journal for marketing

8/12/2019 journal for marketing

1/39

SP F

GOING BEYOND THE WORK ARRANGEMENT: THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF SUPERVISOR SUPPORTAuthor(s): MARK JULIEN, KAREN SOMERVILLE and NEIL CULPSource: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (SUMMER 2011), pp. 167-204Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41506753 .Accessed: 20/02/2014 10:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public AdministrationQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111 .68.106.109 on Thu, 20 Feb 20 14 10:13:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaefhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41506753?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41506753?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef


2/39

GOING BEYOND THE WORK ARRANGEMENT:

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF SUPERVISOR SUPPORT

MARK JULIENBrock University

KAREN SOMERVILLEHamline University

NEIL CULPBrock University

ABSTRACT

Studies examining he role of alternative work arrangements nreducing evels of work-life onflict have yielded mixed results.Frequently tudieshave used homogeneous amples resulting n theinability ogeneralize hefindings. elatively ittle mpirical esearchhas previously xplored he topics of alternative ork arrangementsand work-life onflict n the public sector. This paper examines

whether lternative ork arrangements re an effective mployerintervention hat elps o reducework-life onflict n the public ector.Results from this empirical study involving 60 public sectororganizations uggest hat compressed ork week is an alternativework life arrangement hat reduces work-life onflict, however,flextime nd telework o not reducework-life onflict. urther, heseresults lso suggest hatmanagement upport s important o enhancework-life alance.

Keywords: ublic dministration,lternative ork rrangements, ork-

life onflict, upervisor upport

Employees in North America are subjected to thedaily pressures and challenges of trying o balance the oftencompeting demands of work and personal life. Men andwomen play a multiplicity of roles including employee,spouse, friend, volunteer as well as caregiver to both theirchildren and parents (that is, the sandwich generation). Theresult of not

balancingwork and life demands

effectively

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/39

168 PAQ SUMMER 2011

manifests itself as work-life conflict and there is extensivesupport for the proposition that work-life conflict hasnegative consequences for both employee and employer.From the employee perspective, high levels of work-lifeconflict have been associated with poor physical health(e.g., Higgins, Duxbury, & Johnson, 2004; Madsen, 2003),a variety of psychological symptoms such as depression(e.g., Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005;Roxburgh, 2004) and psychological distress (e.g., Burke &Greenglass, 1999; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) as well asmarital dissatisfaction (e.g., MacEwen & Barling, 1994;Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) and substanceabuse (Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996; Frone, 2000).

Employers also have experienced negativerepercussions of work-life conflict in the form of lower job

satisfaction (e.g., Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002;Boles, Howard & Donofrio, 2001); lower organizationalcommitment (e.g., Netemeyer, et al., 1996; Thompson,Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999) and higher turnover intentions(e.g., Anderson, et al., 2002; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, &Collins, 2001).

A number of factors increase our confidence in thefinding that work-life conflict is deleterious to bothemployees and employers. First, the studies wereremarkably consistent in finding the associations betweenhigher levels of work-family conflict and theaforementioned negative outcomes featured in this section(for example, poor physical health, lower levels of lifesatisfaction) despite the fact that the researchers used avariety of measures of work-family interference (e.g.,Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Frone, Russell, & Cooper,1992; Gutek, Searle & Klepa, 1991; Kopelman, Greenhaus

& Connolly, 1983). Second, a number of the studies cited(e.g., Anderson et al., 2002; Burke, 1988; Frone, 2000;Frone, et al., 1996; Hammer et al., 2005) involved fairly



4/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 169

large (that is, 450 respondents or more) samples whichincrease the generalizability of the findings.

Given the negative outcomes associated with work-life conflict, it is problematic for employees and employersthat work-life conflict levels are on the rise in NorthAmerica. A large sample Canadian study by Duxbury andHiggins (2001) noted that relative to their 1991 results,significant increases were reported in work-life conflict.These increases were experienced regardless of gender, obtype or parental status. A rising trend in work-life conflicthas also been reported in the United States. Whereas thirtypercent of respondents in the late 1970s and early 1980swere claiming that their job interfered with familysomewhat or a great deal (e.g., Galinsky, Ruopp, & Blum,1983; General Mills, Inc., 1981; Quinn & Staines, 1979),

more recent data indicate these numbers have climbed. Themost recent National Study of the Changing Workforce(NSCW) indicates that employees with families reporthigher levels (45 per cent experienced 'some' or 'a lot') ofinterference between their jobs and their family livescompared to respondents in 1977 (34 per cent experiencing'some' or 'a lot') (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas,2003).

