Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Impact Of Family Friendly Policy On Employees Job Satisfaction And Turnover Intention In

Banking Industry Of Pakistan.

Ayaz Khan

Hassan Ali Khalid

Haji Usman Shahid

Usman Ashiq

National University of Modern Languages

Impact of Family Friendly Policies
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All Praise to Allah. First and foremost we thank Allah, the Generous, for having finally

made this effort a reality. we praise Him because if it were not for His Graciousness, it would

never materialize.

We extremely grateful to our course instructor Mr. M.M.Irfan, who spent a lot of

valuable time with us and gave all the related information and expertise very generously about

related courses.

We are thankful to ABL and its employees who provide the platform to complete our

research successfully, specially thanks to;

Branch Manager Operations: Yasir Zaman Kayani.

Customer Services Manager: Shahid Saleem.

Investment Consultant: Saleem Khan.

Special Thanks to Mr.Bilal Ahmed without his contribution and guidance this project

would have been impossible.

At last I, express my deepest gratitude to all those who contributed directly or indirectly

to bring this report to this final format, because I would never have been able to achieve this by

myself.

ABSTRACT
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

This is an educational research paper basically to understand the effect of job stress on

employees. The major objective of the study is to under stand the impact of family friendly

policies on job satisfaction and turnover intention in banking industry of Pakistan. We

comprehended that most of the employees wanted to have five day work policy implemented in

the bank as they are stressed out due to long working hours.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to look at the impact of family friendly policy on

employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intention in banking industry of Pakistan.

Research Questions

1) There is positive relationship between family friendly policies and employees’ job

satisfaction.

2) There is negative relationship between family friendly policies and employees’

turnover intention.

3) There is positive relationship between employee’s job satisfaction and turnover

intention.

4) Job satisfaction as a mediator between family friendly policies and turnover

intention.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Literature Review:

Rapid industrialization and economic investments have given Pakistan an exposure to better
and improved life styles and living standards. Information blast has unveiled many previously
neglected spheres of better, healthier and longer lives. At the same time, the line dividing family life
and work life has gradually blurred. Pakistan being a collectivist country, has always shared the
norms and values of male breadwinner/ female-homemaker model.

Work-Life Conflicts
Work-life conflicts exist when the line separating the work and personal/family activities
becomes diffused and blur. This work-life conflict can originate in the home or in the work
environment (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Work-life conflict is often the result of having too
many things to do and too little time in which to do them (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Voydanoff,
2002) since work schedules tend to be less flexible than personal schedules Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle
(1997). Consequently Greenhaus & Parasuraman (1999) found work is more likely the cause of
work-to-life conflicts. Work and life can not be treated as separate domains. Changes in one almost
always affect the other. Spending more time with family, for instance should require spending less
time working. The above situation becomes grimmer when according to some writers irrespective of
the antecedents of the work-life and life-work conflicts; an increase in one typically leads to an
increase in the other (Frone et al. 1997).

Organizational Culture: The quality of the social environment in the workplace is

associated with stress Cooper & Marshall (1976). The above review of literature
suggests that healthier culture makes work more enjoyable instead of strenuous thus leading
to a trivial desire to reduce work hours.

Work Hours: Work hours can be defined as, “the result of the interplay of three factors:
hours per week demanded by the employer, hours per week desired by the worker and the
institutional and legal environment”. Long work hours may impair personal health and jeopardize
safety both directly and indirectly (Spurgeon, Harrington and Cooper, 1997).
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Elder & Child Care: Leaving children at day care or home while parents work may
result in serious concerns like safety, health, learning, supervision and nurturance. The findings of
Bailyn et al., (n.d.) suggested that families alone cannot change the structure of careers nor alter the
availability of child care. And when families experience crises, whether financial or personal,
external supports are needed.
It is widely believed that workers with preschool or grade school children will be
especially interested in reducing their hours, particularly if they (like many women) are
responsible for child care and household tasks. On the contrast, the desire for fewer work hours of is
only weakly related to having children (Clarkberg & Moen, 2001; Jacobs & Gerson, 2000; or an
employed spouse (Jacobs & Gerson, 2000).

