1

WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT: UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES IN ANKARA

Assoc. Prof. Zeynep ÇOPUR*

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate work-family conflict in two directions (work to family and family to work), time, strain and behavior based conflict sources among married women and men university employees, including academic and other staff at a large state university in Ankara-Turkey. A total of 625 employees (260 women, 365 men) participated in the study via face to face survey. Results from means comparisons showed significant differences on the work-family conflict by gender and job status. Greater conflict of work to family and family to work was observed among women compared to men. Health/assistant health staff reported higher levels of conflict regarding work to family and family to work compared to other staff. OLS regression results suggest that gender and job status predicted work/family and family/work conflict, including time, strain and behavior based after controlling for selected socio-demographic, family and work characteristics.

Key words: work-family conflict, time based conflict, strain based conflict, behavior based conflict, university employees.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı Ankara’daki büyük bir devlet üniversitesinde görev yapan akademik ve idari personeli içeren evli kadın ve erkek üniversite personeli arasında, zaman, gerginlik ve davranış esaslı iki yönlü (işten aileye ve aileden işe) iş-aile çatışmasını incelemektir. Toplam 625 (260 kadın, 365 erkek) personel yüz yüze yapılan anket uygulaması ile araştırmaya katılmıştır. Ortalamaların karşılaştırılmasından elde edilen sonuçlar, cinsiyet ve iş statüsüne göre iş-aile rolleri arasında anlamlı farklılık olduğunu göstermiştir. Erkeklerle karşılaştırıldığında kadınlar arasında daha çok iş-aile ve aile-iş çatışması gözlenmiştir. Diğer personel ile karşılaştırıldığında sağlık/yardımcı sağlık personeli işten aileye ve aileden işe ilişkin daha yüksek düzeyde çatışma bildirmiştir. Ordinal Least Square Regresyon sonuçları cinsiyet ve iş statüsünün seçilen sosyo-demografik, aile ve iş özellikleri ile kontrol edildikten sonra zaman, gerginlik ve davranış temelli çatışmayı içeren iş/aile ve aile/iş çatışmasının belirleyicileri olduğunu ileri sürmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler: iş-aile çatışması, zaman temellik çatışma, gerginlik temelli çatışma, davranış temelli çatışma, üniversite personeli.

___________________________________________________________________________

*Hacettepe University, Faculty of Economic & Administrative Sciences, Department ofFamily and Consumer Sciences

2

Introduction

Two important focal points of adult life are family and work. However, the role

expectations of these two domains are not always compatible, creating conflicts between

work and family life (Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian, 1996). In recent years, research on

conflict between the different role domains of work and family has dramatically increased.

Both women’s and men’s family roles are changing. The once traditional family pattern of

breadwinner father, homemaker mother, and children is now a minority form in much of the

industrialized world (Burke, 1997; Burley, 1995; Cowerman, 1989; Lewis and Cooper, 1995;

Nieva, 1985; 162-190). For the majority of men and women today, parenthood is combined

with full-time paid work. Although having multiple roles has been found to be beneficial to

over-all well-being for both men and women (Higgins, Duxbury, and Irving, 1992;

Pietromonaco, Manus, and Frohardt-Lane, 1986) multiple roles can also lead to role conflict

and conflicts are related to negative outcomes (Pleck, Staines, and Lang, 1980), such as job

dissatisfaction, job burnout, and turnover (Burke, 1988; Frone, Russell, and Cooper, 1992;

Greenhaus, 1988; Pleck, Staines, and Lang, 1980), as well as to outcomes related to

psychological distress (e.g., depression), and life and marital dissatisfaction (Greenhaus and

Beutell, 1985; Gutek, Searle, and Klepa, 1991; Voydanoff, 1988) especially for women, given

that many working women still retain primary responsibility for the majority of housework

and childcare (Copur et al., 2009; Erkal et al., 2007; MacDonald, Phipps, and Lethbridge,

2005; Marshall, 2006).

Role conflict exists when performance in one role creates an inability to adequately

perform another role. Authors also maintain that work-family conflict increases when the

work and family roles are salient or central to the individual’s self-concept and when

powerful negative sanctions for noncompliance with role demands are inevitable (Alam,

Biswas, and Hassan, 2009; Boles, Howard, and Donofrio, 2001; Greenhaus and Beutell,

1985). Current conceptualizations emphasize the bidirectional nature of work-family conflict,

in that family demands can interfere with work responsibilities, i.e., family-to-work conflict,

and work demands can interfere with family responsibilities, i.e., work-to-family conflict

(Allen, et al., 2000; Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams, 2000; Frone, 2000).

The literature has clearly established the impact of work-family conflict on various

organizational and individual outcomes (e.g. Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991). Some of

the common results of experienced work-family conflict are increased levels of stress,

decreased performance at home and work, and decreased life and work satisfaction (Adams et

al., 1996; Allen et al., 2000; Frone et al., 1992; Higgins et al., 1992; Kelly and Voydanoff,

3

1985). As well as women, more men are valuing shorter working hours and would trade

income for shorter hours to spend time with family and achieve a more balanced life (Lewis

and Cooper, 1995). Successful executives wish that they had more time to spend at home, that

their personal lives were more fulfilling, and that they could find a way to structure their lives

differently without penalty, but they seldom act on these wishes because of the pressures of

organizational demands (Kofodimos, 1995; 2-6).

Although the increased formal participation of women in paid employment while

maintaining their traditional roles is a global phenomenon, the research into work-family

linkages that this phenomenon has precipitated, has been done mostly in Western societies.

As a result, relatively little is known about work-family linkages in non-Western societies

(Aryee, 1992; Ahmad and Skitmore, 2003). To investigate this further, therefore, using survey

data, present study investigated the levels of work-family conflict in two directions (work to

family and family to work), time, strain and behavior based conflict sources, among married

women and men university employees, including academic and other staff at a large state

university in Ankara-Turkey. Universities are in a unique position to reduce work and family

role conflict, not only because their employees experience their fare share of it, but because

universities possess the intellectual capital necessary to develop empirically-based solutions

to such practical human problems. Therefore, to the extent that work and family balance is

possible, institutions of higher education should take the lead in demonstrating how it is to be

done (Elliott, 2003).

Literature Review

Work-Family Conflict

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work/family conflict as “a form of inter role

conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually

incompatible in some respect” (p. 77). According to their model, work/family conflict is both

bi-directional and multi-dimensional. The bi-directionality comes from the concept that work

can interfere with family, and that family can interfere with work. In addition, the multi-

dimensional nature of work/family conflict occurs in each direction. Specifically, both family

interference with work and work interference with family are composed of three dimensions:

time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflict. Time-based work/family conflict arises

when the time demands from one role make it physically impossible to meet the requirements

of another role, and when preoccupation with one role’s requirements occurs, even when

physically involved in meeting the requirements of another role. Work-related sources of

conflict include hours worked and commuted per week, amount and frequency of overtime,

4

irregularity of shift work, and inflexibility in the work schedule. Family related sources

include number of children, younger children, and family size (including older relatives)

(Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams, 2000). Numerous studies

having identified the number of hours worked per week as a strong predictor of time-based

conflict (Burke, Weir, and Duwors, 1980; Keith and Schafer, 1980; Pleck et al., 1980;

Netemeyer et al., 1996; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Frone, Yardley, and Markel, 1997;

Gutek et al., 1991; Judge et al, 1994),

Strain-based work/family conflict is derived from role-produced strain, when strain

from one role interferes with fulfilling responsibilities in another role (Greenhaus and Beutell,

1985). For example, employees who suffer from depression or tension will find it difficult to

be an attentive partner or loving parent (Greenhaus et al., 2000; 286-320) thus strain-based

conflict can contribute to work-family conflict in both directions (Haar and Spell, 2001).

Work related sources of strain-based conflict include work-role ambiguity, intra role work

conflict, low levels of leader support, and high physical and psychological demands. Family-

related sources include lack of spousal support, husband-wife dissimilarity in career

orientation, husband-wife disagreement about family roles, child care arrangements, and

husband-wife dissimilarity in attitudes towards a wife’s employment status (Greenhaus and

Beutell, 1985; Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams, 2000; Wallace, 1999).

