wsc - thesis 23.12.15

IMPACT OF WORK-STUDY CONFLICT ON JOB

SATISFACTION, PRESENTEEISM, BURNOUT AND

TURNOVER INTENTIONS WITH MODERATING ROLE OF

SUPERVISOR SUPPORT

BySalman Ahmed Khan

(CMS: 11425

A research thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management Sciences,Riphah International University, Islamabad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCES(HRM)

RIPHAH SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIPFACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

RIPHAH INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITYISLAMABAD

JANUARY 2016

IMPACT OF WORK-STUDY CONFLICT ON JOB

SATISFACTION, PRESENTEEISM, BURNOUT AND

TURNOVER INTENTIONS WITH MODERATING ROLE OF

SUPERVISOR SUPPORT

BySalman Ahmed Khan

(CMS: 11425)

__________________________Dr. Khurram Shahzad

(Thesis Supervisor)

__________________________Dr. Kamran Azam(Internal Examiner)

__________________________Dr. Sajid Bashir

(External Examiner)

__________________________Dr. Khurram Shahzad

(Head of Department Graduate Programs, Management Sciences)

__________________________Professor Muhammad Amanullah Khan

(Dean, Management Sciences)

RIPHAH SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIPFACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

RIPHAH INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITYISLAMABADJanuary 2016

All rights are reserved. No part of the material protected by this copy right notice may be

reproduced or utilized in any form or any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the

permission from the author.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Khurram Shahzad has incorporated all observations, suggestions

and comments made by the external examiner as well as internal examiner and thesis

supervisor. The title of his thesis is: Impact of Work-Study Conflict on Job Satisfaction,

Presenteeism, Burnout and Turnover Intentions with Moderating Role of Supervisor

Support.

Forwarded for necessary action.

Dr. Khurram Shahzad (Thesis Supervisor)

DEDICATION

‘’I dedicate this thesis to everyone who supported me by any mean and

stayed there whenever I needed’’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It’s the grace of ALMIGHTY ALLAH, the Gracious and the most Compassionate that has

led this work to its completion. I can never dare to deny of HIS gifts that HE has granted me,

best of which is that HE has provided me with the torch of eternal guidance in the form of

HIS Holy Prophet (PBUH), who is the knowledge for humanity as a whole.

I sincerely and honestly thank my supervisor Dr. Khurram Shahzad, for his unmatchable and

dedicated supervision for the completion of this study. He has really been extremely patient,

helpful and cooperative.

I also greatly thank Dean/HOD and faculty members of Faculty of Management Sciences of

Riphah International University, for their cooperation and support.

I would love to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues and friends who have always

been a real source of motivation for me.

I am very thankful to my family. The prayers and support of my family has helped me

throughout my work.

Salman Ahmed Khan

ContentsCHAPTER 1..........................................................................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background..................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement/Research Gap................................................................................................3

1.3 Research Questions......................................................................................................................4

1.4 Significance of the study..............................................................................................................5

1.5 Research Objectives.....................................................................................................................6

1.6 Definitions of study variables......................................................................................................7

1.7 Theories Supporting Research Study...........................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2........................................................................................................................................11

2. LITRATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................11

2.1 The Nature of Role Conflict......................................................................................................11

2.2 Work- Study Conflict and its Impact.........................................................................................12

2.3 The moderating role of Supervisor Support...............................................................................21

2.4 Research model..........................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER 3........................................................................................................................................32

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................32

3.1 Research Design........................................................................................................................32

3.3 Scales and Measures..................................................................................................................34

3.4 Control Variables.......................................................................................................................36

CHAPTER 4........................................................................................................................................37

4. RESULTS........................................................................................................................................37

4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis.........................................................................37

4.2 Regression Analysis...................................................................................................................39

4.3Assessing the Form of Interaction..............................................................................................40

4.4 Summary of Results...................................................................................................................45

CHAPTER 5........................................................................................................................................47

5. Discussion, Implications, Limitations and Directions for Future Research.....................................47

5.1. Discussion................................................................................................................................47

5.2. Implications..............................................................................................................................50

5.3. Limitations................................................................................................................................52

5.4. Direction for Future Research...................................................................................................52

5.5. Conclusion................................................................................................................................52

ReferenceAppendix(Questionnaire)

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Frequency Distribution………………………………………………………… 33

Table 3.2: Reliability of Scales…………………………………………………………….35

Table 3.3: Results from One-way ANOVA……………………………………………….36

Table 4.1: Descriptive Analysis……………………………………………………………37

Table 4.2: Correlation Analysis…………………………………………………………… 38

Table 4.3: Hierarchical Regression Analysis………………………………………………39

Table 4.4: Moderated Regression Analysis……………………………………………….. 40

Table 4.5: Summary of Hypothesis………………………………………………………..45

List of Figures

Figure 1: Moderation Graph………………………………………………………………. 41

Figure 2: Moderation Graph ……………………………………………………………… 41

[VIII]

ABSTRACT

In order to meet the overpowering job requirements and meeting career related opportunities

a large chunk of employees of different organizations be likely to enroll in higher education

degree programs. On contrary, in order to meet the educational expenses and unforeseen

nature of employment conditions a large number of students seek paid work. Fulfillment of

this dual role demand has created tension between both roles i.e. student and employee which

ultimately causes work-study conflict. This study examines the impact of work-study conflict

on Job Satisfaction, Presenteeism, Burnout and Turnover Intentions with Moderating Role of

Supervisor Support among the employees who are working in different organizations and

studying in universities.

The sample consists of 350 working students of universities employed in different

organizations of Pakistan out of which 281 questionnaires were received in a correct form

making the response rate of 80.2%.

The results of this study depicted that work-study conflict has significant negative

relationship with supervisor support and significant positive relationship with presenteeism,

burnout and turnover intentions whereas insignificant relationship with job satisfaction.

Supervisor support has significant positive relationship with the job satisfaction and has

significant negative relationship with the presenteeism, burnout and turnover intentions.

Results also show that there is moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of

work-study conflict (WSC) and presenteeism and also between the relationship of WSC and

burnout. But there is no moderation between the relationship of work-study conflict (WSC),

job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Implications and future direction of the study are also

discussed.

CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundRecent generations have seen a lot of changes in social spectrum and they are taking up

multiple roles with different perceptions and goals. The rising cost of education, future

unpredictability and job requirements have made it essential for a large number of students to

find work and workers to opt for higher education. More education is required to perform

more complex jobs (Rosenzweig, 1995). On the other hand, workers all around the world

have become more aware of the opportunities available for them which have created a

competitive atmosphere in the market. So as to contend workers are trying hard to improve

their professional as well as educational profile. With the advancement of technology, more

educated workers are needed to fulfill the jobs, hence attainment of more education increased

(Rosenzweig, 1990).

Markel and Frone (1998) suggest that work and education tend to be the most important

spheres of life. An increasing number of students in higher education are now combining

education and employment concurrently (Hofman & Steijn, 2003). It also supports the work

of Micldewright et al. (1994) who suggested that students get encouraged to find out work as

soon as possible because of the unseen future of the industry.

Another reason of combining education with work, as confirmed by students was gaining

work experience which would help them in finding a better work opportunity in future (Nolan

& Hagen, 1989). Students believe that job helps them to develop a number of personal and

social skills such as communication, clients dealing, self-confidence which they learn in an

office environment and by dealing with different people. This also develops a sense of

responsibility and competence amongst students which they gain by performing the assigned

tasks at work (Coventry et al., 1984).

As it’s evident, that attainment of higher education by workers and engagement in full time

work by students is increasing across different countries including Pakistan, which is

somewhat and somehow affecting different aspects related to work and study. In recent years, [1]

educational expenses have risen so high that it became unavoidable for a student to combine

work and study at the same time (Lipke, 2000; Curtis & Lucas, 2001; Curtis & Williams,

2002). Both work and study have their own demands which are expected to be fulfilled in a

dedicated manner. Hence, a working student has to fulfill the demands of both roles for

performing well at workplace as well as at university. While performing these two roles and

fulfilling their demands at the same time, a working student encounters a conflict between

these two roles i.e. employee and student. As roles become more differentiated in developing

societies, there is likely to be stronger role conflict between the student role and the employee

role (Yabiku & Schlabach, 2009).

Numerous working students experience the ill effects of over work, and this is particularly

valid for the individuals who are bound to perform extra obligations at work and university

without the reciprocal changes in their role relations. In such a circumstance, working

students are the victims of clashing role relations from professional and educational sides.

Inability to understand and take the diversified roles may lead towards failure to coordinate

effectively amongst both roles, which will eventually become a cause of conflict and

dissatisfaction in education and work later on. This is evident from the way highly working

students encounter problems at work, at university or in the society.

Even though combining work and study can be an energizing challenge for people who are

performing both roles in the meantime yet it can likewise be a major source of anxiety.

Together work and study require more time and energy; as a result, it becomes difficult for a

working student to meet requirements of both roles and hence they continuously encounter

negative and positive aspects of work and education. Numerous organizational factors

contribute in adding anxiety levels, work stress often bring about disorders such as anxiety,

depression, uneasiness, mental distress, illnesses, and ceaseless agony (Sauter, Hurrell &

cooper, 1989). It is often observed that numerous skilled working students on the edge of

their career, struggle hard to manage with their expert driving forces. It would, in this

manner, be advantageous to study the results which develop as an aftereffect of work-study

conflict.

Role conflict was defined as the degree to which a person encountered stress in one role that

were contrary with stress in another role (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). High

levels of workload may lead to psychological preoccupation with uncompleted tasks at work,

even when an individual is trying to fulfill the demands of another role. Role conflict arises

when two or more kind of role pressure exists in a work, and fulfillment of one of these

pressures hinders the completion of another (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal,

1964).

A role conflict also arises when employees get engaged in higher education to fulfill their job

requirements and to achieve a higher cadre in organization; on the other hand students opt to

find paid work in order to meet their financial needs and to gain work experience. Past

research by the authors (Mills & Ashford, 2004; Lingard et al., 2003) shown that students

were working adequately long hours and face conflicts with university education. Work study

conflict can take individuals to an environment across their education and work while not

being completely dedicated to each culture (Hodgson & Spours, 2000).

Past research studies on work-study conflict do not reveal diverse conclusions describing its

impact on various psychological variables and how this impact gets moderated by a

moderator. By testing the impact of work-study conflict on four variables i.e. job satisfaction,

presenteeism, burnout and turnover intention with moderating role of supervisor support and

testing those in a combined form will help to identify the effects on these variables altogether

adding a new dimension to the existing literature of work-study conflict. However, it is a

premeditated fact that most of the research in this area has been conducted in Western

perspective. In countries like Pakistan where number of working students are increasing day

by day, it is significant to conduct a comprehensive research in this field and noticeable is the

fact that no defined studies have been conducted yet, that implies to buffer the conflict

between work and study.

1.2 Problem Statement/Research GapWith an increase in number of working students, work-study conflict requires research

because a lot of working students are encountering this conflict and they need remedial

actions so they could perform their dual role in a positive and constructive manner without

facing different kinds of psychological issues, out of which few have been selected for this

study.

There are few studies which have focused on the employee-student relationship and role

conflict effects which arise as a result of combining work-study among university students

(Lenaghan & Sengupta, 2007). Most of the research has been focused on different kind of

role conflicts such as Gender Role Conflict and Work Family Conflict but a very little focus

has been given to an important role conflict i.e. the Work-Study Conflict. A large number of

research studies have been conducted on the role conflict related to work-family (Greenhaus

& Powell, 2006; Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986). According to

Hofman and Steijn (2003), educational interest in combining work with education is

increasing, still a little is known about it.

In order to explain the impact of work-study conflict only few theoretical models have been

developed and remarkably many discrepancies are found. Past studies on work-study conflict

have mostly been done in USA, UK and Australia which were focused more on part time

work and high school or college students. Lingard (2012) argued that the conflict between

work role and life’s other roles is a significant component. Small amount of research has been

found examining the impact of Work-Study Conflict and in Pakistani context no such

research has been conducted which contributes in studying this kind of conflict and its impact

on different psychological factors. According to Aycan et al. (2000), Pakistan is the under

researched country. So there is a need for research on such topic containing conflict between

work and study.

1.3 Research QuestionsFollowing are the specific research questions:

1. What is the relationship between work-study conflict and supervisor support?2. What is the impact of work-study conflict on job satisfaction?3. What is the impact of work-study conflict on presenteeism?4. What is the impact of work-study conflict on burnout?5. What is the impact of work-study conflict on turnover intention?6. What is the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction?7. What is the relationship between supervisor support and presenteeism?8. What is the relationship between supervisor support and burnout?9. What is the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention?10. Does supervisor support moderate the work-study conflict and job satisfaction

relationship?11. Does supervisor support moderate the work-study conflict and presenteeism

relationship?12. Does supervisor support moderate the work-study conflict and burnout relationship?

13. Does supervisor support moderate the work-study conflict and turnover intention relationship?

1.4 Significance of the studyThis study stands unique in terms of context and examining the impact of Work-Study

Conflict between workers who opt to enroll in higher studies programs. So this study will be

an enhancement in the literature of work-study conflict.

This research is comparatively and potentially a novel thought in Pakistani context and

particularly in education and work setting since it intends to develop and test a moderated

model. The main aim of the study is to better understand work-study conflict, supervisor

support and psychological factors i.e. job satisfaction, presenteeism, burnout, and turnover

intention. These psychological factors have been individually tested with work-study conflict

and supervisor support. However, the need is to present a compact and moderated set of

variables for universities and employers to evaluate and assess the reasons for their

students/employees to encounter these psychological factors. Besides, the study can also help

in developing a better awareness of factors which are associated with the increase or decrease

of work-study conflict among the working students which will resultantly help in developing

a better understanding of the issues in question.

The relationship in the model can be supported by two theories i.e. Social Exchange Theory

(Homans, 1958) and Conservation of Resource Theory (Hobfoll, 2001). Social Exchange

Theory states that it is an exchange of action, substantial or elusive and somewhat

remunerating or immoderate between at least two persons. The Conservation of Resource

Theory states that people have an inborn as well as a learned vigor to make, promote,

preserve, and guard the quality and quantity of their resources. Stress arises when they failed

to do this, like in work-study conflict, which results in anxiety and typically pursue from a

course of slow drain out of resources without compensating the resource gain or

replenishment.

This research has its advantages for employers/managers and universities in particular. With

these factors, employers and universities will be in a better position to understand the

working students thus finding out better paths to reduce work-study conflict and its

aftereffects. Additionally, factor like supervisor support is directly dealt by the supervisors

providing employee enough room to work and study efficiently and effectively. The trust is a

mutual thing between the management and the individual; however, greater care has to be

taken by the supervisors in finding out ways to avoid the work-study conflict and its

outcomes among employees.