FAMILY FRIENDLY ORGANIZATIONAL POLICES

One of the most dramatic demographic changes of the past thirty years has been the surge
of women, including mothers, into the workforce. This social revolution has given rise to a
feminist critique of existing workplace structures geared to an "ideal worker" who is able and
willing to devote himself single-mindedly to paid employment (Williams 2000).

Calling for reforms that make it easier to combine employment with family life, critics
seek to create a workplace that is more welcoming to employees with family responsibilities
(Williams 2000; Hochschild 1989, 1997).The "wish list" of features for the new family-friendly
workplace includes, among other things, shorter, more predictable, and more flexible working
hours; new part-time and job-sharing options; time off for emergencies and child care;
guaranteed leave with job security for childbearing and child rearing; child care subsidies and tax
breaks; and on-sight day care options (Alstott 2004; Jacobs and Gerson 2004).

The calls for reform have created dilemmas for private actors and for governments alike.
Corporations in their function as employers must confront the issue of whether and how to ease
the difficulties employees experience in discharging their duties on the job and at home.
Governments must decide how to intervene. They must determine whether and when to enact
regulations forcing private actors to accommodate family needs (Amy 2004). Private actors and
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

governments must also grapple with how and to what extent to mitigate the disadvantages that
commonly accrue to individuals who fall short of the traditional "ideal worker" model. One
particularly nettlesome issue is how pro- posed reforms should affect compensation and
prospects for promotion and advancement. Although there is widespread acceptance that pay
should reflect hours worked, it is unclear how work rewards and career trajectories should be
adjusted to reflect differential use of family-friendly policies (Amy 2004).

In developing approaches that could show the way to family-friendly reform, one
important consideration is whether proposed workplace changes are efficient or more

efficient than existing arrangements. If the answer to this question is positive, it follows
that proposed reforms will increase net social welfare, which will make society better off overall
(Amy 2004).The workplace is a highly interactive setting. Workers and manager do not operate
in isolation. Each participant's behavior affects the well- being of others who work in the same
firm or even the same industry. Payoffs or rewards to workers depend on what other workers do
and on the range of choices that firms offer. Any particular move will tend to set off responses in
other work- place actors (Estlund 2003).

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER INTENTIONS

A concentration on determining the causes of employee intentions to stay or leave has

been one of the recent research approaches in the organizational turnover literature (Thomas &
Martin,1979) However only recently has attention been drawn to the importance of gaining an
understanding of the potential impact of job performance on employee turnover processes (Steers
& Mowday, 1981)

It is also important to consider that the significance of turnover to an organization is

dependent on the performance levels of those who stay versus those who leave (Staw, 1980).
Also as a case in point, if the organization is losing its poorer performers, turnover may indeed
be having a positive effect on overall organizational effectiveness (Ellen, 1984).
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

The study of turnover recognizes that one action for individuals who are trying to get
away from an undesirable work situation is to look first within the current organization (Alfred,
1967), and then beyond to other organizations. Recent research has supported the inclusion of
movement within as well as across organizations in turnover research (Ellen, 1984). According
to Todor (1980) evidence shows that workers transfer jobs to get away from an undesirable work
situation. Individuals who did transfer or who requested transfer were less satisfied and had a
greater intention to quit than did employees who had remained on the same job and not requested
a transfer. At certain levels of performance, job satisfaction, for example, would be more
strongly related to turnover than at other levels of performance (Ellen, 1984). However from a
practical standpoint, the potential influence of job performance in the prediction of turnover is
significant (Ellen, 1984).

The most obvious consequence of turnover is the energy and expense of finding
replacement personnel. When someone leaves an organization others must be recruited, screened
through some selection mechanism, and finally hired. If large numbers of people leave an
organization on a regular basis, the organization will most likely have adapted to this
consequence by retaining full-time specialists in recruitment and selection, thereby increasing its
administrative intensity (Kasarda, 1973).

JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction is one of the best-researched concepts in work and organizational

psychology for at least two reasons. Job satisfaction is relevant for all those who are interested in
the subjective evaluation of working conditions such as responsibility, task variety, or
communication requirements (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1980) because job satisfaction is
supposed to be strongly caused by such conditions. The significance of personality dispositions
in the development of job satisfaction has been subjected to much criticism and inspired an
intensive discussion in the literature during recent years (e.g., Arvey et al., 1989)

Measuring job satisfaction for organizational assessment, for example, work design or
organizational climate, would be questionable. Instead, based on the trait-like character of job
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

satisfaction, one would tend to follow suggestions to use individuals' job satisfaction in
personnel selection procedures (Staw et al, 1986) because highly satisfied people would be also
satisfied in the future. Job satisfaction may be affected by emotion-related personality traits
because job satisfaction has been equated with a pleasurable emotional state (Locke,1976).The
working conditions in turn affect job satisfaction. In other words, the effect of personality
dispositions on job satisfaction is mediated by working conditions. This may either take place via
self-selection and career decisions made by the individual or by selection and promotion by the
organization (Dormann & Zapf, 2001).

In contrast to other mechanisms, the usefulness of job satisfaction for evaluation purposes
is not threatened if selection due to personality dispositions applies because job satisfaction is a
reaction to working conditions (Dormann & Zapf, 2001).

Data and Methods

Methodology
Structured questionnaire (with both open-ended and close-ended questions) was designed
as research instrument. A total of 40 questionnaires were circulated in 2 different branches of
Bank ABL in Islamabad. Thirty Four questionnaires have been accounted for findings. Due to
the minimal interference at the banks, the study was conducted in a natural environment, and
therefore, can be coined as non-contrived setting or field study. As far as choice of bank for
survey is concern, non-probability convenience sampling was used. Within that convenience
sample, a purposive random sample method was employed in order to cover heterogeneity and
diversity. Interviews were also conducted with the managers of the bank and observation was
also implied as a method for conducting research.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Theoretical Frame Work

Independent
Moderating Variable

Family Friendly
Positiv
Policies
Job
1) Five day work
week Positiv

2) Flextime
Positiv
3) Family Leave
Turnover
Dependent
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

FINDINGS
Demographic variables and data analysis
Gender
Q
Gender
S.No. Q No. No.

25
D1 D1 20

1 Male 24 15 1 Male
10 2 Female 2 Female
2 Female 10
5
0 1 Male

Q No.

Age

S.No. Q No.
AGE
D2

1 Less 25 9
15 1 Less 25
2 26-30 13 2 26-30
10 c 3 31-35
3 31-35 7
4 36-over 4 36-over
5 3 31-35
4 36-over 5 2 26-30
0 1 Less 25
Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Education level Education

S.No. Q No. Q No.

18

D3 D3 16

14 1Int er
2 Dip
1 Inter 0 12
3 Bech.
10
4 Mast ers
4 Master s
2 Dip 1 8

6 3 Bech.

3 Bech. 16 4
2 Di p
2

1 Inter
4 Masters 17 0

Q No.

Marital status
S.No. Q No. Q No.
Maritial Status

D5 D5

No Child 17
18
16 1Single
One 8 14 2 Mar ried

12 3 Divorced
Two 5 10 4 Widow

8 4 Widow

Three 2 6 3 Divorced

4 2 Married
2
More 2 0 1Single

Q No.

Presence of dependent children

S.No. Q No. Q No.
Dependent Children
D6 D6

1 Less 2 13 6%
6%
2 2 to 4 7

3 5 to 7 7 15%
No Child

4 8 to 10 3 One
49% Two
Three
5 More 10 4
More

24%
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Tenure At Bank
S.No. Q No. Q No. Tenure at BANK

D6 D6

1 Less 2 13 14
Less 2
12
2 2 to 4 7 2 to 4
10
5 to 7
3 5 to 7 7 8 8 to 10
6 More 10 More 10
4 8 to 10 3 8 to 10
4
5 to 7
2 2 to 4
5 More 10 4 Less 2
0
Q No.

