Work-life Balance

(1)

Work-life Balance

The association between supervisor’s role modeling and the employee’s attained work-life balance through work-work-life related self-efficacy. And does the employee’s need for

leadership moderate this relationship?

MAYA HENDIKSEN (s1685384) E-mail: m.hendriksen.1@student.rug.nl

Verlengde Nieuwstraat 2, 9724HC, Groningen

Date of submitting the master thesis: 10 June, 2013

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business and Faculty of Psychology Teacher: Prof. dr. O. Janssen & dr. M.C. Schokker

Author Note

(2)

Abstract

Managing the work-life balance is of increasing importance due to recent societal changes. The work-life balance might be influenced by informal factors, such as supervisor’s role modeling behavior. To examine this process, the employee’s work-life related self-efficacy is included. In addition, need for leadership might influence the association between role

modeling and self-efficacy.

This research supports the prediction that supervisor’s role modeling associates with the work-life balance through self-efficacy. For employees with a high need for leadership, the association between role modeling and self-efficacy is stronger, compared to employees with low levels of need for leadership.

(3)

Work-life Balance: The association between supervisor’s role modeling and the employee’s attained work-life balance through work-life related self-efficacy. And does the employee’s

need for leadership moderate this relationship? ‘’Example is leadership’’ (Albert Schweizer, Hermalin, 1998).

Over the last decades many changes in the work environment have occurred that highly influence the lives of employees. Changes such as fast technological developments and increased global competition lead to extra demands on the employees (Fisher, 2000). In addition, also the working population has changed. A higher average age and an increased percentage of women in the working population change the structure of this working

population. This also affects the personal lives of employees. Family structures are becoming more complex, due to an increase in dual earners, working mothers or single parent families (Brough & Kelling, 2002; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). To function effectively, work and personal life need to be integrated. Therefore, we will elaborate on aspects that might influence the work-life balance of employees. Work-life balance (WLB) is achieved if personal and work related roles are successfully managed (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Burnout and work-related stress are examples of common consequences of work-life conflicts (Allen, Herst, Bruck & Sutton, 2000). Also health-related problems and absenteeism are some of the possible results (Frone, 2003). In addition, employees who experience work-life conflicts will perform less effectively. To prevent these severe and expensive health- and work-related consequences, organizations should facilitate the work-life balance (Allen et al, 2000).

Theory and Hypotheses

Work-life balance. This research focuses on the employee’s satisfaction with work-life balance, instead of focusing on the continuum of work-work-life balance and conflict.

(4)

demands coming from different domains. Satisfaction with work-life balance is a more global and holistic definition which presents the overall satisfaction of integrating different roles (Valcour, 2007).

To deal with the topic work-life balance, many interventions and projects are developed which aim to enhance the work-life balance. These formal interventions, which may include for example telecommuting and flexible work hour interventions, are frequently implemented with the purpose to support the employee’s work-life balance (Glass &

Fujimoto, 1995; Kelly, 2006; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). However, often these formal

policies are unable to solve the situation of conflicting roles because they are not successfully implemented or they do not have the intended effects (Allen, 2001; Kossek & Distelberg, 2009). For example in the case of telecommuting, there is evidence that this intervention could even lead to an increase in work-life conflicts which could be caused by vaguer boundaries between work and family life due to telecommuting (Lapierre & Allen, 2006).

Supervisor role modeling. However, not only formal interventions, which include organizational policies, influence if and how employees are managing the work-life balance. Informal support by the working environment can be even more effective than formal support in terms of employee outcomes related to job satisfaction, life conflict and other work-related outcomes (Behson, 2005; Hammer, et al., 2009). Informal support is mostly treated as a broad concept which includes managerial support, employee autonomy and behavioral support (Hammer, et al., 2009). In this research, informal support will be defined by role modeling behavior of the supervisor, which has not received a lot of research attention yet in the work-life research field (Hammer, et al., 2009). Reinforcement of values by supervisors who act on it, is a key method to reach cultural change in organizations (Regan, 1994).

(5)

context of work-life balance (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner & Hanson, 2009). Role modeling behavior related to work-life balance can be defined as behavior of the supervisor that demonstrates employees how to attain a satisfying work-life balance. This might function as an example to employees about what is suitable and successful behavior to facilitate the work–life balance. Supervisor’s role modeling behavior is measured from the perspective of the employee. Elaborating on the interaction between the supervisor and the employee might give interesting results for effective management trainings and interventions.

Past research by Hammer et al. (2009) introduced a form of role modeling in the work-life field. In their research an instrument to measure Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior is developed, which included four aspects: emotional support, role modeling, instrumental support and creative work-life management. They expressed that role modeling is a new topic in the work-life research field. Hammer et al. (2009) defined role modeling as behavioral examples provided by the supervisor that will lead to successful work-life related behavior by the employee. In their research role modeling is measured by a three item-scale which is based on direct behaviors of the supervisor that demonstrates work-life behavior. They apply a narrow definition of role modeling based on direct behaviors and a small number of items which measure role modeling. Direct behaviors are behaviors of the supervisor that directly show the employee actions that are related to work-life balance. Behavior of a supervisor that demonstrates a satisfying balance between work and life domains is an example of this.

(6)

supervisor as a role model regarding work-life balance. The values of the supervisor

regarding work-life balance can be communicated through indirect behavior or signals which are expected to influence the employee’s behavior. For example indirect signs might show that a supervisor appears to value the work-life balance. This is not strictly transferred through direct behaviors, but also through personality and beliefs. Including this kind of items in the measurement scale of role modeling complements the influence of the supervisor through role modeling, defined by direct behavior and the transference of attitude and values which includes the broad aspects in which a supervisor might influence an employee.

