120 likes | 137 Views
This study explores the reciprocal relationship between perceived workload and work-home interference over a one-year period. Findings suggest a dynamic process, with no substantial effects of job and family changes on workload and interference. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
E N D
Work-Home InterferenceDoes work load cause work-home interference or is it the other way around? Josje Dikkers Amsterdam Center for Career Research Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands
Work-Home Interference • The composition of the workforce has changed; more women have joined the workforce, and the number of dual earner families is rising. • Some 40% of the Dutch workforce experiences conflicts between work and home (Geurts, Kompier, Roxburgh, & Houtman, 2003); in the USA 30% of employees and 40% of working parents report work-home conflicts (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998)
Process whereby one’s functioning (and behavior) in the home domain is influenced negatively by demands from the work domain (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003)
Antecedents • Several reviews (e.g., Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005) distinguish between three main categories of antecedents: • work domain variables (e.g., schedule flexibility), • non-work or family domain variables (e.g., marital conflict), and • demographic and individual variables (e.g., income)
Among work domain variables, research has consistently shown that work (over)load is related strongly to work-home interference • Employees experiencing high levels of work (over)load report high levels of work-home interference (WHI) • However, most previous studies are cross-sectional; causal relationships could not be demonstrated
Study • Research question: what is the causal relationship between perceived quantitative workload and WHI? • Hypothesis 1: high levels of T1 workload are associated with increased levels of T2 WHI • Hypothesis 2: high levels of T1 WHI are associated with increased levels of T2 workload
Time 1 Time 2 Workload Workload H. 1 Work-home interference Work-home interference H. 2
Method • Sample: N = 828 Dutch police officers (85% male, M age = 42 years; 83% performing standard police work) • Two-wave, full-panel design with a 1-year time interval • Instruments: • Workload – NOVA-WEBA (Dhondt & Houtman, 1992; 1997) • WHI – SWING (Geurts et al., 2005) • Covariates – Gender and age • Reported job and family changes in-between the waves
Reported changes in-between waves: • No job/family change(s) (N = 519) • Job change(s) (N = 126); mainly for better career opportunities (39%) and more challenging tasks (34%) • Family change(s) (N = 140) • Job & family change(s) (N = 31); mainly child(ren) leaving the house (26%), and childbirth (24%)
Results Time 1 Time 2 β = .57 Workload Workload β = .12 Work-home interference Work-home interference β = .16 β = .60
Conclusions • Workload and WHI influence each other reciprocally over a 1-year period; dynamic process • Job and family changes did not have a substantial effect on workload and WHI, nor on their relationships • Theoretical implication: integrative WHI models • Practical implication: interventions at the workplace (family-friendly policies & culture) & individual level (active coping and planning)