Work plays a central role in the development, expression, and maintenance of psychological health (Blustein, 2008¹). Interface between work and life, the two most important spheres of an individual's life has been the object of investigation for researchers worldwide.

It has been necessitated by the contemporary work mutations (MacInnes, 2006²; Jones, et al. 2006³), specifically the increasing demands on employees, the rise of consumerism and the power of money and the negative impact of overwork on life quality at both personal and professional levels (Harris and Foster, 2008⁴). The increase in female employment, feminism, higher unemployment among men, low-level service jobs as well as an intensification of life causes an increasing pressure between work and private life (Badura, 2003⁵).

In this context, it’s important to investigate: how the imbalance between work and life is caused and what are the determinants affecting the balance in the two spheres of life and work amongst the employees working in manufacturing and service sector? Thus the present study examines the relationship between determinants and work life balance and impact of several determinants on work-life imbalance of employees in the two sectors

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

Work-Life Balance:

The WLB has been conceptualised as ‘satisfaction and good functioning at work and home with a minimum of role conflict' (Campbell-Clark, 2000⁶). Boundaries between the two are mental constructions of the borders between activities, such as work and personal life, and employees vary in the extent to which they prefer to keep these activities separate (segmentation) or have them overlap (integration) (Clark, 2000⁷). If "Work" is normally conceived as paid employment than "life" usually includes activities outside of work (Health, pleasure, leisure, family and spiritual development) (Guest, 2001⁸).

Work-life balance is a multi-dimensional notion whose hard core is formed by the work-family balance and of other areas of life beyond family, as well (Jones et al., 2006³; Shah, 2014⁹). The underlying assumption of role theory is that resources are scarce (Kahn et al., 1964¹⁰) and involvement in work, therefore, leaves individuals with a limited amount of resources (both physical and psychological) for their non-work roles. The two main aspects of Work–life balance are a) lack of time and scheduling conflicts (Work-to-family interference/ Family-to-work interference) b) feeling overwhelmed, overloaded or stressed by the pressures of multiple roles (Health Canada, 2008¹¹). Stein (2007¹²) identified achievement and enjoyment as the two key concepts at the core of an effective work-life balance. Bird (2003)¹³ defines WLB by taking into consideration what does not constitute a work-life balance, "Work-Life Balance does not mean an equal balance. There is no perfect, one-size fit all balance. It is different for each of us because we all have different priorities and different lives".

Conflicting priorities and lack of time can inevitably influence the employees. Hence they can end up over tired, lacking in concentration or suffering from ill health. To handle with these conflicting demands, individuals need to be informed about how they balance work and life (Loghran, 2002¹⁴; Torun, 2007¹⁵). Hobson et al. (2001)¹⁶, suggested that employees, who have more direct decision over their work and their working time, feel less stressed and are more satisfied and loyal. Thus, embracing various Work/life balance strategies can enhance the autonomy of workers in coordinating and integrating the work and non-work aspects of their lives (Felstead et al., 2002¹⁷). Recently, the terms "work-life enrichment," "work-life facilitation” and “employee well-being” have been introduced, which stress on positive interdependence and satisfaction between work and life (Li et al., 2014¹⁸).

Factors affecting WLB:

Work life balance has generally been determined on the basis of a wide conglomerate of factors like the individual, family, social, organizational, etc. Burke and Greenglass (1999)¹⁹highlighted the influence of support variables from the work domain and the family domain on work-family conflict. Lin (2008)²⁰ suggested four classifications of social support i.e. family support (parents, brothers and sisters, relatives, spouses and children); friend support (classmates and friends); co-worker support (colleagues in the workplace); and supervisor support (direct supervisor in the workplace. Kreiner et al., (2009)²¹ suggested physical, behavioral, time-based and communicative tactics to achieve frontiers between work and home.

Earlier studies also suggest some factors influencing employee well-being, most of which emphasize individual factors such as job stress, personality and work-family balance (Lapierre and Allen, 2006²²; Schaufeli et al., 2008²³) or job characteristics such as job demand (De Jonge and Schaufeli, 1998²⁴; Macky and Boxall, 2008²⁵). Andrijana Mušura, Mirna Koričan and Siniša Krajnović (2013)²⁶ in their study, examined personal external (age, gender, marital status, children); work external (years of current employment, working hours, job position, company size); personal internal (self-esteem, internal and external locus of control); work internal (job satisfaction, employee control, work-related stress); and WLB policies (flexible working hours, work from home, sport facilities, childcare facilities) as variables in their study of WLB.