Behavior-based work/family conflict occurs when behavior in one role may be

incompatible with expectations for behavior in another role. Work-related antecedents include

work ambiguity and work involvement, and family related antecedents include family-role

ambiguity, intra-family role conflict, social support, and family role involvement (Greenhaus

and Beutell, 1985; Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams, 2000).

Some earlier studies have concentrated on the compatibility of role expectations

(Frone et al., 1992; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Carlson and Kacmar, 2000). For example,

Netemeyer et al. (1996) suggests that as most workers report family is more important than

work, they would expect work-family conflict to be greater than family-work conflict.

Gender’s effect on work-family conflict also has been considered in previous studies.

While some studies report few differences between men’s and women’s level of work-family

conflict (Blanchard-Fields, Chen, and Hebert, 1997; Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; Frone and

Rice, 1987; Wallace, 1999). Other studies have found that women experience higher levels of

work-family conflict than do men (Duxbury, Higgins and Lee, 1994; Frone et al., 1992;

Gutek, Searle, and Klepa, 1991; Simon, 1995), some other studies found that no difference

between men and women regarding work-to-family and family-to-work (Janzen, Muhajarine,

5

and Kelly, 2007; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998). Apperson et al. (2002) found that women

managers experienced higher levels of work-family conflict and work role overload.

However, the levels of work to family conflict were unexpectedly similar between women

and men managers. Cinamon and Rich (2002) also found that women were higher in level and

frequency of work/family conflict and ascribed more importance to family/work conflict than

men.

The explanation commonly given for differences in levels of work-family conflict is

that women view family as their primary obligation and attach more meaning to their

parenting role than to their work role (Simon, 1995).

The work-family literature has traditionally assumed that variables associated with the

family domain (e.g. childcare, household work, spousal supportiveness) predict family to

work conflict (FWC), and that work domain variables (e.g. hours worked weekly, job

autonomy) predict work to family conflict (WFC) (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Beauregard ,

2006).

It is concluded that child care arrangements is a source of strain-based conflict

(Wallace, 1999). Both women and men are reported to spend almost one-half of their time at

work unproductively due to childcare problems (Fernandez, 1986). Satisfaction with childcare

support leads to lower levels of WFC (Bedeian, Burke, and Moffett, 1988), as well as better

concentration at work and enhanced job performance and satisfaction (Aryee and Luk, 1996).

Increased spousal support is shown to be associated with lower levels of WFC (Aryee et al.,

1999; Burke and Greenglass, 1999; Erdwins, Buffardi, and Casper, 2001; Rosenbaum and

Cohen, 1999), and particularly influential in reducing FWC (Adams et al., 1996; Thomas and

Ganster, 1995).

Researchers suggesting that work-family conflict are a bi-directional construct (Frone,

Russell and Cooper, 1992; Gutek, Searle, and Klepa, 1991; O'Driscoll, Ilgen, and Hildreth,

1992; Williams and Alliger, 1994; Stephens and Sommer, 1996; Adams, King, and King,

1996; Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian, 1996). That is, work may interfere with the family

domain (WFC) and family may interfere with the work domain (FWC). In the WFC, the

demands of work interfere with the performance of family responsibilities, whereas in FWC,

familial demands interfere with the performance of work-related responsibilities (Aycan and

Eskin, 2005). This paper also consider conflict bi-directionally and uses the term work to

family conflict (WFC) to refer to work interfering with family life, and family to work

conflict (FWC) to refer to family life interfering with work. This study will examine time,

strain and behavior-based sources of conflict.

6

The Turkish Context

As Aycan and Eskin (2005) write, Turkey is a country that bridges east and west

geographically, as well as culturally. The country is in a state of economic and cultural

transition. Although 98% of the Turkish population is Muslim, Turkey has officially been a

secular state since the early 1920s with the adoption of the Parliamentary Democratic

Government System. After the end of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic

started the era of modernization in Turkey with a strong emphasis on liberalization and the

emancipation of women. Entry into the professions by women was very important in the

modernization of the Republic (Aycan and Eskin 2005). The population of Turkey is 72 561

312, as on December 31, 2009. 50. 3% of the total population is men (36.462.470 persons) and

49.7% is women (36.098.842 persons) (Turkstat, 2010).

Turkey varies in social and cultural structure, with ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ life

styles co-existing simultaneously within the society. Family ties are still strong and influential

in the formation of values, attitudes, aspirations, and goals. The mean household size in

Turkey is 4 persons, varying from an average of 3.8 persons in the urban areas to 4.2 persons

in rural areas. The majority of the population in Turkey has attended school. Among the

population with schooling, about one-third of both males and females have completed at least

second level primary school. The proportion of population with at least high school education

is 26 percent for males and 18 percent for females (Institute of Population Studies 2008).

Labor force participation rate was 48.8% in the period of June 2009, 71.1 % of men and 27.4

% of women. Labor force participation rate of persons with higher education was 82.9 % for

men while it was 70.4 % for women (Turkstat, 2009). With the increasing involvement of

women in the workforce, cultural values and norms with respect to gender roles have been

undergoing a rapid transition. Women and men in professional jobs are trying to adjust to the

“modern” norms of gender roles while keeping the traditional values of familialism and

collectivism intact. This transition makes Turkey a unique cultural context in which to study

work/family conflict (Aycan and Eskin, 2005).

There is less research on Turkish work-family conflict; some earlier research had

noted that both men and women allowed greater interference from WF than from FW and

women experienced more WFC than did men. Authors also reported that spousal support was

associated with lower FWC rather than WFC. However, childcare support was not related to

FWC (Aycan and Eskin, 2005). Recent research developed and tested a model to investigate

the effects of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on two organizationally valued

job outcomes, job performance and turnover intentions. Also examined in the study was the

7

role of gender as a moderator of the relationships in the model. Authors found that gender

moderates the relationship between family-work conflict and job performance and, the

relationship is stronger among female employees (Yavas, Babakus, and Karatepe, 2008).

Carikci (2002) indicated that work- family conflict was more prevalent than family-work

conflict for Turkish managers and women experienced higher while men experienced

moderate amounts of work- family conflict, but both of two sexes reported lower levels of

family-work conflict. There were significant differences between the sexes in the experience

of work-family conflict: the level of WFC was higher for women than men. But for FWC

there were no significant differences.

Research Purpose and Hypotheses

The current research aims to (a) assess and compare conflict about work-family (WF)

and family-work (FW) among a group of Turkish employees by gender and job status; (b)

examine the relations between these conflict and the characteristics of employees in each

setting, particularly as they relate to gender and job status; and (c) assess the links between

predictors of conflict about work-family and family-work, particularly conflict about time,

strain and behavior based differ significantly among both gender and job status. Based on

findings from earlier research (Apperson et al., 2002; Duxbury, Higgins, and Lee, 1994;

Elliott, 2003, Gutek et al., 1991), current study hypothesized that women employees would

report the highest levels of WFC and FWC owing to their tendency to have more

responsibilities in the family domain. Furthermore, the proportion of home-related role and

responsibilities one performs, the number of child care responsibilities one reports, and non-

presence of spousal supportiveness are all examined as potential predictors of increased WFC

and FWC when controlling for socio-demographic and work characteristics variables. This

study also hypothesized that academic and health/assistant health employees would report the

highest levels of WFC and FWC due to their more workload and more work to take home or

complete on the weekends for academic staff. Income, working years, working hours, spouse’

working status, home-related roles and child care responsibilities, and spousal supportiveness

are likely to be connected with WFC and FWC when controlling for other variables.

Method

Data and Sample

Participants of this study consisted of employees at the central campus and Beytepe

campus of Hacettepe University, Ankara. A complete list of employees (academic staff,

administrative, technical, health/assistant health, and maintenance staff) was obtained from

the Human Resources Office (HRO) of the university. The lists included names, area of

8

employment, demographic and contact information. This research focuses on WFC and FWC

of individuals who are married. According to HRO’ lists; the total population of married staff

at Hacettepe University’s was 5.058. The sample size was determined according to the

Random Sampling Method and n=625 was found (academic staff= 32.0%, administrative

staff= 34.4%, health/assistant health staff =4.0%, maintenance staff=16.2%, and technical

staff= 13.4 %). Random number tables were used to select the participants.

