Work and Family, do they mix well?
Master thesis, MSc. Human Resource Management at the University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Focus area: Human Resource Management & Organizational Behaviour
March ‘14
Nicolette A. van Keulen Johan de Wittstraat 63
9716 CB Groningen n.a.van.keulen@student.rug.nl
s1987585
Supervisor: Dr. P. H. van der Meer
2
ABSTRACT
On the whole, Europeans are found to be satisfied and happy with their life!
What makes us happy? This is the central question behind this research. Our quality of life is determined by numerous factors, above all the value of our relationships with others. In addition, employed people are found to be far more satisfied with their overall life than the unemployed. The main research question of this article is: To what extent do the family circumstances and the
working conditions of working women influence their work/life balance, resulting in life satisfaction? The importance of this study relates to work
performance; it has been proven that satisfied people handle complicated tasks and assignments better than unsatisfied people. This study focusses on work/life balance of working women, divided in working conditions (status, security and trust) and family circumstances (children, marriage and employment of partner). In general, women are found to be more satisfied with their life when they have it all, a career, a husband, and children. Nonetheless, some interesting finding arose from the data. On contrary to most theory, a househusband does not seem to clash and is found to be source for an increase in happiness. In addition, when analyzing the aspects of having children a contradicting discovery was made, the satisfaction with work/life balance increases when career woman have children, however the satisfaction with life does not. Nonetheless, all taken together, in good circumstances work and family life can be a worthy combination!
3
CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 1
BACKGROUND ... 4
LIFE SATISFACTION ... 6
HAPPINESS AND WORKING CONDITIONS ... 7
STATUS ... 8
SECURITY ... 9
TRUST ... 12
HAPPINESS AND FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES ... 13
MARITAL STATE ... 14
CHILDREN ... 16
EMPLOYMENT OF PARTNER ... 18
MODEL ... 20
METHOD & DATA ... 21
RESULTS ... 25
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING ... 32
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 33
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS ... 36
REFERENCES ... 37
4
BACKGROUND
Nowadays most Europeans are in good health, have nice comfortable homes, drive a decent car, have sufficient food, and have the ability to go on vacation at least once a year. Nonetheless, are we satisfied with our life? A question raised by Richard Layard (2006).
All things taken together, what is the feeling of happiness? According to Layard (2006) the level of happiness is the experience of one’s satisfaction with life. People are constantly aware of how they, themselves, feel (e.g. happy, sad), and how they reflect this feeling, for instance by smiling or on the contrary, by crying. When someone experiences a happy feeling, his body’s chemistry improves (e.g. better natural resistance, less anxiety and stress) and hereby he becomes overall healthier. In addition, Layard (2006) suggested that satisfaction with life is a motivational drive for us to survive, however it is subjective and depends on “social comparison”. It is well known that married and cohabiting persons are more satisfied with their life than singles, especially divorcées (Stein, Song & Coady, 2005). In addition, as mentioned by Kahneman and Krueger (2006) those with a job are considered to be far more satisfied than those unemployed. This raises the question: are family circumstances and working conditions combined of influence on someone’s perceived life satisfaction?
Kaur (2010) clarified the relation between work and life. She stated that work is a vital portion of our everyday life. A standard workweek is about eight hours of work a day; this means a person spends a about one-third of his day at work (figure 1).
Figure 1. Average work day. This figure illustrates the time use on average work day of employed persons, age 25-54, 2012, by Thompson (2012)
5 Clearly, this indicates that job satisfaction influences our overall life satisfaction, and finally working conditions are bound to become one of the most important factors of our life. In this study work/life balance is used to describe the variation of time spend at work and spend on other aspects of life, like family life. Some people live for their work while others work to live (Spector, 1997).
Moreover, the researcher Layard (2006), clarifies that the basic causes of satisfaction at work are; status, security and trust. Though, when looking at working conditions, Winter, Neal and Wane (2001), stated that men and women show different interpersonal communication approaches. O'Leary (1974) suggested that career women are likely to be apprehensive, unfeminine, and egoistic. They have a greater desire for superior achievements at work than men. Career women are described as women who work at least 35 hours a week, have a university degree (or higher), and have a salary of $30.000 a year (or more) (Blow, 2005). Working women indicate all women who have a job.
In history, many traditions are found with men as hunters, and consequently the leader of the group, while women are the gatherers, and stay in the rear. As Harzing and Ruysseveldt (2004) stated, in more modern times the daily tasks are still divided in the same order. Men are considered to be the breadwinners while women are considered to be the housewife’s. In some countries this division is still the standard of society. Nonetheless Marano and Estroff (2010), found that nowadays in various countries the relationship between husband and wife is expected to be of equal partners, whereby both husband and wife have a career. Though often the wife is still expected to take care of the household tasks. Nevertheless, in modern families men can be househusbands or stay-at-home-father’s (Hymowitz, 2012). Even though the househusbands is not always positively reviewed by society.
6 this research the term family-life is used to capture the situation at home (e.g. being married, having children and the employment status of the partner).
Numerous studies have focused on happiness, both in work and life. This research is a follow up of the previous work mentioned above, but elaborates even more on the satisfaction with life expressed in work/life balance. In short, this study is focused on working women and will investigate their relation between family life and working conditions; work/life balance, resulting in life satisfaction.
Research question: To what extent do the family circumstances and the working conditions of working women influence their work/life balance, resulting in life satisfaction?
If satisfaction at work improves the perceived satisfaction with life clearly both employees and management would benefit from this. As people are the most important factor to the organizations effectiveness; “people make the place” (Heneman III, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Overall, satisfied people handle complicated tasks and assignments better than unsatisfied people (Veenhoven, 1989). This research is an empirical study with data collected from the European Social Survey (Round 5). The data was collected in various European countries; nevertheless I will only use the data of the investigated European conservative welfare countries (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The data will be analyzed using a multilevel analysis.