This paper will review the literature on alternativework arrangements and supervisor support and the impactof these constructs on work-life conflict. Hypotheses willbe developed and tested using a representative sample ofCanadian federal government employees. The findings willbe presented and discussed along with the limitations of thestudy and future research directions.

ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE WORK

ARRANGEMENTS

One often touted solution in the practitioner andpeer-reviewed literature to help reduce levels of work-life



5/39

170 PAQ SUMMER 2011

conflict is the introduction of various forms of alternativework arrangements such as flextime, compressed workweek and telework. Alternative work arrangements can beseen as a form of schedule control. The employee cancontrol when and where they work thereby enabling theemployee to accommodate non-work obligations. Thisability to better manage their schedules should in turn ead

to reduced levels of work-life conflict since the employee isbetter able to meet both work and non-work demands.

Theoretical support for this proposition can befound in Karasek's Demand-Control model (Karasek,1979). Karasek theorized that for different jobs, theinteraction of the level of control and the level of demandsof the ob would result in different evels of negative healthoutcomes, for example, stress. Karasek's (1979) model

allows for four possible outcomes from the associationbetween job demands and control: high demands, lowcontrol (high strain jobs), high demands, high control(active jobs), low demands, high control (low strain obs)and low demands, low control (passive jobs). According tothis model, as demands increase and control decreases,negative health outcomes increases. The reverse is alsohypothesized to be true. As control increases and jobdemands decrease, negative health outcomes decrease.Details on the four proposed types of jobs (that is, highstrain, active, low strain, passive) are given below.

Figure 1Karasek's (1979) Demand-Control Model

Low DemandHighDemand

HighControl Low Strain Active

LowControl Passive HighStrain



6/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 171

High Strain JobsA high strain ob is defined as an occupation where

job demands are high and control is low. High strain obsare represented in the lower right hand quadrant of Figure1. Examples of high strain jobs include assembly lineworkers and wait staff. It is this group where the healthrisks will be highest because these workers do not have the

control to develop effective solutions to the high level ofjob demands inherent in their jobs (Karasek & Theorell,1990).

Active JobsAn active job is defined as an occupation where job

demands and control are both high. Active jobs arerepresented in the upper right hand quadrant of Figure 1

Examples of active jobs are professional jobs such assurgeons, judges, lawyers, engineers, professors andmanagers. These tend to be jobs carrying a high prestigefactor. Karasek and Theorell (1990) suggest that it is thehigh level of control that allows workers in active jobs tomeet the high demands of their obs by developing creativesolutions to the problems brought on by high demands.Karasek and Theorell (1990) predict that the combinationof high job demands and high control will result in only anaverage level of negative health outcomes.

Low Strain JobsA low strain ob is defined as an occupation where

job demands are low and yet control is high. Low-strainjobs are represented in the upper left hand quadrant ofFigure 1. Examples of low-strain obs are repair personnel,linemen and natural scientists. The high degree of control

combined with low job demands leads to Karasek' sprediction that this group of workers should experiencelower than average levels of negative outcomes becausecontrol can be exercised for each of the few demanding



7/39

172 PAQ SUMMER 2011

situations encountered on a daily basis. Karasek andTheorell suggest that these people are actually made bothhappier and healthier than average by work (Karasek &Theorell, 1990: 36).

Passive JobsA passive job is defined as an occupation where

both job demands and control are low. Passive jobs arerepresented in the bottom left hand quadrant of Figure 1.Security personnel, sales clerks, billing clerks and custodialstaff are examples of passive jobs. It is predicted byKarasek and Theorell (1990) that the long-term effects oflow job demands and low control is a loss of motivationand productivity due to the lack of ob challenges combinedwith a rigid work environment.

Curiously, despitethe

negative picture presented ofthe passive job holder, Karasek and Theorell (1990) predictthat employees in this group will experience only averagelevels of illness. It is interesting to note that this level ofstress is the same level predicted for those holding activejobs. Karasek suggests this is because although eachstressor exposure would result in substantial residualpsychological strain (just as in the high-straincircumstance), the low job demands of this work situationmean that fewer stressors are confronted (Karasek &Theorell, 1990: 38). There is extensive empirical supportfor Karasek' s model and generally speaking higher levelsof control have been associated with lower levels of strain(e.g., Kristensen, 1995; Van der Doef & Maes, 1998,1999).