Participants were contacted in person and surveys were given individually. Upon

arrival at their work sites, and following the researcher’s self-introduction, the purpose of the

study was explained. Participants were also informed that participation in the study was

voluntary. After obtaining their consent, the survey packets, which subjects read and

completed on their own, were distributed, and then researchers collected all surveys once they

were completed. None of the contacted individuals refused to participate. Data were collected

June-July 2006.

The more than half (58.4%) of the sample was men, 41.6% were women. The ages of

the participants ranged from 20-63 years (M = 39.11 years, SD =7.46) with a 46.2% 30-39

years old, which is demographically similar to the population. Majority had college or higher

degree (57.4%). With respect to the spouses of those interviewed, 50.7% had college or

higher degree. The working years of the participants ranged from 1-44 years (M = 14.35

years, SD =7.41) with an 89.0% working full-time (40 hrs/week). With respect to the spouses

of those interviewed, 63.7% worked, 32.5% did not work, and 3.8% were retired.

Examination of data revealed that the marriage duration was 11 or more (59.4%) years;

almost all of them (94.6%) lived in nuclear families. Most of (88.6%) have children and

86.6% of them had 1 or 2 children; and 38.2% of the sample had 6-11 years old child, with

the youngest child’ ages ranged from 1-38 years (M = 9.74 years, SD =7.05). The family size

of the participants ranged from 2-7 (M = 3.5 person, SD =.94). The participant’s monthly

income was obtained via an open-ended item and the mean monthly income was determined

to be 2,053 TL (1 U.S. dollar is equivalent to about 1.50 TL, as of 2006). According to a

study by the Memur-Sen (Employee Trade Union) Research and Development Center in

August 2006, the starvation line is approximately 708.05 YTL, while the poverty line is

1956.90 YTL (Memur-Sen, 2006). Thus, the sample group consisted of middle

socioeconomic level families.

Measurement of Variables

Independent Variables

Socio-demographic variables: This study involved information about the participants’

9

personal characteristics such as age, gender, participants’ level of education, spouse’s level of

education, length of marriage, number of children, age of children, family type, family size.

These characteristics were selected according to the research literature and their potential

effects on the results. Descriptive statistics on dependent variables are clustered according to

personal characteristics.

Work characteristics variables: Work characteristics variables were measured using

monthly income, working status, spouse’ working status, working years, working hours per

week.

Home-related roles and responsibilities: This section was used to find out how

effective the participants were performing home-related tasks. Participants were asked to

indicate “how much of the daily housework do you do?” Responses included “none of it” (1)

to “all of it” (5). It was asked whether they have or not home-related work helper at home

helping the family with housework. Responses included “everyday”, “once a week”, “once a

two week”, “once a month”, and “no”. For the analysis 5 categories were combined as 3

categories (“none of it”, “some”, “all of it”). It was also asked whether they have elderly

and/or handicap dependents that need help and support at home. Responses included “yes” or

“no”.

Spouse supportiveness: Spouse supportiveness was measured with the question “How

much do you agree that my spouse is someone I can turn to for support and understanding

when things get rough.” Responses included “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”, and

“strongly agree” (Elliott, 2003). For the analysis “strongly disagree” and “disagree”

categories were combined as “disagree” and “agree” and “strongly agree” categories

combined as “agree”.

Child care responsibilities: This section included 5 questions on child care

responsibilities. The items of the child care responsibilities used by Ahmad and Skitmore

(2003) were utilized for the scale, i.e., “I will take time off from work and be with my children

if they are sick and has to be cared for at home.” After the items of the scale were prepared,

field experts were consulted and the adequacy of the scale in terms of quantity and quality

was improved. To this end, necessary corrections and reorganization were performed in line

with the experts’ suggestions. The scale was Likert-type with answers of always, seldom, and

never. The answers were scored 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Items were reverse-coded so that

lower scores reflect lower levels of child care responsibility and higher scores reflect higher

levels of child care responsibility. A participant can score from 5 to 15 on the scale. Scores on

the child care responsibilities were computed by adding numerical responses for each of five

10

items, then dividing the total by five. Resulting scores could range from 1 to 3 (highest levels

of child care responsibility). The average mean child care responsibilities score for Turkish

sample was 12.97 (SD=1.86), which indicated that higher levels of responsibility for child

care.

Principal Component Factor Analysis with a Varimax Rotation was used for validity

analysis. Before engaging in factor analysis, however, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value

was computed to see if the data would be appropriate for factor analysis. Since the Bartlett’s

test of sphericity (²=342.9, df=10, p<.001) and KMO value for the inventory was found to be

0.70, it was concluded that factor analysis would be appropriate. The factor loading of each

item ranged between .52 and .79. All 5 items had positive loading on the factor. Almost 41%

of the total variance was explained by the one factor extracted. The maximum likelihood

confirmatory factor analysis also performed for IFDFW scale using the LISREL 8.80

program. Goodness- of-fit indices (²=23.11, df=5, GFI=.99, CFI=.96, AGFI=.96,

RMSEA=.076) suggest that the 1-factor model has an excellent fit for Turkish sample.

Cronbach alpha internal consistency reliability was calculated to be .64. These results can be

accepted as proof for the validity and reliability of the items, and thus, of the scale.

Dependent Variable

Work–family conflict: Turkish version of work–family conflict scale was used

developed by Carlson et al. (2000) to measure work–family conflict. Permission to use this

inventory was obtained from Carlson. Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) have both

addressed the need for rigorous test development and the multidirectional/dimensional nature

of work/family conflict. This scale, which was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly

disagree and 5 = strongly agree), consisted of six dimensions representing the two directions

of conflict work to family (WIF) and family to work (FIW) as well as three different forms

(time, strain, and behavior). Nine items represent each direction with three items representing

time based (TBWIF, TBFIW), strain-based (SBWIF, SBFIW), and behavior based (BBWIF,

BBFIW) conflict with a total 18 items. An example SBFIW item is ‘‘Because I am often

stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work.’’ All

items were coded so that a higher score indicated higher levels of work-family conflict. In the

original scale the alpha reliabilities for the six dimensions are as follows: TBWIF = .84;

TBFIW = .76; SBWIF = .79; SBFIW = .75; BBWIF = .73; BBFIW = .64. Validity and

reliability tests for the scale have also been carried out in Turkish sample, where it has been to

be statistically appropriate for use in data collection.

11

Principal Component Factor Analysis with a Varimax Rotation was used for validity

analysis to determine model fit between US and Turkey. Initially, principal component

factoring with a Varimax Rotation and a forced six factor solution was used to determine if

the sample factor patterns matched those espoused in US (see, Appendix A). Before engaging

in factor analysis, however, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was computed to see if the

data would be appropriate for factor analysis. Since the Bartlett’s test of sphericity

(²=5690.3, df=153, p<.001) and KMO value for the inventory was found to be 0.90, it was

concluded that factor analysis would be appropriate. Results indicated that a six-factor

solution fit the data from Turkey. The factor loading of each item ranged between .65 and .86.

All 18 items had positive loading on the factor. Almost 74% of the total variance was

explained by the six factors extracted. The maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis

also performed for IFDFW scale using the LISREL 8.80 program (see, Appendix B).

Goodness- of-fit indices (²=369.44, df=120, GFI=.94, CFI=.98, AGFI=.91, RMSEA=.057)

suggest that the 6-factor model has an excellent fit for Turkish sample. These results can be

accepted as proof for the validity of the items, and thus, of the scale. In order to test the

reliability of the measure, Cronbach’s Alpha was selected. Cronbach alpha reliabilities for

the six dimensions was calculated to be for TBWIF = .84; for TBFIW = .79; for SBWIF =

.81; for SBFIW = .86; for BBWIF = .75; and for BBFIW = .84. This result suggests that the

inner consistency of the inventory is high. Individual scores can range from 18 (1 point on

each question) to 90 (5 points on each question). Scores on the Work-Family Conflict were

computed by adding numerical responses for each of eighteen items, then dividing the total by

eighteen. Resulting scores could range from 1 (lowest work-family conflict) to 5 (highest

work-family conflict). The average mean work-family conflict score for Turkish sample was

2.27 (SD= .69), which indicated that moderate work-family conflict. The scales was originally

developed in English and translated into Turkish (including back-translation) to check for

consistency and accuracy.