LIFE SATISFACTION
The balance between work and live has been a hot item for researchers the past decades. Leinster and Brody (1988) elaborated that work/life balance was a catchphrase among baby-boomers. Hall (1990) even stated that “work/family balance is fast becoming the hot career issue of the decade”. Nonetheless, is the balance between work and life of influence of our life satisfaction?
7 has reduced, they will spend more time on their private life. Especially in Europe, where the hours spend on work has decreased severely. Table 1. shows the hours worked in the year 2002.
Table 1.
Hours worked in 2002
(Layard, 2005)
J. H. Greenhaus, K. M. Collinsand J. D. Shaw (2003) considered the relation between the work/life balance and life satisfaction. They found that the balance between work and life is of influence on the quality of life experienced. More precisely, their research shows that individuals who spend more time on their families than on their work experience a higher satisfaction with life than balanced individuals. Who, in turn, experiences a higher satisfaction with life then individuals who spend more time of their work than on their families. Does this indicate family circumstances and working conditions to be of great influence on the satisfaction someone experiences with their life?
Hypothesis – Work/life balance results in life satisfaction.
HAPPINESS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
Most of our desires are linked to our Human Nature (Layard, 2006). We are programmed to seek and find a high satisfaction with life. Nonetheless, the features that make us satisfied are often conflicting. The researcher Layard (2006) clarified the fundamentals for an overall satisfaction with life, including one’s financial situation, working conditions and family life. Continuing on these fundamentals, the basic causes of satisfactory working conditions include;
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Germany France Netherlands USA
8 status, security and trust (Layard, 2006). All these elements are influenced by our upbringing, education and religion. Similarly, nowadays advertisements are a core influence on what we belief we deserve and need to be content with life. What we have gotten accustomed to, is what we belief to be normal without realizing that this is not always the case; e.g. computer, vacation and a water tap at home and coffee at the office. Humans adapt very easily to the circumstances they life by. Even poverty does not have to be the sole source of an unsatisfactory life. On the contrary, money does not necessarily make you satisfied with life (Layard, 2006).
Hypothesis – Good working conditions result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
STATUS
Status indicates that we want to keep up with others, in fact we want to be better and superior to others, have more beautiful products and a higher rank (Layard, 2006). Plus, we want to gain respect from those within our circle of family, friends and co-workers, as well as from total strangers. Status at work is perceived through paralleling co-workers. Alongside, the regularity of the working hours and the amount of overtime influence the perceived status.
Previous research has often clarified the relationship between health, stress and work status (Spurgeon, Harrington & Cooper, 1997). Paralleling co-workers and the regularity of normality of the work hours are main sources for work related status (Layard, 2006). Nowadays, it is common knowledge that working overtime and irregular hours increases the health’s risks and enlarges the level of stress perceived. In addition, the level of perceived status can influence the attitudes and motivation of the employee involved (Spurgeon, Harrington & Cooper, 1997). This enlightens the importance of work related status as it can interrupt the effectiveness of the employees.
CO-WORKERS
9 and Wall (1980) explain that, in the long run, relationships between co-workers are a highly essential aspect to the organizational wellbeing. Cho and Park (2011) go even further and emphases that respect from co-workers relates positively to the individuals satisfaction with their job, and consequently their satisfaction with the work/life balance.
IRREGULAR WORKING HOURS & WORKING OVERTIME
A common occurrence in todays’ working life is to work overtime (Kodz, Davis, Lain, Strebler, Rick & Bates, 2003). We want to keep up with others, prove ourselves, gain respect and do not want to feel left out; that is why we work overtime and by this means it is part of workplace status. Pascal and Damien (2001) stated that of all European employees 20% works 45 hours a week or more. Beckers, van der Linden, Smulders, Kompier, Taris and Geurts (2008) found many researchers who investigated the effects of working overtime on health and quality of life. The negative health effects found are; “fatigue, general health complaints, stress, hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, sleep complaints, and injuries”. Van der Hulst (2003) continues on this topic by describing indicators of adverse behaviour and habits which may cause health problems, including the consumption of unhealthy food and beverages, and smoking. In addition to the previous studies on working overtime, Andresen, Domsch and Cascorbi (2007) found other working conditions often considered stressful with negative effects for the employees’ health. Working irregular hours and patterns, causes tensions for both the working life as well as their family life. Thus, the literature found shows positive and negative effects on the satisfaction when working irregular hours and working overtime. In short, the researchers stated that the status increases, nevertheless it negatively influences the general health.
Hypothesis – High status result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
SECURITY
10 Goudswaard (2002), elucidates that during the 1990s working conditions within the European Union changed, especially related to work security. Labour demand changed and is now instable and insecure due to different work pressures. In addition, an increasing number of employees received an non-permanent or a temporary contract. This is a trend with major consequences for the employees involved. As a number of studies confirm that the employees working with non-permanent or temporary contacts endorse worse working conditions than those working with permanent contracts.
Within the European Union a long-term growing trend of insecurity at work was found ever since the 1980 (Goudswaards, 2002). However, in the 2000s this trend is worsened, as can be seen in the figure below (Eurostat EU-LFS, 2011). Especially in 2008 the labour market became extremely insecure, since 2010 the figure increases again. Besides this development the work pressure keeps on increasing, together causing more and more work insecurity.
Figure 2. Employment contract. This figure illustrates the employment contract per thousands of persons, 2006-2011, by Eurostat EU-LFS (2011)
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
11 In addition, the study of Virtanen, et al (2002) illustrates the relation between the type of employment and health. They found that employees with a permanent contract are in better health than employees with a fixed term contract. Evidently employees with a permanent contract perceive their job satisfaction higher than employees with a fixed term contract, due to the security and stability provided by their contracts.
WORK PRESSURE
Nowadays, a major issue in our society is the increasing level of insecurity caused by pressures. The workplace is found to be the central birthplace for this rising issue (Rodríguez-Escudero, Carbonell & Munuera-Aleman, 2010). “People often come up with their best ideas when time is tight”, that is what most the managers assumed according to Amabile, Hadley and Kramer (2002).
