Work-life Balance Vs Work-family balance -An Evaluation of Scope

Amity Global HRM Review 54 September Work-life Balance Vs Work-family balance - An Evaluation of Scope *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian Despite focus on work-to-nonwork balance research overlooked the underpinning between work-life balance construct and work family balance construct. This study examined the scope of work-life balance construct over work-family balance construct in terms of the constructs capability to explain variance in three speciic domains viz., work, family and personal life; with the help of regression analysis based on randomly obtained data from 190 personals who are employed in the banking sector of Kerala. The result proved that work-life balance construct which is more comprehensive and wider than work-family balance construct. The result postulates that it is worthwhile to divert the focus from work-family balance to work-life balance as it provides much wider comprehension about the balance between work and nonwork life of an employee than work-family balance can provide. Keywords: Work-life balance, Work-family balance, Work/non-work balance Introduction The term work-life balance was the contribution of ‘New ways to Work and the Working Mothers Association’ in the United Kingdom during the late of 1970s to describe the balance between work and personal life (Burnett, 2011). Feminization of the work environment was the major catalyst agent behind the development of the work-life balance concept. In United States, the phrase ‘work-life balance’ was irst used in the year 1986 in relation of prioritisation of hours between work and non-work activities (Coradon Health, 2016; see also Burnett, 2011).Within the next decade the concept become very popular in the work environment (essential not only for the employee themselves but also for the employers too) particularly among the western nations. Together with the popularisation of the work-life balance concept, the preview of the concept has got narrowed from work to non-work balance (work to personal life balance) to work to family life balance(Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009). That is the personal life sphere of work-life balance concept has replaced with family life, which resulted in the branching of the work-life research in to two. The work-family balance construct-which speak about the magnitude of balance between work domain and family domain (e.g., Greenhaus and Powel, 2006; Voyandoff, 2005; Frone, 2003; Clark 2000). And the work-life balance construct-which speak about the magnitude of balance between work domain and non-work domain (non-work domain includes family, personal life/self-care, friends, society, religion, etc.,)(e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Glasgow & Sang, 2016; Hayman, 2005). Because of the absence of conceptual clarity among researchers with regard to the scope and dimension of the work-life balance concept, the work-life balance has become a widely used term with no set of deinition (Glasgow & Sang, 2016). Though the need of balancing between paid work and unpaid work (non-work activities) has never been questioned (Glasgow & Sang, 2016; see also Joseph & Sebastian, in press). During the early decades of work to non-work balance research work-family theme override worklife balance theme. Majority of the research on worknonwork relationships predominantly conined its focus on work and family roles (Greenhaus & Foley,2007).The over emphasis of work and family role and thereby narrowed the scope of worklife balance research. Which further result in the coninement/narrow-downing of the work to nonwork balance research in to the concept of workfamily balance. By the end of 1990s more researchers started exploring work to non-work balance beyond the scope of work sand family domains (e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Brough, et al., 2014; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009; Kalliath & Brough, 2008; Hayman, 2005; Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Frone, 2003) and argued that workfamily balance is only a sub-theme which can be nested inside the work-life (non-work) balance construct.The researchers who argue in favour of work-life balance (i.e., work-life balance has wider scope than work-family balance) claimed that work work-life balance construct has stronger relationship with work, family and personal related spares in comparison with work-family balance construct. *Junior Research Fellow, Departnment of Commerce, ST. Thomas College, Pala **Associate Professor and Doctoral Research SupervisorPost-Graduate Department of Commerce. Deva Matha College, Kuravilangad 2017 *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian Because of the absence of studies directly examining the magnitude and strength of relationship that exist in between work-family balance construct and work-life balance construct, researchers often deem work-family balance as work-life balance (i.e., narrow frame researchers-who argue that there is no difference between work-family balance construct and work-life balance construct; e.g., Dhanya & Kinslin, 2017; Berger, Delgado, & Manolov, 2017; Mahajan, 2016; Gehrke & Hassard, 2015; Mirji, 2014) (Joseph & Sebastian, in press). Joseph and Sebastian (in press) empirically validated the claim that work-life balance is a construct which is different from work-family balance, which in turn postulates that the claim of narrow frame researchers proven wrong. However, the ambiguity (e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Brough, et al., 2014; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009; Kalliath & Brough, 2008; Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Frone, 2003; -argued that work-life balance construct has wider scope as compared to workfamily balance in terms of its relationship with work, family and personal related domains) with regard to the scope of work-life balance construct over work-family balance construct still remains bafling. And as a result of ambiguity with regard to scope of work-life balance over work-family balance it is unable to bid between work-life balance and workfamily balance. Hence the objective of this study is to examine the scope of work-life balance over work-family balance in terms of this relationship in terms of its relationship with work, family and personal related constructs. Current Research The scope of work-life balance over work-life balance is one of the most debated topic now a-days. Researchers who argue in favour of work-life balance claims that the work-life balance construct which