The present study has its practical implication that leads the management of organization to

divert their attention to this independent variable and taking it into account at the time of

making their policies and defining the organizational norms and culture. Employees in an

organization want adequate support in their career. Personal growth helps the employee’s

skills and abilities in performing his/her tasks. It is worth mentioning that a constant

improvement in the abilities and skills of the individual, higher education helps maintaining

the motivation level of the individual, in turn, reducing the aftereffects of work-study conflict

among the employees. The present study allows the management of organizations and

universities to recognize the needs of the working students in Pakistan. The same is followed

by the levels of personal growth, trust and intrinsic motivation in terms of the level of

contribution of supervisor support. Up till this time literature has not tested these variables in

an integrative form associated with the impact of work-study conflict.

The research is based on psychological practice that is supporting the employee through their

supervisors and enabling them to overcome psychological pressures and increase satisfaction.

The study is also significant as it associates with the relationship between supervisors and

employees in work setting having a relationship of mutual exchange that when the employee

gets supervisor support then how this relationship gets affected by increase in level of job

satisfaction and reduction in the levels of presenteeism, burnout and turnover intentions that

are caused by the role conflict among the working students particularly in the context of

Pakistan. The study also provides a moderated model which has been missing providing a

considerable gap for research in the literature of work-study conflict. Undoubtedly, Pakistan

has a varying culture from other developing countries in the world; therefore, the contextual

contribution is much expected from this research. This study holds a significant value for the

organizations and universities operating in Pakistan.

1.5 Research ObjectivesFollowing are the research objectives of this study:

1. To find out the relationship between work-study conflict and supervisor support2. To find out the impact of work-study conflict on job satisfaction.

3. To find out the impact of work-study conflict on presenteeism.4. To find out the impact of work-study conflict on burnout.5. To find out the impact of work-study conflict on turnover intention.6. To find out the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction.7. To find out the relationship between supervisor support and presenteeism.8. To find out the relationship between supervisor support and burnout.9. To find out the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention.10. To find out the combined effect of work-study conflict and supervisor support on job

satisfaction.11. To find out the combined effect of work-study conflict and supervisor support on

presenteeism.12. To find the combined effect of work-study conflict and supervisor support on burnout.13. To find the combined effect of work-study conflict and supervisor support on turnover

intention.

1.6 Definitions of study variables 1.6.1 Work-Study Conflict (Role Conflict)

“The simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with

one would make difficult or impossible compliance with the other" (Wolfe & Snoek, 1962).

1.6.2 Supervisor Support

Supervisor support was defined as the “extent to which supervisors/managers support and

reinforce use of training on the job” (Holton et al., 2000). Eisenberger, Stinglhamber,

Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002) have defined supervisor support as “the

degree to which employees form general impressions that their superiors appreciate their

contributions, are supportive, and care about their subordinates’ well-being”.

1.6.3 Job Satisfaction

“A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job

experiences” (Locke, 1976)

1.6.4 Presenteeism

“Reduced productivity at work due to health problems or other events that distract one from

full productivity” (Hummer, Sherman, & Quinn, 2002; Whitehouse, 2005).

1.6.5 Burnout

According to Maslach, “burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,

and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do ‘people

work’ of some kind” (Maslach, 1982).

1.6.6 Turnover Intentions

Intention to turnover is defined as “one’s behavioral attitude to withdraw from the

organization whereas turnover is considered to be the actual separation from the

organization” (Aydogdu & Asikgil, 2011).

1.7 Theories Supporting Research Study 1.7.1. Social Exchange Theory

The idea of supervisory support originates from social exchanges between the supervisor and

the individual and depends on social exchange theory and the standard of correspondence.

Social exchange theory is a type of motivational theory, clarifies that a fundamental type of

human connection occurs when people mutually exchange their resources (Emerson & Cook,

1978). It suggests that every kind of relationships which are formed between supervisor and

subordinate are based upon cost benefit analysis. If the benefit in returns is more than the cost

incurred, then subordinate and supervisor are likely to stay in the relationship.

Moreover, the law of reciprocity suggests that employees will feel a sense of obligation to

pay back the promising conduct of supervisor (Eisenberger et al., 2004; Mowday, Porter, &

Steers, 1982; Rousseau, 1990). In other words, we can say that if a supervisor treats his

subordinates well and shows concern towards them then the subordinate will feel an

obligation to act in such a way which has some value for the supervisor and the organization

i.e. achieving the set goals objectives (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades,

2001). An employee may assess the level of concern and support given by the supervisor

through promotions and compensation, regularity and honesty of praise and appreciation, and

volume of job autonomy (Hutchison & Garstka, 1996; Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995).

Past research shows that normally employees make an exchange relationship with supervisor

which is based upon a perception that how much an employee’s efforts are supported by the

supervisor e.g. (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Wayne, Shore, & Liden,

1997). Employees pursue equilibrium in exchange relationships with their supervisors by

developing such attitudes and behaviors which is matching with the level of supervisor’s

commitment to his/her employees.

Social exchange theory is a paradigm of cross discipline having its roots in anthropology

(e.g., Sahlins, 1972), social psychology (e.g., Gouldner, 1960) and sociology (e.g., Blau,

1964) and that times back at least to the extent the beginning of 20th century (e.g., Mauss,

1925). The process of social exchange usually contains a sequence of inter-dependent and

conditional relations among two person or parties causing in specific kinds of compulsions

which may lead towards a superior quality relationship (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,

2005; Emerson, 1976). Moreover, Social exchange theory explains further that if both parties

in a relationship want to continue then they must perceive an exchange or receiving

something which has value. This perception demonstrates a phenomenon which is known as

norm of reciprocity. According to Gouldner (1960), when one party treats the other party well

in an exchange relationship then it compels the other party to do the same or return the favor

where it is due. What is regularly traded in organizational context is devotion and dedication.

This feature of social exchange has been depicted as social exchange relationship (e.g.,

Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). In a social exchange relationship, employees

show devotion and faithfulness to their organization through diminished turnover and

absenteeism along with elevated performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In return,

employers also show concern towards employees not only by providing them compensation

package but also by showing respect, care and value for the well-being of employees.

Consequently, employers and employees explore a two-way path of social exchange, on

which both sides can be mutually compensated.

1.7.2. Conservation of Resources Theory:According to the role theory when a person experience vagueness/ambiguity and conflict

while performing a role (intra-role) then he/she encounter some unwarranted results. Role

theory also suggests that performance of multiple roles at the same time lead towards inter-

role conflict and hence, successful performance of each role becomes difficult for a person,

due to simultaneous clashing requirements, exhaustion, or contradictory behaviors amongst

roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1986; Kahn et al., 1964).

The COR model recommends that people try to obtain and sustain resources. Stress/anxiety is

a response to a situation which includes a danger of losing resources, losing resources

actually, or absence of desirable increase in resources. Resources may consist of objects,

situations, individual characteristics, and drives. Last three categories are particularly

applicable for this research study. The conditions of being a student and an employee are

examples of work and study resources that are desired and valued. Individual characteristics

are also known as buffering resources against stress. Self-esteem is also known to be such

kind of a resource (Rosenberg, 1979). Time, knowledge and money are a part of one’s

energies and together they permit to collect other resources. Individuals encounter stress if

those lose these resources or face any threat of losing them.

Model of COR theory clarifies stress results for intra-role as well as inter-role stress. For

instance, workers undergoing role conflict at work may start believing that they are unable to

perform their job effectively. Resultantly, they may be compelled to put a greater amount of

their resources into their occupational role because of a paranoid fear of losing their status at

work. COR model suggests that stress is caused by inter-role conflict because in the process

of manipulating roles between work and life’s other role, an individual loses his/her

resources. These dangers of losing resources and/or actual loss of resources lead towards a

negative psychological state, where an individual encounters psychological tension,

depression, anxiety and dissatisfaction. Some kind of behavior, like intention to quit from the

work role is required to switch or protect the vulnerable resources. If this kind of behavior

left untaken, the resources may get washed-out to such extend where burnout is likely to

ensue (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998).

Conservation of resources theory has been applied by different studies to find out the reasons

for occurrence of burnout on two specific aspects: work demands and individual resources.

Work demands contain role conflict, role ambiguity, events’ pressure, work pressure and

work overload. Individual resources comprise, resumption contingencies, social support,

opportunities of job enhancement such as autonomy, policymaking and automation.

COR theory suggests that humans want to obtain, retain and care for those things which they

remark as valuable and that stress can be comprehended in view of potential or actual loss of

resources. Moreover, Hobfoll (2002) has contended that individuals who are less vulnerable

to resource depletion also possess greater sums of resources.

CHAPTER 2

2. LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Nature of Role ConflictThe word ‘Role’ is utilized to denote a group of inter-related meanings and beliefs that direct

and controls an individual’s behavior in a social set. The meaning of this terminology is well

explained by Good (1973), "A person is likely to play many roles in the course of a day".

The term Conflict is borrowed from psychoanalytic school of thought according to which, it’s

an agonizing emotional state caused by strain because of opposite and clashing desires and

expectations. According to Good (1973), conflict is an agonizing or unhappy condition of

mind which is caused by a clash of mismatched plans, aims, energies etc.

Role conflict is defined as an event of two or more sets of forces at the same time, such that

fulfillment of one would make other more intricate (House & Rizzo, 1972; Kahn et al., 1964;

Pandey & Kumar, 1997). According to Kahn et al., (1964) the role is the consequence of

desires of others concerning precise behavior in a specific position. The role conflict is

adequately depicted as a mental strain that is achieved by clashing forces applied by the role.

Role theory proposes that such a conflict occurs when people take part in various roles that

are incompatible (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

We encounter conflict between different roles when we find ourselves dragged towards all

the roles we hold. Garavan and Murphy (2001) suggested that work-study requires agreement

and mutual consent from key players in this process, i.e. the student, the employer and the

university. Otherwise together Work and study can affect both roles i.e. employee and

student. For every study which assumes the fruitful outcomes of student employment, there is

a convincing study which claims the opposite (Aper, 1994). Researchers have always been

interested in studying the effect of multiple roles and inter-role conflict. Working full time

while getting higher education can be source of greater stress for a person who is an

employee and a student at the same time. Past research has shown that excess work of 10-15

hours per week is not favorable to student learning (Curtis & Lucas, 2001). One logical

explanation may be that, work affects spare time, students be likely to decrease relaxation and

socializing time instead of study time (Fjortoft, 1995). British research suggests that

university students find it difficult to balance between work and study; as a result they

experience somewhat high level of pressure (Humphrey et al., 1998). This pressure can affect

performance at work and university adversely. Academic activities get affected by working

long hours (Hansen & Jarvis, 2000). Alternately, workload can cause high level of

psychological and physical exhaustion which can badly affect an individual's capability or

drive to perform other roles effectively (Mortimer, Finch, Dennehy, Lee & Beebe, 1994).

Recent research suggests that a large number of university students get employed in paid

work which creates conflict and stress between both roles (Vickers et al., 2003).

Role conflict is a type of role demand, it takes place when two or more centers of role

pressures exist in the workspace of an individual, and fulfillment of one of these role

pressures affects the completion of another (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).

Role conflict presents instability in light of the fact that the employee is not sure whether

every last bit of her or his role demands are effectively adjusted. Encountering contrary or

beyond reconciliation expectations connected with numerous roles, or with one role, is

believed to be mentally uncomfortable for people and to create pessimistic emotional

reactions (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). Role conflict between university and

work can be a cause of absenteeism, anxiety and turnover. (Lenaghan & Sengupta, 2007).

2.2 Work- Study Conflict and its Impact 2.2.1 Work-Study Conflict and Supervisor Support

Facing mismatched or incompatible expectations linked with multiple roles or with a solo

role is supposed to be psychologically difficult for persons and to produce adverse emotional

responses (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). Existence of two or more role pressures

in a person’s workspace lead towards role conflict which is a type of role demand, fulfilling

one these pressures hinders the fulfillment of another (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, &

Rosenthal, 1964). Uncertainly also come into existence because of role conflict because the

worker is vague that whether all of his/her role demands are balance successfully or not.

Cohen and Will (1985) suggest that if an employee perceive the presence of support for

tackling work related issues neutralizes the adverse aftereffects of work stress i.e. role

ambiguity, role conflict, underutilization of skills and quantitative work overload on

employee’s well-being. According to the role conflict literature, social support has been

identified as a significant resource or managing tool by different models of stress, which can

decrease the adverse effects generated by stressors (Gore, 1987; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Social support is also known as relational exchange which consists of emotional concern,

contributory aid, knowledge, or assessment (House, 1981). Researchers have contended that

the level of supervisor support a person receives in a particular situation may change the

entire process of stress. For instance if a person is facing conflict at his/her work but on the

other hand he/she receives the right amount of supervisor support will stop conflict from

occurrence. Similarly, in case of work-study conflict although a working student may face

conflict from role demands but adequate amount of supervisor may lessen this conflict. For

better understanding of impact of work-study conflict, it is importance to consider the

supervisor supper both at organizational and university levels.

Supervisor support received by employee in a work domain may help in creating a more

positive environment at work. For instance, a supervisor with supportive attitude may

transform difficult working circumstances into less stressful by discussing problems faced by

an employee and being flexible when difficulties arise (Roskies & Lazarus, 1980). This kind

of supervisor support has been found to decrease the degree of role conflict an employee

faces while fulfilling the multiple role demands. For instance, in same kind of work

situations, lower role conflict was reported for workers who had supportive supervisors

(Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Jones & Butler, 1980). On contrary, high degree of role

conflict was reported where supervisor support does not exist or lacks (Burke, 1988;

Greenhaus et al., 1987). Supervisor support has also been found to upset the effect of conflict

on outcomes. For example, level of job satisfaction of employees has been facilitated by

supportive supervisors (Parasuraman et al., 1992). Stephens and Sommer (1993) found in

their research study of role conflict that supervisor support moderates the influence of

perceived role conflict on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Thus, the

supervisor support in the work setting is a significant aspect in the overall assessment of the

role conflict phenomenon. Specifying the significance of role conflict issues to persons while

performing multiple roles and fulfilling their entirely different role demands, supervisor

support keeps a negative relationship with role conflict.

H1. Work-Study conflict will be negatively associated with Supervisor Support

2.2.2 Work-Study Conflict and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction remained a significant topic throughout the years (Akfopure et al., 2006). In

an organizational setting, job satisfaction is known to be a vital and anticipated goal because

as compare to unsatisfied employees, satisfied employees perform at greater levels

(Chambers, 1999). Job satisfaction clarifies the happiness of a person with his or her

occupation. Level of job satisfaction of an employee can be affected by number of factors.