Contradictory, they found evidence in business and history that when people are provided with unpressured time to evolve and produce new ideas the results were remarkable. Just like Darwin, who had the time and ease to create and rethink. Nonetheless, extreme time pressure has also provided extraordinary results; e.g. during Apollo 13’s flight to the moon in 1970; by quick thinking and working effective the results found by NASA saved the lives of the astronauts. Even though, pressure causes people to work more effective, in general, work pressure does kill the creativity level (Amabile, Hadley & Kramer, 2002).
In addition, they found relations between pressure and the emotional state of people. The short-term results were mainly positive, people felt more involved and challenged. Nonetheless, many people felt “deep frustrations as time pressure increased”. In a nutshell, pressure creates positive and negative effects for the workplace. Nevertheless, how will this (in)security influence the work/life balance?
12
TRUST
As explained by Layard (2006), a longing of our human nature is to trust others, work related this means trust in the company you work for, your boss, and your co-workers. However, the recent environment is making this ever more difficult, due to mobility and anonymity caused by the ever improving technology. Trust at work is perceived through, among others, empowerment.
A corner stone of workplace satisfaction is found to be; rewards based on performance, a flat organizational structure, and information and power which are shared with employees (Huselid, 1995; Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998). Thus, when employees are provided trust and are rewarded when the work delivered is satisfactory, the employee’s satisfaction will increase since three basic human needs are fulfilled: gaining knowledge, autonomy, and the need to belong to a group. The empowered employees are more motivated and produce better quality work. In addition, it reduces the employee turnover rate, together resulting in a short- and long-term increase of financial results.
EMPOWERMENT
Handy (1993) clarifies empowerment to provide employees with decision making authority, with minimal involvement of management. It is considered a freedom in their work and displays trust and respect (Akbar, Yousaf, UI Haq & Hunjra, 2011). Lawler and Mohram (1989) go even further and stated that next to trust, empowerment enhances commitment and higher achievements. The results of the study of Akbar, Yousaf, UI Haq and Hunjra (2011) are in agreement with the previous and indicate a positive direct relation between job satisfaction and empowerment.
13 influence the system in which they work (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). The four dimensions of empowerment help employees feel more in control (Spreitzer, 1995).
Empowerment is one of the most effective ways of permitting employees to use their creative abilities, improve the performance of themselves and the entire organization, and increase their satisfaction at work (Chaturvedi, 2008).
Hypothesis – High trust result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
To summarize, the basic elements for our work related satisfaction are similar to status, security and trust. That is why at work our satisfaction will increase by having a high status, a secure working environment and when we perceive trust. Status is influenced by co-workers and the irregularity of the work hours. Security is concerned with the employment contract and the pressures perceived at work. In addition, trust is influenced by the level of empowerment one obtains.
HAPPINESS AND FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES
Previous studies on life satisfaction and family life have proven massive differences between men and women. Although this seems obvious to us now, it was not until the 19th century these differences were accepted as differences in human nature (Marano & Estroff, 2010). According to Marano and Estroff (2010), modern family circumstances arose merely in the 20th century. Ever since, a marriage is expected to be a relationship of companions, wherein both parties should get sexual and personal fulfillment. Partners are considered equals, men are no longer considered and expected to be the sole breadwinner of the family. Ever since women are getting a proper education, the historical household situation has changed. Nowadays, even married women have professional careers, often on top of taking care of their families.
14 job than men do. However, this event occurs predominantly in Anglo-Saxon countries and in Switzerland (Souza-Posa & Souza-Posa, 2007). While in Europe average levels of life satisfaction are found to be equal for men and women, women tend to make more distinctions (Giusta, Jewell & Kambhampati, 2011).
Hypothesis – Good family circumstances result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
MARITAL STATE
Having a partner in life will increase the overall satisfaction with life. According to Patra and Suar (2009), people chose to marry because they search for companionship and do not want to be alone. Sharing involves material possessions, emotions and experiences, through good and bad times. On the contrary, being single indicates loneliness which often results in being unsatisfied with life (Stevens & Stevens, 1994). Thus, this indicates family life, and in particular partnership, to be of great influence on the satisfaction of someone’s life.
According to Flynn (1996), “it is a family-friendly world out there today”. Many benefits are given to those with partners and/or children. Yet, singles need to perform extra workload, work more overtime, and are send on spontaneous work trips. However contradictory, they receive fewer benefits (e.g. day-care centers, parental leave, sick-child care, add children and partners into insurance). Flynn (1996) indicates, that singles feel neglected and overlooked. Nevertheless, the population of single women in society is rapidly growing, due to educational opportunities, career opportunities, divorces and more. Especially highly educated women seem to stay single more than any other group in society (Statham, Vaugham & Houseknecht, 1987).
15 have accepted the lack of activity as a fact. The third forecaster concerns regrets about life circumstances. The more they have lived up to their own expectations of life the higher their life satisfaction will be. Though, the question "what life could have been" did not seem to be a major source of uncertainty for middle aged career women (Lewis & Borders, 1995).
Moreover, Stolzenberg (2001) found that when, within a relationship, one partner works more than 40 hours a week this has a negative health effect on the other. When both partners work less than 40 hours, there is no effect found. This can be caused since partners are each other’s safety-net emotionally and physically, implying that when partners have time to spend together outside of the workplace they can help each other’s through workplace stress and other difficulties.
On top of the irregularity of the workhours, infidelity is found to be a topic of concern for two income families (both husband and wife work). Researchers have found that people pursuing a career (e.g. career women) are more likely to cheat. “The work environment provides a host of potential partners”, the researcher Blow (2005) explained in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. The workforces spends about one third of their time at the office, thus with their co-workers. For career women the time spend at the office is often even higher (>35 hours a week) (Blow, 2005). Indicating the workplace to be an ideal place to find a partner, suitor or paramour. Becker (1981) stated that when both spouses have a career, the marriage is less satisfactory. Oppenheimer (1997) found that since the rise of career women, the economic independency of women has increased which resulted in less desirability to marry. In addition, he found some results, however scant, indicating that economic independency of married career women often results in a failed marriage.
