Where respondents were able to successfully compartmentalise
their conflicting work and non-work roles, role-conflicts were minimised, as were reports of
dissatisfaction and stress. Conversely, where respondents were unable to compartmentalise
their conflicting work and non-work roles, dissatisfaction, stress, and intention to leave the
workplace were reported.
Given the recognition that employees will attempt to minimise role-conflict in their working
and non-working-life, the second key theme of ‘employer facilitation’ also informs the
reconceptualisation of effective WLB management. Specifically, where the managers assisted
respondents to effectively compartmentalise conflicting roles (e.g. ‘family-days’ off work, not
providing laptop computers so that employees were unable to work from home, etc.)
satisfaction and lower stress levels were reported. As such, the WLB literature needs to
incorporate the notion that both managers and employees are able to minimise the occurrence
and impact of role-conflict in the workplace.
17
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
The non-work roles found to impact on the working-life of respondents in this research were
categorised into five distinct groups, each of which had varying impacts on their working-life.
Although the research findings supported the relevance of the WLB literature to ORT, there
was evidence that at least four other categories of non-work roles needed to be considered for
the effective management of human resources. This research recommends that a distinction be
made between three groups of roles (i.e. Work-roles, Work-Family roles, and Work-Life
roles) that directly affect employee working-life. In terms of Work-roles, academics and
practitioners must remain aware of the work-roles currently recognised by the WLB literature,
and how these roles tend to impact on the fulfilment of non-work roles. In terms of better
defining the WLB boundaries within a firm, this research recommends that an ‘impact audit’
system be adopted to more specifically indicate how the array of work-roles tend to impact on
the employees’ overall WLB. With such knowledge, both the firm and the employee will
have a better understanding of the manner in which a change in work-role is likely to impact
their non-work roles, and therefore, their perception of the WLB.
In terms of Work-family roles, academics and practitioners need to recognise the specific
impacts of the work-family interface, and that the importance of varying aspects of this
interface necessarily change over a lifetime (i.e. as a person changes from single to married,
from childless to a family, etc). With this understanding, firms may be better able to match
employees with particular work-roles, and change them as it becomes necessary for both
parties. It is also important that employers become aware of the limitations of ‘familyfriendly’ practices that serve only to enable workers to spend more time at work. In terms of
Work-life roles, academics and practitioners need to recognise the significance of both nonwork and non-family roles that are none-the-less important to employees in terms of stress
relief, skill development, and the development of social support networks.
18
REFERENCES.
Biddle, B.J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12: 6792.
Buzzanell, P.M. Meisenbach, R. Remke, R. Liu, M. Bowers, V. & Conn, C. 2005. The good
working mother: Managerial women’s sense making and feelings about work-family issues.
Communication Studies. 56(3): 261-285.
De Bruin, A. & Dupuis, A. 2004. Work-life balance? Insight from non-standard work. New
Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 29(1): 21-37.
Dex, S. & Smith, C. 2002. The nature and pattern of family-friendly employment policies in
Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Elloy, D.F. & Smith, C.R. 2003. Patterns of stress, work-family conflict, role conflict, role
ambiguity and overload among dual career couples: An Australian study. Cross Cultural
Management, 10(1): 55-66.
Estes, S.B. 2004. How are family-responsive workplace arrangements family-friendly?
Employer accommodations, parenting, and children’s socio-emotional well-being. The
Sociological Quarterly. 45(4): 637-661.
Greenblatt, E. 2002. Work-life balance: Wisdom or whining? Organizational Dynamics.
31(2): 177-193.
Greenhaus, J.H. & Powell, G.N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of workfamily enrichment. The Academy of Management Review. 31(1): 72-92.
Hacker, S.K. & Doolen, T.L. 2003. Strategies for living: Moving from the balance paradigm.
Career Development International, 8(6): 283-290.
Higgins, C. & Duxbury, L. 2005. Saying “no” in a culture of hours, money and non-support.
Ivey Business Journal Online. July/August: 1-5.
Howard, W.G. D’Onofrio, H.H. & Boles, J.S. 2004. Inter-domain work-family conflict and
police work satisfaction. Policing. 27(3): 380-395.
Hyman, J. & Summers, J. 2004. Lacking balance? Work-life employment practices in the
modern economy. Personnel Review. 33(4): 418-429.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kiger, P.J. 2005. A case for childcare. Business Perspectives. 17(2): 24-29.
Kirrane, M. & Buckley, F. 2004. The influence of support relationships on work-family
conflict: Differentiating emotional from instrumental support. Equal Opportunities
International. 23 (1/2): 78-96.
19
Lewis, S. Rapoport, R. & Gambles, R. 2003. Reflections on the integration of paid work and
the rest of life. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 18(8): 824-841.
Mellor, S. Mathieu, J.E. Barnes-Farrell, J.L. & Rogelberg, S.G. 2001. Employees’ non-work
obligations and organisational commitments: A new way to look at the relationships. Human
Resource Management, 40(2): 171-184.
Noor, N. 2004. Work-Family Conflict, Work- and Family-Role Salience, and Women's WellBeing. The Journal of Social Psychology. 144(4): 389-405.
Pocock, B. 2005. Work-life ‘balance’ in Australia: Limited progress, dim prospects. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(2): 198-209.
Shorthose, J. 2004. Like summer and good sex?: The limitation of the work-life balance
campaign. Capital & Class. 82: 1-8.
Smithson, J. & Stokoe, E.H. 2005. Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating ‘gender
blind’ terms in organisations. Gender, Work and Organisation, 12(2): 147-168.
Spinks, N. 2004. Work-life balance: Achievable goal or pipe-dream? The Journal for Quality
and Participation. 27(3): 4-11.
Wilson, H.S. 1985. Research in nursing. USA. Addison-Wesley.
Wise, S. & Bond, S. 2003. Work-life policy: Does it do exactly what it says on the tin?
Women in Management Review. 18(1/2): 20-31.
20