Employee work-life related self-efficacy. Furthermore, to examine the association between supervisor role modeling and employee work-life balance more comprehensively, self-efficacy is implicated to identify the underlying processes that might facilitate employees to gain a more satisfying work-life balance. Self-efficacy can be defined as people’s beliefs about their core capabilities and their ability to perform a task (Bandura, 1977a). In this research, we use a more specific conceptualization of self-efficacy focused on work-life related self-efficacy. Observing successful behavior of role models is expected to influence employees self-efficacy for balancing their work and personal life roles because it might strengthen their beliefs about their own capabilities (Bandura, 1977b). Enhancement of self-efficacy is expected to generate positive results and might improve the coping skills, since individuals will feel more capable and empowered to perform similar behaviors (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

(7)

The Cognitive Learning Theory also states that role modeling exerts its influences on target behavior through elevating self-efficacy beliefs. Role modeling behavior is critical for the development of self-efficacy in difficult situations (Bandura, 1997a). Enhancement of self-efficacy takes place through the process of observational learning, the method through which role modeling is effective. Observational learning can be defined as experiences through learning from social models. It accounts for at least 80% of what is learned and known by people (Bandura, 1977b). Observational learning affects self-efficacy because individuals judge their own skills and abilities by comparing themselves with their role models. If a role model successfully performs certain behavior, the individual will estimate his or her skills and abilities to perform the same behaviors in order to reach the same results. As a result, the successful behavior by a role model has a positive effect on the self-efficacy of the person who is observing the behavior (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Role modeling behavior which results in successful, specific and clear outcomes has more effect on the observer of the behavior compared to observing unsuccessful behavior. The Cognitive Learning Theory provides the basis for the prediction that supervisor role modeling influences the self-efficacy of the employee. If a supervisor successfully performs actions that are related to a positive work-life balance, this might enhance the employee’s self-efficacy because of observational learning through modeling (Bandura, 1977a).

(8)

self-efficacy is more likely to result in successful behavior, which is in this case a satisfying work-life balance.

A more specific construct which can be applied in this research is work-life related self-efficacy. This construct applies to someone’s belief that he or she is able to successfully manage both work and family roles. It includes aspects such as having energy to spend time with his or her child or being able to establish a schedule that integrates with the partner’s schedule (Ozer, 1995). Former research states that work-life related self-efficacy is related to psychological health and well-being (Ozer, 1995). Therefore, high work-life related self-efficacy is likely to benefit the individuals’ efforts to improve his or her work-life balance. If a person feels capable of combining the work and life related roles, he or she is less likely to feel overwhelmed and stressed by doing so (Erdwins, Buffardi, Casper & O’Brien, 2001). As a result high work-life related self-efficacy is likely to have a positive influence on the individuals work-life balance (Cinamon, 2006).

To summarize, supervisor’s role modeling behavior is likely to be positively related to the employee’s work-life balance since employees who are provided with examples of

(9)

Need for leadership as a moderator. It is important to examine which factors might enhance the association between role modeling and self-efficacy to understand the context in which the association is effective (Erdwins, Buffard, Casper, & O'Brien, 2001). The construct ‘need for leadership’ could be such a factor. Including the moderator need for leadership in this research is interesting because it will be examined in another, more specific situation, namely the work-life research field. Need for leadership is not yet examined in combination with role modeling, self-efficacy or in the context of work-life balance. These new

combinations will broaden the research field of need for leadership which might lead to new information and new insights about the overall applicability of this potential moderator and its effects.

Need for leadership can be defined as ‘‘the extent to which an employee desires a leader to assist in the attainment of individual, group or organizational goals’’ (de Vries, Roe, & Taillieu, 2002). Two crucial aspects of the need for leadership construct are the leader and the subordinate’s outcomes. The construct need for leadership is influenced by many

organizational and individual characteristics, for example task structure and self-confidence. Factors such as work environment, task complexity, employee knowledge or job autonomy can all be factors that enhance or diminish the need for leadership. For example, when the employee has to execute a very complex task the supervisor’s help could be required. When the task is very simple the employee is likely to feel competent enough to execute the task without the assistance of the supervisor. This diminishes the individuals need for leadership (de Vries, et al., 2002).

(10)

to the Path-Goal theory, eliminating barriers and adding to the working environment are the two main reasons why employees might desire leadership in the attainment of their goals. This theory provides the basis for the need for leadership.

Another theory on which the need for leadership construct is based is the Substitutes for Leadership theory. This theory states that aspects of the environment can influence the effectiveness of leadership in the attainment of employee’s goals. According to this theory, the effectiveness of leadership to reach goals depends on the situation. In some situations leadership might not be effective at all. In that case other influences, such as knowledge of the employee, are much more effective and therefore diminish the importance of leadership. Therefore, aspects such as knowledge or task autonomy can be much more effective for the attainment of certain goals in specific situations which reduces the importance of leadership and therefore in that circumstances the need for leadership is very low (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).

It is expected that employees with a high need for leadership might be more susceptible to the behaviors of their supervisors. Therefore the relationship between

leadership characteristics and subordinates outcomes is expected to be stronger for employees with high need for leadership, compared to employees with high need for leadership (de Vries, Roe & Taillieu, 1998). This research therefore, examines how supervisor’s role modeling associates with work-life balance through self-efficacy, and how the employee’s need for leadership influences this association.

(11)

high need for leadership (de Vries, Roe & Taillieu, 1998; 2002). The expectations are formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 2. Employee’s need for leadership moderates the positive relationship between supervisor’s role modeling behavior and employee’s self-efficacy. This positive relationship is stronger for employees who have a higher need for leadership and weaker for employees who have a lower need for leadership.