Family Friendly Policies

Has your company implemented the five-day work week policy in workplace?
S.No. Q No. Q No.
Five Day Work Week
A1 A1

1 Yes 1
35
2 No 33
30

25 1 Yes
20
2 No
15
2 No
10

0
1 Yes

Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

If NO, is there any plan that the policy will be implemented in your company within the
coming two years?
S.No. Q No. Q No.

A1 A1
30

1 Yes 0
25

2 Don’t 28 1 Yes
20

2 Don’t
3 No 6 15
3 No
10 3 No

5
2 Don’t

0 1 Yes
Q No.

Suppoters of Five-day Work week.

In your opinion, do you support the implementation of five-day work week policy in
the workplace?
How will you spend your leisure time during weekend?

Take care of children

Q
Children Care
S.No. Q No. No.

A2ai A2ai
10
1 Highest
1 Highest 9 8
2 High
6
2 High 7 3 Neither
4 5 Low est
3 Neither 4 3 Neither 4 Low
2

0 1 Highest 5 Low est

4 Low 7 Q No.

5 Lowest 0
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Deal with family issues/ household work

S.No. Q No. Q No. Family Issues

A2aii A2aii

1 Highest 8 12 1 Highest
10 2 High
2 High 12 8
3 Neither

6
4 Low
3 Neither 3 5 Lowest
4 4 Low 5 Low est
3 Neither
4 Low 1 2 2 High
0 1 Highest
5 Lowest 3 Q No.

Continuing Education
S.No. Q No. Q No. Continue Education

A2aiii A2aiii
12
1 Highest 4
10
1Highest
2 High 11 8
2 High

3 Neither
4 Low
6 3 Neit her
6 5 Lowest 4 Low
4 4 Low
5 Lowest
3 Neit her
3 2 2 High

0 1Highest

5 Lowest 3 Q No.

Enjoy the personal life (e.g. entertaining or gathering with friends)

S.No. Q No. Q No. Enjoy Life

A2aiv A2aiv
14

1 Highest 4 12
1 Highest
10
2 High 13 2 High
8
3 Neither
3 Neither 8 6 5 Lowest
4 Low
4 Low
4
4 Low 1 3 Neit her 5 Low est
2 2 High

0 1Highest
5 Lowest 1
Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Family Leaves

Shorter work days for family Family Leaves

S.No. Q No. Q No.
18
A3a A3a 16

14
1 Provided 18 12

10
2 Don't Know 1 8

6 3 Not Pr ovided

3 Not Provided 15 4 2 Don't Know

2
1Provided
1 Provided
0
2 Don't Know
Q No.
3 Not Provided

Compassionate leave
Q
Com passionnate Leaves
S.No. Q No. No.

A3b A3b 25

1 Provided 22 20

1 Pr ovi ded
15
Don’t 2 Don’ t Know
3 Not pr od.
10
3 Not pr od.
2 Know 5
5 2 Don’ t Know

Not 0 1 Pr ovi ded

Q No.

3 prod. 7
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Extended paid maternity leave

S.No. Q No. Q No. Maternity Leaves 1 Provided

2 Don’t
A3c A3c
16 3 Not provided
14
1 Provided 16 12

10

2 Don’t 11 8

4
3 Not prod. 6 2

Paid leave to care for sick family members

Q Paid Leaves Sick care
S.No. Q No. No.

A3d A3d 25

1 Provided 25 20

2 Don’t 1 15 1 P r ovi ded

2 Don’ t

10 3 Not pr od.
Not 3 Not pr od.

5 2 Don’ t
3 prod. 8
1 P r ovi ded
0

Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Employee Assistance Programs(EAPs)

Professional counseling .e.g. family/ career

Q No. Professional counselling

A4a
16

Provided 16 14

12 Ser i es1

10 Ser i es2

Don’t 8
Ser i es3

6
S3

Know 7 4
S2
2
S1
0
Not Q No.

Provided 11

Life skill programs. e.g: stress management

S.No. Q No. Employee Wellness
A4b

Provided 6
14

Don’t Know 14 12

10 Ser i es1
Not Ser i es2
8
Ser i es3

Provided 14 6
S3
4
S2
2

S1
0

Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Subsidized exercise or fitness centre

S.No. Q No. Subsidized exercise

A4c

Provided 4 30

Don’t Know 3 25

Series1
20
Not Series2
Series3
15
Provided 27
10 S3

S2
5

0 S1

Q No.