is not only wider in scope but also general in nature in comparison with work-family balance construct at it can inculcate only the effect from work and family domains (e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Brough, et al., 2014; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009; Kalliath & Brough, 2008; Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Frone, 2003). That is the work-life balance construct inculcate the effect of all activities in the work and non-work domain. However, the claim remained theoretical because of the absence of studies empirically examining the scope of work-life balance in comparison with work-family balance. This study is a comparative evaluation of work-life 55 balance construct and work-life balance construct in terms of this scope. In order to evaluate the scope of work-life balance over work-family balance the procedure followed by Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska(2009) was followed. That is by comparing construct considred in terms of its strength of relationship with other variables. Therefore here in this study the scope of work-life balance as well as work-family balance is evaluated in terms of its relationship with variables from work (work satisfaction and intension to quit), family (family satisfaction) and personal domain (life satisfaction and happiness). Work-life balance Vs Work-family balance In the words of Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) work-family balance is a social construct rather than a psychological construct and it encompass meaning outside of the individual. Which postulates the existence of factors outside the control of an individual (e.g., factors relating to work and family on which an individual has only limited control) that inluence the level of work-family balance. Work-family balance is the accomplishment of role related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or her role-related partners in the work and family domain (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007).When it comes to work-life balance it is more comprehensive than the term work-family balance (Antai1, Oke, Braithwaite, & Anthony, 2015). Work-life balance is the perception of an individual that his work-and non-work activities are compactable and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities (Kalliath & Brough, 2008). That is work-life balance is an all-inclusive term that examine the magnitude of balance between work and non-work activities of an individual. Therefore work-life balance considered as more comprehensive (wider) than work-family balance construct. Because of the broadness of the concept, work-life balance construct expected to have more stronger relationship with other variables in the work, family and personal domain than workfamily balance construct has. Hence the following hypothesis was formulated. H1: Work-life balance construct can explain greater amount of variance in work, family and personal domain related variables than work-family balance construct can explain. H2: Work-family balance construct cannot explain any additional amount of variance in work, family and 56 Amity Global HRM Review personal domain related variables beyond work-life balance construct can explain. Based on the above hypothesis following domain speciic hypothesis were formulated with regard to each of the three-speciic domain viz., work, family and personal life. Work-life balance, Work-family balance and Work domain. Job satisfaction and intension to quit were the workrelated variables considered.Job satisfaction and intension to quit are the commonly used variables used to study the impact of work related outcome. Studies have identiied relationship between Job satisfaction, intension to quit and work family balance. Work family balance is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to intension to quit (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; see also Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003). With regard to work life balance also studies have identiied relationship with both the job satisfaction (positive relationship) as well as with intension to quit (negative relationship). Work life balance has a positive relationship between work life balance (Orkibi & Brandta, 2015; see also Singh, 2013; Chitra Devi & Sheela Rani, 2012). Intension to quit is negatively associated with work life balance (Singh, 2013; see also Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009). That is the literature make it clear that both the work family balance as well as work life balance have positive relation with job satisfaction whereas a negative relationship with intension to quit. And therefore, the following hypothesis were formulated. H1A1: Work life balance can explain greater amount of variance in job satisfaction than work family balance can explain. H2A1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in job satisfaction beyond work-family balance can explain. H1A2: Work life balance can explain greater amount of variance in intension to quit over work family balance can explain. H2A2: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in intension to quit beyond work-family balance can explain. Work-life balance, Work-family balance and Family domain. Family life has very crucial role in an individual’s personal life. Family structures and shapes one’s life (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993; see also Kapoor September & Kapoor, 2009). Because of this importance of family in one’s life, family life is considered. Family satisfaction is the variable generally considered by the researchers to relect the family outcome. The relationship between work family balance and family satisfaction can be found in literature. (Haar & Bardoel, 2007) identiied positive association between work family balance and family satisfaction. Similar result was produced by the research conducted by Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska in 2009 also. In 2012 Chitra Devi & Sheela Rani, found that work life balance and family satisfaction is positively related. That is both the work family balance as well as the work life balance has positive relation with family satisfaction. And therefore the following hypothesis was formulated. H1B1: Work life balance can explain greater amount of variance in family satisfaction than work family balance can explain. H2B1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in family satisfaction beyond work-family balance can explain. Work-life balance, Personal domain. Work-family balance and While considering the personal life outside the work, that