The moderated mediation model. Supervisor’s role modeling is expected to influence employee’s self-efficacy. In addition, self-efficacy is likely to affect the

performance of the employees, which in this case results in work-life balance. Moreover, need for leadership is expected to influence the association between role modeling and self-efficacy. Combining these expectations result in a prediction that the indirect association between role modeling and work-life balance through self-efficacy is strengthened by the moderator need for leadership. Enhancement of the association between role modeling and self-efficacy is likely to strengthen the mediating effect of self-efficacy in the association with work-life balance. This is expected because employees with a high need for leadership will be more influenced by supervisor role modeling behavior in the sense that they develop higher levels of work-life-related self-efficacy in response to example behaviors by the supervisor to balance work and personal life (Bandura, 1977a, De Vries, et al., 2002). These higher self-efficacy levels will, in their turn, promote work-life balance of the employee (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Thus, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Employee’s need for leadership moderates the positive, indirect

relationship between supervisor’s role modeling behavior and employee’s work-life balance, as mediated by self-efficacy. This indirect relationship is more strongly positive for

(12)

Figure 1

(13)

Method Participants and Procedure

This research was conducted with 136 participants. Both men and women participated in this study (43% men and 57% women). Employees who worked for at least one year with their current supervisor could participate in the research. This condition was set because the employee’s perception of the behavior of his or her supervisor was measured. Therefore, to collect relevant information about the supervisor’s role modeling behavior the employee had to be working with the supervisor for some time. On average, employee’s worked 12 years (SD= 11) in their current organization and 4 years (SD= 4,9) with their current supervisor. This questionnaire was distributed among all sorts of employees working in an organization with a supervisor. Dominant working sectors were education, research and training (15,4%), healthcare, paramedics and laboratories (13,2%) and security, the army and the police

(11,8%). The age of the participants varied from 20 years to 64 years, with an average age of 43 years (SD=12,6). On average the employees worked 35 hours (SD= 9,6) per week. Fifty-four percent of the respondents had one or more children.

Filling in the questionnaire took the respondents about ten minutes. The questionnaire started with an introduction text which generally explained the subject of the research. In addition it emphasized that conducting the questionnaire was anonymous and voluntarily and that by starting and completing the questionnaire, permission was granted to participate in the research.

After the introduction message some general questions were asked about the

background and personal information of the participant. The instruments which measured the research variables were provided in the questionnaire in order of predictor to outcome

(14)

leadership, then work-life related self-efficacy and it finished with the work-life balance measurement.

At the end of the questionnaire a short message was included to thank the participants for their contribution and to provide them with an email address to which they could send a message when they would like to receive the final research report.

The questionnaire was distributed digitally via email within the social network of the researcher. The advantage of doing research in various occupations above research in a specific company is that it gave a broader overview because people with various occupations were approached. In the email a brief, general introduction was given. It mentioned the condition that the employee had to work for at least one year with his or her current supervisor and that filling in the questionnaire would take around 15 minutes. Digital distribution made it hard to establish the response rate of the potential participants since it was unknown how many people had received the questionnaire via forward emailing by others. Collecting the data lasted four weeks.

Measures

Supervisor role modeling. The employee’s perception of the role modeling behavior of his or her current supervisor regarding work-life balance was measured with a

(15)

represented strongly agree. To test the understandability of these self-constructed items and the translated items a small pilot study was carried out. All items were judged to be

comprehensible and appeared to be interpreted the same as the former English items. This was reflected in the Cronbach’s alpha which was .86 (M= 3.13, SD= .83)

Employee need for leadership. To measure the employee’s need for leadership, the questionnaire of de Vries, Roe and Taillieu (2002) was used. The items of this measure start with the same stem (‘I need my supervisor to’) and end with different possible work goals for which the employee might need help of his or her supervisor to successfully attain the goal. One item was: ‘I need my supervisor to motivate me’. One item was: ‘I need my supervisor to motivate me’. The questionnaire consisted of 17 items, which were all measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). The

Cronbach’s alpha of Need for Leadership was .91 in this research (M= 2.18, SD= .60). Employee work-life related self-efficacy. The work-life related self-efficacy scale was developed by Ozer (1995). This instrument of work-family related self-efficacy

measured the ability of new mothers to cope with work and family demands. In this research the instrument is adjusted to measure a broader perspective of work-life balance. Therefore the specific questions related to childcare were excluded, since they are probably only

relevant for a very small number of participants in our study. A few more general items about children were still included since it is likely to represent a part of the participants private life. As a result, the instrument is less focused on small children and now has a more even

distribution of items related to children and other aspects of the work and private life. One of the items that was included in the measurement is: ‘How confident are you that you can establish a schedule that meets the needs of home and work.’

(16)

Likert (1= in a very limited degree 5= in a very high degree) scale to make it equal to the other measurement scales of this research. The alpha internal reliability for this scale was .94. For the construct work-life related self-efficacy some questions where only relevant for individuals with children while other items were only relevant for individuals without children. Therefore the Cronbach’s alpha of work-life related self-efficacy (M= 3.35, SD= .54) was calculated for respondents with children (α= .87) and without children (α=.78) since they partly answered different questions.

Employee satisfaction with work-life balance. To measure the participants’ satisfaction of the work-life balance, the instrument of Valcour (2007) was applied. This instrument was particularly relevant to use in this research since it did not focus just on family life but on the broader aspects of private life. Using the concept of private life instead of family life makes this instrument also relevant for participants without children or with non-traditional family structures. It included 5 items which were measured on a five-point Likert scale. Two items are based on the resource and demand theoretical model and three items measure the satisfaction of the ability to integrate the work and private roles. One item was for example: ‘How satisfied are you with the way you divide your attention between work and home’. Also this instrument was developed in English and had to be translated to Dutch. In this research the instrument had an alpha of .92 (M= 3.68, SD= .73).

(17)

Results Assumptions

Boxplots are constructed for all variables in this research. Only the variable Work-Life Balance shows outliers in the data. However, on the basis of the statistics and content there are no reasons to eliminate these outliers.