16 when the emotions are positive (Bakker & Demerout, 2009). This could help the mood to turn positive even when stress at work has increased.
Nonetheless, many researchers have investigated the satisfaction with life related to marriage and working women (Becker, 1981; Blow, 2005; Stolzenberg, 2001). Many of these researchers even suggest this is a combination likely to fail; e.g. career women will be unsatisfied when their salary is higher and the household tasks are likely to be neglected.
CHILDREN
White, et.al. (1986) stresses that when partners decide to have children, children are often viewed to be the source for their future life satisfaction. However, in reality children are often found to be the source for stress and a decrease of life satisfaction. This decrease is caused by the communication between partners, financial distress, and conflict with the division of labour.
A crucial change between the 1960s and the 1980s was the change in family life circumstances, since more and more mothers went to get a job and fashioned a career. Before the 1950s, women spent most of their adult life taking care of their children and performing the household tasks. Nowadays, being a mother is not a prime life goal anymore (Layard, 2006). This change had profound effects, the prior division of labour in family life changed. In our time, women as well as men are breadwinners.
17 Table 2.
Occurrence of work-family conflicts
Group Working overtime Disproportionate schedules Exhaustion caused by working conditions Total sample 50.0 % 28.0 % 14.8 % Employed husbands 59.1 % 20.4 % 8.8 % Wife employed 62.8 % 22.4 % 10.9 % No children 59.3 % 31.4 % 15.1 % With children (0-5) 65.8 % 42.1 % 10.5 % With children (6-17) 69.2 % 12.3 % 7.7 % Wife unemployed 55.8 % 18.6 % 7.0 % No children 57.5 % 22.5 % 5.0 % With children (0-5) 53.1 % 19.8 % 7.4 % With children (6-17) 58.8 % 13.7 % 7.8 % Employed wives, husband unemployed 38.7 % 38.7 % 27.4 % No children 36.4 % 31.8 % 43.2 % With children (0-5) 26.4 % 41.5 % 26.4 % With children (6-17) 49.3 % 40.8 % 18.3 % Employed female single parent 10.0 % 50.0 % 15.0 %
(Pleck, Staines and Lang, 1980)
Table 2 shows the occurrence of work-family conflicts in percentages. Looking at the total sample, especially working overtime interferes with a harmonious family life. In general the difference between having children and not having children does not seem to raise the level of conflicts. Paradoxically, couples who do not have any children seem to be in conflict over exhaustion more than couples with children, except when the wife is unemployed.
18 Even so, when they do have underage children (ages 0-17 years old) this focus will be split into two; career and children, as will their source of life satisfaction.
Hypothesis – Having children result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
EMPLOYMENT OF PARTNER
Some researchers have argued (Bakker & Demerout, 2009) that life partner’s mirror each other’s behaviour and emotional state (e.g. distress, frustration and satisfaction). This type of social support and empathy can reflect positively or negatively. However, they argued that mainly when communication between partners is positive they will mirror each other’s feelings. These shared feelings will influence their own level of job satisfaction. In addition to the other life circumstances, a woman’s job satisfaction strengthens her partner’s job satisfaction, which will increase both their job performances, and vice versa. When both partners work, this sharing of emotional state can be easier accomplished since their life circumstances are comparable.
In recent years a new trend has arose: the stay-at-home-father (Hymowitz, 2012). In the United States the amount of males who frequently take care of the children has risen from 19% in 1988 up to 32% in 2010. One out of five of those fathers who have pre-school-age children, are stay-at-home-fathers. Stay-at-home-fathers, also called “househusbands”, are men that have chosen to stay at home, take care of the children and take care of the household tasks while their wife goes to work and makes a living. Even in our modern society, these househusbands are often negatively reviewed by others in society. Given that househusbands are a shift in traditions, it can be a cause for a decreasing life satisfaction since it conflicts with society, within a marriage, and even between children and their parents (Hymowitz, 2012).
19 Unemployment clashes with society thus social approval cannot be obtained while being unemployed. Consequently, this has a most important effect on the overall satisfaction with life of people.
Nevertheless, in obtaining appreciation from society men and women have different customs and methods. As a result, being unemployed has found to be far more harmful for men than for women. Additionally, similar to Layard (2006) Van der Meer (2013) elaborates on the life satisfaction for men and women. He enhances that while men solely have their employment to obtain appreciation from society; married women have more than one possibility that goes beyond the work domain, e.g. motherhood, being a wife and friendships. Wilcox and Nock (2006) elaborated on this topic and stated; “American wives, even wives who hold more feminist views about working women and the division of household tasks, are typically happier when their husband earns 68% or more of the household income.” Indicating that they will not mind it if their partners work overtime, to keep the salaries high. They stated that this is because successful working men give their wives more freedom in decision making at home (e.g. household, raising the children) and give them the opportunity to choose when and how they want to work themselves.
A second look at table 2 (Occurrence of work-family conflicts) indicates a huge difference between an employed husband and an unemployed husband, whereas the difference between an employed or unemployed wife is minimal. In addition, disproportionate schedules have the opposite reaction; when the husband is employed the conflicts are not commonly noticeable, however when the husband is unemployed while the wife is employed conflicts appear frequently. This same relation is shown for exhaustion caused by working conditions. However, when both husband and wife are employed and they do not have any or have young children conflicts due to disproportional schedules are commonly observed, whereas when they have children over the age of 6 disproportional schedules do not seem to be a big issue.
20 work/life balance and life satisfaction. All things taken together, when the wife has a successful and powerful position at work, having an unemployed husband, even when he does all the household tasks and takes care of the children, seems to have a negative effect on the satisfaction with the work/life balance for working women.