Individual factors:

Many studies have highlighted the importance of individual factors in determining the status of work-life balance of an employee. Studies have confirmed the positive versus negative consequences of the satisfaction versus frustration of the basic psychological needs (Deci and Ryan 2000²⁷). Related to this, Baard, Deci and Ryan (2004)²⁸ observed that the perceived support of autonomy was linked with greater intrinsic needs satisfaction. A number of studies found a negative correlation between self-esteem and work-life conflict (Nikandrou, Panayotopoulou and Apospori, 2008²⁹); but in their meta-analysis, Eby et al. (2005)³⁰ depicted a lack of understanding on how the perception of self and the work situation is impacting work-life conflict.

Family and Social Factors:

Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba (2006)³¹ found that the family domain i.e. having a supportive partner enhances the employee's ability to balance work and family. Thus, help from a spouse was found to improve individual role stress and enhance well-being (Beutell and Greenhaus, 1983³²). Social support in the work context is composed of organizational support and support by a supervisor and co-workers (Yoon and Thye, 2000³³). When facing Work life imbalance, people seek emotional or substantial support through formal or informal resources, called “social support," which include supervisor, co-workers, and relatives, and friends, etc. Furthermore, some research studies divided the source dimensions of social support into work and non-work social support (Allen, et al. 1998³⁴ and Wadsworth, 2003³⁵). House (1981)³⁶ identified nine sources of social support i.e. spouse, partners, relatives, friends, neighbors, supervisor, co-workers, and service providers and professional institutions. Cassel (1976)³⁷ found that social support can reduce work pressure and promote physical and mental health.

Organisational factors:

In the increasingly demanding world of work, more and more employees need to be supported in their roles, and yet companies are often resistant to reducing work-family conflict and increasing work-family enrichment (Demerouti, et al., 2001³⁸). Research studies have emphasized that by providing a ‘family-friendly', work environment organizations can significantly benefit in terms of decreased turnover intentions, increased organizational commitment (Grover and Crooker, 1995³⁹; Thompson et al., 1999⁴⁰) and increased job satisfaction (Allen, 2001⁴¹; Breaugh and Frye, 2007⁴²). Greenhaus, Ziegert, and Allen (2012)⁴³ observed that support at work is beneficial for integrating work-family roles. Supervisory supportive practices such as granting flexibility for subordinates to handle family duties at work (e.g., taking a brief leave of absence) could alleviate feelings of work-family conflict. A supportive workplace was found to be important for balancing family and work. Job autonomy, as the important supportive resource from the organization, allows employee's significant control over their work to shape schedules and to remain actively involved in the lives of their life.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT:

The pressures and demands of work are reflected both in longer hours, more exhaustion and the less scope for “quality” family time. Eighty-three percent of employees reported going to work even while sick, citing heavy workload, need to conserve time off to meet family needs and a work environment where taking time off is “risky” as their rationale (Zheng, et al., 2015⁴⁴).The ‘struggle to juggle’ is taking a toll on companies, families, and workers, which is showing up as increased job stress, declining physical and mental health, increased absenteeism, declining job satisfaction, weakening employee commitment, lower workplace morale, and reduced satisfaction with family life (Stein, 2007¹²). Between 1977 and 2002, the combined weekly work hours of dual-earner couples with children increased by an average of 10 hours per week, from 81 to 91 hours (Bond, et al., 2002⁴⁵).