is the personal activities and engagements of an individual such as sports, participation in cultural events, religious participation, academics, friends, etc., Which is dificult to count and tabulate as it varies from person to person. Peoples living in different nations with similar economic and ecological foot print have difference in life expectancy is due to the difference in their life satisfaction and happiness. People having greater level of life/personal satisfaction and happiness live longer than their counterparts with low level of life/personal satisfaction and happiness, even though they have similar economic as well as ecological background (Marks, 2006). According to Veenhoven, happiness is one of the most important goal both at an individual level and for society at large (as cited in Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). A person becomes happy when he/she enjoys a supportive network of close relationships, when his/ her culture offers positive interpretations for most daily events, when he/she is engaged by the work or leisure, and when he/she has faith that entails social support, purpose and hope (Myers & Diener, 1995). Happiness is a state at which an individual is capable of perceiving a positive feedback from his environmental interactions. 2017 *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian Life satisfaction is the subjectivities assessment of an individual about the quality of his life and environment, high level of satisfaction indicates good quality of life and low level of satisfaction indicate poor quality of life (Prasoon & Chaturvedi, 2016). A measure of life satisfaction acts as an indicator of both wellbeing and psychopathology. It is a key component in the attainment of positive mental health and is a determinant of multiple life outcomes (Proctor, Linley, & Maltby, 2009). Which is an indication that the life satisfaction is not just a measure of overall wellbeing of aa individual but also an accord about an individual’s mental wellbeing. According to Diener life satisfaction encompasses satisfaction with various important life domains (Frijns, 2010). That is life satisfaction is a variable that can explain the overall satisfaction of an individual across various domains. The relationship between work life balance and life satisfaction can be found in literature. Life satisfaction and exhibit a positive correlation with work life balance (Chitra Devi & Sheela Rani, 2012).That is both the life satisfaction, and happiness have positive relationship with both the work-life balance as well as with the work-family balance. And therefore, the following hypothesis were formulated. H1C1: Work life balance can explain greater amount variance in happiness than work family balance can explain. H2C1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in happiness beyond workfamily balance can explain. H1C2: Work life balance can explain greater amount variance in life satisfaction than work family balance can explain. H2C1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in life satisfaction beyond work-family balance can explain. Method Data and Sample The data required for the study was collected frompersonalswho are employed with the banking sector of Kerala. Only employees of the scheduled commercial banks (private) actively functioning (banks having more than 150 branches at least) in the state were considered for the study. A total of 350 questionnaires were distributed electronically (either using WhatsApp or using e-mail) to the randomly selected respondents out of which 190 valid response (here the response rate is 54 per cent) 57 were obtained. The questionnaire for the study was available online for a period of one month from 30/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 and the respondents were provided with the option to complete the questionnaire at multi-sections. During the period of study (while the questionnaire was available online) adequate remainders were sent to the respondents according to it appropriateness. Demographic Proile of Respondents The study explored only basic demographics of the respondents viz., gender, age, marital status and educational qualiication. Out of 190 valid response, 120of the respondents were female (63 percent) and the remaining 70 were female (37 percent). Majority of the respondents (65 per cent) were married, only remaining 35 percent of the respondents were unmarried. While considering the age proile of the respondents, around 40 per cent (n = 75) were in between the age of 31-45 years, 32 per cent (n = 61) were below the age of 31 and remaining 28 per cent (n = 54) were above 45 years of age. While considering the marital status of the respondents around 65 percent (n = 123) of the respondents were married, whereas only 35 per cent (n = 67) stayed single. With regard to educational qualiication, 114 (60 percent) of the respondents were graduates and the remaining 76 (40 percent) were post graduates. Measures Used Apart from the basic demographics questions which intends to explore the proile of the respondents, the following were the others measures used in the study. Work-life balance Work life balance was measured with the help of work-life balance scale developed by Paula Brough, Carolyn Timmis, Michael P. O Driscoll, Thomas Kalliath, Oi-Ling Siu and Danny Lo. The scale is popularly known as Brough, et.al., scale of work-life balance. It is a unidimensional four itemised ive-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). For the purpose of this study the ive-point scale was converted in to seven-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of work life balance whereas low score indicates low level of work life balance. A sample item of the scale is ‘Overall, I believe that my work and non-work life are balanced’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .804. 