Hypothesis – Having an employed partner result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Hypothesis – Having an househusband partner result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
To summarize, this chapter has addressed the influences of family circumstances on the relation between the working conditions and the satisfaction with the work/life balance resulting in the overall life satisfaction. I have looked at different factors which can be of influence namely; marital state, children and the employment of the partner.
Hypothesis – Working conditions together with family circumstance result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
MODEL
Based on the above mentioned literature one could formulate the following model.
21 The model proposes that working conditions and family circumstances together result in the balance between work and life. Which will be the source for the overall life satisfaction. The model will be controlled by the respondents’ general heath, age and satisfaction with household income. This model will be elaborated, compared, and discussed in the following part of this study.
METHOD & DATA
In order to test the hypotheses, data was acquired from the European Social Survey (ESS), round five dataset (ESS round 5, 2010/2011). The ESS is an academic survey intended to register and clarify the relation between institutions, attitudes, beliefs and behavioral patterns of the European population. The survey was first established in 2001. The social survey’s results can be acquired via the internet by downloading the data from the Norwegian Social Science Data Service’s website (http://ess.nsd.uib. no/ess/round5/download.html). During round 5, 28 countries participated namely; Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdomp.
22 Table 3.
Labour Force Survey 2008/2007
(International Labour Organization - LaborstaInternet)
In addition, I will only use the data of the investigated European conservative welfare countries (Esping-Andersen, 1990), including; Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. According to Espering-Andersen (1990), these countries are similar in their view of business and family life. Furthermore, I have split the file in two, one file contains of women with a partner and the other with both with and without partner. My final sample contains 2,068. Only the data from section B, C, F and G will be used for this research, since these contain relevant information about the respondent, the working conditions, and the quality of life. I will analyze the data using a multilevel analysis. This analysis is best suited for my data since the data was collected in various countries. Multilevel research describes the relationship between individuals and groups, and on the contrary to standard statistical research methods multilevel research does not assume the independence of observations, which leads to spuriously significant results.
23 are measured on an eleven point scale form 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest). To evaluate the work/life balance of the respondent the question (G54) about the respondent’s satisfaction with work/life balance was used. To assess the respondents working conditions I have made three groups; security, status and trust. After performing a factor-analysis (Figure 2 Status, 3 Security, and 4 Trust) I combined the questions in the three groups;
1. Status:
a. Irregular working hours:
(G15) “working evenings or nights?”
(G16) “having to work overtime at short notice?”
(G17) “how often does your work involve working weekends?”
The answers are measured on an seven point scale form 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest), the reliability of the variables combined can be seen in table 4.
Table 4.
Reliability of variable irregular working hours
Reliability G15 G16 G17
Mean 2.52 2.81 2.37
St.andard Dev. 1.980 1.879 1.498
Crohnbachs Alpha .594
b. Co-workers:
(G29) “I can get support and help from my co-workers when needed?”
The answers are measured on an four point scale form 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest).
2. Security: a. Work pressure:
I (G34) “My job requires that I work very hard?”
II (G35) “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at my job?”
24 b. Employment contract:
(F23) “Did/do you have an work contract of..?”
The answers are measured with three options (unlimited duration, limited duration, and no contract), I combined the results in two options (unlimited and no contract)
3. Trust:
a. Empowerment:
(F27) “decide how your own daily work is/was organized?”
(F28) “to influence policy decisions about the activities of the organization?” (F28a) “to choose or change your pace of work?”
The answers are measured on an seven point scale form 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) , the reliability of the variables combined can be seen in table 5.
Table 5.
Reliability of variable empowerment
Reliability F27 F28 F28A
Mean 6.84 3.79 6.15
Standard Dev. 2.979 3.192 3.268
Crohnbachs Alpha .700
25 Table 6.
Correlation, mean and standard deviation of variables
Table 6 suggests that life satisfaction and family circumstances are a difficult combination. Whereas good working conditions seems to influence the life satisfaction positively. Similar results can be found for work/life balance. The results will show whether these suggestions are confirmed.
RESULTS
Following, I evaluate the results of my investigation arranged in the order my hypotheses. I will start by analyzing the effects of work/life balance on life satisfaction
Table 7.
Effects of work/live balance on life satisfaction, results of a random effects model Equation (I) Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.755* .304 Work/live balance .251* .019 N 2,068 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 8071.700 Residual variance 2.874 .090 Intercept variance .378 .244
26 Table 7 displays the results of a multilevel analysis, analyzing the relation between the work/life balance and life satisfaction. As can be seen in this table all variables show significant results. The result of the intercept is scant because only the data from the European Conservative Welfare Countries are observed.
Hypothesis – Work/life balance results in life satisfaction.
The results confirm this statement. A satisfactory work/life balance results in a good life satisfaction. Work/life balance shows a positive relation with life satisfaction (estimate = .251, p > .05).
In addition, I will investigate the influence of the different working conditions and the different family circumstances, with work/life balance as the dependent variable.
Table 8.
Effects of the working conditions and family circumstances on the work/live balance, results of a random effects model
Equation (I) Equation (II) Estimate Std.
Error
Estimate Std. Error
Intercept 4.451* .425 3.950* .389
Status Irregular hours -.267* .035
Co-Workers .245* .048
Security Work pressure I -.239* .038 Work pressure II -.180* .045 Contract .056 .134 Trust Empowerment .051* .018 Children .217* .092 Working partner .016 .104 Unempl. partner -.356 .379 Houseman .289 .190
Single Reference group
Household income
27 Health .343* .061 .374* .062 Age .175* .045 .167 .047 N 1810 1820 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 7314.069 7455.966 Residual variance 3.325 .110 3.516 .117 Intercept variance .007 .010 .007 .010
A. Dependent variable: Work/life balance B. P* > .05
Table 8 displays the results of two multilevel analyses, the first tests the relationship between the working conditions (status, security and trust) and work/life balance. Most of the results show a reliable relation with work/life balance. The results show that good working conditions relate positively to work/life balance. Contract does not show a significant relation. The second tests the relationship between the family circumstances (children, marital state and employment status of partner) and work/life balance. Most results of family circumstances are not significant, only children show a positive significant relation with work/life balance.