Shaji, et al. (2015)⁴⁶ carried out a gender wise comparative study of the factors contributing to the employee work-family conflict working in the IT companies and found no substantial gender wise significant difference in the impact of work-life family conflict (though it was measured more in women due to their dual responsibility). Nevin Deniza, Simge Denizb, Öznur Gülen Ertosun (2012)⁴⁷ segregated the women workforce in the banking sector into two categorizes namely work-oriented and family-oriented to find out the factors affecting the perception of women employees and found that significant relationships existed between demographic variables and the perception of woman-friendliness. Subramaniam and Saravanan. (2012)⁴⁸, made an investigation to find out the factors affecting quality of work life of employees working in banking sector and found that factors like quality on personal anticipatory, quality on motivational insights, quality on job freedom, quality of workplace, quality on branch operations and quality on working conditions explain the poor work-life quality of employees in the workplace. Panatika, et al. (2011)⁴⁹ measured the difference in level of work-family conflict being faced by school teachers in Malaysia, on the basis of demographic factors such as gender, marital status, and type of school etc. and found that work interfered more with the family life than vice versa and that the Work family conflict had a negative impact on life satisfaction, mental health, and turnover intentions. Tewathia (2014)⁵⁰ found that work had an adverse effect on health and sleep of both the genders and identified the flexible working hours, work from home, child care facilities at the workplace, supportive work environment as factors which the employees perceived would improve their work-life balance for a sustainable business performance.

Locus of control was found to be having a direct impact on the work-life conflict (Noor, 2006⁵¹). In another study conducted among accountants, female externals reacted more negatively to conflicts and were more likely to hand in their resignation (Reed, Kratchman and Strawser, 1994)⁵². But, both studies showed different levels of impact and different correlations with demographic variables, calling for further investigation.

Gomez, et al. (2010)⁵³ examined the how social support, job satisfaction are related to work–family balance and found that the males supported and allowed females to work to avoid family questions and complications caused by the joint family system. Thompson and Aspinwall (2009)⁵⁴studied the influence of four work/life benefits i.e. childcare, telecommuting, eldercare, flextime and found that the Childcare benefits influenced 58%, flextime influenced 33%, telecommuting 26%, and eldercare benefits 33% of the respondents in the job choice decisions of fresh graduates. Cegarra-Leiva, et al. (2012)⁵⁵in an empirical study of metal industry SMEs of Southeast Spain found that a WLB supportive culture mediates the effect of the availability of WLB practices on outcomes for employees as well as organisational performance.

Liang-Qiu WU, Dan Yan, ( 2012)⁵⁶, examined the relationship between the social support at work and home (e.g., supervisor support, autonomy support, coworker relationship and spouse support) and work-family balance and found that social support has a significantly negative effect on work-family conflict and significantly positive effect on work-family facilitation. The basic psychological needs satisfaction of competence, autonomy, and relatedness mediate the negative relation between social support and work-family conflict and the positive relation between social support and work-family facilitation. Schieman and Reid (2009)⁵⁷ found that those in senior management positions (those with greater job authority) had greater work-home interference and thus enhanced levels of stress. Warr (2005)⁵⁸ found that freedom, and decision-making latitude, and control over ones' (or another's) work, seemed to be the most influential attributes in positive workplace wellbeing for senior managers. Netemeyer, et al. (1996)⁵⁹ found a positive relationship between number of weekly hours devoted to work and WL/LWC.

Wang, et al. (2012)⁶⁰ while exploring the effects on WFC (“family to work” and “work to family” conflict) to job performance under different sources of social support from nurses working in hospitals in Taiwan found that sources of social support all had positive influences on job performance; “friend support” strengthened the negative effect on“family to work” conflict to job performance and “co-worker support” had a moderating effect on the relationship between “work to family” conflict and job performance. Fujimoto, et. al (2013)⁶¹ studied how the overtime reduction affects engineers' sense of fulfillment in work and personal life, depression and perceived health and found that overtime reduction had both positive and negative effects, on one hand, it enhances the time adequacy for engineers' private life, and on the other hand it significantly reduced their sense of fulfillment at work. Dobrotić and Laklija (2009)⁶² too found that the larger number of working hours, stress at work, and fear of losing one’s job are the best predictors of work-life conflict. Shift work too is linked to a series of acute and chronic effects on human beings as proportion of shift workers suffering from sleep disturbances is usually above 50% compared to 5-20% for day workers; and the corresponding fatigue further lead to psychological problems: irritation, anger, depression, and mental stress (Rao and Ummul, 2012)⁶³. On similar lines Babu, et al. (2010)⁶⁴ found a positive correlation between employee stress reduction and flexi-time. Ljungblad, et al. (2014)⁶⁵ observed that employers with more favourable employee ratings of the psychosocial work conditions, as well as of specific health-promoting measures had better self-rated health and lower sickness absence level among employees.