The research model developed for this paper usesKarasek 's Demand-Control Model as its theoretical

underpinning. The research model has a number of featuresin common with Karasek's model: the basic constructs thatis, demands, strain and control) included in the models areidentical. However, the conceptualization and



8/39

PAQ SUMMER 20 11 173

operationalization of these constructs in this research arequite different from those used by Karasek in two keyways.

Karasek' s (1979) notion of strain centres on jobstrain. When Karasek' s model was developed in the 1970s,there was a clear division of labour associated with gender(Kanter, 1977). In other words, the men worked outside the

home in paid employment and the women were responsiblefor most of the household and child rearing duties. Thisdoes not describe the reality of most North Americanstoday. Seventy-five percent of couples with children workin paid employment (Vanier Institute of the Family, 2005).Furthermore, men are spending more time doinghousework and helping raise their children (Bianchi &Raley, 2005) compared to their male counterparts n 1970s.

Therefore, we have updated Karasek' s model to reflectthese societal trends and realities by operationalizing strainas work-life conflict.

Karasek defined his control construct (that is,decision latitude) as the working individual's potentialcontrol over his tasks and his conduct during the workingday (Karasek, 1979: 289). Karasek's conceptualization ofcontrol is focused only on control in the workplace. Such aconceptualization of control does not take into accountcontrol in one's non-work life. The research model for thispaper has attempted to develop a new construct of controlthat has relevance for today's workforce. It is suggestedthat enhancing an employee's control over their work- ifeinterface (operationalized as an alternative workarrangement) could help to reduce levels of work-lifeconflict.

Other studies (e.g., Kossek, Lautsch & Eaton, 2006)

have also used Karasek's framework when discussing thenotion of schedule as a form of control. Kossek et al.,(2006) examined the impact of control over where oneworks on both work-family and family-work conflict for a



9/39

174 PAQ SUMMER 2011

group of telecommuters (n=245). Heightened perceptionsof schedule control were associated with lower levels ofwork-life conflict.

Despite the theoretical argument that alternativework arrangements should be associated with lower levelsof work-life conflict, a review of the literature has producedrather mixed and inconsistent results. For example, some

studies find that flextime helps reduce work-life conflict(e.g., Lingard, Brown, Bradley, Bailey, & Townsend, 2007;Barling & Barenburg, 1984; Bond et al., 2003; Walker,Fletcher & McLeod, 1975), others report mixed (that is,flextime helps one gender but not the other) (e.g., Lee,1983; White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, & Smeaton, 2003) orneutral (that is, flextime did not make a difference) results(e.g., Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Clark, 2001). Some

studies find a negative impact (that is., flextimeexacerbated work-life conflict) (e.g., Dunham, Pierce &Castaneda, 1987). Studies examining the impact ofcompressed work week (e.g., Cunningham, 1981; Dunhamet al., 1987; Saltzstein, Ting & Saltzstein, 2001) andtelework (e.g., Baruch, 2000; De Lay, 1995; Duxbury,Higgins & Neufeld, 1998; Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996;McCloskey, 1998) on work-life conflict have also producedcontradictory results.

This leads to a fundamental question: given theintuitive appeal of alternative work arrangements, why hasthe literature not emerged with more definitive conclusionsabout the impact of alternative work arrangements onwork-life conflict? One possibility raised by Baltes, Briggs,Huff, Wright and Neuman (1999) as well Geurts andDemerouti (2003) is that previous studies in the areas ofalternative work arrangements and work-life conflict have

tended to use homogeneous populations and have lacked atheoretical framework (e.g., Cunningham, 1981; Winnett,Neale & Williams, 1982).



10/39


11/39

176 PAQ SUMMER 2011

the empirical literature on the role of supervisor supportand work-life balance.

From an exchange theory perspective (Homans,1961), employees will alter their evels of commitment andeffort to their employer based on what Kossek, et al.,(2006) refer to as a reciprocity effect. Supervisors whorecognize that the boundaries between work and family are

permeable and that what goes on at work impacts familyand vice versa (Kirchmeyer, 1995) are more likely tosupport their employees. Employees who feel well-supported by the supervisors in their efforts to balancework and family are likely to reciprocate by improvingtheir performance and are less likely to quit or be absent(Kossek et al., 2006). Exchange theory would also suggestthat supervisors who see the boundaries between work and

family as highly impermeable and who see work andfamily as rigid and separate domains are less likely to besupportive of their employees' efforts o balance work andfamily. This lack of support may result in higher levels ofabsenteeism and turnover and poorer performance (Kosseket al., 2006).