Data Analysis

Data analysis began with calculating descriptive for all independent variables

separately by gender. T-tests and Chi-square tests were used to identify statistically significant

differences between women and men respondents in each data set. Independent sample t-tests

and one-way ANOVAs were then used to compare mean values on the work-family conflict

by gender and job status. When the F-test indicated significant (.05) mean differences by job

status on a given variable, the Scheffe multiple comparison test was used to isolate the

specific between-category means that were significantly different. Finally, Ordinary Least

12

Squares (OLS) Regression analyses was computed to test whether observed gender and job

status differences in respondent’ conflicts remained statistically significant after controlling

for socio-demographic and work characteristics, home-related roles and responsibilities, child

care responsibilities and spousal supportiveness and interactions was tested between gender

and job status. For the regressions, some dummy variables had to be created for categorical

variables. Before running regression, data were checked for assumption of regression analysis

(multi-colinearity and autocorrelation) and were found fit for the procedure. These results are

presented in Tables 1-4. For all analyses, SPSS 18.0 for Windows was used.

Results

Bivariate Results

Comparing Employees’ Profile by Gender

Table 1 presents characteristics of both women and men. The sample was composed of

58.4% men and 41.6% women. Of these, 41.2% of women academic staff and 38.1% of

administrative staff, 31.8% of men administrative staff and 25.5% of men academic staff

p<.001), 74.6% of women had college or higher degree and 54.8% of men had

high school or less educational levels p<.001), and 93.8% of women’ and 42.2%

of men’ spouse are working .692, p<.001). As can be seen from the table, the mean

age of men was slightly higher than that of women (t=6.848, p<.001). There were also

significant differences in income (t=9.098, p<.001), age t.848, p<.001), working years

(t=4.745, p<.001), and spouse’ educational levels (.599, p<.001) between women and

men. Although the vast majority of both women and men did not have home-related work

helper and dependent, there were also significant differences on having home-related work

helper and dependent by gender (.680, p<.001; .427, p<.01). For child care

responsibilities, women had an average score of 2.75 and men had an average score of 2.49

(t=-8.426, p<.001), indicating that women had significantly more child care responsibilities

than men. For housework, although majority of women employees reported doing all of it

(77.7%) compared to men (8.2%), men employees reported doing some (56.2%) compared to

women (21.2%) (6.913, p<.001).

Insert Table 1 about here

Comparing Employees’ Work-Family Conflict Topics by Gender and Job Status

A comparison of the WFC and FWC, for both the individual items and combined

indices, is summarized in Table 2. The averages for specific items are listed the total samples

and for men and women, along with the averages for the combined indices. Overall, women

13

have more WFC and FWC compared to men, on each item separately and the combined

indices. A mean comparison of the combined indices revealed that both men and women

experienced higher WFC than FWC.

Insert Table 2 about here

With regard to conflict of time-based work interference with family in general

(TBWIF), women reported more conflict than Turkish men on all of the items and the overall

index, but there were no gender differences among employees in Ankara. On strain-based

work interference with family (SBWIF), women employees reported significantly higher

levels of conflict than men, both overall index and all items. With regard to behavior-based

work interference with family also (BBWIF), women reported significantly more conflict than

men on the overall index and all items.

With regard to time-based family interference with work (TBFIW), an exception was

the statement that, “The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work

responsibilities” women reported more conflict than men on the overall index and all items,

though there were no significant difference between women and men. Again, with regard to

strain-based family interference with work (SBFIW), an exception was the statement that,

“Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on

my work” women reported more conflict than men on the overall index and all items, though

there were no significant gender difference. With regard to behavior-based family interference

with work (BBFIW) women reported more conflict than men on all of the items and the

overall index, but there were no gender differences between men and women.

Among Turkish women, the lower levels of conflict with the statement, “Because I am

often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work”

(with averages of 1.95 points out of 5) and among Turkish men, the lower levels of conflict

with the statement, “Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do

my job” (with averages of 1.91 points out of 5) related to lower levels of strain-based family

interference with work subscale. The largest difference between samples was on the

statement, “When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family

activities/responsibilities” related to strain-based work interference with family, Turkish

women reported much more conflict with this statement than men.

Table 3 presents a comparison of the WFC and FWC, for both the individual items and

combined indices by job status. The results reveal that generally, health/assistant health staff

experiences more WFC and FWC compared to other staff, on each item separately and the

combined indices. Particularly, work interference with family items and the combined indices.

14

Insert Table 3 about here

Health/assistant health staff reported significantly more conflict than other staff on

average (i.e., higher scores) regarding TBWIF on both the overall index and on each

component items. An exception was the statement, “Due to all the pressures at work,

sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do things I enjoy” health/assistant health

staff reported more conflict than other staff on average regarding SBWIF on both the overall

index and on each component items. Again, with regard to BBWIF, health/assistant health

staff reported more conflict than other staff on the overall index and all items, though there

was no significant job status difference.

With regard to TBFIW, the only job status difference is that academic staff reported

significantly more conflict with the statement that “The time I spend with my family often

causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career.” With

regard to SBFIW, though maintenance staff reported more conflict than other staff on the

overall index and all items, there was significant difference with the statements that “Due to

stress at home, I often preoccupied with family matters at work” and “Because I am often

stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work.” All

employees’ responses were similar, though maintenance staff experiences less conflict than

other staff with regard to BBFIW on both the overall index and on each component items.

Multivariate Results

Relationship between Work-Family Conflict and Gender and Job Status

Table 4 summarizes the results of OLS regressions predicting each of the indices of

conflict about WFC and FWC for Turkish sample. As seen in table 4, Turkish employees’

TBWIF was significantly related to job status, spouse’ educational levels, working hours,

income, child care responsibilities and spousal supportiveness. Health/assistant health staff

reported significantly higher levels of TBWIF than academic staff. Employees whose spouse

has high school or less educational levels reported significantly lower levels of TBWIF than

employees whose spouse has college or more educational levels. Income was negatively

related to TBWIF. Employees with the higher income had significantly lower levels of

TBWIF than those with the lower income. As expected, working hours was positively related

to TBWIF. Employees who work more had significantly higher levels of TBWIF than those

work less hours a week. Interestingly, child care responsibilities were negatively related to

TBWIF. Employees who have more child care responsibilities had significantly lower levels

of TBWIF than those have less child care responsibilities. Spousal supportiveness was also

negatively related to TBWIF. Employees who reported presence of supportive spouse had

15

significantly lower levels of TBWIF than those who reported non-presence of supportive

spouse. Interaction terms with gender and job status were tested, but none were statistically

significant.

Insert Table 4 about here

With regard to SBWIF, consistent with the expectation, men employees reported

significantly lower levels of SBWIF than women employees. Spousal working status was

positively related to SBWIF. Employees whose spouse retired reported significantly higher

levels of SBWIF than employees whose spouse not working. Income again was negatively

related to SBWIF. Employees with the higher income had significantly lower levels of

SBWIF than those with the lower income. Child care responsibilities were negatively related

to SBWIF too. Employees who have more responsibilities reported significantly lower levels

of SBWIF than those who have fewer responsibilities (model a). Health/assistant health and

maintenance staff reported significantly higher levels of SBWIF than academic staff. It was

found a statistically significant two-way interaction between gender and technical staff:

technical staff had a stronger, positive relation with SBWIF among men than among women.

This result indicates that men technical staff experiences more SBWIF than do women

technical staff (model b).

BBWIF significantly related to gender, working hours and child care responsibilities.

As expected men employees reported significantly lower levels of BBWIF than women

employees. Employees who work more had significantly higher levels of BBWIF than those

who work less hours a week. Again, child care responsibilities were negatively related to

BBWIF. Employees who have more responsibility about children reported lower levels of

BBWIF than those who have less responsibility (model c). Being a maintenance staff was

associated with more BBWIF as compared to being an academic staff. The interaction terms

reveal that being maintenance staff was associated with less BBWIF for men than for women

(model d).