Based on these studies following hypotheses were formulated:

H_1: There is no significant difference between Individual, Family and Social, and Organizational determinants affecting work-life balance amongst the employees working in manufacturing and service sector.

H_2: There is no relationship between WLB and Individual, Family and Social and Organizational determinants affecting the work-life balance amongst the employees in the manufacturing and service sectors.

H_3:Individual, Family and Social and Organizational determinants have no significant impact on the employee’s work life balance in the manufacturing and service sectors.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

Through this empirical study, an endeavour has been made to understand the relationship between Individual, Family and Social and Organizational determinants and work-life balance of employees working in various organizations in the manufacturing and service sectors. The specific objectives of the present study are as follows:

a. To examine the difference in the Individual, Family and Social and Organizational factors/ determinants affecting the work-life balance amongst the employees working in manufacturing and service sector.

b. To study the relationship between work-life balance and Individual, Family and Social and Organizational determinants affecting employees working in the service and manufacturing sector.

c. To depict the comparative impact of various Individual, Family and Social and Organizational determinants on the employee’s work life balance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Research Instrument:

A structured questionnaire was prepared for the purpose of collecting the primary data. The reliability and validity of the research instrument was determined prior to conducting the survey through a pilot study, wherein a sample of 30 respondents was interviewed using the instrument. The Cronbach alpha score was calculated and found to be 0.837, which was well above the required level of 0.70. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the data collected from 150 respondents too was found to be .787, which indicates the reliability of the data collected for the study.

Sampling Plan:

The research was conducted in the major cities and industrial hubs of the northwestern region of India. Non-probability, Convenience Sampling method was employed for selecting the respondents for the study. Responses were sought from 150 middle and senior level employees working in manufacturing and service sectors through a standardized questionnaire. The sectors included in this study were banking, education, telecom, pharma, automobile, and consumer goods.

Data Analysis:

The primary data was statistically validated to test the hypotheses by employing tools like chi-square, Karl Pearson correlation, t-test, ANOVA and forward regression analysis. The statements on Individual determinants, Family and Social determinants, Organizational determinants (33) and on Work life balance (21) were grouped on the basis conclusions drawn from the review of literature done during the research. The analysis was carried out using statistical software IBM-SPSS-20.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:

Demographic Statistics: Description of the sample distribution:

Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents (77.2%) belonged to the service sector. The majority of the respondents were male; 93.1% in the case of the manufacturing sector and 77.2% in the case of the service sector. The majority of the respondents working in the service sector had work experience less than five years, and 31% of the respondents belonging to manufacturing sector had experience in the range of 5-10 years. 46.7% of respondents belonging to service sector and 31% of respondents from the manufacturing sector were in the age group of 30 to 40 years. Nearly two-third of the respondents were married. Half of the respondents belonging to service sector had an income of Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000, and 41.4% of the respondents belonging to manufacturing sector had income in the range of Rs.50,000 to Rs.75,000.

Table 1: Sample Distribution (Sector wise classification of the respondents)

		Sector
		Service		Manufacturing		Total
Gender	Male	71	77.2%	54	93.1%	125	83.3%
Gender	Female	21	22.8%	4	6.9%	25	16.7%
Experience	Less than five years	46	50.0%	14	24.1%	60	40.0%
	5 to 10 years	29	31.5%	18	31.0%	47	31.3%
	10 to 15 years	7	7.6%	13	22.4%	20	13.3%
	15 to 20 years	4	4.3%	5	8.6%	9	6.0%
	More than 20 years	6	6.5%	8	13.8%	14	9.3%
Age	20 - 30	1	1.1%	1	1.7%	2	1.3%
	30 - 40	43	46.7%	18	31.0%	61	40.7%
	40 - 50	34	37.0%	17	29.3%	51	34.0%
	50 - 60	7	7.6%	15	25.9%	22	14.7%
	Above 60	7	7.6%	7	12.1%	14	9.3%
Marital Status	Married	68	73.9%	45	77.6%	113	75.3%
Marital Status	Unmarried	24	26.1%	13	22.4%	37	24.7%
Income	Below 25000	6	6.5%	2	3.4%	8	5.3%
	25000 - 50000	46	50.0%	18	31.0%	64	42.7%
	50000 - 75000	37	40.2%	24	41.4%	61	40.7%
	75000 - 100000	1	1.1%	10	17.2%	11	7.3%
	Above 100000	2	2.2%	4	6.9%	6	4.0%
Total		92	100.0%	58	100.0%	150	100.0%