Histograms related to the variables show results that might predict a nonnormal distribution of the data, with a high expected Kurtosis. This is mainly visible in the structure of the answers related to the variable Work-Life Balance. However, calculating the skewness and kurtosis gives reasonable numbers for all variables. Therefore it is allowed to assume that the data is normally distributed and fit for regression analysis. Also the statistics related to collinearity were sufficient. As a result, it can be concluded that this data fits the assumptions related to regression.

The control variables average number of work hours, travel time and the number of children living at home were examined in this research. All control variables are added to the correlation analysis to check their correlations with the variables of this research. None of the control variables significantly correlated with the variables of the research which is shown in Table 1. Also there is no difference in the association with variables in this research for respondent with and without children (see Appendix). Consequently the control variables are not expected to be influential and were therefore not included in further analyses.

Analysis of the Mediation Effect

(18)

Table 1

Correlations of the key variables of this research and the control variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Role Modeling 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

2. NFL .10 1 -- -- -- -- --

3. WLSE .12 -.12 1 -- -- -- --

4. WLB .17 -.07 .66** 1 -- -- --

5. work hours per week -.03 -.03 -.05 -.07 1 -- -- 6. travel time per week .12 .00 -.07 -.17 .06 1 -- 7. Children at home (for at

least four days a week)

-.09 -.08 .05 -.03 -.15 -.05 1

Note. SD= standard deviation. ** p< .01.

(19)

Table 2

Regression Analysis to test the association between role modeling and work-life balance through self-efficacy.

95% CI for B

B SE t p Lower Bound Upper Bound

Dependent variable: work-life balance

(Constant) 3.68 .07 56.90 <.001 3.55 3.81

Role Modeling 0.13 .07 1.97 .05 -0.00 0.26

Dependent variable: Work-Life related Self-Efficacy

(Constant) 3.35 .05 69.72 <.001 3.25 3.44

Role Modeling 0.07 .05 1.37 .17 -0.03 0.16

Note. SE= Standard Error. CI= Confidence Interval.

Analysis of the Moderation Effect

Table 1 presents the correlations, means and standard deviations for the variables included in the moderator analyses. None of the variables significantly correlate with each other.

(20)

.108, p=.04). This might indicate a positive moderating effect. By including the interaction term role modeling*need for leadership 3,5% (R Square Change) of explained variance is added to the model, which is significant (F (1, 122) = 4.55, p = .04).

Table 3

Regression results for the moderation effect of need for leadership on the association between role modeling and self-efficacy.

95% CI for B

B t p Lower Bound Upper Bound VIF Δ R²

1 (Constant) 3.35 70.04 <.001 3.25 3.44

Need for Leadership - 0.07 -1.48 .14 -.17 .02 1.01

Role Modeling 0.07 1.51 .13 -.02 .17 1.01 .03

2 (Constant) 3.34 70.43 <.001 3.24 3.43

Need for Leadership -0.09 -1.82 .07 -.18 .01 1.04

Role Modeling 0.06 1.29 .20 -.03 .16 1.02

Need for leadership * Role Modeling

0.11 2.13 .04 .01 .21 1.04 .04

Note. Dependent variable: Work-Life related Self-Efficacy. Δ R²= R-Square Change.

To further examine this interaction effect, Figure 2 is drawn up. Statistics behind the figure illustrate the significance of the regression line which represents 1 standard deviation above the average score on need for leadership. This means high values of need for

(21)

Figure 2

Illustration of the moderation effect of need for leadership

Note. Interaction line 1: Need for Leadership + 1 standard deviation (B= 0.16, p= .01) Interaction line 2: Need for Leadership – 1 standard deviation (B= - 0.03, p= .63)

Analysis of the Moderated Mediation Model

As illustrated by the past results, there is no support for an unconditional mediation effect but the moderation effect is supported by the research evidence. However, as stated in the introduction, a mediation effect can be expected under the condition of high values of the moderator. To test this assumption, a macro of Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007) is executed. This macro is developed to test a moderated mediation model. Table 4 illustrates the results of this analysis.

Table 4

(22)

modeling and work-life balance through work-life related self-efficacy. And the moderator need for leadership.

Predictor Regression Coefficient SE t p

Mediator variable model: Work-life related self-efficacy.

Intercept -.01 .09 - .14 .89

Role Modeling .12 .09 1.27 .21

Need for Leadership -.16 .09 -1.74 .09

Role Modeling * NFL .20 .10 2.07 .04

Dependent variable model: Satisfaction with work-life balance.

Intercept .03 .07 .45 .65

WLSE .66 .07 9.71 .00

Role Modeling .11 .07 1.65 .10

Need for Leadership .03 .07 .37 .72

Role Modeling * NFL -.17 .07 -2.37 .02

Indirect relationship NFL Sample mean +/- 1 SD Conditional indirect effect SE Z p NFL -1 SD -1.02 -.06 .09 -.61 .54 NFL -0.02 .07 .06 1.21 .23 NFL +1 SD 0.99 .21 .08 2.44 .01

Note: N= 126. NFL=Need for leadership. WLSE= Work-life related self-efficacy. Results are obtained using the macro developed by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007).

(23)

In the dependent variable model role modeling, work-life related self-efficacy and the interaction term role modeling * need for leadership are added to examine their associations with work-life balance. The association between work-life related self-efficacy and work-life balance is significant ( B= .66, p < .001). In this analysis, the interaction between supervisor role modeling and employee need for leadership also has a significant association with work-life balance (B= -.17, p < .05).

(24)

Discussion

The goal of this research was to examine the influence of the supervisor’s role modeling behavior on the employee’s work-life balance. By adding work-life related self-efficacy, the underlying process was examined. Including need for leadership added to the practical use of the research by specifying under which conditions the associations were valid.