According to Spector (1997) the term job satisfaction refers to the feelings of individuals

regarding their jobs and different aspects related to their jobs. This view is supported by

Ellickson and Logsdon (2002) as they define job satisfaction as the degree to which workers

like their work. Lambert, Barton, and Hogan (1999) define job satisfaction as “the

achievement of satisfaction of certain needs that are related with one’s job.” Another

definition of job satisfaction in organizational context is that, satisfying or positive mental

condition coming about because of the assessment of one's work or work experiences and as

accomplishing or helping the accomplishment of one's work values (Nguni, Sleegers &

Denessen, 2006).

There are two normal ways to deal with the estimation of job satisfaction. The worldwide

methodology surveys job satisfaction in view of a person's overall general response to his or

her employment. On the contrary, the composite methodology analyzes the pattern of states

of mind a man holds with respect to different features of the job, for example, colleagues,

incidental advantages, employment conditions, nature of the work itself, policies and

techniques, pay, and supervision (Spector, 1997). People frequently contrast in their level of

fulfillment crosswise over aspects (e.g., somebody may be extremely fulfilled by supervision,

yet disappointed with salary). The refinement between the two measurement approaches is

essential as shown in research that there are just average levels of relations between the

worldwide and composite job satisfaction measures (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983).

Herzberg (1966) has differentiated between intrinsic employment factors, also known as 'job

satisfiers', and extrinsic employment factors, also known as 'job dissatisfiers'. Intrinsic

employment factors were linked with the way of work and experience which were known as

"motivators," in light of the fact that satisfaction from these elements was found as a cause to

job satisfaction, though "hygiene" factors or extrinsic employment factors were linked with

dissatisfaction when left unsatisfied. Demographic features, job attributes, organizational

factors, interpersonal contrasts and workplace components are the factors that interact in to a

great degree of complexity and as accordingly create satisfaction or dissatisfaction amongst

workers. Among these variables, role conflict appears to play a vital role, as indicated by

Koustelios, Theodorakis and Goulimaris (2004), it is the most well-known organizational

factor influencing job satisfaction. Related research has demonstrated a very revealing and

clear negative relationship between job satisfaction and role conflict (e.g. Behrman &

Perreault, 1984; Boles & Babin, 1996; Hafer & McCuen, 1985; O'Driscoll & Beehr, 2000;

Teas, 1983). In the research studies of Feldman (1976) existence of relationship between role

conflict and job satisfaction was concluded. Chang and Hancock (2003) research studies

found a negative correlation between role conflict and job satisfaction. Lankau et al., (2006)

concluded that the degree of organizational commitment and job satisfaction increase with a

decrease in levels of role conflict. As the level of role conflict increases, the level of job

satisfaction decreases (Higgins et al., 1992). According to Bhagat et al., (1985) negative

relationship has been found between role conflict and job satisfaction. Role conflict has a

highly negative influence on job satisfaction (Netemeyer et al.,1990).

Role conflict has been closely related to numerous dysfunctional after effects such job

dissatisfaction and mental stress (e.g., Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970; Schaubroeck et al.,

1989). It has been found in several research studies that increased role ambiguity (degree of a

worker's uncertainty about roles of his or her occupation, including needs, desires, and so on)

and role conflict (the extent to which the work is depicted by conflicting demands) are linked

with decreased job satisfaction and poor psychological health. (e.g., Greenhaus et al., 1987).

H2. Work-Study conflict will be negatively associated with job satisfaction.

2.2.3 Work- Study Conflict and Presenteeism

Most of the research on presenteeism is closely linked with presenteeism caused by health

related issues. In fact few researchers have defined presenteeism as an on job problem of

employees because of some ailment or any other health issue due to which employee doesn’t

remain completely functional. (Hemp, 2004). This study shows disagreement with this

narrow interpretation of presenteeism because this is related to abstracting absenteeism, as

absenteeism is not being present on job only because of sickness or some other health related

problem. There can be a number of reasons behind absenteeism other than health problems. It

is better to conceptualize presenteeism just like absenteeism, or we can conceptualize

presenteeism as a phenomenon which has almost a countless number of potential causes

(Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). With reference to nomological network, this study refers to

presenteeism which is related to work stress, its antecedent is job stress and it is actually a

type of psychological.

Presenteeism takes place when workers are physically present at workplace, but mentally

they are absent. We can say that although employees are present at workplace but their

attention and concentration i.e. cognitive energy is not dedicated to their work. In other

words, employees are at work, but their cognitive energy lacks devotion to their work.

Presenteeism takes place when workers are physically present at workplace, but mentally

they are absent. Employees are grinding away, however their intellectual vitality is not

dedicated to their work. In few cases, they will be making a halfhearted effort of work while

their attention is engaged somewhere else. In some other cases, they won't be working by any

means. So contrary to absenteeism, where the worker is either absent or present at workplace,

there will be changing degrees of presenteeism.

Cooper (1994) has defined presenteeism as “people turning up to work, who are so distressed

by their jobs or some aspect of the organizational climate that they contribute little, if

anything, to their work”. As characterized by Cooper, presenteeism is an outcome of a

negative environment at workplace and employees experiencing presenteeism are not

working with complete attention. Such workers are prone to lose productivity, commit more

errors, give poor quality of work, and be less creative, which leaves negative impact on the

managers and ultimately for the organization. Performance of managers is assessed by

outcomes, and a major portion of these outcomes are accomplished through the efforts of

general workers.

People feel that they will have to face a number of pressures by combining work and study.

There are time constraints, and particularly with work, physically it becomes impossible to

stay in one role and fulfill demands of the other role (Lenaghan, 2007). Balance in roles help

people feel lesser anxiety and a better level of comfort, as compare to the less balanced

system faced by people (Lenaghan, 2007). Students face difficulty to handle their ongoing

stresses when they feel lack of coping resources and that they do not provide any support

(Harpell & Andrews, 2013). A research study conducted by Buda and Lenaghan (2005)

directly examined the relationship between these two roles. Findings of this study showed

that combining work and study created stress or strain which has a negative effect on well-

being. Performing multiple roles at the same time results in conflicting pressures, and these

pressures could be contradicting by demanding distinctive roles to contest with a person's

inadequate resources of time and in addition the strains connected with one or more roles

(Kopelman, Greenhaus & Connolly, 1983; Rothbard, 2001).

Role conflict results in tension and anxiety, low confidence, low job satisfaction, lack of job

involvement, low organizational commitment, high turnover intention, and incapability to

effect decisions (Rahim, 2010; Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). The unfortunate reality is

that many students and employees, who are experiencing hectic routines in their life (either at

university or at work) are striving through life with a mental health disorder which get worse

if not treated properly and can lead to a number of psychological issues. While analyzing the

phenomenon of presenteeism at individual level, parents, employees with lower salary,

workers having poor health condition and the individuals who experience issues setting limits

when stood up to with high levels of demands tend to demonstrate higher rates of

presenteeism (Aronsson & Gustafsson, 2005; Aronsson et al., 2000; Burton et al., 2005).

Presenteeism takes place when workers are actually present at workplace, but psychologically

absent (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). "Presenteeism is the action of workers coming to work

regardless of having a disorder that legitimizes absence as an outcome, they are performing

their work under imperfect conditions" (Biron, Brun, Ivers & Cooper, 2006). Presenteeism

can be referred as loss of productivity that takes place when workers come to their

workplaces, but due to ailment or some other reason, they cannot perform their duties

completely or in a desired manner. They fail to meet expectations, as well as those with

whom they interact might likewise be sucked into the chasm of presenteeism. Presenteeism is

an overbearing issue for organizations because employees who come to workplace while

having some physical or mental problems create a decline in levels of productivity.

Presenteeism is defined as “being at work when you should be at home either because you are

ill or because you are working such long hours that you are no longer effective.” (Cooper,

1996). While presenteeism appears to be appealing for organizations at first look, employers

have started to understand that it signifies a “silent” but substantial drain on organizational

productivity. Few researchers even propose that presenteeism harms organizations far more

than absenteeism (e.g., Hemp, 2004). Moreover, errors or “rational mishaps” (Williams &

Cooper, 1999) done by psychologically absent workers can be very costly.

According to Gilbreath and Benson (2004) supervisor’s behavior is predicts employees’

psychological health. Role conflict is another feature of job demand, which also a cause of

increase in presenteeism rates and was an important predictor of presenteeism tendency for

employees with many days of sickness (Biron, Brun, Ivers & Cooper, 2006). Recent research

study by Johns (2011) proved that presenteeism was more commonly found amongst those

individuals who faced more role conflict. Furthermore, research shows, that continuing

experience of stress which is related to work causes one of the extreme possibilities for sick

leave (absenteeism) and declined organizational productivity (presenteeism) (Johns, 2003).

Individuals who are stressed out may keep on turning up for work and perform ineffectively.

As characterized in a Health and Safety Information Bulletin of May 1996, Cox (1993)

alludes to this as ‘presenteeism’ i.e. ‘being physically present at work but mentally absent’.

The job-control model suggests that such jobs which have high demands (such as time

pressure, workload, and role conflict) and those which are low in control (with low authority

and autonomy) escalate stress as well as risk for psychological sickness (Vander, 1999).

H3. Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with presenteeism.

2.2.4 Work- Study Conflict and Burnout

If conflicting pressures exist in an environment, it indicates that stress also exists in the

environment. A study was conducted by Kaushik Sengupta (Hofstra University) on full time

working students. In this study he collected data from 320 students who were working full

time or either part time Lenaghan (2007). According to this study, cost of tuition is increasing

and due to continuous rise in cost of tuition, the well-being of some students is having a

continuous decline. Students have to search various resources to bear their educational

expense, whether from scholarships, parents or by getting employed. Unluckily, doing a job

besides studying increases stress in a student’s life which is already hectic. A foremost

component and a possible outcome of stress is `Burnout’, which is categorized by a

conditioned activation state in which feelings and thoughts of worry, uncertainty and fear

dominate (Martens et al., 1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Role conflict presents instability

in light of the fact that the worker is not sure whether every last bit of his or her role demands

are effectively balanced (Jawahar, Stone, & Kisamore, 2007).

Workers encountering role conflict may develop a perception that they cannot perform their

job effectively. Hence, they may be compelled to put extra resources into their work role

inspired by a paranoid fear of losing their employment status. This extra speculation of

resources into the work role signifies loss of available resources which could lead towards

negative circumstances including mental strain and dissatisfaction.

The adverse effects of work-study conflict may cause a number of job related attitudes and

types of behaviors, burnout is one of them. A person could burnout only if he/she was already

“burning”. Burnout appears in the form of emotional drain, disengagement of others, and

reduced feelings of accomplishment while working in an organization (Maslach, 1982).

Burnout is indicated by working long hours, over burdening and fulfilling the demands of

conflicting roles (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Burnout is a stage when a person gets highly

frustrated and feels impossible to continue. Loss of enthusiasm for work, overburdening,

emotional exhaustion and suffocated feeling for an environment are the contributors of

burnout. Any negative effect can take place directly, by diminished energy and time for class,

time studying with peers, alone and assignment work, or indirectly by its effect on sleep time

and other physiologically healing activities (Rothstein, 2007). Burnout is largely an

organizational problem caused by long hours work, weak organizational policies, work-

family life imbalance and continual peer, customer, and superior pressure. A working student

when faces the role conflict will also get encountered with burnout. Role conflict was

radically associated to emotional collapse (Jawahar, Stone & Kisamore, 2007). In the context

of role conflict, burnout appears when a person feels overburdened and psychologically

drained while accomplishing the requirements of different roles at the same time. Tradeoff

between different roles such as employee and student, leads towards fulfillment of one role’s

demand while leaving the other incomplete. Prior research on burnout has found role conflict

to be one of the major causes. Role demands are considered as the determinants of burnout

(Peeters, Montgomery, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005). There are a number of adverse

consequences of burnout such as, it declines organizational commitment (e.g., Lee &

Ashforth, 1996; Leiter & Maslach, 1988), and raises turnover intentions (Cropanzano, Rupp,

& Byrne, 2003; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Previous research suggests that university

students, particularly those who are working, could be a high-risk group for burnout. Burnout

is negatively related with educational performance and a sense of emotional exhaustion

related to students’ depersonalization from university life (Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques

Pinto, Salanova, M & Bakker, 2002).

H4. Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with burnout.

2.2.5 Work- Study Conflict and Turnover Intension

Turnover is an individual's evaluated likelihood that they will remain an employing

organization (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). In the meantime Tett and Meyer (1993) characterized

turnover intentions as ‘’conscious willfulness to seek for other alternatives in other

organization’’. Analyses on turnover intentions and its antecedents have underlined intent to

quit as opposed to actual turnover as an outcome variable. There are two reasons behind this;

firstly, workers have chosen ahead of time the choice to leave the association. This is in

accordance with attitude-behavior theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that an individual’s

intention to behave in a certain way is the close forecaster of that behavior. Results on the

investigation of the relationship between turnover intentions and real turnover have provided

help and proof on the important link between these variables (Lambert et al., 2001).

Therefore, Price (2001) proposed turnover intentions develop as option in measuring real

turnover.

Factors which can influence turnover are not limited in number; there are a number of factors

which can forecast turnover intentions. This comprises organizational, attitudinal, behavioral

factors. Research findings also suggest that factors related to work such as, individual

characteristics and factors related to external environment as determinants of an employee’s

turnover intention. (Tyagi & Wotruba, 1993).

Factors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and work overload have been identified as

stressful characteristics related to one’s job because these factors are associated with

outcomes such as weak psychological health, turnover and job dissatisfaction (e.g. reviews

by Beehr and Newman, 1978; Schuler, 1980).

Literature has identified association between role conflict and several unwanted outcomes

such as lower job performance, lower job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment and

higher levels of turnover intentions. (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985).

Sometimes it is difficult for an individuals to fulfill all demands of a particular role he/she is

performing. Facing incompatible or contradictory expectations related to various roles, or

related to a single role, most of the times produce psychological disturbance for individuals

and create emotionally harmful impacts (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). A full time

employee may also find difficulty to deliver according to the utmost satisfaction of his

management and job requirement due to the over burdening caused by work and study load.

Emotional drain and job uncertainty are positively related to turnover intentions (Jackson,

Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). Past studies reveal that unclear or

contradictory role demands causes role strain (Kahn et al., 1964; Netemeyer et al., 1990),

which promotes dissatisfaction and resignations (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson &

Schuler, 1985; Lyons, 1971).