The findings in Table 16 show that the independent variables organizational determinants, individual determinants and family and social determinants with the standardized coefficient of Beta being .400, .251 and .236 respectively, have a significant positive impact on the work-life balance of the employees in the Manufacturing sector. The organizational determinants, family and social determinants and individual determinants, explain 34 % of the total variation in the dependent variable i.e. level of work-life balance of the employees in the manufacturing sector. Since **p-value < or = .01 and thus, the regression model is a good fit of the data.

Based upon the coefficients we can derive a Model for the level of work-life balance of employees (Y), and organizational determinants (X₁), family and social determinants (X₂) and individual determinants (X₃) is:

Y = 0.855+ 0.340X₁+ 0.215X₂+ 0.290X₃

DISCUSSION: CONCLUSION:

More than half of the respondents reported imbalance with respect to their work and family and social responsibilities. But, the percentage of respondents reporting imbalance was significantly higher in the service sector (60.8%) than those who were associated with the manufacturing sector (44.8%).

It was observed that there exist a significant difference between determinants affecting work-life balance amongst employees working in manufacturing and service sector. The level of individual determinants, affecting the Work life balance of employees working in the manufacturing sector was found higher as compared to those working in the service sector.

The results of interrelationship indicate that all Individual, Family and Social and Organisational Determinants/factors have significant, strong and positive relationship with work life balance of employees in both the sectors . The regression analysis statistically validated that Individual, Family and Social and Organisational determinants had a significant impact on the level of employee work life balance in the Manufacturing as well as Service sector. This study elucidates the comparative analysis of the Individual, Family and Social and Organisational Determinants/factors and its relationship and impact with the work life balance of employees working in the manufacturing and the service sector.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The findings of this study have serious implications as it has been observed that the individual, family and social and organizational factors have a significant and positive relationship and impact on the work life balance of the employees in the two sectors. Through this empirical study, it brings to the attention of practitioners, businesses, government agencies that we must rise to this challenge and devise strategies for understanding and examining the differences and correlations of the factors affecting work life balance so as to improve, facilitate and attain better work-life balance. Future researchers need to undertake more experiment based empirical research to develop interventions and strategies that can guide the organizations to develop a healthy work-life balance on the basis of the study and facilitating the factors/ determinants affecting it.

LIMITATIONS:

As the sample/data in this research is restricted to Middle level and Senior Managers, future research should examine this phenomenon amongst workers, junior staff other and entry-level managers for determining the applicability of these results to different levels in the organization. Another limitation is that sample size can be increased to include employees from other sub-sectors of the two sectors. This study also does not consider the professionally self-employed persons like Advocates, Doctors entrepreneurs. A separate study can be undertaken for them as even these self-employed persons constitute a large portion of workforce and also face critical work-life imbalance issues.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

We are thankful to IKGPTU, Kapurthala (RIC dept.), for supporting and promoting this research work.

REFERENCES:

1. Blustein, D. L. The role of work in psychological health and well-being a conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective. American Psychologist. 2008; 63 (4): 228–240.

2. MacInnes, J. Work-life balance in Europe: A response to the baby bust or reward for the baby boomers. European Societies. 2006; 8(2), 223-249.

3. Jones, F., Burke, R.J. and Westman, M. Work-life balance: Key issues. In East Sussex. Work-life balance: A psychological perspective, Edited by F. Jones, R.J. Burke and M. Westman. Psychology Press. 2006; 1-38.

4. Harris, L.A. and Foster, B. The drivers of work-life balance: A critical review. 2008.[Online]. [Retrieved July 16, 2014], http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/departments/Strategy%20and%20Human%20Resource%20Management/airaanz/proceedings/melbourne2008/ref/L.%20Harris,%20B.%20Foster.pdf.