This study showed that need for leadership functioned as a moderator in the

relationship between role modeling and work-life related self-efficacy. For individuals with a high need for leadership, self-efficacy was more positively enhanced by role modeling

behavior of the supervisor, compared to individuals with low need for leadership. This was in line with the research results of De Vries et al. (2002) who also discovered a weak

moderating effect between supervisor behavior and employee’s outcomes, especially for employee’s with high need for leadership. This study provided no research evidence to support the hypothesis of the unconditional mediating effect of work-life related self-efficacy in the association between role modeling and work-life balance. However, evidence was provided for the conditional effect of need for leadership in the indirect relationship between role modeling and work-life balance through self-efficacy. As expected, for employees with high need for leadership, the association between role modeling and satisfaction with work-life balance through enhancement of work-work-life related self-efficacy existed.

(25)

the theory provided by Bandura (1977b) which stated that role modeling was a source of learning which enhanced self-efficacy and in that way improved the outcomes of the individual.

However, as was supported by the hypothesis of the moderating effect, the association between role modeling and self-efficacy did exist when individuals had a high need for leadership. So the main effect between role modeling and self-efficacy was lacking, but by including specific characteristics of the individual the association did exist. When the characteristic need for leadership was included, role modeling behavior of the supervisor appeared to be more influential and resulted in a higher degree of work-life related self-efficacy. These results suggested that the association between role modeling and work-life related self-efficacy might have been enhanced by relevant, related characteristics of the individual, such as need for leadership which was included in this research.

That need for leadership functioned as a moderator in the association between role modeling and self-efficacy was in line with the expectations of this research. The hypothesis specified that for employees who have a high need for leadership, the positive relationship between the supervisor’s role modeling behavior and the employee’s self-efficacy was stronger, compared to employees who have a low need for leadership. As a result it was concluded that the association between role modeling and self-efficacy was influenced by characteristics of the employee and reacted to specific conditions.

Theoretical Implications

(26)

perspective, which allowed for the specific examination of a positive contribution to the work-life balance. In addition, work-life balance was measured as the employee’s satisfaction with work-life balance which covers the perspective of the employee instead of the

organizational or supervisor’s perspective.

The concept of role modeling was a new topic in the research domain of work-life balance. Role modeling, as an item of informal support, added to the existing literature which primarily focused on formal support. In contrast with the study of Hammer et al., (2009) which included a broad concept of informal support, this study focused only on a specific part of informal support which was role modeling. Role modeling was therefore more thoroughly examined and included as a unique antecedent of work-life balance. In addition, Hammer et al., (2009) stressed the importance of a broader research group. Their research was based on participants who were all working at a university and in their second study they included employees from a grocery store. In this research a much broader research group was included with different occupations at different organizations which is beneficial because it gives a more diverse overview.

Including need for leadership broadened the research perspective and included

differences in individuals. Need for leadership was a construct that was quite new. It included a broad range of characteristics, such as job complexity and employee autonomy, that could influence the association between role modeling and self-efficacy. This research illustrated that role modeling was most effective for employees with high levels of need for leadership, and it stressed the importance of adjusting organizational programs to the individuals characteristics and needs which aim to enhance the employees self-efficacy.

(27)

the employee had a high need for leadership. Consequently, this study illustrated that role modeling, self-efficacy and individual outcomes were not always linked and that it can be influenced by individual differences. This provided evidence for the theoretical expansion of the construct self-efficacy and its antecedents and consequences.

Based on former researches several control variables were included in this research. However, none of the variables correlated with the variables of this research. Especially the lacking association between number of children living at home and work-life balance is remarkably and in contrast with past research (Valcour, 2007). Valcour (2007) discovered a negative relation between number of children living at home and satisfaction with work-life balance. They explained it by the theory of depletion of resources which stated that children need a lot of attention and energy and therefore there is less energy left for work demands. However, it can also be expected that children living at home may have a positive effect on the satisfaction with work-life balance. If children provide great joy and happiness, this might spillover to the work domain and therefore satisfaction in the work domain might be

enhanced (Hanson, Hammer, Colton, 2006). As a result, the association between number of children living at home and satisfaction with work-life balance might not be as

straightforward as expected, which is subscribed by the lacking correlation in this research. Future research which focuses on the details of family and work structures might be needed to unravel the association between the number of children living at home and association with the work domain.

Practical Implications

(28)

As was illustrated by this research, individuals with a high need for leadership benefited significantly more from positive role modeling behavior by the supervisor than individuals with low need for leadership. Therefore policies and programs in organizations related to the enhancement of work-life related self-efficacy and work-life balance should consider the differences between individuals and their different sources of learning. Programs which are based on role modeling behavior are most effective for individuals with high need for leadership. Therefore, programs which focus on role modeling behavior of the supervisor should include the differences in need for leadership of the employees. Including the

difference in need for leadership per individual will allow for more effective implementation of policies and programs focused on role modeling.

Limitations

When interpreting the research results a few observations had to be taken into account. The sample of this research was based on a sufficient number of respondents.

Respondents in this research were all Dutch citizens. Most statistics related to the respondents of this research were in line with statistics related to the Dutch working population and

(29)

Primarily, all respondents who participated in the research were employed, so the respondents represented the Dutch employed working population. In the Netherlands, 55% of the working population is men and 45% is women (CBS Statline, 2012). This was different compared to the sample of this research where the distribution was 43% men and 57% women. There was also a very high percentage of the respondents (77%) in this sample with a high education (HBO or WO). This was in contrast with the real percentage in the potential working population in the Netherlands of which 28% was highly educated (Zorgatlas, 2010). This differed considerable with the research sample. Past research subscribed that employee’s with a high education experienced more work-life imbalance so the deviation of percentage of high educated employee’s might have biased the results of this research (Tausig & Fenwick, 2001). However, it was expected that the respondents of the research were representative for the Dutch working population, primarily with a high education (HBO or WO) as that typified the main share of respondents in the research.