58 Amity Global HRM Review September Work family balance Family Satisfaction (FS) For measuring the work family balance level of the respondents, the work-family balance scale developed by Dawn S. Carlson, Joseph G. Grzywacz and Suzanne Zivnuska (2009) was used. It is a unidimensional six itemised ive-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). For the purpose of this study the ive-point scale was converted in to seven-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of work family balance whereas low score indicates lower level of work family balance. A sample item of the scale is ‘I am able to negotiate and accomplish what is expected of me at work and in my family’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .76. Family satisfaction was measured with the help of Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFL) developed by Ramon B. Zabriskie and Peter J. Ward in the year 2013. The SWFL is a unidimensional ive itemised seven-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of family satisfaction whereas low score indicates lower level of family satisfaction. A sample item of the scale is ‘In most ways my family life is close to ideal’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .706. Job Satisfaction (JS) Job satisfaction was measured with the help of Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Sub-scale, which is popularly identiied in its abbreviated form MOAQ-JSS. The original scale of MOAQ-JSS was developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh in 1979, a manuscript unpublished (Bowling & Hammond, 2008). Bowling and Hammond (2008) validated the construct validity of the Job Satisfaction Subscale of Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire. MOAQ-JSS is a unidimensional three itemised sevenpoint agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of job satisfaction whereas low score indicates lower level of job satisfaction. A sample item of the scale is ‘In general, I like working here’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .712. Intension to quit (IQ) Intension to quit was measured with the help of Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire Turnover Intension Subscale (MOAQ-TIS). The original scale of MOAQ-JSS was developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh in 1979, a manuscript unpublished (Liu, 2005). MOAQ-JSS is a unidimensional three itemised seven-point agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of intension to quit whereas low score indicates lower level of intension to quit. A sample item of the scale is ‘I often think of leaving the organization’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .817. Life Satisfaction (LS) Life satisfaction was measured with help of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS was developed by Ed Diener, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen and Sharon Grifin in the year 1985. The SWLS is a unidimensional ive itemised sevenpoint agreement rating Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Where higher score indicates high level of life satisfaction whereas low score indicates lower level of life satisfaction. A sample item of the scale is ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .772. Happiness Index (HI) Happiness was measured with the use of Global Subjective Happiness, which was developed by Sonja Lyubomirsky and Heidi S. Lepper in the year 1997. Global Subjective Happiness scale is of unidimensional in nature and has got four items. Each item of the scale was measured with sevenpoint happiness rating scale (1 = not a very happy person and 7 = a very happy person. Higher score on Global Subjective Happiness scale indicates higher level of happiness whereas lower score indicates low level of happiness. A sample item of the scale is ‘In general, I consider myself: as a happy person’. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the scale was .836. Method of Analysis The goal of this study is the comparative evaluation of the work-life balance construct and workfamily balance construct in terms of the scope of the concept. And for the purpose of comparing scope among construct-the procedure followed by followed by Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska(2009) was employed.A variable is considered to have wider in scope in relation to another variable if the following two conditions were satisied:- *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian 2017 The predictor variable should be capable of explaining incremental varience in dependent variable, when it is added to a model subsquent to other predictor variable to which it is compared. When the predictor variable (the variable in relation to which scope is compared) is added to the model subsquently after the predictor variable considered, the subsquently added vaibale should not be capable of explaining any signiicant amount of incremental varience in the dependent variable considered. Here in this study scope of work-life balance and work-family balance were evaluated on the basis of its ability to expain varience in variable relating to 59 work, family and personal domain of an individual with the help of linear regression analysis. For this purpose work-life balance and work-family balance were considered as predictor variables and impact variables or predicted variables were work satisfaction, intension to quit, family satisfaction, life satisfaction and happiness. Analysis and Discussion Work-life balance, Work-family balance and Work domain (H1A1, H2A1, H1A2 and H2A2) Table 1 shows the regression model between worklife balance, work-family balance and variables relating to work domain viz., job satisfaction and intension to quit. Table 1 Incremental variance explained by WLB over WFB in relation with work related variables When WFB is entered in to the model before WLB Job Satisfaction Step 1 β Step 2 β .334** .194** Step 1 WFB Step 2 .111** -.105 Step 1 β Step 2 β .429** R2 ΔR2 .020 .020 .130 .110* -.070 .104** .352** -.250** Intension to Quit R2 ΔR2 .184 .184** Step 1 β Step 2 β -.295** .352** Step 2 WFB .111 Step 1 β Step 2 β Job Satisfaction Step 1 WLB ΔR2 .216 WLB When WLB is entered in to the model before WFB Intension to Quit R2 .216 ΔR2 .120 .120* .130 .010 -.250** .032 .194** R2 -.070 (* = p < .05; ** = p <.01; WLB = Work-life balance; WFB = Work-family balance) As per the statistics shown in the table 1, when predictor variable work-family balance was entered in to the model in step 1, resultant model explains 11 per cent of variance in the outcome variable job satisfaction(R2 = .111, ΔR2 = .111; p < .01). When the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-family balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it explains (work-life balance construct) additional 10 per cent signiicant incremental variance in the outcome variable job satisfaction (R2 = .216, ΔR2 = .104; p < .01). That is work-life balance can explain signiicant incremental variance in job satisfaction over work-family balance, which is consistent with the hypothesisH1A1: Work-life balance can explain greater amount of variance in job satisfaction than work family balance can explain. Similarly, when the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explains 18 per cent of variance in the outcome variable job satisfaction (R2 = .184, ΔR2 = .184; p < .01) when the predictor variable work-family balance is added to the regression mode in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-life balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it can explain only non-signiicant incremental variance of 3 percent in job satisfaction (R2 = .216, ΔR2 = .032; p > .05). That isthe work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount incremental variance in job satisfaction over work-life balance construct which is consistent with the hypothesis H2A1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in job satisfaction beyond work-life balance can explain. 