With regard to family interference work’ subscales, spouse’ working status, age of

smallest child, child care responsibilities and spousal supportiveness were significantly

related to TBFIW. Employees whose spouse retired were reported significantly higher levels

of TBFIW than employees whose spouse not working. Age of smallest child was negatively

related to TBFIW. Employees with older smallest child were reported significantly lower

levels of TBFIW than those with younger smallest child. Employees who have more

responsibility about child care reported significantly lower levels of TBFIW than those who

have less responsibility. Spousal support was also negatively related to TBFIW. Similarly

16

with TBWIF, employees who reported presence of supportive spouse had significantly lower

levels of TBFIW than those who reported non-presence of supportive spouse (model e).

Administrative and technical staff reported significantly lower levels of TBFIW than

academic staff. However, the interaction terms reveal that being administrative and technical

staff was associated with more TBFIW for men than for women (model f).

SBFIW significantly related to gender and child care responsibilities. As expected

men employees reported significantly lower levels of SBFIW than women employees. Child

care responsibilities were negatively related to SBFIW. Employees who have more

responsibility about their children reported lower levels of SBFIW than those who have less

responsibility (model g). Maintenance staff had significantly higher levels of SBFIW than

academic staff. However, the interaction terms reveal that being maintenance staff was

associated with less SBFIW for men than for women (model h).

With regard to BBFIW, working hours, spouse’ working status and childcare

responsibilities significantly related to BBFIW. Employees who work more had significantly

higher levels of BBFIW than those who work less hours a week. Employees whose spouse is

working reported significantly higher levels of BBFIW than employees whose spouse not

working. However, employees who have more responsibility about child care reported

significantly lower levels of BBFIW than those who have less responsibility (model i). It was

found a statistically significant two-way interaction between gender and maintenance staff:

maintenance staff had a stronger, negative relation with BBWIF among men than among

women. This result indicates that men maintenance staff experiences less BBWIF than do

women maintenance staff (model j). Two-way interaction term with child care responsibility

and gender was tested for six subscales, but none were statistically significant.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study analyzed the determinants of WFC and FWC among women and men

university employees. It explored effects of socio-demographic, family and work

characteristics, and tested for differences in effects by gender and by job status. An interesting

aspect of this result is the low mean scores for both WFC and FWC, suggesting that

employees within this university on average, experience minor forms of conflict at both the

workplace and home, the reported level of WFC (M=2.37) greater than FWC (M=2.16) for

both men and women indicated that with the home producing less conflict than the workplace.

However, these findings are typical of other work-family conflict studies (using a 5-point

scale) where WFC has been found to be larger than FWC scores (Aycan and Eskin, 2005;

17

Haar and Spell, 2001; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Gutek et al., 1991; Judge et al., 1994;

Rotondo, Carlson, and Kincaid, 2003).

Overall, this study found that among employees, the highest levels of conflict

experienced with the strain-based work interference with family and the lowest levels of

conflict experienced with the strain-based family interference with work. In conformity with

the developed hypothesis, greater conflict of WF and FW was observed among women

compared to men. Bivariate relationship between gender, job status, and WFC and FWC, for

both the individual items and combined indices were proposed and explored using mean-

comparison techniques. Consistent with earlier research (Aycan and Eskin, 2005; Gutek et al.,

1991, Carlson et al., 2000; Keene and Reynolds, 2005; Nielson, Carlson, and Lankau, 2001;

Rotondo, Carlson, and Kincaid, 2003), for overall index women reported significantly higher

WFC (for women M=2.50, for men M= 2.28) than men, though women reported higher FWC

(for women M=2.20, for men M= 2.16) than men, there is no significant gender difference

with regard to FWC. However, Janzen, Muhajarine, and Kelly (2007) found that men and

women reported similar work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. The results partly

support to the expectation that among employees who were health/assistant health reported

higher levels of conflict regarding WF and FW compared to other staff. In contrast to the

expectation, maintenance staff experienced more conflict than academic staff regarding WF

and FW.

OLS regression was used to identify the relationship of gender, job status and WFC

and FWC after controlling for other factors. The results highlight a number of factors related

to WFC and FWC. Gender and job status predicted WFC and FWC, including time, strain and

behavior based after controlling for selected socio-demographic, family and work

characteristics. Furthermore, employees’ WFC and FWC tended to be related to gender, job

status, spouse’ educational levels, working hours, spouse’ working status, age of smallest

child, monthly income, childcare responsibilities and spousal supportiveness.

The research revealed that women, whether academic or other staff, experienced

significantly more SBWIF, BBWIF and SBFIW than men. No differences across gender for

TBWIF, TBFIW and BBFIW were found. This finding suggest that traditional gender role

expectations of women to assume greater family responsibility lead women to perceive more

WFC and FWC than men regardless of actual level of responsibility. Our findings are

consistent with those of Rotondo et al. (2003), who concluded women reported more SBFIW

and SBWIF conflict than men. Carlson et al. (2000) found that females indicated significantly

higher mean scores on all three forms of family interference with work (time, strain,

18

behavior), as well as strain-based work interference with family. However, Herst (2003)

indicated that significant gender differences only exist for TBWIF and TBFIW, where males

reported higher levels of conflict than females.

In partly conformity with the developed hypotheses, in the current study employees

who were health/assistant health staff significantly reported more TBWIF and SBWIF than

academic staff. Furthermore, in the interaction model maintenance staff reported significantly

more SBWIF, BBWIF and SBFIW than academic staff. The results indicate that gender gap

among employees widened with job status. Men who were technical staff experienced more

SBWIF and TBFIW than their women colleagues, and men administrative staff experienced

more TBFIW than their women colleagues. However, women who were maintenance staff

experienced more BBWIF, SBFIW and BBFIW than their men colleagues.

Within selected socio-demographic variables, spouse’ educational levels was

negatively related to TBWIF, employees whose spouse have high school or less degree

significantly associated with lower levels of TBWIF. Consistent with the expectation, age of

smallest child was negatively related to TBFIW, having an older child significantly associated

with lower levels of TBFIW.

Three of the four work characteristics were significantly related to FWC and WFC.

While the average working week is only 40.6 hours among participants, working hours was

significantly associated with higher levels of TBWIF, BBWIF and BBFIW. This suggests that

hours worked, as a conflict source, may be bi-directional. This result partly concurs with

working hours correlated significantly with WFC in other research (Haar and Spell, 2001;

Netemeyer et al., 1996). Higher levels of conflict regarding TBWIF, SBWIF and TBFIW was

significantly endorsed by employees whose spouse retired compared to those whose spouse

not working. Conversely, greater experience of conflict regarding BBFIW appeared among

employees whose spouse working. Income was negatively related to TBWIF and SBWIF.

This result indicates that higher income reduced conflict regarding TBWIF and SBWIF.

Some of family situations are associated with lower levels of FWC and WFC. It is

interesting that, in contrast to previous research, current study found that child care

responsibilities negatively related to WFC and FWC. Having more parental responsibility

about their child significantly associated with lower levels of two directions and six

dimensions of work-family conflict. Individuals who are satisfied with their roles as parents

are experience less likely to WFC and FWC. This result did not confirm the findings of

previous studies cited in the literature. For example, Elliott (2003) indicated that child care

problems were significantly associated with higher levels of work and family role strain for

19

men and women, and academic and other staff alike. However, Aycan and Eskin (2005)

found that childcare support was not related to FWC. This result suggests that for Turkish

sample, parenthood is still regarded as a central part of marriage and a good life. It can be said

that participants who are satisfied with their roles as parents are less likely to experience WFC

and FWC. Thus, work and family conflict may not result from the demands of child care. In

partly consisted with the expectation, spousal supportiveness negatively related to TBWIF

and TBFIW, suggesting that spousal supportiveness reduced TBWIF and TBFIW.