The research results were all based on self-report data. This kind of reports were chosen since they allow for the measurement of not observable emotions and perceptions, such as the employee’s satisfaction with his or her work-life balance. In addition they were easy to administer and completion of the questionnaire took a relatively short amount of time. However, there were some disadvantages regarding self-report which had to be taken into account. Some questions in the data gathering might have contained sensitive

(30)

the perception of the supervisor’s role modeling behavior, may not be exclusively based on the actual work-life balance or role modeling behavior but it might have been partially subjective to the mood and personality traits of the respondent (Spector, Zapf, Chen& Frese, 2000). Therefore future research is needed that includes observational measures as well.

The questionnaire was distributed digitally which made it difficult to establish the response rate. It was difficult to establish how many persons received the questionnaire as a result of forward messaging. It was possible that respondents who had negative thoughts related to role modeling or work-life balance did not want to complete the questionnaire and therefore the data of the research could have been biased due to respondents and

non-respondents.

A limitation of the cross-sectional design of the research was that it cannot lead to a conclusion about causalities. For example, the association between self-efficacy and work-life balance could exist in two directions. Positive self-efficacy could have enhanced the work-life balance, or a positive work-life balance could have lead to increased self-efficacy. Other types of research, such as experimental research could provide additional information to determine the causality of the associations in this research. These types of possible further research could add to the basis that this study provided.

(31)

modeling ( r= .12, r= .17) and had a slightly negative correlation with need for leadership (r= -.12, r= -.07), however none of these correlations were significant. As a result, the correlations might have indicated that work-life related self-efficacy and satisfaction with work-life balance behaved in comparable ways. However, the theoretical definitions of both variables were distinctive. Self-efficacy focuses on the feelings of being capable of reaching a work-life balance. Satisfaction with work-life balance measured whether or not a satisfying work-life balance was attained. As a result including both variables provided valuable information about the process of attaining work-life balance. Additionally, similar

correlations with the other research variables were expected because both work-life related self-efficacy and work-life balance were expected to link in similar ways with role modeling and need for leadership. Since a strong correlation between the mediator and the dependent variable were statistically acceptable and including the variables was theoretically justified and valuable there was no reason to eliminate one of the variables.

Conclusion

The research fields related to role modeling and work-life balance remain important fields which require additional research attention. Recent developments, such as changing family structures and an increasing number dual earner couples stress the increasing

difficulties related to attaining a satisfying work-life balance. The influence of role modeling requires additional research attention to improve the understanding in different contexts. In addition, the effects of individual differences should be examined more thoroughly to ensure that new organizational policies are individualized and implemented more effectively as a result.

(32)

(33)

References

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

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 278–308.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,52.

Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 487-500.

Boston Consulting Group & EAPM. (2007). The future of HR in Europe: Key challenges through 2015. London: EAPM.

Brough, P., & Kelling, A. (2002). Women, work and well being; the influence of work–family and family–work conflict. The New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 29–39. Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological

involvement to a new four-factor conceptualization of work-family interference. Journal of Business & Society, 17, 515-535.

(34)

persoonskenmerken. Geraadpleegd op 1 maart 2013, van

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/search/?Q=opleiding+beroepsbevolking&LA=NL

Chittenden, E. H., & Ritchie, C. S. (2011). Work-Life Balancing: Challenges and Strategies. Journal of palliative medicine,14(7), 870-874.

Cinamon, R. G. (2006). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(3), 202-215.

Cooper, G. L., Dewe, J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

De Vries, R.E., Roe, R.A. & Taillieu, T.C.B. (1998). Need for Supervision : Its Impact on Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1998, 34, 486.

De Vries, R.E., Roe, R.A. & Taillieu, T.C.B. (2002). Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 121-137.

Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O'Brien, A. S. (2001). The relationship of women's role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 50(3), 230-238.

Evans, P., & Bartolomé, F. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5(1), 9-21.

Fisher, H. (2000). Investing in people, family friendly work arrangements in small and medium sized enterprise. Dublin: The Equality Authority.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723-729.

(35)

Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22, 380-411.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856.

Hackett, G., Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior,18(3), 326–339.

Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249-265.

Hermalin, B. E. (1998). Toward an Economic Theory of Leadership: Leading by Example. American Economic Review, 88 , 1188-1206.

House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.

Kelly, E. L. (2006). Work-family policies: The United States in international perspective. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and approaches, 99-123. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and

measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. Kossek, E., & Distelberg, B. (2009). Work and family employment policy for a

(36)

Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive

supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 11(2), 169-181.

Lippe, T., Jager, A. & Kops, Y. (2006). Combination Pressure: The Paid Work-Family Balance of Men and Women in European Countries. Acta Sociologica September 2006 , 49( 3), 303-319

Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. (1992). Career self-efficacy as a moderator of the relation

between occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41(1), 79-88. Ozer, E.M. (1995). The impact of childcare responsibility and self-efficacy on the

psychological health of professional working mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly,19(3), 315–335.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

42, 185-227.

Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000) Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variable on work- family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.

Tausig, M. & Fenwick, R., (2001). Unbinding Time: Alternate Work Schedules and Work- Life Balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22 (2), 101-119.

(37)

organizational attachment, and Work–Family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392-415.

Valcour, M. (2007). Work-Based Resources as Moderators of the Relationship Between Work Hours and Satisfaction With Work–Family Balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523.