Flextime

Flexi Timing FLEX SCH

Q No. Q No.

A5a A5a
25

Provided 8
20

Don’t 2
15 Pr ovi ded
Don’ t
Not prod. 24 10
Not pr od.
Not pr od.

5 Don’ t

Pr ovi ded
0

Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Job sharing (several employees doing the same job)

Q No. Q No. Job Sharing
A5b A5b
25

Provided 23
20

Don’t 1
15 Provided
Not prod. 10 Don’t
10
Not pr od. Not prod.
5 Don’ t

Pr ovi ded
0

Q No.

Work at home
Q
Work at Home
S.No. Q No. No.

A5c A5c 30

1 Provided 5 25

20
P r ovi ded
2 Don’t 1 15 Don’ t

Not pr od.
10 Not pr od.
Not
Don’ t
5

3 prod. 28 0 P r ovi ded

Q No.

Part time work

Part Time
S.No. Q No. Q No.

A5c A5c
30

1 Provided 5 25

20
2 Don’t 1 Pr ovi ded

15 Don’ t
Not pr od.
Not 10 Not pr od.

Don’ t
5
3 prod. 28
Pr ovi ded
0

Q No.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Listed below are statements describing employees’ job satisfaction towards their career. For each
statement, please circle one response to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement.

All in all, I am satisfied with my working hour.

Q No. Q No.
Work Hours Satisfaction
B1 B1

Strongly Agree 6 16
14
15 Strongly Agree
Agree 12
Neither agree nor Agree 10
5 8
disagree
Neither agree nor 6
disagree Disagree
Disagree 3 4
Disagree
2
Strongly Disagree 5
0 Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
1

All in all, I am satisfied with my co-workers.

B2 B2
Co workers
Strongly
20
Agree 14
Stro ngly A gree
Agree 19 15
A gree

Neither agree Neither agree no r disagree

10
Stro ngly Disagree
Disagree
nor disagree 1
Neither agree no r Stro ngly Disagree
5 disagree
Disagree 0
Stro ngly A gree
0
Strongly
1
Disagree 0
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

All in all, I am satisfied with my supervisors.

S.No. Q No. Q No.

Supervisors
B2 B2

Strongly
20
1 Agree 16 Strongly Agree
Agree
15
2 Agree 14 Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
10
Neither agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree
Disagree

3 nor disagree 3 5 Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

4 Disagree 0 0 Strongly Agree

1
Strongly

5 Disagree 1

I am satisfied with my pay.

S.No. Q No. Q No.

Pay Satisfaction
B2 B2

1 Strongly Agree 1
20
2 Agree 16
Strongly Agree
15
Neither agree nor Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
3 disagree 9 10
Disagree
Disagree
4 Disagree 4 5 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Disagree 4 0 Strongly Agree

1
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Result
Majority of the participants were male. The major age segment was 26-30 . Major

employees has a master degree. 49% employees had no libality regarding child care. While 24%

had one child to care. Majority of the bank employees had less than two year in bank.

On asking 95% of employees said that they do not have 5 day work policy. On asking

90% of employees had know idea if 5 day week policy will be implemented in the near future.

People focuced of family issues more than any thing. How ever low age span had

education as the priority. Most people also wanted to enjoy life on the weekends.

Family leaves had a conflicting result mainly due to different departments. Where the

ratio was 2:1. Many people agreed that they get compassionate eaves.There was no consensus of

the Maternity leave issue as male participants were un aware of the policy, however majority

agreed that they get maternity leaves.There was a unanimous agreement of paid sick leaves.

Talking about professional counseling half the employees agreed that they get some sort

of professional counseling. In the form of different training courses and refresh courses. Howerer

majority disagreed that they have any sort of employee wellbeing programs. 90% of the

employees disagreed when we asked them that if the company provides fitness centers.

