ایجاد پیوند بین فعالیت تعادلی زندگی وعملکرد سازمانی

The business case for work-life balance practices, as espoused by many organizations, rests on attracting better applicants and reducing work-life conflict among existing employees in order to enhance organizational performance. This review of the literature provides some evidence for the claim regarding recruitment, but there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that work-life practices enhance performance by means of reduced work-life conflict. We suggest that the business case may therefore need to be modified to reflect the number of additional routes by which work-life balance practices can influence organizational performance, including enhanced social exchange processes, increased cost savings, improved productivity, and reduced turnover. The impact of these processes may, however, be moderated by a number of factors, including national context, job level, and managerial support. The importance of further research into the effects of these practices is discussed.

The business case for work-life balance practices relies on their ability to enhance recruitment and retention, and reduce work-life conflict among employees. It makes intuitive sense that offering work-life balance practices would attract individuals to an organization, and that using these practices would result in improved employee attitudes and behaviours within the organization. However, two things become clear after reviewing the literature on work-life balance practices and organizational performance. One, such practices do not necessarily reduce levels of employee work-life conflict. Employee take-up may be low due to concerns that using work-life practices will result in reduced advancement opportunities or perceptions of the employee as being less committed to the organization. Employees who do make use of these practices may or may not find they experience less work-life conflict. The presence of supportive managers and organizational climates may be at least as if not more important in decreasing conflict (e.g., Behson, 2005 and Premeaux et al., 2007). Two, regardless of effects on work-life conflict, work-life balance practices are often associated with improved organizational performance. Making practices available to employees appears to give organizations a competitive advantage in terms of recruitment, by enhancing perceptions of anticipated organizational support among job seekers (Casper & Buffardi, 2004), particularly those who might require that support due to caregiving responsibilities (Frone & Yardley, 1996). The availability of practices may also increase positive job-related attitudes, work effort and contextual behaviours by enhancing social exchange processes; as symbols of organizational concern for employees, work-life practices promote employee interest in and obligation to the organization (Pfeffer, 1981). Providing work-life practices can allow organizations to offer lower wages in exchange (Baughman et al., 2003), and attract investors by signalling the organization's legitimacy (Arthur, 2003). Having employees who make use of available work-life practices may also incur cost savings for organizations via longer work hours and enhanced productivity. Employees may work longer hours because flexible arrangements increase their availability for work and reduce their commuting time, or because they are exchanging leisure time for flexibility (Golden, 2001 and Meyer et al., 2001). They may choose to work during their peak hours in terms of personal productivity (Shepard et al., 1996), or work extra hours during the organization's peak times in exchange for flexibility at other times (McDonald et al., 2005). They may also increase their work effort to avoid losing a job that offers them the flexibility they desire (Shepard et al., 1996). Caveats to many of these conclusions exist. Until longitudinal research is conducted, we cannot discount the possibility that successful organizations are more likely to offer work-life practices, and that the practices themselves are not exerting a favourable effect on organizational performance. Equally, it may simply be that organizations offering work-life practices are more likely to engage in high quality management practices overall, generating positive effects on employee and performance outcomes. The present review has also identified a number of moderators of the link between practice provision and outcomes, meaning that organizations may only reap the benefits of work-life practices given particular characteristics of the employee, the organization, and the national context. Still, in the absence of research conclusively demonstrating otherwise, if we assume even a minimal positive association between work-life practices and organizational performance, the implications of the findings outlined in this paper are not insignificant. Relying on the business case as traditionally stated to justify the implementation or promotion of work-life balance practices may limit their potential appeal. Much of the evidence for return on investment in work-life balance practices is derived from case studies, which are not necessarily representative and therefore cannot be generalized to all organizations. However, it is generally agreed that many work-life balance practices, such as flexible hours, telework, and informational assistance with dependent care services, have low financial costs that are associated primarily with program administration and do not require an extensive initial outlay of resources. In a study of a nationally representative sample of U.S. firms employing more than 100 people, Galinsky and Bond (1998) found that 36% of organizations reported their flexible work arrangements to be cost-neutral, with 46% claiming a positive return on investment in these practices. With regard to caregiving leave, often regarded as a costly endeavour, 42% of firms viewed them as cost-neutral, with another 42% reporting a positive return on investment in their leave programs. Presumably, more organizations would be interested in offering work-life practices were they aware that benefits may accrue to them regardless of whether or not their employees made use of the practices. This is of particular relevance to contexts not