PBRI

Editorial Board

Prof. B. P. Sharma
(Editor in Chief)

Dr. Khushbu Agarwal
(Editor)

Ms. Asha Galundia
(Circulation Manager)

Editorial Team

Mr. Ramesh Modi

Archives
	2020
2019	2018
2017	2016
2015	2014
2013	2012
2011	2010
2009	2008

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

A Structural Equation Model of Work Support, Work Autonomy, Work Ambiguity and their Influence on Work Life Balance of Doctors

Author

Dr. Sakshi Sharma

Assistant Professor

MM Institute of Management

Maharishi Markandeshwar University

Ambala-Yamunanagar Highway

Mullana, Ambala, Haryana

Abstract

The present study assessed the impact of work support, work autonomy, and work ambiguity on work life balance of doctors. The path model by using data from 141 doctors employed in government hospitals of Himachal Pradesh. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was executed to confirm the fitness of data of the proposed measurement model. Convergent validly, discriminant validity along with composite reliability were estimated to ensure reliability and validity of the scales used. Finally, Structured Equation Modeling was used to test the hypothesis of the study. The findings of the study reported significant influence of work support, work autonomy on work life balance of doctors.

Keywords: Structure Equation Modelling, Work Life Balance, Work Autonomy, Work Support, Work Ambiguity, Work Life Balance Doctors

Introduction

Work-family balance is often replaced by the term work-life balance (WLB). Work life balance is much broader concept than work-family balance in the sense, that it encompasses multiple roles outside family life e.g. community, leisure and religious roles, that an individual engages in (Frone, 2003). There is no apparent agreement on the meaning of the term. Although most definitions of work life balance include the concepts of flexibility, juggling and sustainability, however it is most frequently used to describe the equilibrium between responsibilities at work and responsibilities outside paid work. In the WLB literature, Clark (2001) defines work-family balance as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum of role conflict.” Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw (2002) define work-family balance as “the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in - and equally satisfied with – his or her work role and family role.” Frone (2003) define work-life balance as “the absence of conflict between work and family or personal roles”. David, Harikrishnan and Monickam (2012) define work life balance as “a self defined, self determined state of well being that a person can reach or can set as a goal that allows them to manage effectively multiple responsibilities at work, at home and community.”

Determinants of Work Life Balance

Work autonomy is the amount of freedom given to the employees. The freedom can be in terms of scheduling the participated in the study. Total population of doctors in the Work autonomy is the amount of freedom given to the work or deciding the procedure to be used for effectively carrying out the work (Van Valdhoven, et al., 1997). to Billing, et al. (2012) noted that employees are able to achieve better work-family balance if they have adequate job autonomy in performing the duties and responsibilities associated with the job. Grzywacz and Butler (2005) found that individuals with jobs high in autonomy experienced higher levels of work-family facilitation. Grzywacz and Marks (1999) suggested in their study that resources that assist in development in work or family settings such as autonomy in job are associated with less work-family conflict. Work ambiguity occurs when employees are unclear regarding the goals, expectations or responsibilities associated with the performance of their positions. Ryan Emily and Cathy Ku (2009) identified role ambiguity as the most important determinant for work- family conflict. Michel, et al. (2011) found work role ambiguity as an antecedent to work-family-conflict. Bennett (2012) found work role ambiguity to be related to work-interference-with-family conflict. On the same note, Ryan Emily and Cathy Ku (2009) identified role ambiguity as the most important determinant for work-family conflict. Social support at work assists individuals to manage diverse role requirements by imparting solutions in order to bear the responsibilities at work (Kyoung-Ok, Wilson and Myung, 2004). Walsh (2012) reported that work to life interference was related to job burnout and management support attenuated job burnout. Also support from co-workers had beneficial effects in reducing job burnout. Thompson and Prottas (2006) found support from supervisors and co-workers to be positively related with work-to-family enrichment. Grzywacz and Marks (1999) opined that resources that assist in development in work or family settings such as support at work from colleagues and supervisors are associated with less work-family conflict. From the above review, hypothesis 1, hypothesis 2, and hypothesis 3 are formulated as:

Hypothesis of the study

Hypothesis 1:

Work support influences work life balance of doctors.

Hypothesis 2:

Work autonomy influences work life balance of doctors.

Hypothesis 3:

Work ambiguity influences work life balance of doctors.

Sampling And Instrument

The study is primarily based on primary data. Data for the study was obtained from 141 doctors working in government hospitals of Himachal Pradesh. Doctors of six public hospitals namely Kangra, Mandi, Shimla and Solan the participated in the study. Total population of doctors in the given hospitals were 503. Questionnaires were distributed ). to 215 doctors. Sampling technique used for the study was judgement sampling. 141 questionnaires were returned by the respondents yielding a response rate of 65%. A structured questionnaire was used as an instrument for the study. The items selected for the study were adopted from available scales. Work Autonomy consisted of eleven items which indicated the extent to which they employees' could control their work situation. Items were answered on a five point response scale, ranging from 0 (Never) to 4(Always). All measures were adopted from Van Valdhoven, et al. (1994). Work Ambiguity consisted of five items. The scale included 5 items, asking respondents to indicate the extent to which they are clear about the expectations or responsibilities associated with their positions, Items were answered on a five point response scale, ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always). Higher score on work ambiguity scale implied less work ambiguity i.e., clear understanding of employees' job responsibilities. All measures were adopted from Van Valdhoven, et al. (1994). Work Support consisted of four items. Caplan, et al. (1975) was used to measure the work support. In the present research perception of support from co-workers was measured. Respondents were asked to state the extent of support they received from each source on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). All measures were adopted from Caplan, et al. (1975). Work Life Balance consisted of seven items. The responses were solicited using a seven point time related scale (e.g. 1=Not at all, 4= Sometimes, and 7=All the time). All measures were adopted from Hyman (2005). The tools used for data analysis consisted of Structured Equation Modelling (SEM) including Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using AMOS 24.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A measurement model of the construct and their respective explaining variables was developed as shown in Fig 1. The variables and their constructs Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted in two steps. First, CFA was conducted for each factor of the measurement model. Step CFA was conducted for all the factors together in order to get the final measurement model. To assess model fit, multiple fit indices were used. Some of the indices used were: Chi Square test, Chi Square / df ratio, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For model improvement, indices used were: Standard Regression Weights and Modification Indices. The following acceptance values of goodness-of-fit indices were used for assessing the model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI: <.80 unacceptable, .80 to .90 acceptable, >.90 good), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI: <.80 unacceptable, .80 to .90 acceptable, >.90 good), Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA: <0.05 good; <0.10 acceptable, >0.10 poor). For model improvement, acceptable values were: Standard Regression Weights >.06 and Modification Indices <.10. After performing CFA, variables strongly defining the constructs have been retained and the variables that weekly defined the constructs were dropped. With the variables retained, SEM depicting caused and effect relationship was developed. Results for work autonomy Work autonomy consisted of eleven measurement items (WA1, WA2, WA3, W4, WA5, W6, WA7, WA8, WA9, WA10, WA11) for CFA. The result of the work autonomy is shown in Table 1.