Table 9.
Effects of the working conditions and family circumstances on the work/live balance, results of a random effects model
Equation (I) Estimate Std.
Error
Intercept 4.388* .431
Status Irregular hours -.267* .035
Co-workers .248* .048
Security Work pressure I -.239* .038 Work pressure II -.177* .045 Contract .050 .135 Trust Empowerment .048* .018 Children .170 .090 Working partner .006 .101 Unempl. partner -.392 .370 Houseman .305 .186
28 Household income .307* .066 Health .345* .061 Age .162* .046 N 1810 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 7306.518 Residual variance 3.312 .110 Intercept variance .006 .010
A. Dependent variable: Work/life balance B. P* > .05 ‘
Table 9 displays the results of the multilevel analysis for testing the relationship between the working conditions (status, security and trust), the family circumstances (children, marital state and employment status of partner) and work/life balance. Most of the results for working conditions show a reliable relation with work/life balance. The results show that good working conditions relate positively to work/life balance. Contract does not show a significant relation. Nevertheless, none of the family circumstances variables show significant results.
Likewise, I will investigate the influence of the different working conditions and the different family circumstances, with life satisfaction as the dependent variable.
Table 10.
Effects of the working conditions and family circumstances on the work/live balance resulting in life satisfaction, results of a random effects model
Equation (I) Estimate Std. Error Intercept 1.916* .434 Work/life balance .172* .020
Status Irregular hours .006 .030
Co-workers .138* .041
29 Work pressure II -.045 .039 Contract .146 .114 Trust Empowerment .026 .015 Children -.056 .076 Working partner .370* .086 Unempl. partner .023 .311 Houseman .447* .157
Single Reference group
Household income .645* .057 Health .472* .053 Age -.099 .039 N 1810 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 6708.061 Residual variance 2.359 .079 Intercept variance .238 .155
A. Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction B. P* > .05
Table 10 displays the results of the multilevel analysis for testing the relationship between the working conditions (status, security and trust), the family circumstances (children, marital state and employment status of partner), work/life balance and the life satisfaction. Work/life balance is positively related to life satisfaction. Of the working conditions only the variable co-workers shows a significant result to life satisfaction, the relation is positive. Alike, of the family circumstances only two variables show significant results, namely working partner and houseman. Both results are positively related to life satisfaction.
Hypothesis – Good working conditions result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
The results confirm this statement, only contract does not show a significant result.
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
30
Hypothesis – High status result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
The results confirm this statement for the variable irregular working hours (estimate = -.267, p > .05)., however reject this statement with a positive effect for the variable co-workers (estimate = .245, p > .05).
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
The results show no significant result for this statement. The results show a significant effect for co-workers only, this effect rejects the statement
Hypothesis – High security result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
The results show no significant result for this statement. Though work pressure does show significant effects and confirms the statement with negative effects (wp I estimate = -.239, p >.05) (wp I estimate = -.177, p >.05).
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
No significant effect was found for this statement.
Hypothesis – High trust result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
The results confirm this statement. Empowerment, the variable investigated for trust, shows a positive relation with work/life balance (estimate = .051, p > .05).
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
No significant effect was found for this statement.
Hypothesis – Good family circumstances result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
No significant effect was found for this statement, no partner effects are found.
31 No significant effect was found for this statement, only working partner and houseman have significant results.
Hypothesis – Having children result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
The results reject this statement. Having children shows a positive effect with work/life balance (estimate = .217, p < .05).
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
No significant effect was found for this statement.
Hypothesis – Having an employed partner result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
No significant effect was found for this statement.
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
The results confirm this statement. Having an employed partner shows a positive relation with life satisfaction (estimate = .370, p < .05).
Hypothesis – Having an househusband result in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Work/life balance
No significant effect was found for this statement.
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
The results reject this statement. Having a househusband shows a positive relation with life satisfaction (estimate = .447, p < .05).
Hypothesis – Working conditions together with family circumstance result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Dependent variable: Life Satisfaction
32
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING
As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, the research question is; To what extent do the
family circumstances and the working conditions of working women influence their work/life balance, resulting in life satisfaction? This question can be answered briefly by stating that
overall good working conditions and family life together fortifies the life satisfaction of working women. However, the effects of the working conditions seem to be of main influence.
More precisely as can be seen in the table below, work/life balance seems to relate positively to life satisfaction. This confirms the hypotheses. In addition, good working conditions result in a well-adjusted work/life balance, however no effect is found whether this results in a high life satisfaction. Alike, high status result in a maladjusted work/life balance, again no effect is found whether this results in a high life satisfaction. High security and high trust result in a well-adjusted work/life balance, yet again no effect is found whether this results in a high life satisfaction. Continuing with family circumstances, no effect was found for family circumstances and work/life balance, likewise no effect was found for family circumstances and life satisfaction. In addition, having children does not result in a maladjusted work/life balance, yet again no effect was found for life satisfaction. Notable, is that no results can be found for having an employed partner and work/life balance, to a positive relation was found between having an employed partner and a high life satisfaction. Alike, no results can be found for having a househusband and work/life balance, however having a househusband and life satisfaction seem to complement each other. Lastly, working conditions together with family circumstance result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Table 11.
Summary of hypotheses testing
HYPOTHESES DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
CONFIRMATION
Work/life balance results in life satisfaction. CONFIRM
33
Good working conditions result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life
satisfaction.
Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
High status results in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Work/life balance CONFIRM Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
High security results in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Work/life balance CONFIRM Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
High trust results in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Work/life balance CONFIRM Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
Good family circumstances result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life
satisfaction.
Work/life balance NO RESULT Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
Having children results in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Work/life balance REJECT Life Satisfaction NO RESULT
Having an employed partner results in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
Work/life balance NO RESULT Life Satisfaction CONFIRM
Having an househusband results in a maladjusted work/life balance resulting in a low life satisfaction.