The results of this study help to further document understanding of three forms (time,

strain and behavior based) two directions and six dimensions of (TBWIF, SBWIF, BBWIF,

TBFIW, SBFIW and BBFIW) work-family conflict (WIF and FIW) in a developing country

like Turkey. Several limitations must be kept in mind in interpreting these results. The main

limitation of the present study is sample structure. The study sample included only employees

at single, state university, which limits the generalizability of the results. Hacettepe is one of

the most respected universities in Turkey and is located in Ankara, the capital city.

Participants were relatively young, married, and university employees, who were middle and

upper–middle class.

In addition, not all possible reason of work and family conflict were measured in the

study, such as support from colleagues, leader support and dissatisfaction with working

places. Different findings may have been obtained if study carried out nonurban and various

labor forces. In the future, more research and different samples will be needed regarding

performing work-family conflict so that results can be applied to different work places

(government or private sector) in Turkey. However, provides unique data and insights on

distinct, university based groups which are theoretically play a pivotal role in society in

training the next generation of employees. The findings of this study would also be of interest

to policy makers in Turkey. The present analysis provided some initial findings towards

understanding the extent to which working men and women experience conflict between the

work and family roles in university employee. Organizations need to establish policies and

practices that offer support for both work and family demands and that help employees reduce

the stress and strain caused by the juggling of work and home responsibilities (Greenhaus and

Beutell, 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1992; Thomas and Ganster, 1995).

20

References

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., and King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411-420. Ahmad, S., and Skitmore, M. (2003). Work-family conflict: A survey of Singaporean workers. Singapore Management Review, 25, 35-52. Alam, M. S., Biswas, K., and Hassan,K. (2009). A test of association between working hour and work familyconflict: A glimpse on Dhaka’s female white collar professionals. International Journal of Business and Management, 4, 27-35. Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.H., Bruck, C.S., and Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work to family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, 5, 278-308. Apperson, M., Schmidt,H., Moore, S., Grunberg, L., and Greenberg, E. (2002). Women managers and the experience of work- family conflict. American Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1, 9-16. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813-837. Aryee, S., and Luk, V. (1996).Work and nonwork influences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 38–52. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., and Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259-278. Aycan, Z., and Eskin, M. (2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work-family conflict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53, 453-471. Beauregard A.T. (2006). Are Organizations Shooting themselves in the foot? Work place contribution to family-to–work conflict. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 336-353. Bedeian, A.G., Burke, B.G., and Moffett, R.G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475-491. Blanchard-Fields, E., Chen, Y., and Hebert, C. E. (1997). Inter-role conflict as a function of life stage, gender, and gender-related personality attributes. Sex Roles, 37, 155-174. Boles,J.S., Howard, W. G., and Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of work-family conflict, family-work conflict and work satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 376-390. Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 287-302.

21

Burke, R.J. (1997) Are families damaging to careers? Women in Management Review, 12, 320-324. Burke, R. J., and Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work-family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff well-being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327–336. Burke, R. J., Weir, T., and Duwors, R. E. (1980). Work demands on administrators and spouse well-being. Human Relations, 33, 253-278. Burley, K.A. (1995). Family variables as mediators of the relationship between work family conflict and marital adjustment among dual-career men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 483-497. Carikci, I. (2002). Gender differences in work family conflict among managers in Turkey: Non western perspective. II. Annual Meeting of the European Academy of Management (EURAM), Stockholm, Sweden. Carlson, D. S. and Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031-54. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K., and Williams, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. Cinamon, R. G., and Rich, Y. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 47, 531-541. Copur, Z., Erkal, S., Dogan, N., and Safak, S. (2009). Sharing and Spending Time on Domestic Tasks: A Turkish Sample. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 87-109. Cowerman, S. (1989) ‘Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67, 965-82. Duxbury, L. E., and Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-74. Duxbury, L. Higgins, C. and Lee, C. (1994). Work-family conflict: A comparison by gender, family type, and perceived control. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 449-466. Elliott, M. (2003). Work and family role strain among university employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24, 157-181. Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., and Casper, W. J. (2001). The relationship of women’s role train to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations, 50, 230–238. Erkal, S., Copur, Z., Dogan, N., and Safak, S. (2007). Examining the Relationship between Parents’ Gender Roles and Responsibilities towards Their Children (A Turkish Example). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35, 1221-1234.

22

Fernandez, J. P. (1986). Childcare and corporate productivity: Resolving family-work conflicts. Lexington, MA: DC Health. Frone, M.R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888-895. Frone, M. R., and Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 45–53. Frone, M. R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78. Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., and Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. Greenhaus, J.H., (1988). The intersection of work and family roles: Individual, interpersonal, and organizational issues, Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 3, 23-44. Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., and Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career Management. (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press, p 286-320. Greenhaus, J. H. and Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., and Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568. Haar, J. and Spell, C. S. (2001). Examining work-family conflict within a New Zealand local government organization. The New Zealand Journal of Human Resources Management, 1, 1-21. Herst, D. E. L. (2003). Cross-cultural measurement invariance of work/family conflict scales across English speaking samples. Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida, Unpublished Dissertation. Higgins, C. A. Duxbury, L. E. and Irving R. H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 51-75. Institute of Population Studies (2008). Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS). Ankara, Turkey. Janzen, B. L., Muhajarine, N., and Kelly, I, W. (2007). Work-family conflict, and psychological distress in men and women among Canadian police officers. Psychological Reports, 100, 556-562. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., and Bretz Jr., R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767-782.

23

Keene, J., and Reynolds, J. (2005). The job costs of family demands. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 275-279. Keith, P. M., and Schafer, R. B. (1980). Role strain and depression in two job families. Family Relations, 29, 483-488. Kelly, R. and Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367-74. Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51,157-177. Kofodimos, J.R. (1995) Beyond work-family programs – confronting and resolving the underlying causes of work-personal life conflict, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership, p 2-6. Lewis, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1995) Balancing the work/home interface: a European Perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 5, 289-305. MacDonald, M., Phipps, S., and Lethbridgle, L.( 2005) Taking its toll: the influence of paid and unpaid work on vomen's well-being. Feminist Economics, 11, 63-94. Marshall, K. (2006) Converging gender roles. Perspectives, 7, 5-17. Memur-Sen (Employee Trade Union). (2006). “Aclik ve yoksulluk siniri.” Retrieved October 28, 2006, from http://www.memursen.org.tr/resimdepoloji/Resim/Upload/200609301.doc

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., and McMurrian, R. (1996) Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410. Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., and Lankau, M. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364-381. Nieva, V. F. (1985) Work and family linkages, in Larwood, L., Stromberg, A.H. and Gutek, B. A. (eds) Women and Work: An annual review (vol. 1, pp 162-190), Beverly Hills, California: Sage. O’Driscoll, M.P., Ilgen, D.R., and Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272-279. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., and Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339-356. Pietromonaco, P.R., Manus, J., and Frohardt-Lane, K. (1986). Psychological consequences of multiple social roles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 373-382. Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., and Lang, L. (1980). Conflict between work and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-32.

24

Rosenbaum, M., and Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarian marriages, spousal support, resourcefulness, and psychological distress among Israeli working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 102–113. Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., and Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 32, 275-296. Simon, R. W. (1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 182-194. Stephens, G.K. and Sommer, S.M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475-486. Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15. Turkstat (2009). Turkish Statistical Institute, Prime Ministry, Republic of Turkey, Household labor force survey for the period of June 2009 (May, June and July 2009), No: 163, September 15. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/ Turkstat (2010). Turkish Statistical Institute, Prime Ministry, Republic of Turkey, Address based population registration system population census results, 2009, No: 15, January 25. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/ Voydanoof, P. (1988) Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family Conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 740-61. Wallace, J.E. (1999). Work-to-non-work conflict among married male and female lawyers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 797-816. Williams, K., and Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837-868. Yavas, U., Babakus, E., and Karatepe, O. M. (2008). Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of work-family conflict and family-work conflict does gender matter? International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19, 7-31.