5. Badura, Bernhard/Schnellschmidt, Hen-ner/Vetter, Christian (Ed.): Fehlzeiten. Wettbewerbsfaktor Work-Life-Balance. 2003; Berlin.

6. Campbell-Clark, S. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000; 53(6): 747-770.

7. Clark, S.C. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000; 53 (6): 747-770.

8. Guest, D. Perspectives on the study of work-life balance: Discussion paper prepared for 2001. ENOP Symposium. Paris. 2001; March: 29–31. Available from http://www.ucm.es/info/Psyap/enop/guest.htm.

9. Shah, S.S. The role of work-family enrichment in work-life balance and career success: a comparison of German and Indian managers. Dissertation thesis. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Ludwig-Maximilians-University. Munich, Germany. 2014.

10. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley. 1964.

11. Health Canada. Reducing work-life conflict: what works? What doesn't? 2008. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) website https://www.ccohs.ca/

12. Stein, S. J. Make your workplace great: the 7 keys to an emotionally intelligent organization. Wiley. 2007.

13. Bird, J. Work-life balance defined - what it really means! five steps to better work life balance. Available from http://www.worklifebalance.com/ worklifebalancedefined.html.

14. Loghan, G. Work-life balance in the northern Ireland civil service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). 2002.

15. Torun, F. Work life balance: any improve for business. GRIN Verlag. 2007.

16. Hobson, C.J., Delunas, L. and Kesic, D. Compelling evidence of the need for corporate work-life balance initiatives: results from a national survey of stressful life-events. Journal of Employment Counselling. 2001; 38: 38-44.

17. Felstead, A, Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A and Walters, S. Opportunities to work at home in the context of work-life balance. Human Resource Management Journal. 2002; 12(I): 54-76.

18. Li. Y., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Ahlstrom, D. The rationality of emotions: a hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2014; 31(1): 293-308.

19. Burke, R. J., and Greenglass, R. E. Work-family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff well-being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1999; 4: 327–336.

20. Lin, P. Y. A research for the relationship between work family conflict and job performance of international tourist hotel employees in Taiwan: The moderating effect of social support. Department of Tourism of Providence University. Unpublished master thesis. 2008.

21. Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C. and Sheep, M.L. Balancing borders and bridges: negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal. 2009; 52 (4): 704-730.

22. Lapierre, L.M. and Allen, T.D. Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006; 11 (2): 169-181.

23. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. Work alcoholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology. 2008; 57 (2): 173-203.

24. De Jonge, J. and Schaufeli, W.B. Job characteristics and employee well-being: a test of Warr’s Vitamin Model in health care workers using structural equation modelling. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19 (4): 387-407.

25. Macky, K. and Boxall, P. High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: a study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 2008; 46 (1): 38-55.

26. Andrijana Mušura, Mirna Koričan and Siniša Krajnović. Work-life and life-work conflicting Croatian companies: some perspectives. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. 2013; 16 (1): 42-67.

27. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11: 227-268.

28. Baard, P., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2004; 34: 2045–2068.

29. Nikandrou, I., Panayotopoulou, L., and Apospori, E. The impact of individual and organizational characteristics on work-family conflict and career outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008; 23: 576-598.

30. Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., and Brinley, A. Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2005; 66 : 124-97.

31. Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba. Practices of dual earner couples successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. Summer 2006; 27(2): 207-234.

32. Beutell, N. l. and Greenhaus, l. H. Integration of home and non- home roles: Women's conflict and coping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1983; 68: 43-48.

33. Yoon, J. and Thye, S. Supervisor support in the work place: Legitimacy and positive affectivity. Journal of Social Psychology. 2000; 140: 295-316.

34. Myria Watkins Allen, Patricia Amason, and Susan Holmes. Social support, Hispanic emotional acculturative stress and gender. Communication Studies. 1998; 49 (2): 139-157.

35. Wadsworth, L. L. The application of role-identity salience to the study of social support and work-family interaction. The university of Utah. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 2003.

36. House, J. S. Work stress and social support. Mass: Addison Wile. 1981.

37. Cassel, J. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1976; 38: 300-314.

38. Demerouti, E, Bakker, A, Nachreiner, F ., and Schaufeli. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86: 499 -512.