60 Amity Global HRM Review According to the statistics shown in the table 1, when predictor variable work-family balance was entered in to the model in step 1, resultant model explains 2 per cent of variance in the outcome variable intensionto quit (R2 = .020, ΔR2 = .020; p > .05). When the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-family balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it explains (work-life balance construct) additional 2 per cent signiicant incremental variance in the outcome variable intensionto quit (R2 = .130, ΔR2 = .110; p < .05). That is work-life balance can explain signiicant incremental variance in turnover intension over work-family balance, which is consistent with the hypothesis H1A2: Work-life balance can explain greater amount of variance in intension to quit than work family balance can explain. Similarly, when the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explained 12 per cent of variance in the outcome variable intensionto quit (R2 = .120, ΔR2 = .120; p < .05) when the predictor variable work-family balance is added to the regression mode in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-life balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it can explain only non-signiicant incremental variance of 1 percent in intensionto quit (R2 = .130, ΔR2 = .010; p > .05). That is the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount incremental variance in intensionto quit over work-life balance construct which is consistent with the hypothesis H2A2: Workfamily balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in intensionto quit beyond work-life balance can explain Scope of work-life balance over work-family balance in relation to work domain. Two work domain related variables viz., job satisfaction and intension to quit were evaluated in order to determine whether work-life balance is a construct that has wider scope as compared with work-family balance in relation with work domain of an individual. The analysis proved that the work-life balance construct can explain signiicant amount of incremental variance in work domain (job satisfaction and intension to quit) related variables when it is added to the regression model subsequently to work-family balance construct (H1AI and H1A2). On the other hand, the workfamily balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount of incremental variance in work domain related variables considered when it is added to the regression model subsequently to the work-life balance construct (H2A1 and H2A2). That September is work-life balance construct has the potential to explain additional variance in work domain of an individual than work-family balance can explain. Whereaswork-family balance construct doesn’t have the potential to explain any additional variance in the work domain of an individual than work-life balance can explain. Which postulates that worklife balance construct not onlycan explain all the variance that the work-family balance construct can explain in the work domain but also can explain additional amount of variance in the work domain, which work-family balance construct cannot explain. Therefore, it can be concluded that with regard to work domain of an individual work-life balance construct can be considered as a superior predictor than work-family balance construct. Work-life balance, Work-family balance and Family domain (H1B1 and H2B1) Table 2illustrates the regression model between work-life balance, work-family balance and variables relating to family domain (family satisfaction). Table 2 Incremental variance explained by WLB over WFB in relation with family related variables When WFB is entered Family Satisfaction in to the model before Step 1 β Step 2 β R2 ΔR2 WLB Step 1 WFB .090 .090** .310** .147* Step 2 .214 .124** WLB When WLB is entered in to the model before WFB .383** Family Satisfaction R2 Step 2 β .467** .383** Step 1 WLB ΔR2 .200 .200** Step 2 WFB R2 .214 .014 .147* (* = p < .05; ** = p <.01; WLB = Work-life balance; WFB = Workfamily balance) As per the statistics displayed in the table 2, when predictor variable work-family balance was entered in to the model in step 1, resultant model explains 9 per cent of variance in the outcome variable family satisfaction (R2 = .090, ΔR2 = .090; p < .01). When the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-family balance which is already *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian 2017 61 entered in to the model at step 1, the construct (work-life balance) further explainsadditional 12 per cent signiicant incremental variance in the outcome variable family satisfaction (R2 = .216, ΔR2 = .124; p < .01). That is work-life balance can explain signiicant incremental variance in family satisfaction over work-family balance, which is consistent with the hypothesis H1A1: Work-life balance can explain greater amount of variance in family satisfaction than work family balance can explain. Similarly, when the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explained 20 per cent of variance in the outcome variable family satisfaction (R2 = .200, ΔR2 = .200; p < .01).On the contrary,when the predictor variable work-family balance is added to the regression model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-life balance which is already entered in to the model as step 1, it can explain only non-signiicant incremental variance of 1 percent in job satisfaction (R2 = .214, ΔR2 = .014; p > .05). That is the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount incremental variance in family satisfaction over work-life balance construct which is consistent with the hypothesis H2B1: Workfamily balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in family satisfaction beyond work-life balance can explain Scope of work-life balance over work-family balance in relation to family domain. variance in family domain (family satisfaction) when it is added to the regression model subsequently to work-family balance construct (H1B1). On the other hand, the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount of incremental variance in the family domain (family satisfaction) when it is added to the regression model subsequently to the work-life balance construct (H2B1). That is work-life balance construct has the potential to explain additional variance in the family domain of an individual than work-family balance can explain. Whereaswork-family balance construct doesn’t have the potential to explain any additional variance in the family domain of an individual than work-life balance can explain. Which postulates that work-life balance construct not only can explain all the variance that the workfamily balance construct can explain in the family domain but also can explain additional amount of variance in the family domain, which work-family balance construct cannot explain. Therefore, it can be concluded that with regard to family domain of an individual is considered work-life balance construct can be considered as a superior predictor than work-family balance construct. Family satisfaction was the family related variable considered in order to evaluate the scope of work-life balance over work-family balance. The regression analysis proved that the work-life balance construct can explain signiicant amount of incremental Table 3 summarise the regression model between work-life balance, work-family balance and variables relating to personal life domain of an individual viz., life satisfaction and happiness. Work-life balance, Work-family balance and personal life domain (H1C1, H2C1, H1C2 and H2C2) Table 3 Incremental variance explained by WLB over WFB in relation with personal related variables When WFB is entered in to the model before WLB Life Satisfaction Step 1 β Step 2 β .300** .214** Step 1 WFB Step 2 .088 .088** Step 1 β Step 2 β .248** Step 1 β Step 2 β .401** R2 ΔR2 .095 .095** .298 .203** .050 .122** .241** .500** Happiness Index R2 ΔR2 .175 .175** .210 .035 .241** Step 2 WFB ΔR2 Life Satisfaction Step 1 WLB R2 .210 WLB When WLB is entered in to the model before WFB Happiness Index Step 1 β Step 2 β .689** .214** (* = p < .05; ** = p <.01; WLB = Work-life balance; WFB = Work-family balance) R2 ΔR2 .254 .254** .298 .044 .500** .050 62 Amity Global HRM Review The statistics of regression analysis shown in the table 3 illustrates that when the predictor variable workfamily balance was entered in to the model in step 1, resultant model explained 8.8 per cent of variance in the outcome variable life satisfaction (R2 = .088, ΔR2 = .088; p < .01). When the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-family balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it (work-life balance construct) explains additional 12.2 per cent signiicant incremental variance in the outcome variable life satisfaction (R2 = .210, ΔR2 = .122; p < .01). That is work-life balance construct has the potential to explain signiicant incremental variance in life satisfaction over workfamily balance construct, which is consistent with the hypothesis H1C1: Work-life balance can explain greater amount of variance in life satisfaction than work family balance can explain. Similarly, when the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explains 17.5 per cent of variance in the outcome variable life satisfaction (R2 = .175, ΔR2 = .175; p < .01). However, when the predictor variable work-family balance is added to the regression mode in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-life balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it(workfamily balance construct) can explain only nonsigniicant incremental variance of 3.5 percent in life satisfaction (R2 = .210, ΔR2 = .035; p > .05). That is the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount incremental variance in life satisfaction over work-life balance construct, which is consistent with the hypothesis H2C1: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional amount of variance in life satisfaction beyond work-life balance can explain. According to the statistics shown in the table 3, when predictor variable work-family balance was entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explains 9.5 per cent of variance in the outcome variable happiness (R2 = .095, ΔR2 = .095; p < .01). When the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the model in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-family balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it explains (work-life balance construct) 20.3 per cent signiicant incremental variance in the outcome variable happiness (R2 = .130, ΔR2 = .110; p < .05). which postulates that the work-life balance construct can explain additional variance in happiness over and above work-family balance construct can explain, which is consistent with the hypothesis H1C2: Work-life balance can September explain greater amount of variance in happiness than work family balance can explain. Similarly, when the predictor variable work-life balance is entered in to the regression model in step 1, it explained 25.4 per cent of variance in the outcome variable happiness (R2 = .254, ΔR2 = .254; p < .01).On the contrary when the predictor variable work-family balance is added to the regression mode in step 2 subsequent to the predictor variable work-life balance which is already entered in to the model at step 1, it (work-family balance construct) can explain only non-signiicant incremental variance of 4.4 percent in happiness (R2 = .298, ΔR2 = .044; p > .05). That is the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount incremental variance in happiness over work-life balance construct, which is consistent with the hypothesis H2C2: Work-family balance doesn’t explain any additional variance amount of variance in happiness beyond work-life balance can explain. Scope of work-life balance over work-family balance in relation to personal life domain. In order to evaluate the scope of work-life balance construct over work-family balance construct in relation to personal life domain, two personal life domain related variables were considered viz., life satisfaction and happiness. The analysis proved that the work-life balance construct can explain signiicant amount of incremental variance in personal life domain (life satisfaction and happiness) related variables when it is added to the regression model subsequently to work-family balance construct (H1CI and H1C2). On the other hand, the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount of incremental variance in personal life domain related variables considered when it is added to the regression model subsequently to the work-life balance construct (H2C1 and H2C2). That is