25

Table 1. Characteristics of Women and Men Employees Mean/Proportion

Independent Variables Women (n=260) Men (n=365) Significance test

Job Status (%) Academic staff 41.2 25.5 Administrative staff 38.1 31.8 Technical staff 6.9 18.1 Health/assistant health staff 8.1 1.1 Maintenance staff 5.8 23.6 Age (M/SD) 36.8 (7.44) 40.8 (7.03) tEducation level (%)

High school or less 25.4 54.8 College or more 74.6 45.2

Spouse’ Education level (%) High school or less 29.2 63.6 College or more 70.8 36.4 Marriage years (%) 0-10 years 50.8 33.4 11+ years 49.2 66.6 Number of Children (M/SD) 1.40 (.54) 1.89 (.80) tAge of Children (%) 0-5 years 32.3 29.6 6-11 years 32.7 42.2 12-18 years 18.1 33.4 19+ years 15.4 25.8 Age of smallest child (M/SD) 9.29 (7.12) 10.0 (7.00) tFamily size (M/SD) 3.1 (.74) 3.8 (.97) tWorking years (M/SD) 12.7 (7.11) 15.5 (7.41) tWorking hours/week (M/SD) 40.0 (4.42) 41.0 (4.59) tSpouse’ working status (%) Not working 1.2 54.8 Working 93.8 42.2 Retired 5.0 3.0 Amount of monthly income (TL) 2645.77 (1542.0) 1630.9 (1241.7) tHome-related responsibilities (%) None of it 1.2 35.6 Some 21.2 56.2 All of it 77.7 8.2 Have home-related work helper (%) Yes 35.4 15.6 No 64.6 84.4 Have dependent (%) Yes 1.9 6.6 No 98.1 93.4 Child care responsibilities (M/SD) 2.75 (.29) 2.49 (.38) t Spousal supportiveness (%) Disagree 11.2 10.7 Agree 88.8 89.3

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

26

Table 2. Exposure to Work-Family Conflict Topics by Gender Mean Score Variable Women Men Total t-value

Time-based work interference with family 2.36 (1.02) 2.25 (1.02) 2.30 (1.02) 1.346 My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like. 2.27 (1.17) 2.12 (1.15) 2.19 (1.16) 1.592

The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in household responsibilities and activities.

2.39 (1.14) 2.24 (1.18) 2.30 (1.17) 1.598

I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities. 2.43 (1.18) 2.40 (1.21) 2.41 (1.20) .345

Strain-based work interference with family 2.66 (1.05) 2.35 (.95) 2.48 (1.00) 3.808*** When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities. 2.74 (1.24) 2.39 (1.17) 2.53 (1.21) 3.621***

I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family. 2.42 (1.11) 2.18 (1.07) 2.28 (1.09) 2.653**

Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do things I enjoy. 2.82 (1.27) 2.49 (1.16) 2.63 (1.22) 3.377***

Behavior-based work interference with family 2.46 (.94) 2.22 (.89) 2.32 (.92) 3.253*** The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home. 2.50 (1.12) 2.27 (1.15) 2.37 (1.14) 2.405*

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be counterproductive at home. 2.40 (1.08) 2.19 (1.08) 2.28 (1.08) 2.335*

The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a better parent or spouse. 2.50 (1.16) 2.20 (1.11) 2.32 (1.14) 3.195***

Total score work interference with family 2.50 (.79) 2.28 (.74) 2.37 (.77) 3.557*** Time-based family interference with work 2.10 (.85) 2.03 (.84) 2.06 (.85) .928 The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work responsibilities. 2.03 (.97) 2.05 (1.03) 2.04 (1.00) -.240

The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career.

2.12 (1.00) 1.98 (.92) 2.04 (.96) 1.771

I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family responsibilities. 2.15 (1.08) 2.08 (1.05) 2.11 (1.06) .851

Strain-based family interference with work 2.04 (.91) 2.00 (.88) 2.02 (.89) .501 Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work. 2.17 (1.10) 2.07 (1.03) 2.11 (1.06) 1.063

Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work. 1.95 (.98) 2.02 (1.02) 1.99 (1.00) -.931

Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job. 2.00 (1.04) 1.91 (.92) 1.95 (.97) 1.181

Behavior-based family interference with work 2.46 (.96) 2.36 (1.03) 2.40 (1.00) 1.250 The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work. 2.46 (1.08) 2.43 (1.23) 2.44 (1.17) .400

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work. 2.37 (1.07) 2.23 (1.12) 2.30 (1.10) 1.651

The problem-solving behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be as useful at my work. 2.53 (1.14) 2.41 (1.20) 2.46 (1.18) 1.251

Total score family interference with work 2.20 (.68) 2.13 (.74) 2.16 (.71) 1.156 NOTE: Items use a 5-point Likert scale, with higher values indicating more work-family conflict responses. Statistically significant differences were tested using t-test. *p < .05, **p < .01, p < .001

27

Table 3. Exposure to Work-Family Conflict Topics by Job Status Mean Score

Variable Academic n=200

Administrative

n=215

Technical n=84

Health/ assistant health n=25

Maintenance

n=101

F-value

Time-based work interference with family 2.36 (.97) 2.19 (.97) 2.07 (.94) 2.81 (1.12) 2.49 (1.19) 4.414** My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like. 2.20 (1.11) 2.08 (1.11) 1.95 (1.12) 2.80 (1.22) 2.42 (1.16) 4.095**

The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in household responsibilities and activities.

2.46 (1.15) 2.16 (1.12) 2.08 (1.13) 2.88 (1.30) 2.36 (1.22) 4.078**

I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities. 2.42 (1.12) 2.33 (1.15) 2.17 (1.20) 2.76 (1.09) 2.69 (1.38) 3.137*

Strain-based work interference with family 2.35 (.87) 2.48 (1.03) 2.46 (1.01) 3.07 (1.23) 2.60 (1.06) 3.370** When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities.

2.42 (1.07) 2.52 (1.23) 2.48 (1.25) 3.20 (1.47) 2.67 (1.30) 2.762*

I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family.

2.16 (.93) 2.28 (1.11) 2.18 (1.12) 2.92 (1.26) 2.43 (1.24) 3.418**

Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do things I enjoy.

2.48 (1.07) 2.64 (1.30) 2.74 (1.28) 3.08 (1.29) 2.69 (1.24) 1.901

Behavior-based work interference with family 2.36 (.89) 2.34 (.95) 2.30 (.99) 2.51 (.79) 2.19 (.85) .876 The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home. 2.42 (1.16) 2.39 (1.16) 2.32 (1.17) 2.44 (.92) 2.24 (1.11) .503

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be counterproductive at home. 2.26 (1.04) 2.31 (1.12) 2.32 (1.21) 2.40 (1.04) 2.18 (.98) .378

The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a better parent or spouse.

2.40 (1.14) 2.32 (1.15) 2.26 (1.20) 2.68 (1.14) 2.16 (1.05) 1.433

Total score work interference with family 2.36 (.71) 2.33 (.80) 2.28 (.75) 2.80 (.87) 2.43 (.76) 2.515* Time-based family interference with work 2.13 (.77) 2.03 (.88) 1.95 (.87) 2.16 (.92) 2.07 (.87) .866 The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work responsibilities. 2.12 (.93) 2.02 (1.03) 1.90 (1.07) 2.04 (1.06) 2.03 (1.04) .671

The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career.

2.21 (.91) 1.93 (.98) 1.83 (.94) 2.12 (.97) 2.06 (.97) 3.366**

I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family responsibilities. 2.06 (.93) 2.13 (1.11) 2.11 (1.13) 2.32 (1.14) 2.11 (1.12) .365

Strain-based family interference with work 1.91 (.79) 2.04 (.87) 2.00 (.99) 2.01 (.86) 2.20 (1.02) 1.885 Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work. 1.95 (.88) 2.17 (1.12) 2.05 (1.09) 2.20 (1.00) 2.34 (1.19) 2.626*

Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work.