39. Grover, S. and Crooker, K. Who appreciates family responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology. 1995; 48: 271–288.

40. Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., and Lyness, K.S. When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1999; 54: 392–415.

41. Allen, T.D. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2001; 58: 414–435.

42. Breaugh, J.A. and Frye, N.K. An examination of the antecedents and consequences of the use of family-friendly strategies. Journal of Managerial Issues. 2007; 19: 35–52. 

43. Greenhaus, Ziegert, and Allen. When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between multiple sources of support and work family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2012; 80: 266-275.

44. Zheng, C., John, Molineux., Soheila, Mirshekary., Simona, Scarparo. Developing individual and organisational work-life balance strategies to improve employee health and wellbeing. Employee Relations. 2015; 37 (3): 354 – 379.

45. Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., and Prottas, D. Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce. Families and Work Institute. 2002; Retrieved from, http://www.familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/nscw2002summ.pdf.

46. Shaji, J. B. Gautam, and S. Vijayakumar Bharathi. An empirical study on the factors contributing to work family conflict among young employees in the IT companies. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015; 8(S6): 50–60.

47. Nevin Deniza, Simge Denizb, Öznur Gülen Ertosun. The woman-friendly organization- effects of demographic variables on women employees’ perception about their companies on work and family-oriented woman-friendly hrm: a study in banking industry in Turkey. International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 41: 477 – 484.

48. B. L. Sairam Subramaniam and R. Saravanan. Empirical study on factors influencing on quality of work life of commercial bank employees. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2012; 28 (1): 119-127.

49. Siti Aisyah Binti Panatika, Siti Khadijah Zainal Badria, Azizah Rajaba, Hamidah Abdul Rahmana and Ishak Mad Shaha. The impact of work family conflict on psychological well-being among school teachers in Malaysia. International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 29: 1500 - 1507.

50. Nidhi Tewathia. Work-life balance in the IT sector: A case study of Delhi. International Journal of Advancements in Research and Technology. 2014; 3 (7).

51. Noor, N.M. Locus of control, supportive workplace policies and work-family conflict. Psychologia. 2006; 49: 48-60.

52. Reed, S.A., Kratchman, S.H., and Strawser, R.H. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions of united states accountants: the impact of locus of control and gender. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 1994; 7: 31-58.

53. Solomon Fernando Gomez, Noor Khan, Muhammad Imran Malik, Muhammad Iqbal Saifc. “Empirically testing the relationship of social support, job satisfaction and work -family balance in Pakistani socio cultural set-up. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2010; 2(1): 51-57.

54. Lori Foster Thompson and Kimberly R. Aspinwall. The recruitment value of work/life benefits. Personnel review. 2009; 38 (2): 195 – 210.

55. David Cegarra-Leiva; M. Eugenia Sánchez-Vidal and Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. Understanding the link between work life balance practices and organisational outcomes in SMEs. Personnel Review. 2012; 41 (3): 359 – 379.

56. Liang-Qiu WU, Dan Yan. Social support, psychological need satisfaction and work-family balance: an empirical research on it knowledge employees. International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering. 2012; 249-253.

57. Schieman, S. and Reid, S. Job authority and health: Unrevealing the competing suppression and explanatory influences. Social Science and Medicine. 2009; 69(11): 1616-1624.

58. Warr, P. Work, well-being, and mental health. In the Handbook of work stress, Eds J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway, and M.R. Frone. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2005; pp. 547-574.

59. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., and McMurrian, R. Development and validation of work-family conflicts and work-family conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996; 81: 400-410.

60. Mei-Ling Wang, Tzu-Ming Lin, Li-Jane Tsai. Technology management for emerging technologies. Proceedings of PICMET '12. 2012; 3631-3639.

61. Tetsushi Fujimoto, Sayaka Shinohara1, Hideki S. Tanaka, Yoshifumi Nakata. Overtime reduction, work-life balance, and psychological well-being for research and development engineers in Japan. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM. 2013; 1510-1514.

62. Dobrotić, I., and Laklija, M. Correlates of Conflicts between family and work obligations in Croatia. Journal of Social Policy. 2009; 1: 4563.