Sometimes declining performance in different roles compels a person to choose between one

of his/her roles in order to lower his stress, strain, exhaustion and to achieve better

performance and sense of achievement in one role. A turnover intention is a mental verdict

which exists between an individual’s mind set with reference to continue the job or to leave

(Jacobs & Roodt, 2007). When a person gets stressed out and strongly feels that he/she is

unable to keep a harmony between the roles and cannot continue to perform different roles at

the same time, such drive becomes the cause of turnover intention. Across a range of

organizational contexts, research has consistently shown that experienced stress has

deleterious effects on employees’ mental and physical health, as well as on organizational

outcomes such as job performance and employee turnover (Kahn & Byosier, 1992;

O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994; Schaubroeck et al., 1989; Viator, 2001).

H5. Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with Turnover Intension.

2.3 The moderating role of Supervisor Support 2.3.1 Supervisor Support, Work-Study Conflict and Job Satisfaction

Supervisor support is the extent to which workers believe that supervisors offer workers

encouragement, support and concern (Burke et al, 1992). The level of supervisor support may

influence performance of employees; however, role stress can mediate this influence. For

instance, provision of resources can be an important by which employees can be facilitated

by their supervisors (e.g., by providing equipment and running training programs) Guzzo,

Richard and Gannett (1988). On the other hand, employees who do not receive required

facilitation from their supervisors encounter high level of role conflict (Rizzo, House and

Lirtzman, 1970). That is, without the provision of material support from supervisors,

employees may not be able to perform required tasks regardless of the fact that they know

what needs to be done. Moreover, if an employee feels that the supervisor is over-critical,

he/she may not be willing to try any unconventional solution with an aim to meet client's

demands, raising the possibility for role conflict (Michaels, Cron, Dubinsky and

Joachimsthaier, 1988). Likewise, supervisors who do not support their subordinates, also fail

to communicate with them properly (Burke et al., 1992). If a worker feels that essential

information regarding performance expectation, ways to meet these expectation and other

everyday events related to execution of work is not conveyed properly then role ambiguity is

likely to arise (Rizzo et al., 1970).

Later on ambiguous role demands lead towards role conflict. The backing and concern shown

by supervisors, act as a strong contributing factor to job satisfaction in a wide-ranging variety

of work environment (Yukl, 1989). If a worker feels that supervisor is thoughtful i.e. show

concern and worker also receives socio-emotional support from supervisor in general, this

will result in uplift for organizational environment and direct increase the level of job

satisfaction (Kopelman et al., 1990). Supervisors, who are supposed as usually helpful to the

employees, support to increase the level of job satisfaction amongst employees (Babin &

Boles, 1996). Workers usually develop common opinions regarding the extent to which

organization and supervisors give value to their contributions for organization and show

concern about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988;

Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The level and quality of social support provided at workplace

as perceived by workers is intensely linked to job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and

to burnout (Brown & O’Brien, 1998). According to a research study, job satisfaction is

significantly linked with the social support provided by the supervisor (Pienaar, Sieberbagen

& Mostert, 2007).

A standout amongst the most imperative indicators of job satisfaction is backing given by the

organization as per the outcomes of numerous studies linked with the forerunners of job

satisfaction (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002; Stamper & Johlke, 2003). Supervisor with a

supportive behavior was found to influence job satisfaction positively. (LaRocco & Jones,

1978). A number of research studies proved that low levels of supervisory and management

support leads to increased stress and lower job satisfaction (Jaramillo et al., 2005; Toch,

2002). Role of supervisor in an organizational setting and autonomy over work, decision

making and resources possessed by an officer have direct officer’s autonomy over tasks,

decisions, and resources have straight effect on workers’ physical and psychological health

(Ganster et al., 1996).

According to Bateman and Organ (1983) “satisfaction received by an individual is the

outcome of efforts done by officials of an organization”. Supervisor support creates

“facilitating associations with colleagues that provides a comfort for them in learning” (Mink,

Owen & Mink, 1993). Keeping this thought in view, is it considered that learning and

development of employees is facilitated by supervisor support (Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller,

2003). Large number of researchers has proposed that social support buffers psychological

issues, job dissatisfaction and even employees turnover (Himle, Jayaratne & Thyness, 1989).

H6. Supervisor support is positively associated with job satisfaction.

H7. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and job

satisfaction such that the association between work-study conflict and job satisfaction is

weaker when supervisor support is high.

2.3.2 Supervisor Support, Work-Study Conflict and Presenteeism

Presenteeism takes place when individuals are present at workplace physically but mentally

they are absent (Cooper, 1996). Past research has proved that supervisors can have substantial

influence on workers, and these influences have been considered in terms of employee

commitment, well-being, presenteeism, job satisfaction and some other outcomes (Jernigan &

Beggs, 2005; Wager et al., 2003).

Job resources have ability to motivate employees which lead towards higher work

engagement, lower cynicism and higher performance, besides that it buffers the health

affecting ability of job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Evangelia, 2008).

Supervisor support is one of the important jobs resources which is directly linked with work

engagement (Mauno et al., 2007) and in addition to this, neutralizes the effects of job

demands and strains relationships (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Supervisor support can gratify

employees’ belongingness needs, to be looked after and esteemed, which vitalizes their

versatility to adapt to hardship (e.g. working with physical discomfort). According to recent

research findings supervisor support not only increased the level of job satisfaction, but also

relieved strains brought up by role conflict.

Supervisors may also have positive impact on employees’ level of experienced anxiety.

Yarker, Donaldson-Feilder, Lewis, and Flaxman (2007) distinguished 19 bundles of

supervisory behaviors to be useful in dealing with workers' anxiety and pressure, including

overseeing job resources and load of work, managing work issues, expanding availability and

prominence, and assuming liability. Gilbreath (2001) discovered practices, for example,

arranging work to deal with its requests, adjusting workloads fairly, and trying to visualize

situations from employees' ends to have specifically strong negative relationships with job

stress of workers. Hence, employees experience less stress and level of presenteeism gets

lessen if they are working with a supervisor who gives them value and show concern

regarding their well-being as compare to the employees who are working for a supervisor

who treat them poorly and unfairly.

It is realized that supervisor can highly affect employees’ confidence and their working

behaviors (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Walker, Guest, & Turner, 1956). For instance, Stout

(1984) found that supervisor’s conduct was identified with workers' well-being issues and

their level of emotional, physical, and psychological depletion. Karimi (2008) suggested that

well-being of employees and their intrinsic job satisfaction get highly affected by supervisor

support. Donaldson (2003) said, “Any individual who has ever worked for any other

individual will let you know that one's supervisor has a colossal impact on the level of

anxiety in the work environment”. Peterson (1999) discovered absence of thoughtfulness by

administration to be the significant determinant of stress among workers he contemplated.

Occurrence of negative events in work environment and also cases of adverse behavior from

supervisors will be specifically compelling when ascertaining predictors of employee’s

presenteeism related to job stress (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). Employees who bear role

pressure from domains other than work environment may encounter more presenteeism in

work environment (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012).

Research particularly shows that a workplace with supportive environment supportive

workplace decreases role conflict, role stress and its adverse effects (Schaubroeck, Cotton &

Jennings, 1988). According to Karasek and Theorell (1990) social support such as supervisor

support builds inspiration to grow new forms of behavior in challenging circumstances on the

grounds that it cultivates a positive feeling of identity, taking into account the socially

affirmed value of the person's contribution to collective objectives. As it were, they propose

that employees who feel upheld by their supervisors and colleagues are liable to be more

inclined to learn answers for new issues, an adapting procedure that is relied upon to build

their feeling of dominance. Moreover, Jourdain and Vezina (2014) suggest that employees,

who experience lower level of resources in terms of decision making power, authority and

supervisor support have a tendency to be more disposed to presenteeism. Regarding work

factors, increased level of presenteeism was connected with expanded overtime, and with

diminished employment stability, profession opportunities, trust in colleagues, job

satisfaction and supervisor support (Caverley, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2007).

Seers, McGee, Serey, and Graen (1983) demonstrated that for those workers who needed to

deal with high level of role conflict, job satisfaction was anticipated by supervisor support.

On the other hand, for those not encountering stress brought up by role conflict, supervisor

support was immaterial for job satisfaction. A supervisors with the view that life's other role

are more important than work could offer employees some assistance with maintaining

equalization even with contending demands, in this way lessening role conflict, anxiety, and

presenteeism (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012).

H8. Supervisor support will be negatively associated with presenteeism.

H9. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and presenteeism such that the association between work-study conflict and presenteeism is weaker when supervisor support is high.

2.3.3 Supervisor Support, Work-Study Conflict and Burnout

In context of work-study conflict, supervisor support plays a vital role. Support provided by

coworkers, especially by immediate supervisor is an important coping resource (Melchior et

al., 1997). Supervisor support can significantly lower the increasing impacts of role conflict

of employee-student and prevent the occurrence of burnout. According to past research

findings three important sources of social support are: friends and family, coworkers

(Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986), and immediate supervisor (Berger-Cross & Kraut, 1984).

Moreover, Dunseath, Beehr, & King (1995) revealed that supervisor support is extremely

significant for employees to gain job satisfaction and stress avoidance. It is expected for a

person having different roles to encounter stressful situation at different stages of his/her role

performance, at such point supervisor support can be a relieving factor to pass up stress.

Several researchers (e.g., Carlson & Perrewe´, 1999; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose,

1992) said that social support decreases the harmful causes of role stressors by helping

employees to tackle with stress. Social support (e.g. supervisor support) can work as a

moderator to the level it restricts pasting of resources or allows achievement of other

resources (Hobfoll, 2002). It is generally believed that employees who enjoy practical and

social support by their immediate supervisor have greater tendency to bear emotional

exhaustion with less harm than their inadequately supported colleagues. (Muhammad &

Hamdy, 2005; Etzion, 1984; House, 1981; La Rocco & Jones, 1978).

Past research have depicted that coping resources can significantly decrease the occurrence of

burnout (Melchior, Bours, Schmitz, & Wittich, 1997). Social support has its core as well as

modest effects on burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Consequently, we anticipate that

supervisor support will moderate the relationship between work-study conflict and burnout.

The impact of role conflict on burnout will reduce with increasing supervisor support.

Controlling resources (e.g. supervisor support) can prevent burnout and moderate the

relationship between burnout and role conflict (Brotheridge, 2001).

Since 1970s, research studies have proved that supervisors have emotional impact on

psychological well-being of employees (Gavin & Kelley, 1978; Sheridan & Vredenburgh,

1978). These research findings cumulated continuously through the decades of 1980s and

1990s (Duxbury, Armstrong, Drew, & Henly, 1984; Landeweerd & Boumans, 1994; Martin

& Schinke, 1998; Seltzer & Numerof, 1988). For instance Stout (1984) found that supervisor

conduct was linked to employees’ well-being issues and level of employees’ emotional,

physical and psychological exhaustion.

Recent research study by Karlin, Brondolo, and Schwartz (2003) found that supervisor

support is negatively associated with high blood pressure issue for the workers who face high

stress situations. Likewise, Wager, Fieldman, and Hussey (2003) found that employees face

high blood pressure issues while working under a supervisor who is perceived to be less

favorable, and the deliberate difference was too high and enough to create a potential danger

element for the growth of serious heart disease. In related research studies (Karimi & Nouri,

2009; Karimi, Karimi, & Nouri, 2011) reported that the level of perceived

administrative/supervisor support in the work environment is connected with encountering

work-family conflict and workers’ perceived degree of welfare. Gilbreath and Benson (2004)

suggest that supervisors possessed a more substantial impact on well-being of employees than

colleagues, friends and family.

It is clear that supervisors could have a key impact on what workers encounter at work, and

the list of those outcomes which are connected with supervisor's conduct keeps on growing.

Research findings of Hoobler and Brass (2006) suggest that abusive supervision was linked

with family damage, proposing that ill-treated workers discharge aggression induced by

supervisor after they return home. Such kind of findings are not so surprising when

considered by someone, for various workers, the supervisor is the most dominant psycho-

social character in the work environment (O'Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). Furthermore,

supervisors are a predominantly available influence point from where to change the work

environment (Bunker & Wijnberg, 1985). Supervisors ought to perform a role in making

more beneficial work environments in light of the fact that they can dispose of or lessen the

impacts of some adverse work factors distressing the workers. Even supervisors with

inadequate control over other working environment stressors may control their own particular

conduct (Stout, 1984).

According to research findings of Hetland et al. (2007) supervisor’s negative behaviors is

more strongly related to burnout as compare to supervisor’s positive behaviors. Supervisor

Support helps in reducing psychological anxieties and which results in decreased burnout and

job dissatisfaction (Lloyd, King & Chenoweth, 2002). Social support is presumably the most

common situational variable which has been projected as a prospective buffer against stress

at workplace (e.g., Haines, Hurlbert & Zimmer, 1991; Johnson & Hall, 1988). Organizational

support (supervisor support) is considered to be coping resources (Hobfoll, 1989) which can

prevent the occurrence of burnout as well as it moderates the link between burnout and role

conflict (Brotheridge, 2001). Social support is referred to have fundamental and in addition

moderating impacts on occupational burnout (Cordes &Dougherty, 1993). As far as the

fundamental impact, there is a direct link between social support and occupational burnout,

and as far as the moderating impact, impacts of work stressors on burnout can be moderated

indirectly by social support (Halbesleben, 2006).

H10. Supervisor support negatively associated with burnout.

H11. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and

burnout such that the association between work-study conflict and burnout is weaker when

supervisor support is high.

2.3.4 Supervisor Support, Work-Study Conflict and Turnover Intention

Turnover intension can be defined as preparedness to change or quit a position held by a

person. Literature reveals that turnover intention can occur due several reasons and role

conflict is one of the major reasons. Supervisor moderates the relationship between burnout

and outcomes of work such as turnover intention (Muhammad & Hamdy, 2005).

A worker's intention to quit from his organization refers to a worker’s own psychological

verdict that she/she does not want to be a part of his/her organization anymore (Lee &

Mowday, 1987; Sager, Futrell, & Varadarajan, 1989). As per the standard of reciprocity,

supervisor support is contrarily connected with workers' sentiments of needing to end their

job with their present organization. Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) contend

that continuing job is one of the ways by which employee can recompense his/her supervisor.

In view of social exchange theory, workers will choose to continue the exchange relationship

if the advantages earned from the exchange relationship exceed the costs (Emerson & Cook,

1978). Number of advantages received from an exchange relationship gets increased when

employees start perceiving that his/her supervisor shows concern and care about them.

Hence, providing supervisor support ought to adversely affect a worker's turnover intentions

(Eisenberger et al., 2002; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). In view of this, it is

theorized that there is an adverse association between supervisor support and turnover

intentions. Social support (supervisor support) controls or neutralizes the link between job

stressors and workers’ adverse reactions (House, 1981). Link between job stressors and

worker reactions can be abolish or weaken through elevated amount of social support (Kahn,

Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964).

