1. other domain(Byron, 2005; Michel et al.,
1.INTRODUCTIONThe relationship between the work and family lives ofindividuals is a major area of research in organisational behaviour(Greenhausand Allen, 2011).
In the current era of globalization and increasing economicinterdependence among countries, it becomes important to understand therelationship between work and family as it exists dissimilar in nationalcontexts (Powell et al., 2009).Womenare part of every field of life and the challenge which these qualified andtalented women have to face in achieving the goals of their life andorganization is managing and incorporating work and family (Kaiser et al.,2011).Therefore, in today’s time work family conflict hasprogressively become asubstantialtopic for employees, families, and organizations, as well as for academicresearchers.
Workaffects personal and family life and personal and family life affects work. Inmany cases work and family has marked negative impressions upon employees (e.g.conflict, exhaustion, turnover) while there are signs of positive impressionsas well (e.g. enhanced skills, mood and morale).
Work and family are stronglyconnected words (Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011) and have penetrable boundaries.Studies have given quiet enough evidences that happenings and rejoinders in onedomain can have an inspiration on the other domain(Byron, 2005; Michel et al.
,2011).Work-familyconflict was linked to a variedassortment of work-related consequences (e.g.low job satisfaction, reduced organizational commitment, high turnoverintentions), family consequences (e.g. low marital and familysatisfaction),physical and mental health problems (e.
g. depression and poorphysical health) (Eby et al., 2005; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005).1.1 RationalityOnnumerous occasions, the results of the studies revealed that no correlationexisted between work-family conflict and organizational commitment (Lu et al.
,2009) and turnover intentions (Zhang et al., 2012).In one of the recentcross-cultural study the correlation between work-related outcomes (job satisfactionand turnover intentions) and work-family conflict was more stronger andpositive (Calisir et al.
, 2011).However, it produced mixed results so thisstudy add knowledge to existing literature by studying the relationship betweenwork family conflict and turnover intension.Thisstudy considered forerunners and penalties of WFC. We have selected Pakistanbecause of its steady economic growth and, more significantly, because of thetwofold status of work and family in Pakistani cultures.
Pakistan being acollectivist culture has been found to have more impact of work demands, out ofwhich arises work-family conflict than in the USA (Shockley and Singla, 2011:Zhang et al., 2012). This difference in impacts may be associated with the factthat collectivists are group-oriented, and thus, Pakistani people emphasize moreon family roles (Shaffer et al., 2005).The same goes for people with highlevels of family centrality than with low levels (Rathi and M, 2013). However,the difference between West and East may also be elucidated by the portent thatwork and family roles are greatly unclear in collectivist societies, and, thus,people give more preference to their families over job (Choi and Kim, 2012).
Thenature of work-family interface may vary along cultural boundaries (Beigietal., 2012) So it create room for our study to further strengthen and testifythe results in Pakistani (Eastern) context.Recentqualitative research across London (UK), Hong Kong, and Beijing (China) directedthat the separation between work and family is a common method to preventwork-to-family conflict (Wu et al., 2012). However, to our knowledge, therelationship between work-family conflict and turnover intention taking burnoutand organizational commitment as mediating using a Pakistani sample have notbeen empirically examined. The need for this work-family boundary research isparticularly more important for Pakistani employees who leave the organizationbecause of this WFC.
Thecurrent research makes numerous unique contributions to both the work familyconflict and turnover intensions literatures. First, we extended both theleadership and work-family literatures by investigating the correlation betweenWFC and turnover intention in Pakistani setting. Secondly, we provide insightson how work stressors and abusive supervision cause work family conflict.Thirdly, we examined the mediating effect of burnout and organizationalcommitment on the relationship between WFC and turnover intension.
1.2 Problem StatementWork family conflict is a key reason behind turnoverintensions.1.3 Objective of theStudyThe objective of thisresearch is to contribute towards a current issue of human resource managementthat is work life conflict in Pakistan. · To find out predictorsof work family conflict.