Flex Schedules are provided in the bank as 80% disagreed, however some departments

such as marketing department’s employees agreed that they do have flex schedule. 67% of the
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

employees highly agreed that they are provided with job sharing facility. Work at home was

unanimously disapproved as it was allow by the bank but 90% of the employees prefer finishing

their work at office. Part time jobs are not allowed. It was surprising to notice that the results

showed that many employees are satisfied with their working hours.

Employees are satisfied with their co-workers.Most of Employees are satisfied with their

supervisors. Most of employees are satisfied with their salary package, they are getting what they

are expecting.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

References

Alfred, T. M. Checkers or choice in manpower management. Harvard Business Review,

1967, 45(1), 157-169.

Alstott, Anne L. 2004. No exit: What parents owe their children and what society owes

parents. New York: Oxford University Press.

Amy L. Wax. 2004. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

Vol. 596, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding

Professions, pp. 36-61

Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ Jr, Segal NL, Abraham LM. 1989. Job satisfaction:

environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 187-192.

Bailyn, L. , Drago, R. & Kochan, T. A. (n.d.), Integrating Work and Family Life; A Holistic

Approach: A Report of the Sloan Work –Family Policy Network.

Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Appelbaum, E. 2003, “Balancing work and family: The roleof

high-commitment environments”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42, pp 168–188.

Clarkberg, M., & Moen, P. 2001. “Understanding the time-squeeze: Married couples

preferred and actual work-hour strategies”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 44, pp
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

1115-1136.

Cooper,L.C. & Marshell 1976 “Occupational Sources of Stress: a Review of the

Literature relating to Coronary Heart Disease and…”

Journal of Occupational Psychology.

Dormann, C. & Zapf, D. 2001. “Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Stabilities”, Journal

of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 483-504

Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L.1997. “Inter role conflicts and the

permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences?” Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Vol.50.

Ellen, F. Jackofsky. 1984, Turnover and Job Performance: An Integrated Process Model,

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 74-83.

Estlund, Cynthia. 2003. Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse

denmocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frone, M.R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. 1997. “Developing and testing n integrative

model of the work-family interface”, Journal of vocational behavior, Vol 50, pp 145-167.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985, “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol 10, pp 76–88.

 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. 1999. “Research on work, family, and gender:

Current status and future directions”, In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp.

391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 276

Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass.

Hochshild, Arlie. 1989. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home.

New York: Viking. . 1997. The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work.

New York: Metropolitan

Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. 2000. “Do Americans feel overworked?: Comparing ideal

and actual work time”, In T. L. Parcel & D. B. Cornfield (Eds.), Work & family: Research

informing policy (pp. 71–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, Jerry A., and Kathleen Gerson. 2004. The tiwme divide: Work, family, and

gender inequality. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kasarda, J. 0. (1973). 'Efforts of personnel turnover, employee qualifications, and

professional staff ratios on administrative intensity and overhead', Sociological Quarterly, 14,

350-358.
 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Locke EA. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational psychology, Dunnette MD (ed). Rand McNally: Chicago, IL; 1297-1349.

Martin, T. N., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. Job Performance and turnover, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1981, 66, 116-119.

Moen, P. 2001, The Career Quandary. Reports on America, Vol. 2, No. 1. Washington, DC:

Population Reference Bureau.

Staw, B. M. 1980. The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupa- tional Behavior, pp

253-273

Staw BM, Bell NE, Clausen JA. 1986. The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: a

lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 56-77.

Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. Employee turnover and the post decision

accommodation process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1981, 235-281.

Spurgeon, A., Harrington, J. and Cooper, C. 1997, “Health and Safety Problems

associated with Long working hours: a Review of the Current Position”, Occupational

and Environmental Medicine, Vol 54, pp 367-375.

 Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Thomas, N. 1979, A Contextual Model of Employee Turnover Intentions, The Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 313-324.

Todor, W. D. A movement paradox: Turnover? Transfer? Paper presented at the Annual

Academy of Management, Detroit, 1980.

Voydanoff, P. 2002. “Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family,

andindividual outcomes—an integrative model” Journal of Family Issues, Vol 23, pp 138–164.

Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do

about it. New York: Oxford University Press.