Supervisors straightforwardly impact the everyday work experience and can provide valued

support in execution of work tasks (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). Contributory

social support which is linked with the assistance provided by supervisors for the

performance of work tasks has been connected with actual turnover and well-being of

employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Such support may offer workers some assistance with

feeling enabled to settle on choices about how to perform their employments. Moreover,

supervisors practices have been appeared to mold workers' opinion about employment related

stressors and afterward turnover intention (O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994).

Supervisors can buffer the effects of work related stress which may cause by conflict between

different roles possessed by an employee. A supervisor can do so by providing emotional and

instrumental support to an employee. Emotional support is described as keen listening and

caring about an employee, whereas instrumental support can be given by physical support

and proficiency in accomplishment of a task (Kaufmann & Beehr, 1986). In general, people

feel less stress when they enjoy social support. In the organizational stress literature, several

researchers (Carlson & Perrewe´, 1999) have argued that social support eases the stress

levels. Supervisors can substantially support to reduce anxiety (Perkins, 1993). Conflict at

works reduces self-esteem and cause depression, and conflicts with supervisors results in job

dissatisfaction. (Frone, 2003). The supervisor support helps in reducing job tension, role

conflict, turnover and burnout.

Past studies strongly depict that immediate supervisor plays a vital role in employee turnover

intentions (Maertz et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Payne & Huffman, 2005). Specifically,

levels of turnover intention decrease with an increase of social support such as supervisor

support and increase with a decrease in social support. Staff turnover was expected in part by

low degrees of superior support (Hatton & Emerson, 1998). Concluding the past research

finding a hypothesis is developed regarding the moderating relationship of supervisor support

between work-study conflict and turnover intention.

According to Moore (2002) level of burnout gets reduced through social support received

from supervisors and ultimately reduced degree of burnout also reduces the degree of

turnover intention. Kalliath and Beck (2001) also reported a similar kind of result when effect

of social support was experimented on two elements of burnout i.e. emotional exhaustion and

depersonalization. They have found that indicators of burnout get reduced through supervisor

support and also it has shown direct and indirect impact on turnover intention. Social

exchange theory (Blau, 1964) refers, increased levels of social support is likely to result in

more affective association and sense of liability toward the organization (Shore & Wayne,

1993). Past research has discovered negative relationship between supervisor support and

intention to quit (e.g., Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010).

According to Humphrey et al. (2007) social support (supervisor support) or the degree to

which an employee receives advice or assistance at work from their supervisors or colleagues

(Karasek, 1979) was intensely negatively associated with turnover intention. This observation

goes parallel and refers research work on organizational support theory (Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) according to which workers who feel that they

receive satisfactory conduct from their employer will also feel a sense of liability to repay

their employer by showing positive attitude and suitable behaviors, this include decreased

levels of intention to quit and actual turnover (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In an

organizational setting one of the sources of social support, informational and emotional

support is Supervisors while being main persons in preventing job stressors in the work

environment (Himle, Jayaratne, & Thyness, 1989).

H12. Supervisor support will be negatively associated with turnover intention.

H13. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and

turnover intention such that the association between work-study conflict and turnover

intention is weaker when supervisor support is high.

2.4 Research model

Supervisor Support

Job Satisfaction

Work-Study Conflict

Presenteeism

Burnout

Turnover Intention

CHAPTER 3

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design 3.1.1 Type of Study

This is a correlation study in which the impact of work-study conflict on Job Satisfaction,

Presenteeism, Burnout and Turnover Intentions among the working students of university

level was studied and also effects of moderation of Supervisor Support were captured.

3.1.2 Study Setting

This is a field study because participants i.e. working students of university level enrolled in

different universities were contacted to fill the questionnaires in their natural university

environment.

3.1.3 Time Horizon

The data for this research has been collected at one time so the data is cross-sectional in

nature.

3.1.4 Research Interference

There is no or minimal research interference and this research is based on field study. As

questionnaire was used for collecting data so the interference of the researcher was minimal

in the work setting.

3.1.5 Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis for this research thesis is individual who is a student in university as well

as doing job in an organization whether public sector or private.

3.2 Population and sampling

3.2.1 Population

The population of the current study comprises of the students of universities who are doing

job in different organizations of Pakistan.

3.2.2 Sampling techniques

The study is based on convenience sampling. The data was collected from the employed

individuals who were also studying in university.

3.2.3 Sample size

Questionnaires were distributed in English to 350 working students of universities employed

in different organizations of Pakistan out of which 281 questionnaires were received in a

correct form making the response rate of 80.2%.

3.2.4 Frequency Distribution of Sample

Following table shows the sample demographics:

Table 3.1: Respondents Demographics

Variables Percentage

Gender Male 51.6%Female 48.4%

Age 20-30 72.6%31-40 18.5%41-50 4.3%

Marital Status

Above 50

MarriedUn Married

43.1%56.9%

Job Experience

Job Nature

Last degree

Less than 1 year2 years to 5 years6 years to 10 yearsMore than 10 years

Non ManagerialManagerial

14 years16 years18 years

33.5%40.9%7.5%

40.9%59.1%

17.4%67.3%15.3%

This table is composed of the respondent’s demographics Characteristics. It shows that 51.6%

employees of the sampled employees were male and 48.4 % were female. Age of the 72.6%

of samples employees were from 20- 30 years, 18.5% from 31- 40 years, 4.3% from 41-50

years. 43.1% of the employees were married and 56.9% were unmarried. 33.5% of the

employees of the sampled employees had job experience of less than 1 year, 40.9% of the

employees had job experience of 2 to 5 years, 7.50% of the employees had job experience of

6 to 10 years and 18.1% of the employees have an experience of more than 10 years. The job

nature of 40.9% of the employees is non-managerial and the job nature of 59.1% of the

employees was at managerial positions. 17.4% of the employees have last degree of 14 years.

67.3% of the employees have last degree of 16 years. 15.3% of the employees have last

degree of 18 years.

3.3 Scales and Measures 3.3.1Research Variables

The variables which are being considered are described in the theoretical framework. Work-

study conflict is the independent variable, supervisor support is the moderating variable; job

satisfaction, presenteeism, burnout and turnover intentions are dependent variables.

3.3.2 Measuring Instrument

A 39 items questionnaire was used that consists of two parts; first part of the questionnaire

consists of demographic data that includes information about work experience, nature of job,

last degree/qualification, marital status, gender and age. While the second part focuses on

respondents’ view regarding work-study conflict, supervisor support, job satisfaction,

presenteeism, burnout and turnover intention. 5 points Likert scale is used to measure

respondents’ view from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. All questions of variables

are relevant according to the nature of the study. The participants in this study were assured

of the confidentiality of their responses. So their names were not appear anywhere on the

questionnaire in order to retain their confidentiality.

3.3.2.1Work Study Conflict

Six items were adopted from the scale of work-study conflict developed by Lenaghan and

Sengupta (2007). In order to measure work-study conflict of working students of universities,

statements of items will be modified. Sample item include, “My family/friends dislike how

often I am preoccupied with my work while I am at university”.

3.3.2.2 Supervisor support

Four items were taken from the scale of supervisor support developed by Karasek et al.

(1998). Sample item include, “My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of those under

him”.

3.3.2.3 Job Satisfaction

Six items were adopted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) to measure Job Satisfaction. Sample

item include, “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job”.

3.3.2.4 Presenteeism

Six items were adopted from Koopman et al. (2002) and modified the items statements to

measure presenteeism of the working students. Sample item include, “Despite having my

(workload), I was able to finish hard tasks in my work”.

3.3.2.5 Burnout

Burnout was measured by eight items that were taken from the Exhaustion subscale of

Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti, Bakker, Vardakou, & Kantas, 2003). Sample item

include, “There are the days when I feel tired before I arrive at work”.

3.3.2.6 Turnover Intentions

Three items were adopted from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire

(Cammann et al., 1979). Sample item include, “I often think about quitting”.

Table 3.2:Reliability of Scale

Variable No of Items Alpha

Work Study Conflict 06 0.765

Supervisor Support 04 0.866

Job Satisfaction 06 0.774

Presenteeism 06 0.627

Burnout 08 0.781

Turnover Intention 03 0.651

Table 3.2 specifies the reliability of the scale. According to Nunnally, 1978 the Cronbach

alpha is the most widespread determinant of (reliability) that is internal consistency. It is [35]

mostly used when we have multiple Likert scaled questions in questionnaire that form a scale

and we are interested in determining whether the scale is reliable or not. This table shows that

all scales are in the range of acceptance. The value of alpha for Work-Study Conflict is 0.765,

for Supervisor Support its 0.866, for Job Satisfaction its 0.774, for Presenteeism its 0.627, for

Burnout its 0.781 and for Turnover Intention its 0.651.

3.4 Control VariablesOne way ANOVA has been performed to control for the variations in dependent variable(s),

if any. The results of one way ANOVA shows that there were significant differences in job

satisfaction, presenteeism, burnout and turnover intention across job nature whereas no

significant differences were found across total work experience, last degree/qualification,

marital status, gender and age. So, only job nature was controlled for this study.

Table 3.3: Results from One-way ANOVA

Sources of Variation

DV 1 DV 2 DV 3 DV 4

F statistics p-value F statistics p-value F statistics p-value F statistics p-value

Experience .494 .687 .667 .573 .691 .558 1.356 .257

Job Nature .000 .999 3.618 .058 5.696 .018 3.717 .055

Last Degree 1.726 .180 1.609 .202 1.818 .164 2.234 .109

Marital Status

.000 .984 .000 .998 .425 .515 .022 .883

Gender .105 .747 .153 .696 .036 .850 .426 .514

Age 2.332 .074 .536 .658 .510 .676 1.254 .291

CHAPTER 4

4. RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation AnalysisFollowing table shows the descriptive statistics of the variables of this current study.

Table 4.1: Descriptive Analysis

Variables N Min Max Mean Standard Deviation

WSCM 281 1.17 5.00 3.52 .800SupSpM 281 1.00 5.00 3.06 1.15JSM 281 2.17 5.00 3.67 .661PrsntsmM 281 2.17 5.00 3.47 .553BOM 281 1.88 5.00 3.51 .558TOIM 281 1.67 5.00 3.53 .716

This table 3.2 shows the descriptive statistics of our study. This shows the maximum and

minimum value, at which the responses lie, and also the mean and standard deviation of the

variables. The minimum value of Work-Study Conflict is 1.17 and maximum value is 5 with

mean of 3.52 and with the standard deviation of 0.800. The minimum value of Supervisor

Support is 1 and maximum value is 5 and the mean that is shown in table is 3.06 and the

standard deviation in this variable is 1.15. The minimum and maximum value of Job

Satisfaction is 2.17 and 5 respectively with 3.67 mean and the standard deviation of 0.661.

The minimum and maximum value of Presenteeism is 2.17 and 5 respectively with 3.47 mean

and the standard deviation of 0.553. The minimum and maximum value of Burnout is 1.88

and 5 respectively with 3.51 mean and the standard deviation of 0.558. The minimum and

maximum value of Turnover Intention is 1.67 and 5 respectively with 3.53 mean and the

standard deviation of 0.716.

Table4.2: Correlation Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Job N 1

2.WSC .122* 1

3.SS .060 -.365** 1

4.JS .010 -.042 .168** 1

5.Pretsm .113 .498** -.308** -.039 1

6.BO .141* .500** -.336** -.114 .537** 1

7.TOI .115 .428** -.318** -.120* .703** .701** 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*p <.05, **p <.01, ,JobN=Job Nature, WSC=Work study conflict, SS= Supervisor support, JS=Job satisfaction,

Pretsm= Presenteeism, BO=Burnout, TOI=Turnover Intention

Table 4.2 tells us about the correlation analysis. Correlation is the most important statistical

tool which gives us information about whether there is any relationship between the variables

or not.

Correlation lies within the range of -1 to +1, -1 shows that a strong negative relationship

exists between the two variables and +1 shows that a strong positive relationship exists

between the two variables. Zero shows that no relationship exists. The correlation

calculations for our study provided the following results.

Correlation between Work-Study Conflict and Supervisor Support is -0.365** which is close

to -1 so it means there is a strong negative relationship between the two variables hence with

the increase in the Work-Study Conflict there would be a decrease in Supervisor Support.

Correlation between Work-Study Conflict and Job satisfaction is -0.042 which is insignificant

means that there is no association between them. Correlation between Work-Study Conflict

and Presenteeism is 0.498** means that there is significant positive relationship between

them. Correlation between Work-Study Conflict and Burnout is 0.500** means that there is

positive significant relationship between them. Correlation between Work-Study Conflict and

Turnover Intention is 0.428** means that there significant positive relationship between

Correlation between Supervisor Support and Job Satisfaction is .168** means that there is

positive significant relationship. Correlation value between Supervisor Support and

Presenteeism is -0.308** means that there is a significant negative relationship between them.

Correlation between Supervisor Support and Burnout is -0.336** means that there is a

significant negative relationship between them. Correlation value between Supervisor

Support and turnover intention is -0.318** means that there is a significant negative

relationship between them.

4.2 Regression Analysis

Table 4.3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Work study conflict and Supervisor SupportPredictor Supervisor Support

B R2 ∆R²

Step 1Control variables

Step 2Work study Conflict

-.546*** .144 .141***

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

Table 4.4 Moderated Regression Analyses

Predictors JS Pretsm BO TOI

B R2 ∆R² B R2 ∆R² B R2 ∆R² B R2 ∆R²

Step 1

Control variable

.001 .023 .020 .013

Step 2

WSC .020 .302*** .293*** .310***

SS .102** .029 .028* -.104*** .297 .274*** -.091** .287 .267*** -.122*** .220 .207***

Step 3

WSCx SS

.233 .040 .011 -.328*** .326 .029*** -.384*** .330 .043*** -.206 .228 .008

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001, WSC=Work study conflict, SS= Supervisor support, JS=Job satisfaction, Pretsm= Presenteeism, BO=Burnout, TOI=Turnover Intention

4.3Assessing the Form of InteractionThe results of the regression analyses were plotted in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. As shown in

Figure 1, even at low level of supervisor support, job satisfaction shows insignificant effect

on it i.e. there is no significant moderation of supervisor support between work study conflict

job satisfaction at the level of (B=.233, p>0.05). Figure 2 indicates that at high WSC,

participants with low SS had a higher presenteeism than those with higher supervisor support.

The slope for low SS participants is positive and significant i.e. there is significant negative

moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of work-study conflict and

presenteeism at the level of (B=-.328, p<0.001). Figure 3 also shows that at high WSC,

participants with low SS had a higher burnout than those with higher supervisor support i.e.

there is significant negative moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of

work-study conflict and burnout at the level of (B=-.384, p<0.001). Figure 4 shows that even

at high level of supervisor support there is insignificant effect on turnover intention i.e. there

is no significant moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of work-study

conflict and turnover intentions at the level of (B=-.206, p>0.05)

Low WSC High WSC1

Low SS

Figure 1: The moderating role of supervisor support on the relationship between work-study conflict and job satisfaction.