· To find the impact ofWork family conflict on turnover.· To explore themediating role of burnout and organizational commitment in the relationshipbetween work family conflict and turnover.· To find out theantecedent and consequences of work family conflict. Burnout 1.4Theoretical Framework Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Abusive Supervision WFC Turnover Intension OC 2.
LITERATURE REVIEWWork-familyconflict has been aconcern for research worldwide. Researchers have surveyedhow the conflict between work and family roles is experienced and coped byworkers (Streich, Casper, , 2008). Even though work-family field has arisen as aninstitutional discipline around 30 years ago, yet historians debate that it isnot a newly emerging phenomenon, as people have always been trying to maintaina balance between their social family lives and economic pursuits(Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2005). This universal model has put forward thatindividuals experiencing high levels of demands in all the spheres of life musthave to make difficult and out of the way choices.
Based on this fulfilment ofdemand the individual may be overloaded and eventually conflict may arise.According to the conflict theory, contradicting demands arise when anindividual tries to be part of multiple roles (Cohen and Liani, 2009).(Greenhausand Beutell, 1985) have suggested in their research that WFC exists when timespent on one role, stress to be part of one role, or certain attitudes demandedby one role make it almost impossible to meet the demands of other role.Work-family conflict is thus defined as:It is formof inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and familydomains are mutually incompatible in some respect.
That is, participation inthe work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in thefamily (work) role.Generalizing the studies andprior researches, work on WFC can be subdivided in to two categories. Somestudies discover the effects of WFC in work environments, including a broad setof variables like job satisfaction (Boyar and Mosley, 2007;Lapierre et al.,2008), job commitment, turnover intentions (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999).
The other category of studies observe theinfluence of variables that are antecedent affecting WFC in work and family. Inorganizational settings these variables include job pressure (Shockley andAllen, 2007), work support (Lapierre et al., 2008; Seiger and Wiese, 2009;Taylor et al., 2009), job authority (Andreassi and Thompson, 2007), workcommitment (Day and Chamberlain, 2005), role ambiguity and roleconflict.(Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008).
Work stressors such as roleconflict, role overload, and role ambiguity are the factors found to haveincreased WFC (Fu & Shaffer, 2001). The relationshipbetween WFC and stress of any type is very strong and positive (Beutell and Wittig-Berman,2008). Out of many components of work stress like role conflict, role ambiguityand role overload, our study takes in to account just the first two. (Kahn etal., 1964) had described role conflict as the “simultaneous occurrence of two(or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make moredifficult compliance with the other” (p. 19).
WFC is such a special type ofrole conflict in which any person’s two most prominent social roles are generallyincluded (Ryan, 2007). Further, by (Greenhaus and Beutell., 1985) three typesof WFC constitute pressure incompatibilities-time-based, strain-based, andbehavior-based, which are not essentially mutually exclusive.Situations arising where anindividual cannot mark his physical presence at multiple activities at the sametime or else when cannot focus on one role when performing another, the outcomeis time-based conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Plus, the conflict alsoeffects performance in the other role.Situations where stress or anxietyof one role disturbs the performance in the other role, the outcome isstrain-based conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). As a result, lethargy infamily role may occur as a result of an individual’s depression overperformance. In the end, behavior-basedconflicts are the results of an individual’s inability to move from oneaccepted behavior in one role to a desired behavior in another role (Greenhausand Beutell, 1985).
It has been observed with regard to work-role conflict, thehigher the conflict among work-roles the greater are the chances that strainwill spill over and cause negative aggravated behaviors that cause hindrance infulfillment of family roles (Greenhaus et al, 1987).Work-related stress has beenregarded as a causal antecedent of WFC in numerous studies(Burke, 1988). The past research has revealed that a significantly strongrelationship is found to exist between role ambiguity and WFC (Bacharach etal., 1991). Consequently, conclusions from the narrow empirical researchscrutinizing this affiliation recommend that WFC upsurges as a reaction toemployee discernments of a stressful work environment (Williams and Alliger,1994).As ambiguity related to work rolesincrease, employees happen to use more of their mental energy to decrypt it.