work-life balance construct has the potential to explain additional variance in personal life domain of an individual than work-family balance can explain. Whereaswork-family balance construct doesn’t have the potential to explain any additional variance in the personal life domain of an individual than work-life balance can explain. Which postulates that work-life balance construct not only can explain all the variance that the workfamily balance construct can explain in the personal life domain but also can explain additional amount of variance in the personal life domain, which workfamily balance construct cannot explain. Therefore, it can be concluded that with regard to personal life domain of an individual is considered work-life 2017 *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian balance construct can be considered as a superior predictor than work-family balance construct. Scope of work-life balance over work-family balance. scope of work-life balance over work-family balance was examined with the help of regression analysis. And while examining work domain, family domain and personal domain as outcome variable, when work-life balance was entered in to the regression model in step 2 (work-family balance was entered in to the regression model in step 1), the worklife balance construct has the potential to explain signiicant amount of incremental variance in work domain (H1A1 and H1A2), family domain, (H1B1) and in personal domain (HIC1 and HIC2).On the other hand, while examining work domain, family domain and personal domain as outcome variable, when work-family balance was entered in to the regression model in step 2 (work-life balance was entered in to the regression model in step 1), the work-family balance construct failed to explain any signiicant amount of incremental variance in work domain (H2A1 and H2A2), family domain, (H2B1) and in personal domain (H2C1 and H2C2). That is the work-life balance construct has the potential to explain signiicant amount of additional variance in work, family and personal domain of an individual than work-family balance can explain. Whereas work-family balance construct failed to explain signiicant amount of additional variance in work, family and personal domain of an individual than work-life balance can explain. Which postulates that work-life balance is a construct which is wider than work-family balance construct in terms of scope, in consistent with the proposition put forward by several researchers (e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Brough, et al., 2014; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009; Kalliath & Brough, 2008; Hayman, 2005; Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Frone, 2003). The regression analysis proved that the work-family balance construct failed to explain any incremental variance in non-work domain of an individual beyond work-life balance construct an explain. Whereas work-life balance construct has the potential to explain incremental variance in non-work domain on an individual beyond the work-family balance construct can explain. Which means that work-life balance is a construct that encompass the workfamily balance construct. To be more speciic worklife balance is the total effect of balance in between work and all the other non-work sphereswhich are 63 relevant to an individual. Therefore work-family balance construct can be considered as one of the severalsubsets of work-life balance construct. however, further studies are essential to validate weather work-family balance can be considered as a subset of the work-life balance construct. Similarly, the cross sectional as well as longitudinal replication of the study is essential for the validate the result consistence of the indings. The study examined the scope of work-life balance over work-family balance only on the basis of the constructs potential to explain varience in three of the selected domains viz., work, family and personal life. All the other domains such as society, friends, religion etc., fall outside the preview of study. Similatly, work satisfaction and intension to quit were the variables used to represent the work domain, family satisfaction was only the variable used to represent the family domain, and life satisfaction and happiness were the variable used to represent the personal life domain. Which postulates thatthe study considers only selected variables from each of the selected domain and thereforeit may to be possible to examine true effect of the domain considered with the limited set of variables from each domain. Conclusion The study examined the scope of work-life balance construct over work-family balance construct on the basis of the potential of the construct to explain variancein three of the dependent domains viz., work, family and personal life. And found that the work-life balance is a construct which is wider than work-family balance construct as the former construct is not only capable of explaining whole amount of variance that the work-family construct can explain but also can explain the variance in the dependent variable (work domain, family domain and personal life domain) beyond work-family balance construct can explain. The indings of the study can be considered as empirical validation of the proposition put forward by several researchers (e.g., Smeltzer, et al., 2016; Brough, et al., 2014; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009; Kalliath& Brough, 2008; Hayman, 2005; Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Frone, 2003) that the workfamily balance is a construct which is wider in scope as compared to work-family balance construct. Therefore, it is far worthwhile to focus on worklife balance as it can provide wider comprehension Amity Global HRM Review 64 September about life balance of an individual (employee) rather than work-family balance construct can provide. 15. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When the Work and Family are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. References 16. Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007, November). Conceptualizing Work–Family Balance: Implications for Practice and Research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 455-471. doi:10.1177/1523422307305487 1. Antai1, D., Oke, A., Braithwaite, P., & Anthony, D. (2015). A ‘Balanced’ Life: WorkLife Balance and Sickness Absence in Four Nordic Countries. IJOEM, 6(4), 205-225. Retrieved from www.theijoem.com 2. Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigain Organizational Assesment Questionnare Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63-77. 