Low WSC High WSC1

Low SS

Figure 2: The moderating role of supervisor support on the relationship between work-study conflict and presenteeism.

Low WSC High WSC1

Low SS

Figure 3: The moderating role of supervisor support on the relationship between work-study conflict and burnout.

Low WSC High WSC1

Low SS

Figure 4: The moderating role of supervisor support on the relationship between work-study conflict and turnover intention.

H1 stated that work-study conflict will be negatively associated with Supervisor Support,

results shows that there is significant negative relationship between work study conflict and

supervisor support at the level of (B=-.546, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H1.

H2 stated that work-study conflict will be negatively associated with job satisfaction, results

shows that there is insignificant negative relationship between work study conflict and job

satisfaction at the level of (B=.020, p> 0.05). So the results does not supports hypothesis H2.

H3 stated that work-study conflict will be positively associated with presenteeism, results

shows that there is significant positive relationship between work study conflict and

presenteeism at the level of (B=-.302, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H3.

H4 stated that work-study conflict will be positively associated with burnout, results shows

that there is significant positive relationship between work study conflict and burnout at the

level of (B=-.293, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H4.

H5 stated that work-study conflict will be positively associated with Turnover Intention,

results shows that there is significant positive relationship between work study conflict and

turnover intentions at the level of (B=-.310, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H5.

H6 stated that supervisor support positively associated with job satisfaction, results shows

that there is significant positive relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction

at the level of (B=-.102, p<0.01). So the results supports hypothesis H6.

H7 stated that supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and

job satisfaction such that the association between work study conflict and job satisfaction is

weaker when supervisor support is high, results shows that there is no significant moderation

of supervisor support between work study conflict job satisfaction at the level of (B=.233,

p>0.05). So the results does not supports hypothesis H7.

H8 stated that supervisor support will be negatively associated with presenteeism, results

shows that there is significant negative relationship between supervisor support and

H9 stated that supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and

presenteeism, such that the association between work study conflict and presenteeism is

weaker when supervisor support is high. Results shows that there is significant negative

moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of work study conflict and

H10 stated that supervisor support negatively associated with burnout, results shows that

there is significant negative relationship between supervisor support and burnout at the level

of (B=-.091, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H10.

H11 stated that supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict

and burnout such that the association between work study conflict and burnout is weaker

when supervisor support is high, results shows that there is significant negative moderation of

supervisor support between the relationship of work study conflict and burnout at the level of

(B=-.384, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis H11.

H12 stated that Supervisor support will be negatively associated with turnover intention,

results shows that there is significant negative relationship between supervisor support and

turnover intentions at the level of (B=-.122, p<0.001). So the results supports hypothesis

H13 stated that Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict

and turnover intention such that the association between work study conflict and turnover

intentions is weaker when supervisor support is high., results shows that there is no

significant moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of work study conflict

and turnover intentions at the level of (B=-.206, p>0.05). So the results does not supports

hypothesis H13.

4.4 Summary of ResultsFollowing table shows the summary of results of this study:

Table 4.5 Summary of Accepted/Rejected HypothesisHypothesis Statements Results

H1 Work-Study conflict will be negatively associated with Supervisor Support.

Accepted

H2 Work-Study conflict will be negatively associated with job satisfaction.

Rejected

H3 Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with presenteeism.

Accepted

H4 Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with burnout. Accepted

H5 Work-Study conflict will be positively associated with Turnover Intention

Accepted

H6 Supervisor support positively associated with job satisfaction. Accepted

H7 Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and job satisfaction. Such that the association between work-study conflict and job satisfaction is weaker when supervisor support is high.

Rejected

H8 Supervisor support will be negatively associated with presenteeism.

Accepted

H9 Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-

study conflict and presenteeism such that the association

between work study conflict and presenteeism is weaker when

supervisor support is high.

Accepted

H10 Supervisor support negatively associated with burnout. Accepted

study conflict and burnout such that the association between

work study conflict and burnout is weaker when supervisor

support is high.

Accepted

H12 Supervisor support will be negatively associated with turnover Accepted[45]

intention.

study conflict and turnover intention. Such that the association

between work study conflict and turnover intentions is weaker

when supervisor support is high.

Rejected

Total number of Hypothesis = 13Number of Accepted Hypothesis = 10Number of Rejected Hypothesis = 3

CHAPTER 5

5. Discussion, Implications, Limitations and Directions for Future Research

5.1. DiscussionDue to rise in cost of education and increasing demand at work, both students and employees

opt to perform multiple roles i.e. students as workers and workers as students for their

survival, better career and growth. While performing these roles they encounter some

psychological factors which were treated as dependent variables in this research. The main

purpose of the research is to study the impact of work-study conflict on job satisfaction,

presenteeism, burnout, and turnover intention while examining the role of supervisor support

as moderator. Findings of this research have alike implications for all organizations and

universities. Employees and students are facing intensified demands at work and university,

so their well-being should be a great matter of concern for employers and universities. This

research has used a moderated model of work-study conflict while examining its impact. The

whole sample was consisted of working students from different universities and organizations

as they have main stake in this research.

First we have examined the relationship between work-study conflict and supervisor support

hypothesizing that work-study conflict will be negatively associated with supervisor support.

Hypothesis was supported by past literature and research findings suing that work-study

conflict and supervisor support possess a negative relationship i.e. supervisor support act as

buffer to neutralize or reduce the conflict ascended by clashing demands of work and study

(Cohen & Will, 1985; Gore, 1987; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Roskies & Lazarus, 1980; Goff,

Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Jones & Butler, 1980). Results of this study also supported past

literature ascertaining that there is significant negative relationship between work-study

conflict and supervisor support. So the results supports hypothesis H1.

While relating job satisfaction with work-study conflict, it has been found that there is

insignificant negative relationship between work-study conflict and job satisfaction, opposing

the hypothesis H2. Although most of the previous research studies supported the hypothesis

and shown a clearly negative relationship between role conflict (work-study conflict) and job

satisfaction (Behrman & Perreault, 1984; Boles & Babin, 1996; Hafer & McCuen, 1985;

O'Driscoll & Beehr, 2000; Teas, 1983) but results of this study do not support negative

relationship between work-study conflict and job satisfaction. Some evidences have been

found that there is an insignificant negative relationship between work-study conflict and job

satisfaction (Widyani & Sugianingrat, 2015). Major reason for this relationship in Pakistani

context can be unemployment, due to which work-study conflict does not have a negative

relationship with job satisfaction.

Presenteeism was taken into account as is it a common issue faced by people performing

multiple roles and fulfilling opposing role demands. This phenomenon was never been tested

particularly in relation with work-study conflict before. Past research studies shows a positive

relationship between role conflict and presenteeism (Aronsson & Gustafsson, 2005; Aronsson

et al., 2000; Burton et al., 2005) which provided a base for hypothesizing this relationship.

Results of this study also supported this relationship revealing that there is significant

positive relationship between work study conflict and presenteeism.

Various theoretical concepts were presented to explain the occurrence of burnout. The study

clearly depicts that work-study conflict is positively associated with burnout. Burnout

increases with an increase in conflict between work and study. Past studies also show a

positive relation between both variables and recognized role demands as precursors of

burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Peeters, Montgomery, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005). Results

of this study show that there is significant positive relationship between work-study conflict

and burnout. So the results supports hypothesis H4.

This study further reveals that there is a positive relationship between work-study conflict

and turnover intention. As past literature supports the positive association of this relationship,

respondents have also substantiated this fact that increasing conflict between their jobs and

studies tends them to leave the organization. Current study also supported past literature

showing that there is significant positive relationship between work study conflict and

turnover intentions.

Social support such as supervisor support is known to be a buffer against stressors in an

organizational setting. Support from supervisor help employees to reduce adverse effects of

conflicting role demands and help them to increase level of satisfaction and well-being

(Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002; Stamper & Johlke, 2003; LaRocco & Jones, 1978; Jaramillo et

al., 2005; Toch, 2002; Himle, Jayaratne & Thyness, 1989). Same has been hypothesized and

shown in result of this study that supervisor support positively associated with job

satisfaction, results shows that there is significant positive relationship between supervisor

support and job satisfaction. On the other hand results do not support the literature claiming

that supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study conflict and job

satisfaction. Instead results of this study show there is no significant moderation of supervisor

support between work-study conflict job satisfaction. As depicted earlier in this study that [48]

work-study conflict has an insignificant relationship with job satisfaction, provides base to

the rejection of this hypothesis. Same has been claimed by Botha (2007) that supervisor

support does not affect relationship between role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload and

job satisfaction.

While talking about presenteeism, results of current study supported both hypotheses H8 and

H9 stating that hat there is significant negative relationship between supervisor support and

presenteeism and also there is significant negative moderation of supervisor support between

the relationship of work study conflict and presenteeism. So the results supports hypothesis

H9 as supervisor support is proved to be a coping resource to deal with many negative

outcomes of role demands and role stressors. Supervisor support helps employees to stay

engaged with their tasks not only physically but mentally as well (Schaubroeck, Cotton and

Jennings, 1988; Caverley, Cunningham & MacGregor, 2007; Gilbreath and Karimi, 2012).

Supervisor support in organizations is an important factor to reduce the negative outcomes

arouse by role conflicts. Many researchers have highlighted the importance of social support

as moderator (e.g. supervisor support) in buffering the unfavorable consequences of role

stressors on burnout (Burke & Richardson, 2000; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Demerouti et

al., 2001; Duke et al., 2009; Rees & Freeman, 2009). Research findings from this study also

depict that increase in supervisor support results in decreased level of burnout and also

supervisor support moderators the effect of work-study conflict on burnout as most of the

respondents clarify through the results that support from their immediate supervisor helps

them to reduce the conflict between their work and education and also prevent them to

encounter burnout. This study confirms the past literature of supervisor support and burnout

showing significant negative relationship between supervisor support and burnout and this

study also confirmed that there is significant negative moderation of supervisor support

between the relationship of work study conflict and burnout.

Supervisor support also helps to reduce the tendency of turnover intension by reducing the

conflicting effects of work and study. Turnover intention and burnout get reduced with

provision of social support (e.g. Supervisor Support) to an individual as an intercession

program (Dierendonck et al., 1998). As past studies reveal that supervisor support acts as a

moderator to reduce turnover intention, this study also confirms this negative relationship as

most of the respondents responded in same manner. Results show that there is significant

negative relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention. So the results

supports hypothesis H12.

Supervisor Support has a negative association with turnover intention but while acting as

moderator between work-study conflict and turnover intension, our study negates the

hypothesis H13 i.e. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between work-study

conflict and turnover intention. Although previous researches illustrate that supervisor

support does moderates but this study shows insignificant results regarding role of supervisor

support as moderator between work-study conflict and turnover intention. Same has been

proved in a research study conducted by Thirapatsakun, Kuntonbutr and Mechinda (2014). It

depicts that even if supervisor support is provided to an individual encountering work-study

conflict, it cannot reduce the level of turnover intention in context of Pakistan. There are

number of reasons such as supervisor support helps to reduce the anxiety faced by an

individual through work-study conflict but it remains unable to reduce the work load of both

roles. Another reason is that most of the working students are between 20 to 30 years old, at

this age individuals are in their beginning or mid-career level and they have urge to surpass at

a faster pace. For this purpose individuals have an increasing trend of job switching in

Pakistan and they keep on looking for better opportunities which is an ancestor of higher

turnover intention that could not be reduced through supervisor support. This study shows

that there is no significant moderation of supervisor support between the relationship of

work-study conflict and turnover intention.

5.2. ImplicationsIt is significant to conduct research studies on inter-role conflict such as work-study conflict

continuously because number of working students is also continue to grow day by day.

Universities are required to be made aware of the fact that the time obligations needed for

study can impede with work obligations for working students and to find out ways to deal

with it, such as examining how class timetabling including day-time, evening, weekend and

on-line alternatives can support students with balance in work and study. Most of the

universities should extend to include weekends programs for working students. Libraries,

computer labs and study support centers should have extended opening hours over evenings

and weekends.

Universities and organization may also seek to run seminars or conference sessions for

working students in managing possible inter-role conflict because working students need to

be aware that their study and work commitments can be affected by work-study conflict.

Information regarding stress management and time management to manage fatigue, reduced

effort, irritability and distraction may be valuable.

Employment conditions also keep their impact on academic performance of working

students. Immediate supervisors, line manager and Human Resource departments required to

be made aware of, and they should also promote awareness that study time and educational

commitments can be impinged upon by work. Time issue can be offset by organizational

policies and studies can be looked positive by encouraging such a supportive work culture.

Initiatives can incorporate advancing study leave, the capacity to arrange adaptable work hours,

and the provision of calm space to study during lunch breaks.

To comprehend why a few students endure in their studies and others surrender it is

imperative to ponder at working students' level of inspiration for studying additionally to

consider the number, quality and nature of contending activity choices, for example, work

and recreation activities.

Recruitment and employment specialists for example, may utilize data about students' work

and relaxation experiences to distinguish work related abilities and relegate jobs (Horgen,

Hanson, Borman, & Kubisiak, 2000).

In conclusion, balanced activities, apparent relevance of work and autonomy in performing

extra-curricular activities seem favorable for a person’s academic study and well-being,

which resultantly support students in job search and workers in career success. This study is

also beneficial for the other researchers as well as managers in analyzing the outcomes of

work-study conflict among the working students of Pakistan and how supervisor support

tends to manage these negative outcomes.

5.3. LimitationsA cross-sectional methodology could be restrictive because of the incapability to determine a

thorough understanding of the intricacy of variables. However, the cross-sectional

methodology gave an effective and prudent method for surveying the usefulness and

hypothesis of our model before taking part in all the more expensive longitudinal research

study (Markel and Frone, 1998). The procedure of self-report method has some of its defects

in valuation, as it can be difficult for respondents to analyze personal experiences over some

time period. There may be a propensity to think just about a late experience or an illustration

that emerges over different cases. On the other hand, the utilization of self-report measures

appeared to be intelligent since the study was occupied with catching steady, inner conditions

of the respondents that couldn't be controlled.

At last, the data were not gathered from a delegate test of all working students and in this

manner the generalizability of the present results may be constrained and due to the time

constraint inadequate sample size is chosen. So the study should be carrying out on a large

sample size in order to get the more reliable and consistent results.