This requirement may result in utilizing all of the mental energy andconsideration desired for their family.Exploration has unswervingly exposed a positiverelationship between work role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) andWFC (Fu&Shaffer, 2001; Greenhaus&Beutell, 1985).Abusive supervision and work-familyconflict have been found to be globally inescapable organizational occurrences(Spector et el., 2007; Tepper, 2007).
“Abusive supervision is “subordinates’ insights ofthe magnitude to which their supervisors engage in the unremitting display ofinimical verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper,2000, p. 178).Impactof abusive supervision on work-to-family conflict is aggravated in abusedemployees. It has been argued byTepper (2000) that abusive supervision is awork stressor that may cause employees to be engrossed with work-relatedmatters, which prospectively undermines from time to bestow to their families.Moreover, there are high chances that abusive supervision result in uprootingof psychological strains such as stress (Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006),tension and emotional exhaustion (Harvey et al.
, 2007), negative affect(Hoobler and Brass, 2006), and distress (Tepper et al., 2001). Abused employeesin most cases may bring their strain home, which eventually results instrain-based work-to-family conflict. Additional, abusive supervision has beenallied to disparaging comportments such as workplace deviance (Liu et al., 2010)and drinking problems (Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006).Researchers have examined a numberof potential outcome variables for WFC.Consequences such as absenteeism, lowerjob performance, and higher turnover intentions have been associated with WFCat workplace (Eby et al., 2005).
Intention to leave an organization and searchfor job somewhere else are positively related with work-family conflict (Burke,1988). A study including testers from eight European countries established astout association between work and family conflict and intention to leave inmost country contexts (Simon et al., 2004). However, what has been found thesame in all researches of WFC is that WFC will always be positively related toturnover intentions (Eby et al., 2007).
Work-family conflicthas been viewed for centuries as an antecedent of burnout among employees (Montgomeryet al., 2003), which hasbeen defined as”A syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation andreduced personal accomplishment that can occur among employees” (Maslach,1993). According to (Demerouti et al., 2001), burnout has two vital dimensions:emotional exhaustion and disengagement.In a broad evaluationof the significances of work-family conflict, (Allen et al., 2000) establishedstrong relationships between work-family conflict and stress-related outcomes.The sturdiest connections were between work-family conflict and burnout (Demeroutiet al., 2001)Jobburnouts can possibly a significant factor in the high employee turnover.
Asignificantly high level of job burnout causes employees to come under thefeelings of depression and face a sense of failure, lethargy, and low morale,which eventually can cause a number of adverse problems for the organization,including employee turnover, absenteeism, and reduced organizational commitment(Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004). In lieu of the previous discussion, jobburnout can be considered as an important factor of inducing turnover.Employees whoexperience burnout tend to report a higher tendency to leave the organization (Muhammadand Hamdy, 2005).The Conservation of Resources Theory of Stress (Hobfoll andFreedy, 1993) provides an outline for understanding many of the precariousantecedents and significances of burnout.
Numerous researches have revealedthat a positive relationship exists between burnout and turnover intention (Schaufeliand Bakker, 2004).Organizationalcommitment is defined as “stout confidence in and recognition of theorganizational objectives and morals, readiness to employ substantial strengthon behalf of the organization, and a certain craving to uphold organizationalmembership” (Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974).It is important to study therelationship (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) between WFC andOrganizational Commitment (Allen & Meyer, 2000). Committed employees are ina better position to stay committed and put in more strong efforts to achieve organization’sobjectives, mission and goals (Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2000). Thus, incases where employees face irritated levels of WFC, their work interferes withtheir roles and responsibilities and this eventually develop a negativecommitment towards the organization (Ajiboye, 2008).In the past few years workload hasincreased tremendously which has made employees to spend less time with theirfamilies therefore organizational commitment where WFC exist have been ofinterest for researchers (Akintayo, 2010). A significant relationship has beenrevealed between managerial roles and WFC (Popoola, 2008) and WFC has beenplaying a vital role in determining its influence on work attitudes, jobinvolvement and has negative effect on commitment (Akintayo, 2010).Turnover intensions has beendefined as “a conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization” Most consideration given to theconcept of organizational commitment results from its relationship withturnover.