There is some literature to suggest that having asupportive supervisor improves levels of work-life conflict.Supervisors can play a key role in helping employeesreduce work-life conflict by informing employees aboutcorporate policies (for example, alternative workarrangements, personal leave days) designed to helpemployees balance work and family obligations (Galinsky& Stein, 1990). Voydanoff (2004) argues that whensupervisors respond positively to discussing andaccommodating employees' family obligations, employeesare likely to feel comfortable using available work-family

policies (Voydanoff, 2004: 403). Furthermore, Carlsonand Perrewe (1999) argue that supervisors who are flexibleby allowing an employee to leave work early when theemployee has to respond to a family-related issue (for



12/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 177

example., a sick child or elderly relative) can help theemployee lower his/her work-life conflict. Carlson andPerrewe (1999) also suggest that those supervisors who areopen to hearing employees' family-related problems andproviding solutions may help reduce an employee's senseof work-life conflict. Supervisors who model a sense ofwork-life balance in their own lives and who do not

penalize those who value work-life balance are also vital inreducing an employee's work-life conflict (Duxbury &Higgins, 1997; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

There is some evidence to support the notion thatsupervisor support is directly associated with lower levelsof work-life conflict. Three studies supporting this notioncome from large sample studies. For example, Anderson etal., (2002) examined the 1997 National Study of the

Changing Workforce (NSCW) (2,248 respondents) andnoted that supervisor support was associated with lowerlevels of both work-family interference and family-workinterference. Bond et al. (2003) reported that in the latestNSCW report n = 2,810 respondents), employees who ratetheir supervisor high in supervisor support report lessinterference between job and family and lower levels ofnegative spillover relative to those who reported low levelsof supervisor support. Grzywacz and Marks (2000) useddata from the National Survey of Midlife Development inthe United States (n= 1,986) and reported that lower levelsof support at work (operationalized as both coworker andsupervisor support) was associated with higher levels ofwork-family interference (operationalized as negativework-family spillover) and higher levels of family-workinterference (operationalized as negative family-workspillover).

Other studies with relatively fewer respondents thanthe NSCW have also supported the notion that supervisorsupport is associated with less work-life conflict. Secretand Sprang (2001) who studied the responses from 374



13/39

178 PAQ SUMMER 2011

working parents concluded that parents with supportivesupervisors were 2.7 times less likely to experience rolestrain. Thomas and Ganster (1995) with a sample of 398health professionals concluded that supervisor support wassignificantly and negatively associated with work-familyconflict. Frone, Yardley and Markel (1997) with theirsample of 372 employed adults noted that supervisorsupport was negatively and statistically significantlyassociated with both role overload (operationalized as workoverload) and work-family conflict. Warren and Johnson(1995) studied 116 employed mothers and reported thatsupervisor support (that is, supervisor flexibility andsupervisor sensitivity) was negatively associated withwork-family role strain such that those with supportivesupervisors reported lower levels of work-family rolestrain.

Goff,Mount and

Jamison (1990) surveyed 253respondents of a large, Midwestern United Statesorganization and concluded that supervisor support wasassociated with less work-family conflict. Jones and Butler(1980) surveyed 181 married American sailors andremarked that supervisor support was negatively associatedwith work-family conflict (results were statisticallysignificant).

Supervisors often have the final say on whether ornot an employees' request to work a given alternative workarrangement will be approved (that is, act as a gatekeeper).As noted in Duxbury and Haines, until a manager has afavorable attitude towards a given work arrangement, ittleor nothing is going to happen (Duxbury & Haines, 1991:96). Duxbury and Haines (1991) go further o suggest thatefforts to gain supervisor buy-in must focus not on thebenefits to the employee but on the benefits to the

organization. This view is echoed by Powell and Mainiero(1999) who note that the degree to which alternative workarrangements are actually available to the individualdepends on the immediate supervisor. Supervisor support



14/39


15/39

180 PAQ SUMMER 2011

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section discusses the study's research methodology.First, characteristics of the sample are provided followedby a description of the measures used to test thehypotheses. Subsequently, the approach used for analyzingthe data is discussed.

SampleThere are three sources of data for this research.