(38)

Appendix Questionnaire

Beste meneer/mevrouw,

Bedankt dat u deel wilt nemen aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek is een onderdeel van mijn afstudeerproject voor de studies Human Resource Management en Arbeids- en Organisatie Psychologie. Hierin wordt onderzocht hoe medewerkers van bedrijven reageren op hun leidinggevende en hoe dit effect heeft op de werk-privé balans van de medewerker. Deelname aan deze enquête is vrijwillig. De enquête zal anoniem verwerkt worden. Om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek is het van belang dat u minimaal 1 jaar met uw huidige leidinggevende werkt. Vragen over uw leidinggevende hebben dus betrekking op uw huidige, directe leidinggevende. De enquête zal ongeveer 15 minuten in beslag nemen. Aan het begin zijn er enkele introductievragen over uw achtergrond en daarna wordt ingegaan op uw werken privé situatie. Nogmaals, deelname is anoniem dus de resultaten zullen niet tot individuen terug te leiden zijn. Voor het afstudeerverslag waarin dit onderzoek wordt verwerkt kunt u mailen naar m.hendriksen.1@student.rug.nl. Als u de vragenlijst start geeft u toestemming voor deelname aan dit onderzoek, maar u kunt natuurlijk op elk moment de vragenlijst afsluiten en uw data zullen dan niet worden gebruikt. Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname.

Met vriendelijke groet,

(39)

Geslacht  Man (1)  Vrouw (2)

Wat is uw leeftijd? ….

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?  Basisonderwijs (1)

 Lager beroepsonderwijs (2)

 Voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (VMBO) (3)  Middelbaar voortgezet onderwijs (Mavo, MULO) (4)  Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO) (5)

 Hoger voortgezet onderwijs (Havo, VWO) (6)  Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) (7)

 Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (8)

Binnen welke beroepsgroep bent u werkzaam?  Auto’s, werktuigkundigen, technici, ingenieurs (1)  Bewaking, leger, politie (2)

 Bouw, montage, huisvesting (3)

 Commercieel, winkel, inkoop en verkoop (4)  Financiën, bank, verzekering (5)

 Gezondheidszorg, paramedici, laboratorium (6)  Horeca, toerisme, recreatie, sport (7)

 HRM, arbeidsbemiddeling, organisatie (8)  Industrie, productie, metaal en plastiek (9)  IT, automatisering, telecommunicatie (10)

 Juridisch, administratie, inspectie, beleidsadvies (11)  Kantoorbedienden, secretaresses, post, telefoon (12)  Landbouw, veeteelt, natuurbeheer, visserij, milieu (13)  Marketing, PR, reclame (14)

 Media, grafische sector, drukkerij, cultuur, design (15)  Olie, gas, mijnbouw, energiebedrijven, nutsbedrijven (16)  Onderwijs, onderzoek, training (17)

 Schoonmaken, huishouden, huisvuil, afval (18)  Staf, management, directie (19)

 Taal, bibliotheek, archief, museum (20)  Transport, logistiek, haven, luchthaven (21)  Voedingsmiddelenindustrie (22)

 Zorg, kinderopvang, welzijn, sociaal werk (23) Hoeveel uur per week werkt u gemiddeld? …

Hoeveel uur per week bent u gemiddeld kwijt aan reistijd? .... Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam bij uw huidige bedrijf? … Hoeveel jaar werkt u met uw huidige leidinggevende? … Heeft uw leidinggevende thuiswonende kinderen? …  Nee (1)

 Ja, 1 kind. (2)  Ja, 2 kinderen. (3)  Ja, 3 kinderen. (4)  Ja, 4 kinderen. (5)

 Ja, meer dan 4 kinderen. (6)  Onbekend. (7)

(40)

 Alleenstaand, zonder kind(eren) (211)  Alleenstaand, met kind(eren) (212)

 Getrouwd/samenwonend, zonder kind(eren) (213)  Getrouwd/samenwonend, met kind(eren) (214)

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, zonder kind(eren) Is Selected Or Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, met kind(eren) Is Selected

Hoeveel uur werkt uw partner gemiddeld per week? …

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Alleenstaand, met kinderen Is Selected Or Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, met kind(eren) Is Selected

Hoeveel kinderen heeft u? …

Hoeveel kinderen wonen er bij u in huis (minimaal 4 dagen per week)? …

Hoe oud is uw jongste kind? …

Maakt u wel eens gebruik van een oppas, kinderopvang of naschoolse opvang en dergelijke?

 Ja (1)  Nee (2)

Heeft u naast uw relatie of gezin nog een zorgtaak, bijvoorbeeld voor uw ouders?  Nee (1)

 Ja, waar ik 1 tot 3 uur per week mee bezig ben (2)  Ja,waar ik 3 tot 7 uur per week mee bezig ben (3)  Ja, waar ik meer dan 7 uur per week mee bezig ben (4)

Heeft u nog andere verplichtingen waar u meer dan 6 uur per week aan besteedt?  Nee (1)

 Ja, namelijk.. (2) ____________________ Werk-privé balans

Er is sprake van een goede werk-privé balans als werk en privé rollen en verplichtingen succesvol gebalanceerd zijn. Er is dan zo min mogelijk conflict tussen de werken privé situatie. Er is sprake van tevredenheid met werk-privé balans als iemand tevreden is over de wijze waarop werken privé rollen worden gecombineerd.

Role Modeling

Mijn leidinggevende is een goed rolmodel wat betreft werk-privé balans.  Sterk mee oneens (1)

 Mee oneens (2)  Neutraal (3)  Mee eens (4)  Sterk mee eens (5)

Mijn leidinggevende laat effectief gedrag zien om werk en privé te balanceren.  Sterk mee oneens (1)

(41)

 Mee eens (4)  Sterk mee eens (5)

Mijn leidinggevende laat zien hoe iemand zowel op het werk als buiten het werk succesvol kan zijn.

 Sterk mee oneens (1)  Mee oneens (2)  Neutraal (3)  Mee eens (4)  Sterk mee eens (5)

Ik denk dat mijn leidinggevende zelf een goede werk-privé balans heeft.  Sterk mee oneens (1)

 Mee oneens (2)  Neutraal (3)  Mee eens (4)  Sterk mee eens (5)

Ik denk dat mijn leidinggevende een voorstander is van de beleidsmogelijkheden binnen onze organisatie die de werk-privé balans verbeteren.