Work/life balance NO RESULT Life Satisfaction REJECT
Working conditions together with family circumstance result in a well-adjusted work/life balance resulting in a high life satisfaction.
34
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The average adult spends a large amount of his life at work, often even as much as one third of his average day (Kaur, 2010). For career women the time spend at the office is often even higher (Blom, 2005). Consequently, the life satisfaction and the satisfaction of the work/life balance are of great concern for both managers and women themselves. Overall, satisfied employees work more efficient than unsatisfied employees (Veenhoven, 1989). That raised the question; work and family life a worthy mixture or a total catastrophe?
The goal of this research was to determine the impact of family life and working conditions on the life satisfaction of career woman in the conservative welfare states of Europe. To achieve this goal, I investigated work/life balance directly and by measuring family circumstances and working condition. Both were divided further into three groups, family circumstances; children, marital state and employment of partner, and working conditions; status, security and trust. In addition, I investigated life satisfaction directly and by again measuring family circumstances, working condition plus work/life balance. The data was collected for five different European countries, all similar in their way of business and family life (Espering-Andersen, 1990).
The existing literature on this topic is often controversy, such as the literature on work pressure; e.g. Amabile, Hadley and Kramer (2002) found that people work best when they are on top of their game and time is tight, nonetheless they stated that when people are provided with unpressured time the best ideas can evolve, thus the best work can be done. Nonetheless the result of this research show a possible solution. A great deal has changed for career woman in the past decades; women can now have a proper education, make a career and are not primarily expended to marry and have children (Marano & Estroff, 2010). The results agree with this statement, what in history seemed to be clashing with society (e.g. houseman) is now experienced as an increase in life satisfaction.
35 Nevertheless, it was found that a good work/life balance is especially due good working conditions and less influenced by the family circumstances. This is in disagreement with the findings on work/life balance of Greenhaus, Collinsand Shaw (2003) they found the opposite effect.
Moreover, the different working conditions displayed negative and positive results in relation to work/life balance and life satisfaction. Having a high status showed a positive and a positive effect on work/life balance. In line with my expectations co-workers’ support shows a positive effect, whereas irregular hours a negative effect display. In this research irregular hours include working overtime, working evenings and working weekends. The existing literature explained that working overtime may help you to keep up with others or even be superior, it has many bad health aspects (Surgeon, Harrington & Cooper, 1997; Layard, 2006). The results for security’s work pressure are in agreement this the existing literature. Amabile, Hadley and Kramer (2002) stated that people felt “deep frustrations as time pressure increased”. Work pressure shows a negative effect on the work/life balance. In addition, Layard (2006) clarified that our human nature longs to trust others, including co-workers, your boss, and the company you work for. The results of this study confirm that trust increases the satisfaction with work/life balance.
Likewise, the different family circumstances displayed negative and positive results in relation to work/life balance and life satisfaction. Many researchers suggested the combination of family and career is likely to fail (Becker, 1981; Blow, 2005; Stolzenberg, 2001). Which is in disagreement with the results of this research. I suspected children to be a source for a maladjusted work/life balance for career woman, but I was wrong. The result show a positive relation with work/life balance. Contradictory, when looking at life satisfaction and children the result are not significant. This might be caused by the relative income of the parents, and would be interesting to investigate in further research.
36 when the husband is unemployed while the wife is employed conflicts appear frequently. On the contrary to the theory found, when the partner is a househusband the result is strong and relates positive to life satisfaction, no significant results were found for househusband and work/life balance. However, the positive relation between househusband and life satisfaction is contradicting to the Hymowitz (2012) statement. He clarified that given that househusbands are a shift in traditions, it can be a cause for a decreasing life satisfaction as it conflicts with society, within a marriage, and even between children and their parents. When looking at table 10 the same relation was found for having an employed partner and having a househusband and these result are significant. The result of this study might indicated a shift in societies standards and would be very interesting to investigate more deeply in future studies.
To conclude, the satisfaction with the work/life balance for working women is initiated from good working conditions, however to be completely satisfied with life, working women need a good support system at work (co-workers) and at home (employed husband & househusband).
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
37
REFERENCES
Akbar, Yousaf, UI Haq & Hunjra (2011) Impact of Employee Empowerment on Job
Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis of Pakistani Service Industry.Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 2 (11)
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. M. & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52-61.
Andresen, M., Domsch, M.E. & Cascorbi, A.H. (2007). Working Unusual Hours and Its Relationship to Job Satisfaction: A Study of European Maritime Pilots. Journal of Labor
Research. Vol 28 (4): 714-734
Bakker, A. B. & Demerout, E. (2009). The crossover of work engagement between working couples. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(3), 220-236.
Becker, G. S. (1981) Do Long Work Hours Contribute To Divorce? A Treatise On The Family. Harvard University Press.
Beckers, B.G.J., van der Linden, D., Smulders, P. G.W., Kompier, M. A.J., Taris T. W. & Geurts, S. A.E. (2008). Voluntary or involuntary? Control over overtime and rewards for overtime inrelation to fatigue and work satisfaction. Work and stress. Vol 22 (1): 33-50
Blow, A.J. (2005) Infidelity in Committed Relationships II. A Substantive Review Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341-372.
Clark, Frijters & Shields (2008)
Chaturvedi, V. (2008). Employees Empowerment: A key to intrinsic motivation, Management Articles, Articles and Papers by Faculty of Management Institutes, 2008.
Cho, J. Y. & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review. 13 (4): 551– 573.
Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980) New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational
Commitment and Personal Need Nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53 (1): 39–52.
Easterlin (1995)
Espering-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. European Foundation. Quality of life survey. Round 5
Eurostat EU-LFS. publication date: 15/12/2011
38 Geller, R. J. & Hargreaves, E. F. (1981) Maternal Employement and Violece Toward
Children. Journal for Family Issues. 2(4): 509-530
Giusta, M.D., Jewell, S. L., & Kambhampati, U. S. (2011). Gender and Life Satisfaction in the UK. Feminist Economics. Vol 17 (3)
Goudswaard, A. (2002). Employment status and working Conditions. Retrieved 08, 2013, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/08/en/1/ef0208en.pdf
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M. & Shaw , J. D. (2003) The relation between work–family balance and quality of life, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages 510–531
Hallowell, E. M. (2010).What Brain Science Tells Us About How to Excel. Harvard Business Review, 88(12), 123-12
Hall, D. (1990). Promoting work/family balance: An organizational change approach. Organizational Dynamics, 5-17.