63. Rao, K. K., and Ummul, Salma. A study on shift work and health. Asian Journal of Management Research. 2012; 2 (2): 821-826.

64. Babu, S. S., Aryasri, R., and Raj. Impact of flexi-time (a work-life balance practice) on employee stress reduction in IT Sector Indian perspective. CAMS Journal of Business Studies and Research. 2010; April – June.

65. Ljungblad, C.; Fredrik Granström, Lotta Dellve, Ingemar Åkerlind. Workplace health promotion and working conditions as determinants of employee health. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2014; 7 (2): 89 – 104.

Received on 09.05.2017 Modified on 23.05.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(3):881-892.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00137.8

	Individual Determinants/ Factors	Family and Social Determinants/ Factors	Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Work life balance
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z	.994	1.048	1.330	0.549
p-value	.276	.222	0.058	0.924

	Sector	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t-value	p-value
Individual Determinants/Factors	Service	92	2.2932	.47431	.04945	2.394	.018*
Individual Determinants/Factors	Manufacturing	58	2.4789	.44357	.05824	2.394
Family and Social Determinants/ Factors	Service	92	2.6528	.46677	.04866	1.331	.185
Family and Social Determinants/ Factors	Manufacturing	58	2.7657	.56299	.07392	1.331
Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Service	92	2.4587	.54668	.05700	1.065	.289
Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Manufacturing	58	2.5603	.60338	.07923	1.065
Work life balance	Service	92	2.8810	.40848	.04259	2.089	.038*
Work life balance	Manufacturing	58	3.0392	.51267	.06732	2.089

Correlations (n=150)
		Individual Determinants/ Factors	Family and Social Determinants/ Factors	Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Work life balance
Work life balance	Pearson Correlation	.434^**	.473^**	.526^**	1
Work life balance	p-value	.000	.000	.000

Correlations (n=92)
		Individual Determinants/ Factors	Family and Social Determinants/ Factors	Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Work life balance
Work life balance	Pearson Correlation	.382^**	.420^**	.441^**	1
Work life balance	p-value	.000	.000	.000

Correlations (n=58)
		Individual Determinants/ Factors	Family Social Determinants/ Factors	Organisational Determinants/ Factors	Work life balance
Work life balance	Pearson Correlation	.469^**	.510^**	.615^**	1
Work life balance	p-value	.000	.000	.000

			BS21					Total
			SD	D	N	A	SA	Total
Sector	Service	Count	13	43	21	14	1	92
	Service	% within Sector	14.1%	46.7%	22.8%	15.2%	1.1%	100.0%
	Manufacturing	Count	2	24	16	11	5	58
	Manufacturing	% within Sector	3.4%	41.4%	27.6%	19.0%	8.6%	100.0%
Total		Count	15	67	37	25	6	150
Total		% within Sector	10.0%	44.7%	24.7%	16.7%	4.0%	100.0%

	Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F-value	p-value
Work life Balance	3	Regression	8.600	1	8.600	56.683	.000**
		Residual	22.455	148	.152
		Total	31.055	149

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	R² Change	F Change	df	p-value F Change
1	.526^a	.277	.272	.38951	.277	56.683	1,148	.000**
2	.584^b	.341	.332	.37313	.064	14.279	1,147	.000**
3	.621^c	.386	.373	.36140	.045	10.704	1,146	.001**

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t-value	p-value	Collinearity Statistics
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t-value	p-value	Tolerance	VIF
3	(Constant)	1.162	.195		5.958	.000**
	Organisational Determinants	.251	.062	.313	4.031	.000**	.697	1.434
	Individual Determinants	.235	.069	.242	3.415	.001**	.840	1.190
	Family and Social Determinants	.222	.068	.246	3.272	.001**	.742	1.348

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t-value	p-value	95.0% Confidence Interval for B		Collinearity Statistics
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t-value	p-value	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Tolerance	VIF
3	(Constant)	.855	.336		2.544	.014*	.181	1.529
	Organisational Determinants	.340	.101	.400	3.380	.001**	.138	.542	.681	1.468
	Individual Determinants	.290	.123	.251	2.366	.022*	.044	.537	.846	1.182
	Family and Social Determinants	.215	.104	.236	2.063	.044*	.006	.423	.732	1.366
a. Dependent Variable: Work life balance