3. Brough, P., Timmsb, C., O’Driscollc, M. P., Kalliathd, T., Siue, O.-L., Sitf, C., & Log, D. (2014, March). Work–life balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724-2744. doi:10.1080/0958519 2.2014.899262 17. Haar, J. M., & Bardoel, A. (2007). Work Family Positive Spillover Predicting Outcomes: A study of Australian Employees. Victoria: Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work. 18. Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed to Measure Work Life Balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1), 85-91. 19. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variancebased structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 115-135. 4. Burnett, K. (2011). Chapter 2: People/HR. In K. Burnett, Practical Contact Center Collaboration (pp. 20-60). Pittsburgh: Rose Dog Books. 20. Jayakar, T. J., & Babu, S. S. (2012). Professional Communication for Better Work-Life Balance. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(6), 37-46. Retrieved from www.iiste.org 5. Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009, October). Is work–family balance more than conflict and enrichment? National Institute of Health, 62(10), 1-20. doi:10.1177/0018726709336500 21. Joseph, J., & Sebastian, D. J. (in press). 6. Chitra Devi, A., & Sheela Rani, S. (2012). Work-Life Balance as a Determinant of Life Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction - A Study among Women in BPO. International Journal on Information Science and Computing, 6(1), 15-20. 7. Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance. Human Relations, 747-770. doi:10.1177/0018726700536001 22. Kalli ath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work–life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of Management & Organization , 14(3), 323-327. 23. Kumari, S. (2013). Work-Life Balance And Its Impact on Performance of Women Executives in IT Companies . PhD Thesis, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. 24. Literature reviews. (2016). Retrieved from Royal Literary Fund: https://www.rlf.org.uk/ 8. Coradon Health. (2016, March 27). Health & Wellbeing. Retrieved from Coradon Health: www.corazonhealth.co.uk 25. Liu, Y. (2005). Investigating Turnover Intention among Emergency Communication Specialists. Yufan Liu. Retrieved from http:// scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/744 9. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71-75. 26. Loshin, D. (2013, December 19). BeyeNetwork. Retrieved from Do Demographics Matter for Customer Segmentation?: http://www.b-eye-network.com/17191 10. Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond Work and Family: A Measure of Work/Nonwork Interference and Enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 441-456. 27. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct Validation. Social Indicators Research, 137-155. 11. Frijns, M. (2010). Determinants of Life Satisfaction-A Cross Regional Comparison. Maastricht University, School of Business and Economics. Maastricht: Maastricht University. 12. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-Family Balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick, Handbook of Occupational Health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington: American Psychological Association. 13. Glasgow, S., & Sang, K. (2016). Gender and Work-life Balance. In N. Arshed, J. McFarlane, & R. MacIntosh, Enterprise and its Business Environment (pp. 135-150). Wolvercote: Goodfellow Publishers Limited. 14. Greenhaus, J. H., & Foley, S. (2007). The Intersection of Work and Family Lives. In Main Currents in the Study of Career: Careers and Indvidual (pp. 131-152). 28. Marks, N. (2006). The Happy Planet Index. (M. Murphy, Ed.) Jonathan Street: New Economic Foundation. 29. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy, Time and Commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(2), 921-936. 30. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role Balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 417-432-. 31. Mirji, H. (2014). A Study of Work life balance in Banking Sector. PhD Thesis, Pune. 32. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is Happy? Psychological Science, 6(1). 33. Nye, F. I. (1976). Role Structure and Analysis of the Family. Beverly Hills: Sage. 2017 *Joshin Joseph, **Deepu Jose Sebastian 65 34. O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to Job and Off-Job Activities, Interrole Conlict and Affective Experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 272-279. 40. Valcour, M. (2007). Work-Based Resources as Moderators of the Relationship Between Work Hours and Satisfaction With Work-Family Balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1512-1523. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512 35. Prasoon, R., & Chaturvedi, K. R. (2016). Life Satisfaction A Literature Review. The Researcher- International Journal of Management Humanities and Social Sciences, 25-32. 41. Voydanoff, P. (2005). Social Integration, Work-Family Conlict and Facilitation, and Job and Marital Quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 666-679. 36. Proctor, C. L., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth Life Satisfaction: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Happiness Studies, 583-630. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9 42. Whitehead, D. (2013, September 21). ResearchGate. Retrieved from Would you discourage to cite PhD theses?: https:// www.researchgate.net/ 37. Smeltzer, S. C., Cantrell, M. A., Sharts-Hopko, N. C., Heverly, M. A., Jenkinson, A., & Nthenge, S. (2016, April). Psychometric Analysis of the Work/Life Balance Self-Assessment Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 24(1), 5-14. doi:10.1891/10613749.24.1.5 43. Write a Literature Review. (2016, October 25). Retrieved from University of California: http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/ write-a-literature-review 38. Sundaresan, S. (2014). Work-Life Balance-Implication for Working Women. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 93-102. Retrieved from http://www.ssrn.com/ link/OIDA-Intl-Journal-Sustainable-Dev.html 39. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of FamilySupportive Work Variables on Work-Family Conlict and Strain: A Control Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15. 44. Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1977). The Symmetrical Family: A Study of Work and Leisure in the London Region. London: Penguin Book. 45. Zabriskie, R. B., & Ward, P. J. (2013). Satisfaction With Family Life Scale. Marriage & Family Review, 37-41. doi:10.1080/014 94929.2013.768321