 Sterk mee oneens (1)  Mee oneens (2)  Neutraal (3)  Mee eens (4)  Sterk mee eens (5) Behoefte aan leiderschap

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om doelen te stellen.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

 in geringe mate nodig (2)  voor een deel nodig (3)  in hoge mate nodig (4)

 in zeer hoge mate nodig of onontbeerlijk (5)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om te beslissen welke werkzaamheden uitgevoerd moeten worden.

 in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)  in geringe mate nodig (2)

 voor een deel nodig (3)  in hoge mate nodig (4)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om kennis over te dragen.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

(42)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om mij te motiveren.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om het werk te coördineren, te plannen en te organiseren.

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om externe contacten te onderhouden.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om mij informatie te geven.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

(43)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om werkzaamheden van de afdeling op elkaar af te stemmen.

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om te zorgen voor een goede groepsgeest.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om mij te ondersteunen.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om zaken voor elkaar te krijgen bij hoger geplaatsten in de organisatie.

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om conflicten te hanteren.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om het werk na te bespreken.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om fouten te corrigeren.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om mij te helpen bij het oplossen van problemen.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

(44)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om bijdragen te erkennen en te waarderen.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

Ik heb mijn leidinggevende nodig om mij te inspireren.  in zeer geringe mate of niet nodig (1)

 in zeer hoge mate nodig of onontbeerlijk (5) Work-life Self-Efficacy

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: het maken van een schema dat tegemoet komt aan de behoeften thuis en op het werk?

 in zeer geringe mate (1)  in geringe mate (2)  voldoende (3)  in hoge mate (4)  in zeer hoge mate (5)

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: het organiseren van een schema dat past bij het schema van uw partner?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: beschikbaar zijn voor uw kind op doordeweekse dagen als uw kind u nodig heeft?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: het gevoel hebben dat u doordeweeks genoeg tijd met uw kind kan doorbrengen?

(45)

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: het gevoel hebben dat u genoeg energie hebt om tijd met uw kind door te brengen?

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Alleenstaand, met kind(eren) Is Selected Or Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, met kind(eren) Is Selected

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: geduld hebben als uw kind uw aandacht wil terwijl u moe bent?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: uw werkuren beperken en alsnog aan de eisen op uw werk kunnen voldoen?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: genoeg energie hebben om aan de eisen van uw werk te voldoen?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: werken op het niveau waarop u werkte voordat u kinderen kreeg?

(46)

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: op uw werk zijn zonder u zorgen te maken over de kinderen?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: naar huis gaan zonder uw werk mee naar huis te nemen?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u het volgende kunt: naar huis gaan zonder u thuis nog zorgen te maken over uw werk?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u uw werk goed kan doen?  in zeer geringe mate (1)

 in geringe mate (2)  voldoende (3)  in hoge mate (4)  in zeer hoge mate (5)

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, zonder kind(eren) Is Selected Hoe zeker bent u dat u succesvol de rollen van partner en werknemer kunt vervullen?  in zeer geringe mate (1)

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Alleenstaand, met kind(eren) Is Selected

Hoe zeker bent u dat u succesvol de rollen van ouder en werknemer kunt vervullen?  in zeer geringe mate (1)

(47)

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Alleenstaand, zonder kind(eren) Is Selected Hoe zeker bent u dat u succesvol de rol van werknemer kunt vervullen?  in zeer geringe mate (1)

Answer If Wat is uw gezinssituatie Getrouwd/samenwonend, met kind(eren) Is Selected Hoe zeker bent u dat u succesvol de rollen van ouder, partner en werknemer kunt vervullen?

Hoe zeker bent u dat u uw kind op kunt voeden zoals u wilt en daarnaast kan werken?  in zeer geringe mate (1)

 in geringe mate (2)  voldoende (3)  in hoge mate (4)  in zeer hoge mate (5) Work-life Balance

Hoe tevreden of ontevreden bent u met de manier waarop u uw tijd verdeelt tussen uw werken uw privéleven.  Erg ontevreden (1)  Ontevreden (2)  Neutraal (3)  Tevreden (4)  Erg tevreden (5)

Hoe tevreden of ontevreden bent u met de manier waarop u uw aandacht verdeelt tussen uw werken privéleven.

 Erg ontevreden (1)  Ontevreden (2)  Neutraal (3)  Tevreden (4)  Erg tevreden (5)

Hoe tevreden of ontevreden bent u met de mate waarin uw werken privéleven in elkaar passen.  Erg ontevreden (1)  Ontevreden (2)  Neutraal (3)  Tevreden (4)  Erg tevreden (5)

Hoe tevreden of ontevreden bent u met uw vermogen om te voldoen aan zowel de vereisten van uw werk als die van uw persoonlijk/gezinsleven.

(48)

 Tevreden (4)  Erg tevreden (5)

Hoe tevreden of ontevreden bent u met de mogelijkheid om uw werk goed uit te voeren en daarnaast ook taken thuis adequaat uit te voeren.

 Erg ontevreden (1)  Ontevreden (2)  Neutraal (3)  Tevreden (4)  Erg tevreden (5)

Text at the end

Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek. Als u informatie wilt ontvangen over de uitkomsten van dit onderzoek dan kunt u een email sturen naar

m.hendriksen.1@student.rug.nl . Dit onderzoek wordt in juli afgerond, dus u kunt dan het verslag toegestuurd krijgen. Nogmaals bedankt voor uw deelname. Drukt u alstublieft nu nog op de pijltjes naar de laatste pagina zodat uw antwoorden worden opgeslagen.

Met vriendelijke groet,

(49)

Table 1

T-test for equality of means, for respondents with and without children

t df p 95% CI

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Role Modeling -0.01 127 .99 -.29 .29

NFL -2.21 127 .03 -.44 -.02

work-life related self-efficacy -0.90 125 .37 -.28 .10

WLB -0.82 125 .42 -.37 .15