5.4. Direction for Future ResearchRegardless of these potential methodological restrictions, the aftereffects of this research

study propose that further research would be beneficial. Conceptual model of this study

would give a helpful starting to the precise study of work-study conflict and well-being of

students. Future longitudinal research studies more illustrative national specimen would give

a much more grounded test of the reasonable model utilized as a part of this study. Public

sector employees and private sector employees had high group differences in undergoing

inter-role conflict which should be investigated further. Work-study conflict can be seen on

other factors too like organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, work

performance, academic performance, breach of psychological contract etc. which will

increase the literature of the work-study conflict.

5.5. ConclusionThe results show that the work-study conflict is positively associated with presenteeism,

burnout and turnover intention means as the work-study conflict rises, presenteeism, burnout

and turnover intentions also get increased amongst the working students of Pakistan. It has

also been depicted from the results that if the individual has supervisor support then the level

of presenteeism and burnout gets decreases but it does not have any impact on job

satisfaction and turnover intention. Supervisor support moderates the relationship between

work-study conflict, presenteeism and burnout means that if individual receives supervisor

supports then this support will regulate the level of presenteeism and burnout caused by

work-study conflict, contrary to this supervisor support does not regulate the relationship [52]

between work-study conflict job satisfaction and turnover intentions, which means supervisor

support cannot stop the employee from having the turnover intentions and it does not affect

the level of job satisfaction when he/she is facing the work-study conflict.

References

Akfopure, R.R., Ikhifa, O.G., Imide, O.I., & Okokoyo, I. E. (2006). Job satisfaction among

educators in collegesof education in Southern Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(5),

1094-1098.

Aper, J. P. (1994). An Investigation of the Relationship between Student Work Experience

and Student Outcomes.

Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K. (2005). Sickness presenteeism: prevalence, attendance-pressure

factors, and an outline of a model for research. Journal of Occupational & Environmental

Medicine, 47(9), 958–966.

Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., Dallner, M. (2000). Sick but yet at work: an empirical study of

sickness presenteeism. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 502–509.

Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Contention, causes, and consequences of job

insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal,

32, 803–829.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000).

Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10‐country

comparison. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 192-221.

Aydogdu, S., & Asikgil, B. (2011). An empirical study of the relationship among job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. International Review of

Management and Marketing, 1(3), 43-53.

Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and

supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal

of retailing, 72(1), 57-75.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the

art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career

development international, 13(3), 209-223.

Barnett, R.C. and Hyde, J.A. (2001). Women, Men, Work and Family: An Expansionist

Theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781-796.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of management

Journal, 26(4), 587-595.

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker

support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21, 391-405.

Beehr, T. A. and Newman, J. E. (1978). ‘Job stress, employee health, and organi7ational

effectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature review’, Personnel psychology, 31, 665-

Behrman, H. D. & Perreault, D. W. Jr. (1984). A Role Stress Model of the Performance and

Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons. Journal of Marketing, 48, 9-21.

Berger-Gross, V., & Kraut, A. I. (1984). ‘Great expectations’: A no-conflict explanation of

role conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 261–271.

Bettencourt, L.A., and Brown, S.W. (2003). Role Stressors and Customer-Oriented

Boundary-Spanning Behaviors in Service Organizations, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 31, 394–408.

Bhagat, R. S., McQuaid, S. J., Lindholm, H., & Segovis, J. (1985). Total life stress: A

multimethod validation of the construct and its effects on organizationally valued outcomes

and withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 202.

Biron, C., Brun, J. P., Ivers, H., & Cooper, C. (2006). At work but ill: psychosocial work

environment and well-being determinants of presenteeism propensity. Journal of Public

Mental Health, 5(4), 26-37.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. NewYork, NY: Wiley

Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the front lines: Stress, conflict, and the customer

service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37(1), 41-50.

Botha, H. (2007). Relationships between Job Variables: The Moderating Effects of Support

and the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction, Affective Commitment and Continuance

Commitment in the Support Worker Industry (Doctoral dissertation, The University of

Waikato).

Brayfield, A. H. & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35(1), 307-311.

Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). A comparison of alternative models of coping: Identifying

relationships among coworker support, workload, and emotional exhaustion in the

workplace. International Journal of Stress Management,8(1), 1-14.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2005). Impact of work-family interference on general well-

being: A replication and extension. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 203–

Brown, C., & O'Brien, K. M. (1998). Understanding stress and burnout in shelter workers.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(4), 383-385.

Buda, R. & Lenaghan, J.A. (2005). Engagement in Multiple Roles: An Investigation of the

Student-Work Relationship. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(3), 211-

Bunker, D. R., & Wijnberg, M. (1985). The supervisor as a mediator of organizational

climate in public service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 9, 59–72.

Burke, Michael J., Chester C. Borucki and Amy E. Hurley. (1992). “Reconceptualizing

Psychological Climate in a Retail Service Environment: A Multiple-Stakeholder

Perspective,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77(5): 717-729.

Burke, R. J., & Richardson, A. M. (2000). Psychological burnout in organizations. Handbook

of organizational behavior, 327-368.

Burton, WN., Chin-Yu, C., Conti, DJ,. et al. (2005). The association of health risks with on-

the-job productivity. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 47(8), 769.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational

assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe´, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain

relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.

Caverley, N., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2007). Sickness presenteeism,

sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service

organization. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 304-319.

Chambers, J. (1999). The job satisfaction of managerial and executive women: Revisiting the

assumptions. Journal of Education for Business, 75(2), 69-74.

Chang, E., & Hancock, K. (2003). Role stress and role ambiguity in new nursing graduates in

Australia. Nursing & health sciences, 5(2), 155-163.

Cohen, A. R. (1959). Situational structure, self-esteem, and threat-oriented reactions to

power.

Cooper, C. (1996). Hot under the collar. The Times ‘Higher Education Supplement’, June

Cooper, C. L., & Williams, S. E. (1994). Creating healthy work organizations. John Wiley &

Cordes, C.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (1993), “A review and an integration of research on job

burnout”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 621-56.

Cotton, J and Tuttle, J (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with

implication for research. Academy of Management Review, 11 (1), 55-70.

Coventry, G., Cornish, G., & Stricker, P. (1984). Part-time Work and Youth in Transition.

Melbourne: Victorian Institute of Secondary Education.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness

heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 58, 164–209.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

Curtis, S. & Lucas, R. (2001). A coincidence of needs: Employers and full-time students.

Employee Relations, 23, 38-54.

Curtis, S. & Williams, J. (2002). The reluctant workforce: undergraduates' part-time

employment. Education and Training, 44, 5-10.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of

two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 12.

Donaldson, E. (2003). The missing pieces in the stress management jigsaw: Management

training and development. Occupational Health Review, 27–29.

Dunseath, J., Beehr, T. A., & King, D. W. (1995). Job Stress-Social Support Buffering

Effects Across Gender, Education and Occupational Groups in a Municipal Workforce

Implications for EAP's and Further Research. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 15(1), 60-83.

Duxbury, M. L., Armstrong, G. D., Drew, D. J., & Henly, S. J. (1984). Head nurse leadership

style with staff nurse burnout and job satisfaction in neonatal intensive care units. Nursing

Research, 33, 97–101.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).

Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1),

42–51.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support

and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. The Journal of Applied Psychology,

75(1), 51–59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004).Who takes themost revenge?

Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 787–799.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 565.

Ellickson. M.C., & Logsdon, K. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal

government employees [Electronic version]. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior,

employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the

distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.

Emerson, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange

networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721–739.

Etzion, D. (1984). Moderating Effect of Social Support on the Stress-Burnout Relationship.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 615-622.

Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 21., 433-52.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Fisher, C.D. and Gitelson, R. (1983). ‘A Meta-analysis of the Correlates of Role Conflict and

Ambiguity’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 320 –33.

Fjortoft, N. F. (1995). College Student Employment: Opportunity or Deterrent?.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee

grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In Handbook of Occupational Health

Psychology. J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. 143–162.

Gale, C., & Oakley-Browne, M. (2000). Anxiety disorder. BMJ, 321(7270), 1204-1207.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of Social Support in the

Experience of Stress at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102-110.

Ganster, D. C., Pagon, M., & Duffy, M. (1996). Organizational and interpersonal sources of

stress in the Slovenian police force.

Garavan, T. N., & Murphy, C. (2001). The co-operative education process and organisational

socialisation: A qualitative study of student perceptions of its effectiveness. Education+

Training, 43(6), 281-302.

Gavin, J. F., & Kelley, R. F. (1978). The psychological climate and reported well-being of

underground miners: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 31, 567–581.

Gilbreath, B. (2001). Supervisor behavior and employee psychological well-being. ProQuest

Digital Dissertations, Number 3008940.

Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee

psychological well-being. Work & Stress,18, 255–266.

Gilbreath, B., & Karimi, L. (2012). Supervisor behavior and employee

presenteeism. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(1), 114-131.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 53–62.

Greenhaus, J.H., Bedeian, AG., & Mossholder, KW. (1987). Work experiences, job

performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 31,200-215.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.

The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.

Greenhaus, J.H. & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A Work-Nonwork Interactive Perspective of

Stress & Its Consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 8, 37-60.

Greenhaus, J.H. & Powell, G.N. (2006). When Work & Family Are Allies A Theory Of

Work-Family Enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31, 72–92.

Guzzo, Richard A. and B.A. Gannett. (1988). “The Nature of Facilitators and Inhibitors of

Effective Task Performance.” In Facilitating Work Effectiveness, edited by F.D. Schoorman

and B. Schneider. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hafer, J. & McCuen, A. B. (1985). Antecedents of Performance and Satisfaction in a Service

Salesforce as Compared to an Industrial Salesforce. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, 5, 7-17.

Haines, V. A., Hurlbert, J. S., & Zimmer, C. (1991). Occupational stress, social support, and

the buffer hypothesis. Work & Occupations, 18 212–235.

Hansen, D. M. & Jarvis, P. A. (2000). Adolescent employment and psychological outcomes.

Youth and Society, 31, 417-436.

Harpell, J.V., & Andrews, J.W. (2013). Relationship between School Based Stress and Test

Anxiey. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 5(2), 74-84.

Harris, E.G., Artis, A.B., Walters, J.H., and Licata, J.W. (2006). Role Stressors, Service

Worker Job Resourcefulness and Job Outcomes: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Business

Research, 49, 407–415.

Hatton, C. and Emerson, E. (1998), “Brief report: Organisational predictors of actual staff

turnover in a service for people with multiple disabilities”, Journal of Applied Research in

Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 11, pp. 166-71.

Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: at work-but out of it. Harvard business review, 82(10), 49-

Herzberg F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man. Crowell, NewYork.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M. and Johnsen, T.B. (2007), “Burnout in the information technology

sector: does leadership matter?”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 58-75.

Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 51-75.

Himle, D. P., Jayaratne, S., & Thyness, P. A. (1989). The buffering effects of four types of supervisory support on work stress. Administration in Social Work, 13(1), 19-34.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General

Psychology, 6, 307-324.

Hobfoll, S. E., and Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of Resources Theory. In R.

Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 57-80). New York,

NY:Dekker.

Hodgson, A., & Spours, K. (2000). Earning and learning: a local study of part-time paid work

among 14-19 year olds. Institute of Education, University of London.

Hofman, W. H. A., & Steijn, A. J. (2003). Students or lower-skilled

workers?‘Displacement’at the bottom of the labour market. Higher Education,45(2), 127-

Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. (2000). Development of a generalized

learning transfer system inventory. Human resource development quarterly, 11(4), 333-360.

Homans, George C. "Social behavior as exchange." American journal of sociology (1958):

597-606.

Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as

displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.[63]

Horgen, K. E., Hanson, M. A., Borman, W. C., & Kubisiak, U. C. (2000). Leisure, volunteer,

and social activities as sources of work-related skills. In Poster presented at the 15th annual

conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), New

Orleans, LA.

House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support. University of Michigan: Addison-

Wesley.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a

model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3),

467-505.

House, R. J., Filley, A. C., & Kerr, S. (1971). Relation of leader consideration and initiating

structure to R and D subordinates' satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19-30.

Hummer, J., Sherman, B., & Quinn, N. (2002). Present and unaccounted for. Occupational

Health & Safety, 71, 40– 44, 100.

Humphrey, R., McCarthy, P., Popham, F., Charles, Z., Garland, M., Gooch, S., Hornsby, C.

H. & Muldoon, C. (1998). Stress and the contemporary student. Higher Education Quarterly,

52, 221-242.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social

and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of

the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.

Hutchison, S., & Garstka, M. L. (1996). Sources of perceived organizational support: goal

setting and feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(15), 1351–1366.

Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1985). A Meta-analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research

on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work Settings, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 36, 16 –78.

Jackson, S.E., Schwab, R.L., & Schuler, R.S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the

burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630–640.

Jacobs, E., & Roodt, G. (2007, May). The development of a knowledge sharing construct to

predict turnover intentions. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 229-248). Emerald

Group Publishing Limited.

Jansson, M., & Linton, S. J. (2006). Psychosocial work stressors in the development and

maintenance of insomnia: A prospective study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

11, 241–248.

Jaramillo F, Nixon, R., & Sams, D. (2005). The effects of law enforcement stress on

organizational commitment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management, 28(2), 321–336.

Jawahar, I. M., Stone, T. H., & Kisamore, J. L. (2007). Role conflict and burnout: The direct

and moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout

dimensions. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 142.

Jernigan, I. E., & Beggs, J. M. (2005). An examination of satisfaction with my supervisor and

organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2171-2192.

Johns, G. (2003). How methodological diversity has improved our understanding of

absenteeism from work. Human resource management review, 13(2), 157-184.

Johns, G. (2011). Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents and correlates of

presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 16(4), 483.

Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support and cardiovascular

disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population.

American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336–1342.

Jourdain, G., & Vézina, M. (2014). How psychological stress in the workplace influences

presenteeism propensity: a test of the Demand–Control–Support model. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 483-496.

Kahn, J. H., Schneider, K. T., Jenkins, Henkelman, T. M., & Moyle, L. L. (2006). Emotional

social support and job burnout among high‐school teachers: is it all due to dispositional

affectivity?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 793-807.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Kahn, R.L. and Byosier, P. (1992). Stress in Organizations. In Dunnette, M.D. and Hough,

L.M. (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 571 – 650.

Kalliath, T. J., & Beck, A. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by a lack of

supervisory support? A structural equations test. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30(2),

72-78.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain. Implications for

job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The

Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments

of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of occupational health psychology, 3(4), 322.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the

reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Karimi, L. (2008). A study of a multidimensional model of work-family conflict among

Iranian employees. Community, Work and Family, 11, 283–296.

Karimi, L., Karimi, H., & Nouri, A. (2011). Predicting employees’ well-being using work-

family conflict and job strain models. Stress & Health, 27, 111–122.

Karimi, L. & Nouri, A. (2009). Do work demands-resources predict work-to-family conflict

and facilitation? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 193–202.