1.87 (.85) 1.99 (1.00) 1.98 (1.11) 1.92 (.86) 2.25 (1.19) 2.438*

Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job. 1.90 (.95) 1.95 (.94) 1.98 (1.06) 1.92 (.86) 2.01 (1.04) .273

Behavior-based family interference with work 2.43 (.94) 2.42 (1.04) 2.40 (1.10) 2.43 (.88) 2.27 (.96) .492 The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work. 2.45 (1.10) 2.48 (1.20) 2.40 (1.23) 2.44 (1.04) 2.38 (1.23) .171

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work. 2.30 (1.03) 2.33 (1.17) 2.39 (1.20) 2.32 (.99) 2.09 (1.02) 1.086

The problem-solving behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be as useful at my work. 2.53 (1.13) 2.47 (1.21) 2.42 (1.27) 2.52 (1.00) 2.35 (1.18) .429

Total score family interference with work 2.15 (.63) 2.16 (.74) 2.12 (.82) 2.20 (.64) 2.18 (.76) .114 NOTE: Items use a 5-point Likert scale, with higher values indicating more work-family conflict responses. Statistically significant differences were tested using t-test. *p < .05, **p < .01, p < .001

28

Table 4. Predictors of Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict for Turkish Samples. WIF FIW

TBWIF SBWIF BBWIF TBFIW SBFIW BBFIW Independent Variables a b c d e f g h i j

Men

-.083 (.147)

-.487*** (.148)

-.387 (.759)

-.320* (.139)

.728 (.709)

-.079 (.131)

-.156 (.667)

-.325* (.136)

-.034 (.697)

-.066 (.153)

.578 (.787)

Administrative staff -.061 (.152)

-.048 (.153)

.005 (.193)

.078 (.143)

.197 (.180)

-.135 (.135)

-.347* (.169)

-.117 (.141)

-.112 (.177)

-.001 (.158)

.024 (.199)

Technical staff -.122 (.167)

.085 (.169)

-.408 (.277)

.091 (.158)

.453 (.259)

-.207 (.149)

-.641** (.243)

-.064 (.155)

-.302 (.254)

.021 (.174)

-.096 (.287)

Health/assistant health staff .534* (.224)

.595** (.226)

.546* (.259)

.076 (.211)

.211 (.242)

.105 (.199)

-.135 (.227)

.066 (.208)

.032 (.237)

-.037 (.234)

.065 (.268)

Maintenance staff .288 (.194)

.140 (.196)

.805* (.359)

-.028 (.183)

.687* (.335)

-.145 (.173)

.258 (.315)

-.085 (.180)

.711* (.329)

-.143 (.202)

.583 (.372)

Age

.010 (.014)

.006 (.014)

.003 (.014)

-.019 (.013)

-.018 (.013)

.005 (.012)

-.001 (.012)

.004 (.013)

.000 (.013)

-.018 (.015)

-.020 (.015)

Education (college or more reference) High school or less

-.146 (.131)

-.008 (.133)

-.037 (.133)

.013 (.124)

.016 (.124)

.089 (.117)

.066 (.117)

.181 (.122)

.161 (.122)

.065 (.137)

.046 (.138)

Spouse’ Education (college or more reference) High school or less

-.280* (.141)

-.069 (.143)

-.129 (.143)

-.129 (.133)

-.131 (.134)

-.031 (.126)

-.068 (.126)

.016 (.131)

-.029 (.131)

-.102 (.147)

-.130 (.148)

Marriage years (11 or more reference) 0-10 years

-.002 (.122)

.094 (.124)

.112 (.124)

-.132 (.115)

-.125 (.115)

-.011 (.109)

.007 (.108)

-.160 (.113)

-.143 (.113)

-.204 (.128)

-.200 (.128)

Number of children .028 (.107)

.017 (.108)

.024 (.107)

.192 (.101)

.189 (.100)

-.025 (.095)

-.012 (.094)

.055 (.099)

.061 (.099)

.142 (.111)

.142 (.111)

Age of smallest child -.011 (.010)

-.001 (.010)

.000 (.010)

-.006 (.010)

-.008 (.010)

-.019* (.009)

-.017 (.009)

-.013 (.009)

-.012 (.009)

-.012 (.011)

-.012 (.011)

Family size .118 (.096)

.123 (.097)

.127 (.097)

.006 (.090)

.005 (.090)

.099 (.085)

.094 (.085)

.094 (.089)

.092 (.089)

.093 (.100)

.093 (.100)

Working years .001 (.011)

-.004 (.011)

-.002 (.011)

.006 (.010)

.007 (.010)

.005 (.009)

.008 (.009)

-.008 (.010)

-.006 (.010)

.009 (.011)

.011 (.011)

Working hours/week .019* (.009)

.014 (.009)

.013 (.009)

.023** (.009)

.023** (.009)

.005 (.008)

.006 (.008)

.016 (.009)

.016 (.009)

.021* (.010)

.020* (.010)

Spouse’ working status (not working reference) Working Retired

.274 (.146) .500* (.233)

.242 (.147) .536* (.236)

.199 (.153) .430 (.243)

.138 (.138) .099 (.220)

.054 (.143) -.044 (.227)

.054 (.130) .497* (.208)

.097 (.134) .509* (.214)

.053 (.135) .078 (.216)

.008 (.140) -.034 (.223)

.308* (.152) .298 (.243)

.263 (.158) .191 (.252)

Monthly income -9.446* (.000)

-9.780* (.000)

-9.184* (.000)

4.445 (.000)

5.431 (.000)

1.578 (.000)

-8.484 (.000)

-5.843 (.000)

-5.309 (.000)

5.671 (.000)

1.709 (.000)

29

Continuing Table 4 WIF FIW

TBWIF SBWIF BBWIF TBFIW SBFIW BBFIW Independent Variables a B c d e f g h i j

Home-related responsibilities (none of it reference) Some All of it

.112 (.120) .120 (.169)

.087 (.121) .002 (.171)

.089 (.122) .031 (.173)

.140 (.113) -.013 (.160)

.132 (.114) -.065 (.162)

.096 (.107) .102 (.150)

.103 (.107) .152 (.152)

.200 (.111) 115 (.157)

.197 (.112) .124 (.159)

.114 (.125) .054 (.176)

.122 (.126) .067 (.179)

Have home-related work helper -.088 (.125)

-.184 (.126)

-.172 (.126)

-.035 (.118)

-.032 (.117)

-.010 (.111)

.015 (.110)

.045 (.116)

.059 (.115)

-.032 (.130)

-.026 (.130)

Have dependent .305 (.210)

-.196 (.212)

-.225 (.212)

-.133 (.198)

-.147 (.198)

.077 (.187)

.050 (.186)

.121 (.195)

.092 (.194)

-.087 (.219)

-.115 (.219)

Child care responsibilities -.439*** (.123)

-.454*** (.124)

-.411 (.240)

-.421*** (.116)

-.173 (.224)

-.277* (.109)

-.231 (.211)

-.298** (.114)

-.206 (.220)

-.262* (.128)

-.092 (.249)

Spousal supportiveness -.355** (.136)

-.112 (.138)

-.072 (.138)

-.052 (.129)

-.023 (.129)

-.254* (.121)

-.210 (.121)

-.201 (.126)

-.154 (.127)

-.085 (.142)

-.046 (.143)

Interactions: Gender x Administrative staff

.479* (.199)

Gender x Technical staff

.680* (.326)

.694* (.286)

Gender x Maintenance staff

-.928** (.341)

-.840* (.335)

-.787* (.379)

Constant F R2

N

2.310** 3.53*** .133 552

2.827*** 2.85*** .111 552

2.799** 2.75*** 128 552

2.978*** 2.22*** .088 552

2.208* 2.22*** .106 552

2.381*** 1.38 .057 552

2.408** 1.65* .081 552

2.167** 2.13** .085 552

1.987* 2.14*** 103 552

2.337** 1.61* .065 552

1.884 1.58* .078 552

Note: Unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in parentheses. *p<.05, ** p< .01, ***p<.001

30

Appendix A. Principal Components Analysis Loadings in a Forced 6-Component Solution.

Items TBFIW SBWIF BBWIF TBFIW SBFIW BBFIW My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like. .83

The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in household responsibilities and activities.

.85

I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities. .77

When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities. .79

I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family. .73

Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do things I enjoy. .79

The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home. .74

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be counterproductive at home. .72

The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a better parent or spouse. .65

The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work responsibilities. .66

The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career.

.84

I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family responsibilities. .78

Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work. .81

Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work. .86

Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job. .75

The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work. .66

Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work. .76

The problem-solving behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be as useful at my work. .85

31

Appendix B. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Loadings in a Forced 6-Component Solution