The first source comes from results of a survey conductedin 2005 by the Canadian federal government, which wascalled the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). TheCanadian federal government invited all public serviceemployees to communicate their views related to their work

and workplaces through the PSES. This survey wasdesigned to gauge employee opinion on a wide range ofissues related to the health of the Canadian federal publicservice, individual organizations and work units. The PSESwas initially administered in 1999, and then again in 2002and 2005. More than 200,000 employees working in federalgovernment departments and other organization types suchas agencies, tribunals and commissions were encouraged tocomplete the 2005 PSES. The 2005 PSES yielded aresponse rate of 59 per cent, with approximately 106,000employee responses. The PSES data was the main source ofdata for this study.

The second and third sources of data are the numberof employees in the Canadian federal governmentorganizations in 2005, as well as the type of organizationrespectively. These data sets were provided upon requestby the Public Service Human Resources Management

Agency of Canada. The number of employees was used asa control variable concerning organizational size.Organization type was also used as a control variable, with60 organizations providing data on this variable. These two



16/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 181

control variables will be further explained in the sectionbelow entitled Control Variables.

The unit of analysis in this research is theorganization. The data was aggregated across allrespondents in each of the organizations which is anapproach that has been used in similar studies (e.g.,Somerville & Dyke, 2008). Data related to the number of

employees in 2005 was obtained for 57 organizations. Thenumber of employees ranged from 22 to 23,214, with amean of 2,872 employees. The results of the data indicatethat 16 per cent of respondents worked compressed workweek, 29 per cent worked flextime and 6 per centtelecommuted.

Control Variables

Two control variables have been used in this study.These are organizational size and organization type. It wasexpected that organizational size may impact the workarrangements. For example, larger organizations may havemore resources to provide a formal alternative workarrangement and have the resources to ensure schedules arecovered and customers are not inconvenienced. Conversely,smaller organizations might excel at their ability to beflexible and adapt in a more informal manner (MacDermid,Williams, Marks, & Heilbrun, 1994).

Organization type may also impact the workarrangements offered in these government organizations.The most common type of organization included in thisstudy is a government department, however, as notedpreviously, there are also other types of organizations suchas commissions, tribunals and agencies. Some of thesealternate types of organizations may enjoy greater

autonomy and flexibility than government departments,perhaps due to less political interference and less onerousrules (Somerville & Dyke, 2008). It is expected that theeffects of organization type will be independent of



17/39

182 PAQ SUMMER 2011

organizational size. While some of the commissions,tribunals and agencies tend to have a smaller number ofemployees, some do have a larger number of employees.

MeasuresTable 1 presents the questions asked in the PSES

related to the various measures used to test our six

hypotheses.

Table 1Work-life Subjects and Public Service Employee Survey(PSES) Questions

Subject PSESQuestion(s)Employeesorkinglextime Do youcurrently ork lextime? es or

NoEmployees orking ompressedDoyou currently ork ompressed orkwork eeks weeks? es orNoEmployeesorkingelework Do youcurrently ork elework? es or

NoAbility to balance personal, can balancemy personal, amily ndfamily ndwork eeds work eeds nmy urrentob. Four oint

Likert cale:Always, ften, ometimes,rarely rnever

Thosewhoreport igh evels f Senior managementctively upportshesuperior upport elatingo the useofflexible ork rrangementsflexibleuse of flexible work hours, ompressed orkweeks, elework,arrangements etc.)Thosewhoreport igh evels f Subject o operationalequirements, yimmediate upervisor upport mmediateupervisorupportsheuse ofrelating o the use of flexible flexible ork rrangementse.g.,flexiblework rrangements hours, ompressedork eeks,elework)Thosewho eport high evel f Composite of (Mean of): Seniorgeneral r aggregateupervisor managementctively upportsheuse ofsupport elating o the use of flexible ork rrangementsflexible ours,flexible ork rrangements compressed ork eeks, elework,tc.)&

Subject o operationalequirements, yimmediateupervisorupportsheuse offlexible ork rrangementse.g.,flexiblehours, ompressedork eeks,elework)

For measures to be statistically valid, at least twoquestions that have a Cronbach's alpha of at least .70



18/39

PAQ SUMMER 20 11 183

should be used (Nunnally, 1978). However, only onequestion for each of these subjects was asked in the PSES.Therefore, the results for hypotheses 1 to 3 are presented asexploratory.

For the subject of superiors' support of flexiblework arrangements, there were two questions that related tothis subject. Superiors' support in this research is defined as

immediate supervisor support and senior managementsupport. A composite measure for superiors' support wascreated by combining the two PSES questions. These twoitems are highly correlated (r = 0.87) and so form a reliablescale with a Cronbach's alpha of .93.