characterized by heavy regulation. Getting the business case ‘right’ is particularly important in nations where public policy is not a key driver for organizational work-life balance practices. For instance, UK employment legislation decrees that employees with caregiving responsibilities for young or disabled children, or for elderly dependents, have the right to request a flexible working schedule, and that their employers have a duty to consider that request seriously (DTI, 2007). Across the rest of Europe and in Japan, public policy encourages flexible work hours, paid parental leave, and shorter weekly working hours in an effort to increase women's participation in the labour force (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2006). In comparison, countries such as the USA, Australia, and Canada rely to a greater extent on the initiative of individual firms to implement work-life practices. In these instances, the business case is the primary incentive for most organizations to do so. There is an argument to be made that restating the business case and disseminating more widely the alternative routes by which work-life practices influence organizational performance may have the unwelcome effect of directing organizations' attention to the fact that work-life practices may deliver cost savings and improved reputation, both internally and externally, regardless of employee use or net effect on work-life balance. This could potentially serve to dampen organizations' interest in addressing issues of eligibility for work-life practices and the work-life culture surrounding the use of those practices, actions essential to support their employees' work-life balance. Without necessary changes being made, users of work-life practices will continue to be predominantly women, men will continue to anticipate negative repercussions arising from practice use, and career-oriented individuals of both sexes will continue to think twice before availing themselves of the practices on offer. This would be a considerable step backwards for all concerned, and lessen the benefits to organizations derived from improved employee perceptions of current or anticipated organizational support. However, it can be argued just as strongly that the paucity of research evaluating the business case for work-life practices jeopardizes the effective implementation and use of those practices. If it remains unknown whether or not employees' use of work-life practices actually reduces their work-life conflict, then there are no means of ensuring that practices are designed and implemented in such a way as to derive the greatest possible benefits from them for both organizations and employees. Without drawing attention to some of the potentially negative aspects of work-life practices, there is no basis from which to work for greater effectiveness in practice implementation and greater supportiveness from organizations and their representatives. 4.1. Future research According to Liff and Cameron (1997), many organizations neglect to conduct formal monitoring and evaluation of their work-life practices, assuming that because the practices are being offered, they are being used to good effect. There is a scarcity of research based on systematic policy evaluation data to address the question of whether work-life practices are achieving their intended aims (McDonald et al., 2005). Future research exploring the effects of work-life practices on performance outcomes needs to test more complex models of this relationship, and examine more closely how use of practices translates into increased productivity. How credible are the explanations identified earlier in this review of the literature? Does increased control over their schedules enable employees to plan their time more efficiently and achieve better performance? Do employees actually choose their optimal hours of productivity in which to work, and does this have a measurable effect on their performance? Glass and Finley (2002) recommend that the evaluation of work-life practices be enhanced by better measurement of specific practices and practice combinations, and by focusing on the function of the practice (e.g., reducing work hours, increasing schedule flexibility, or assisting with caregiving responsibilities). Future research investigating the effects of work-life practices would do well to measure each practice separately and explore its impact on both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict. Mediators and moderators of the relationships among work-life practices, work-life conflict, and organizational performance should also be examined in greater detail. For instance, employee preference for integration versus segmentation of work and life domains may act as a moderator of the link between work-life practices and work-life conflict, and of the link between work-life practices and performance. Which practices appeal to which employees, and which are most effective in allowing them to meet their personal commitments and improve their performance on the job? Is work-life conflict a mediator in the link between practices and performance? Is performance enhanced by use of work-life practices only when levels of management support are high, or when the organizational climate is supportive of work-life issues? Is social exchange the mechanism by which provision of practices translates into improved job-related attitudes and behaviours? This review has sought to draw new insights and research directions from the extant literature on work-life balance practices and their relationship to organizational performance. In identifying all the routes between work-life practices and organizational performance either proposed or implied by existing research, by identifying processes at the level of the individual and of the organization, and by specifying mediators and moderators that influence these linkages, this paper has attempted to contribute to model building in this area of study. The work-life conflict literature has amassed a comprehensive account of antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators so that the phenomenon can be better understood and coped with. Now it is time to do the same for the work practices designed to resolve that conflict between work and home.