Karlin, W. A., Brondolo, E., & Schwartz, J. (2003). Workplace social support and

ambulatory cardiovascular activity in New York City traffic agents. Psychosomatic Medicine,

65, 167–176.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2nd Ed. New York,

NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social

support: some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 522.

Koopman, C., Pelletier, K. R., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L., Turpin, R. S., &

Bendel, T. (2002). Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee

productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44(1), 14-20.

Kopelman, Richard E., Arthur P. Brief and Richard A. Guzzo. (1990). “The Role of Climate

and Culture in Productivity.” Pp. 282-313 in Organizational Climate and Culture, edited by

B. Schneider. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and

interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational behavior and human

performance, 32(2), 198-215.

Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and

organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079.

Koustelios, A., Theodorakis, N. & Goulimaris, D. (2004). Role ambiguity, role conflict and

job satisfaction among physical education teachers in Greece. The International Journal of

Educational Management, 18(2), 87-92.

Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived

investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes.

Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 138–156.

La Rocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co-Worker and Leader Support as Moderators of

Stress-Strain Relationships in Work Situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 629-

Lambert, E. G., Barton, S. M., & Hogan, N. L. (1999). The missing link between job

satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(1), 95–116

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L and Barton, S.M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on

turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers.

The Social Science Journal, 38, 233-250.

Landeweerd, J. A., & Boumans, N. P. G. (1994). The effect of work dimensions and need for

autonomy on nurses’ work satisfaction and health. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 67, 207–217.

Lankau, M., Carlson, D.S. and Nielson, T.R. (2006). The mediating influence of role

stressors in the relationship between mentoring and job attitudes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 68, pp. 308-322.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A longitudinal study of burnout among supervisors and

managers: Comparisons between the Leiter and Maslach (1988) and Golembiewski et al.

(1986) models. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 54(3), 369-398.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the

three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.

Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987, December). Voluntarily leaving an organization: an

empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 30, 721–743.

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and

organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297–308.

Lenaghan, J. A., & Sengupta, K. (2007). Role Conflict, Role Balance and Affect: A Model of

Well-being of the Working Student. Journal Of Behavioral & Applied Management, 9(1), 88-

Lingard, H. (2012). Balancing study and paid work: the experiences of construction

undergraduates in an Australian university. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics

and Building, 5(1), 41-47.

Lingard, H., Brown, K., Bradley, L., Bailey, C., & Townsend, K. (2007). Improving

employees’ work-life balance in the construction industry: Project alliance case study.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), 807-815.

Lipke, D. J. (2000). Work study. American Demographics, 22, 9-14.

Lloyd, C., King, R., & Chenoweth, L. (2002). Social work, stress and burnout: A

review. Journal of mental health, 11(3), 255-265.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, 1, 1297-1343.

Luo, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employees' well-being. Journal of Applied

Management Studies, 8, 61-72.

Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of

perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee

turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075.

Maertz, C. P., Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (2003). A turnover model for the Mexican

maquiladoras. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1), 111-135.

Mahan, P. L., Mahan, M. P., Park, N. J., Shelton, C., Brown, K. C., & Weaver, M. T. (2010).

Work environment stressors, social support, anxiety, and depression among secondary school

teachers. AAOHN Journal, 58(5), 197-205.

Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work–school conflict, and school

outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(2), 277.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development

and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Competitive anxiety in sport, 117-

Martin, U., & Schinke, S. P. (1998). Organizational and individual factors influencing job

satisfaction and burnout of mental health workers. Social Work in Health Care, 28, 51–62.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York: Prentice Hall.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as

antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 70(1), 149-171.

Mauss, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New

York: The Norton Library.

Melchior, M. E. W., Bours, G. J. J. W., Schmitz, P., & Wittich, Y. (1997). Burnout in

psychiatric nursing: a meta-analysis of related variables. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental

Health Nursing, 4, 193-201.

Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of

formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and

industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 376-383.

Micklewright, J., Rajah, N., & Smith, S. (1994). Labouring and learning: part-time work and

full-time education. National Institute Economic Review, 148(1), 73-97.

Mills, A., & Ashford, P. (2004). Full time student and part-time worker: employment

practices of undergraduate students in built environment courses in Australia. Runeson, G a

G, T (Ed.), Australian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA), 188-200.

Mink, O. G., Owen, K. Q., & Mink, B. P. (1993). Developing high-performance people: The

art of coaching. Basic Books.

Moore, K. A. (2001). Hospital restructuring: impact on nurses mediated by social support and

a perception of challenge. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 490-516.

Mortimer, J. T., Finch, M., Dennehy, K., Lee, C., & Beebe, T. (1994). Work experience in

adolescence. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 19, 39-70.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Muhammad, A. H., & Hamdy, H. I. (2005). Burnout, supervisory support, and work

outcomes: a study from an Arabic cultural perspective. International Journal of Commerce

and Management, 15(3/4), 230-243.

Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role

ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership

effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational

citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

Nolan, K. & Hagen, R. (1989). School and Work. A Report into the Employment

Experiences of School Students at Two Melbourne High Schools. Carlton: Job Watch Inc.

O’Driscoll, P. M., Beehr, A. T. (2000). Moderating Effects of Perceived Control and Need

for Clarity on the Relationship Between Role Stressors and Employee Affective Reactions.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 151-159.

O'Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty

as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of organizational

Behavior, 15(2), 141-155.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support,

and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339–356.

Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job

stress. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32(2), 160-177.

Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of

mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 48(1), 158-168.

Pearlin, L. (1993). The social contexts of stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.),

Handbook of stress (2nd ed., pp. 303–315). New York: The Free Press.

Peeters, M. C. W., Montgomery, A. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Balancing

work and home: How job and home demands are related to burnout. International Journal of

Stress Management, 12, 43–61.

Perkins, A. (1993). The costs of inflexible job arrangements. Harvard Business Review, 71,

Peterson, C. L. (1999). Stress at work: A sociological perspective. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Pienaar, J., Sieberhagen, C. F., & Mostert, K. (2007). Investigating Turnover Intentions by

Role Overload, Job Satisfaction and Social Support Moderation. SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology, 33(2), 62 – 67.

Price, J.l. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International

Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 660-624.

Rahim, M.A., (2010), Managing Conflict in Organization (3rd ed) London: Quorum Books.

Rees, T., & Freeman, P. (2009). Social support moderates the relationship between stressors

and task performance through self-efficacy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28,

245-264.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S.I., (1970), Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex

Organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 15(2), pp 150-163.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the

literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work &

Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-68.

Rothstein, D. S. (2007). High school employment and youths' academic achievement. The

Journal of Human Resources, 194-213.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations:

a study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.

Rosenzweig, M. R. (1990). Population growth and human capital investments: theory and

evidence. Journal of Political Economy, S38-S70.

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economies. New York: Aldine.

Sager, J. K., Futrell, C. M., & Varadarajan, R. (1989). Exploring salesperson turnover: a

causal model. Journal of Business Research, 18(4), 303–326.

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel

Psychology, 36, 577–600.

Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of

role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 35–58.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A

critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002).

Burnout and engagement in university students a cross-national study.Journal of cross-

cultural psychology, 33(5), 464-481.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). ‘Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations’,

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184- 215.

Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T., & Graen, G. B. (1983). The interaction of job stress

and social support: A strong inference investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 26,

273–284.

Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout.

Academy of Management Journal, 31, 439–446.

Sheridan, J. E., & Vredenburgh, D. J. (1978). Usefulness of leadership behavior and social

power variables in predicting job tension, performance, and turnover of nursing employees.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 89–95.

Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T.H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee

commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1593–1615.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774–780

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.

Bevely Hills, CA: Sage.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. I., Lusbene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983).

Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Stamper, C. L., & Johlke, M. C. (2003). The impact of perceived organizational support on

the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes. Journal of

Management, 29(4), 569-588.

Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of

support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 24, 251–270.

Stout, J. K. (1984). Supervisors' structuring and consideration behaviors and workers' job

satisfaction, stress, and health problems. Rehabilitation Bulletin, 28, 133–138.

Teas, L. K. (1983). Supervisory Behavior, Role Stress, and the Job Satisfaction of Industrial

Salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 84-91.

Tett, R.P. and Meyer,J.P. (1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intention and turnover: Path analyses based on meta analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,

46,259-290.

Thirapatsakun, T., Kuntonbutr, C., & Mechinda, P. (2014). The Relationships among Job

Demands, Work Engagement, and Turnover Intentions in the Multiple Groups of Different

Levels of Perceived Organizational Supports. Universal Journal of Management, 2(7), 272-

Toch, H. (2002). Stress in Policing, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tyagi, P.K. and Wotruba, T.R. (1993). An exploratory study of reverse causality

relationships among sales force turnover variables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 21, 143-153.

Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and

psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & stress, 13(2),

87-114.

Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). The evaluation of an

individual burnout intervention program: The role of inequity and social support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83(3), 392.

Viator, R. E. (2001). The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring

with role stress and related job outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(1), 73-

Vickers, M., Lamb, S., & Hinkley, J. (2003). Student Workers in High School and Beyond:

The Effects of Part-Time Employment on Participation in Education, Training and Work .

ACER Customer Service, Private Bag 55, Camberwell, Victoria 3124 Australia.

Wager, N., Fieldman, G., & Hussey, T. (2003). The effect on ambulatory blood pressure of

working under favourably and unfavourably perceived supervisors. Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 60(7), 468-474.

Walker, C. R. (1956). The foreman on the assembly line. Harvard University Press.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and

leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,

40(1), 82–111.

Whitehouse, D. (2005). Workplace presenteeism: How behavioral professionals can make a

difference. Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow, 14, 32.

Widyani, A. D., & Sugianingrat, I. W. (2015). Effect of multiple role conflict on job

satisfaction with the mediation role of stress. International Journal of Economics, Commerce

and Management, 3(5), 868-870.

Williams, S., & Cooper, L. (1999). Dangerous waters: Strategies for improving wellbeing at

work. Chichester, England: Wiley

Wolfe, D. M., & Snoek, J. D. (1962). A Study of Tensions and Adjustment Under Role

Conflict1. Journal of Social Issues, 18(3), 102-121.

Woodman, T. and Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In Handbook of Sport Psychology,

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job

performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486–493.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of

personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International journal of stress

management, 14(2), 121.

Yabiku, S. T., & Schlabach, S. (2009). Social change and the relationships between education

and employment. Population research and policy review, 28(4), 533-549.

Yarker, J., Lewis, R., & Donaldson-Feilder, E. (2008). Management competencies for

preventing and reducing stress at work: identifying the management behaviours necessary to

implement the management standards: phase two.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.

Appendix

Impact of Work-Study Conflict on Job Satisfaction, Presenteeism, Burnout and Turnover Intentions with Moderating Role of Supervisor Support

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,

I am a student of Riphah International University and doing this survey as I am working on this project. I request you to fill in (Circle) the following questionnaire which is about studying the Impact of Work-Study Conflict on Job Satisfaction, Presenteeism, Burnout

and Turnover Intentions with Moderating Role of Supervisor Support among the working students of Pakistan. Your response will be having great value for completion of this research. The data will only be used for academic purposes and strictly remain confidential. Your name should not appear anywhere on this document. Thanks for your time and cooperation.

SECTION: I

Please tick the appropriate answer

1. What is total work experience?

(Less than 1yr) (2yr to 5yrs) (6yrs to 10yrs) (More than 10yrs)

2. What is your nature of job? Non-Managerial Managerial

3. What is your last completed degree? 14 Years 16 Years 18 Years

4. What is your marital status? Married Unmarried

5. What is your gender? Male Female

6. What is your age? (21 to 30) (31 to 40) (41 to 50) (51 and above)

For each of the statements given below please use the following scale:1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

SECTION: II

1. My family/colleagues dislike how often I am preoccupied with my work (office) while I am at university 1 2 3 4 5

2. My work (office) takes up time that I would like to spend on my studies. 1 2 3 4 5

3. After work (office) I come to university too tired to do some of the things I like to do 1 2 3 4 5

4. My university life takes up time that I like to spend at work (office) 1 2 3 4 5

5. My superiors and peers dislike how often I am preoccupied with my university life at work (office). 1 2 3 4 5

6. My university demands are so great that it takes me away from my office work. 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION: III

1. My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of those under him 1 2 3 4 5

2. My supervisor pays attention to what I am saying 1 2 3 4 5

3. My supervisor is helpful in getting the job done 1 2 3 4 5

4. My supervisor is successful in getting people to work together 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION: IV

1. I am often bored with my job(R) 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job 1 2 3 4 5

3. I am satisfied with my job for the time being 1 2 3 4 5

4. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work 1 2 3 4 5

5. I like my job better than the average worker does 1 2 3 4 5

6. I find real enjoyment in my work 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION: V

1. Because of my (work load)*, the stresses of my job were much harder to handle 1 2 3 4 5

2. Despite having my (work load)*, I was able to finish hard tasks in my work 1 2 3 4 5

3. My (work load)* distracted me from taking pleasure in my work 1 2 3 4 5

4. I felt hopeless about finishing certain work tasks, due to my (work load )* 1 2 3 4 5

5. At work, I was able to focus on achieving my goals despite my (work load)* 1 2 3 4 5

6. Despite having my (work load )*, I felt energetic enough to complete all my work 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION: VI

1. There are the days when I feel tired before I arrive at work 1 2 3 4 5

2. After work, I tend to need more time than in the past in order to relax and feel better 1 2 3 4 5

3. I can tolerate the pressure of my work very well 1 2 3 4 5

4. During my work, I often feel emotionally drained 1 2 3 4 5

5. After working, I have enough energy for my leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5

6. When I work, I usually feel energized 1 2 3 4 5

7. After my work, I usually feel worn out and weary 1 2 3 4 5

8. Usually, I can manage the amount of my work well 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION: VII

1. I will actively look for a new job in the next year 1 2 3 4 5

2. I often think about quitting 1 2 3 4 5

3. I will probably look for a new job by the next year 1 2 3 4 5

Thank you for completing the Questionnaire!

wsc - thesis 23.12.15

Documents

wsc change management framework

wsc summary

wsc update spring 2016

wsc 2012 chet5409

art wsc 2014

wsc webinar - wsc progress notes - florida webinar -...

big data, data science, statistics - university of...

wsc 1874 1965_kivik_7juni2010

wsc update fall 2015

(wsc) joint statement

wsc presentation 2008 2

wsc 2014 art selections

wsc-sd prospectus

spa wsc fieldhouse study

septic tanks baileys water tanks - tt plasticsall prices...

wsc sm 5.16

wsc 4-18-13

the beginning of wsc

wsc 10.12.12

bible doctrine: wsc