RESULTS

A correlation analysis was used to test the first hreehypothesis outlined above, which all examine the directrelationship between different types of alternative workarrangements (that is, flextime, compressed work week,and telework) with one's ability to balance work andpersonal/family responsibilities. Table 2 below shows thezero-order correlations between all relevant variablesconsidered in the current nalysis.

As demonstrated above, there was a significantrelationship between participation in a compressed workweek and one's ability to balance work and life demands.The relationship between the other two alternative workarrangements and one's ability to balance work and lifedemands were not statistically significant. Therefore, H2was supported, while HI and H3 were not supported.Moreover, several other significant associations could beidentified, such as the strong inear relationship between all

three managerial support variables (direct supervisor,senior management, and a composite measure ofmanagement) and the ability to balance one's work and lifedemands. Given the above significant main effects, initial



19/39

184 PAQ SUMMER 2011

support for the next set of hypotheses (that is, H4, H5 andH6) exists.

Table 2Correlations between Work-Life Balance Abilities,Alternative Work Arrangement Participation, ManagerialSupport and Organizational Characteristics

L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.1.Work-lifealance

2.Organizationize -0.083.Compressedork q 19 q 19* ...week4.Flex ours 0.14 0.03 0.06

5.Telework 0.16 -0.15 -0.15 0.49**

6.Supervisorupport .45** -0.13 0.31**0.34**0.32**7.Senior anagement0 52** _0.14 0.27** 0.40**0.43**0.91**support8.Supportaggregate.61** -0.16 0.38** .42**0.45**0.88** 0.92**Note: =60, -p


20/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 185

demonstrated in Table 2, only the availability of acompressed work week was significantly related toorganizational size.

Given that the current organizational type variableis dichotomous, it was appropriate to perform t-tests todetermine if there was a relationship between it and theother variables of question (work-life balance, immediate

supervisor support, senior management support, andnumber of employees). The results of the t-tests arepresented in Table 3.

Table 3T-Test Results Based on Organizational Type

Df TI can balance mywork nd ife 58 -2. 1 *demandsImmediate upervisor upport 57 -0.21Seniormanagement upport 56 -0.92Management upport composite) 58 -1.37Organization ize*** 27 3.10**Note:N = 60 (except **whereN = 57),* -p < 0.05,**-p


21/39

186 PAQ SUMMER 2011

Table 4Partial Correlations between Work-Life Balance andManager Support Variables

I can balance mywork nd familyresponsibility(Variables ontrolled or)Organization Organization Org.Size&Size*** Type Org.

Type***Immediate upervisorsupport -42** -46** '45**

Seniormanagementsupport -49** -52** -51**

Management upport(composite) 58** 59** -58**

Note:N = 60(Except

***whereN = 57),* -p < 0.10,**-p < 0.05

By controlling for the effects of the organizationsize variable, the organizational type variable and thenboth, most linear relationships are slightly attenuated fromthe true zero-order correlation, but as demonstrated inTable 4, controlling for organization size andorganizational type does not significantly reduce therelations providing evidence that the relationship between

work-life balance and managerial support is robust.Therefore, H4, H5 and H6 were all supported.

Finally, it was appropriate to review all variables ina more cohesive manner. Specifically, a hierarchicalregression was performed to account for the variance inwork-life balance. In the first step of the analysis, theindividual alternative work arrangement variables wereentered. The following two steps introduced the first andsecond order interactions between the alternative workarrangement variables. Next the supervisor support andsenior manager support variables were introduced,



22/39

PAQ SUMMER 2011 187

followed in the next step by the aggregate manager supportvariable. The results can be found in Table 5.

Table 5Regression Analysis between Work-Life Balance andAlternative Work Arrangement and Managerial SupportPredictors

Variables ntered erStep R R2 Change ^ Change1.Compressedork eek, Q27 Q07 0 0? L45flex ours, telework2. Alternative ork

arrangements,first 0.27 0.07 0.00 0.02ordernteractions)

3. Alternative orkarrangementssecond 0.27 0.07 0.00 0.01ordernteractions)

4.Supervisorupportsenior anagement 0.55 0.30 0.23 8.03**support

5.Supportaggregate 0.69 0.47 0.17 15.82**

Note:Criterion ariable:Work-life alance, = 60,* -p < 0.10, *-p

journal for marketing

Documents