Several models (Mobley et al., 1979) connect organizational commitmentabstractly to turnover.Empirical research on organizational commitment usuallyhas shown commitment to be an important forecaster of turnover. By definition,highly dedicated employees desire to stay with their employing organization.(Moday, Porter & Steer., 1982).
Researchers have examined OC both as a dependentvariable (Earl and Bright, 2007) and as a predecessor of work outcomes (Loi etal., 2006). OC has been one of the “salient” attitudinal correlates in studiesthat used turnover intention as the outcome criterion (Pare´ and Tremblay,2007). (Mowday et al., 1982) argued that individuals high on this measure aremore stable and have greater feelings of belonging and, in the presentformulation, would more likely be “organization” bounded. Investigatorsconsistently report a negative association with turnover behaviour (Griffeth etal.
, 2000) as well as turnover intention (Loi et al., 2006). In their analysisof lawyers in Hong Kong, (Loi et al., 2006) argued that “employees who developa strong attachment to the organization have less intention to leave.
” Inanother study, (Shafer et al., 2002) reported that professional accountants whoperceived higher levels of organizational-professional conflict were lesscommitted to the organization, had higher turnover intention. 2.
1 Hypothesis StatementH1:Role conflict is positively related to work family conflict.H2:Role Ambiguity is positively related with WFC.H3:Abusive supervision is positively related to WFC.H4:Work-family conflict will positively correlate to intention to leave.H5:WFC is negatively related to burnout.H6:Burnout will positively correlate to intention to leave.
H7:WFC is negatively related to organizational commitment.H8:Organizational commitment is positively related to turnover intension.H9:Burnout will mediate the relationship between WFC and turnover intensionsH10:Organizational commitment mediates the relationship between WFC and turnoverintension.3.RESEARCH METHADOLOGY3.1Population and sampleThe population in theuniverse will be telecom sector ofPakistan.The source of data for this studywill be primary data acquired through questionnaire. Pilot testing will be doneto test the psychometric properties in the current context then afterwards mainstudy will be done to test the hypothesis.
Asample of 100 respondents will be taken for pilot study and a sample of approximately300 respondents will be taken for the main study.3.2Sampling TechniqueStratified randomsampling technique willbe used for the data collection.3.3Instruments3.3.
1Role Ambiguityand Role ConflictRoleambiguity and conflict will be measured using six- and eight-item scales basedon Rizzo et al. (1970). The scale items will be statements to which respondentswill be asked to rate how often they had experienced the particularcircumstance on a five-point scale anchored with “always” (5) and “never”(1).
3.3.2Abusive SupervisionAbusive supervisionwill be measured using fifteen-item scalesbased of Tepper(2000). The scale items will bestatements to whichrespondents will be asked to rate how often they hadexperienced the particularcircumstance on a five-point scale anchored with“very often” (5) and “never” (1).3.3.3Work Family ConflictWork-familyconflict will be assessed using the eight-item measure developed by Burke etal.
(1976). Each statement will be based on a five-point Likert scale anchoredby “strongly agree” (5) and “strongly disagree” (1).3.3.4BurnoutBurnoutwill be measured using 22 items from the Maslach burnout inventory (Maslach andJackson, 1981). Respondents will be asked to indicate their feelingsabout eachstatement based on a five-point Likert scale anchored by “stronglyagree” (5)and “strongly disagree” (1).3.
3.5Organizational CommitmentThis will be measured with a three-itemversion of the organizational commitment questioners (OCQ) adapted fromBozeman and Perrewe, (2001). A five-point scale is employed ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.3.6Intensionto TurnoverWewill use a four-item scale based on Bluedorn (1982) to measure intention toleave. Each item will beaccompanied by a 7-point scale anchored by “veryhigh” (7) and “very low” (1).3.4 Data Analysis TechniqueFor data analysis Statistical Packagefor Social Sciences (SPSS) and AMOS will be used.