Handy, M. (1993). Freeing the victims Total Quality Management, 11. Hara Estroff, M. (2010). The expectations trap. Psychology Today, 43(2) Heneman III, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller. (2012). Staffing organizations Hörnquist, J. O. (1990). Quality of life. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672
Hymowitz, C. (2012). Behind every great woman. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4261) 54-59. ILO - Laborsta Internet (2008/2007) Labour Force Survey. Retrieved 05, 2013, from
http://laborsta.ilo.org
Ingraham, P. W. & Jones, V. D. (1999) ‘The Pain of Organizational Change: Managing Reinvention’ in H. G.Frederickson and J. M. Johnston (eds) Public Management Reform and Innovation: Research, Theory, and Application. University of Alabama Press. Joel, S., Song, S. C. & Time, E. (2005). Is there a HITCH? 165(3)
Kaur, H. (2010, 12). Women, Quality of Worklife and Job Satisfaction: the Inter-relationship.
StudyMode.com. Retrieved 12, 2012, from
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Women-Quality-Of-Worklife-And-Job-523809.html
Kodz, J., Davis, S., Lain, D., Strebler, M., Rick, J. & Bates, P. (2003).Working long hours: a review of the evidence: Vol. 1. Main report (Employment relations research series, No. 16). The Institute for Employment Studies. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Layard, R. (2006). Happiness. Lessons from a new science.
39 management. Personnel, 66, 26-31.
Lawler, E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-involvement Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leinster, C. & Brody, L. (1988). The young exec as superdad. Fortune, 233-236.
Lewis, V. G. & Borders, L. D. (1995). Life satisfaction of single middle-aged professional women. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74(1), 94-100.
Li, J., Johnson, S.E., Han, W., Andrews, S., Kendall, G., Strazdins, L. & Dockerey, A.
(2013) Parent’s nonstandard work schedules and child well-being: a critical review of the literature. Journal of primary prevention, 1.
Lucas, R. E. & Diener, E. (2003). The happy worker. Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in Organizations, 30.
Mishra, A.K. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 22, 567-588.
Moonen, L. & Jonge, de T. (2010). Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek. Sociaal economische Trends. Inkomens van mannen en vrouwen: levensloop en generatie. Retrieved 4, 2013,
From:
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/52C4ED44-F757-4D40-BB89-A09FDAF989AF/0/2010k3v4p43art.pdf.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997) Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual review of Sociology. 23: 431-453 Oxford English dictionary
Pascal, P. & Damien, M. (2001). Third European survey on working conditions 2000.
Luxemburg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Patra, A. & Suar, D. (2009). Influencing happiness & satisfaction in single & dual-career families. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4)
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G.L. & Lang, L.(1980) Conflicts between Work and Family Life. Research Summaries. http://heinonline.org/
Stolzenberg, R. M. ( 2001) Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses. It’s About Time and Gender: Spousal Employment and Health. American Journal of Sociology.
40 Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. Spurgeon, A., Harrington, J. M. & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Health and safety problems
associated with long working hours: a review of the current position. Occup Environ Med. 54, 367-375.
Statham, A., Vaughan, S. & Houseknechts, S. K. (1987). The professional involvement of highly educated women: The impact of family. Sociological Quarterly, 28(1), 119-133. Thoma, M. (2008). Income and Happiness. Economist’s view. 03
Thompson, D (2012) Your Day in a Chart. Retrieved 11, 2013, http://theatlantic.com/business White, L. K., Booth, A. & Edwards. J.N. (1986). Children and marital happiness: Why the
negative correlation? Journal of family issies, 7, 131-147
Van der Hulst, M. (2003). Long workhours and health [review]. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 29: 171-188.
Van der Meer, P.H. (2013). Gender, Unemployment & Subjective Well-Being: Why being unemployed is worse for men than for women.
Veenhoven, R. (1989). How harmful is happiness? Virtanen, Vahtera, Kivimäki, Pentti & Ferrie (2002).
41
APPENDIX - SYNTAX
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES= wkdcorga iorgact wkdcpce /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS VARIANCE.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=wrkengt wkovrtm wrkwe /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS VARIANCE.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=partner irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 vast empower kind hlpcowk stflife stfjbot /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
MIXED stflife WITH stfjbot
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED= stfjbot | SSTYPE(3)
/METHOD=ML
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVES G R SOLUTION
/RANDOM =INTERCEPT | SUBJECT (land) COVTYPE (ID).
42 /CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1)
SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED= irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast hlpcowk | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=ML
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVES G R SOLUTION
/RANDOM =INTERCEPT | SUBJECT (land) COVTYPE (ID).
MIXED stfjbot WITH irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast partner kind hlpcowk by prtn2
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED= prtn2 partner kind gezond relink lft | SSTYPE(3)
/METHOD=ML
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVES G R SOLUTION
/RANDOM =INTERCEPT | SUBJECT (land) COVTYPE (ID).
MIXED stfjbot WITH irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast kind partner hlpcowk by prtn2
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED= prtn2 irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast kind partner hlpcowk | SSTYPE(3)
/METHOD=ML
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVES G R SOLUTION
/RANDOM =INTERCEPT | SUBJECT (land) COVTYPE (ID).
MIXED stflife WITH stfjbot irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast kind partner hlpcowk by prtn2
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
43 /FIXED= stfjbot prtn2 irwrkhrs wrkprs1 wrkprs2 empower gezond relink lft vast kind
partner hlpcowk | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=ML
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVES G R SOLUTION
