WORK-FAMILY ROLE CONFLICT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN NIGERIA
Work-family role conflict has become an important issue in the determination of organizational commitment. In recent years, there has been an increase in competitive pressures on organizations to increase productivity and an increase in time demands on the workforce, leaving less time available for the employees to be with their families. Moreover, the workforce composition has changed in recent years, with an increase in women in the workplace and there has been an increase in men being involved in family life (Cardson, 2005). Dual income couples and an increase in single parenting are now becoming the norm of today’s society. Work-family role conflict has been defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Flippo, 2005). The conflict occurs when the employee extends their efforts to satisfy their work demands at the expense of their family demands or vice versa (Cole, 2004). Conflict could arise from work interfering with the family life, such as working overtime to meet demands of the job or from family demands when there is illness with a family member. A significant amount of researches have concluded that work-family conflict and family work conflict are related but distinct constructs (Ajiboye, 2008). Work-family conflict is primarily caused by excessive work de-mands and predicts negative family outcomes, whereas family-work conflict is primarily determined by family demands and predicts negative work outcomes (Adebola, 2005).
Therefore, if an employee is experiencing high levels of family-work role conflict, their roles and responsibilities in family life are interfering with the work domain. Mean-while, because the employee is more committed to the welfare of the family, this will take priority, reducing or minimizing the resources of time and energy being able to be spending in the work domain. Thus, employees who experience high family role conflict should experience less affective commitment to the organization. However, work-to-family conflict occurs when the domain of work interferes with the family demands and vice versa for work-family conflict (Ajiboye, 2008). The rationale for this hypothesis is that, if the employee is experiencing highconflict from either the work or family domain, it will be dependent on the employees’ calculative commitment levels. The higher the levels of conflict and the higher the number of inducements offered by the organization will result in employee producing extra efforts to ensure their continued employment. The fewer alternatives that are available to the continuance-committed employee, the more dedicated they tend to be (Iverson and Buttgieg, 2008).
In the recent times, arguments on work-family role con-flict as it affects workers` behaviour at workplace pervade the existing literature. Various researchers had investigated the relationship between work-family role conflict and organizational efficiency and productivity. In most of these studies, it was found that a significant relationship exist among work-family role conflict and managerial efficiency of the managers (Popoola, 2008; Akinjide, 2006; Collins and George, 2004; Akinboye, 2003). Similarly, Poele (2003) reported that efficiency in managing organizational resources for results could be better guaranteed when various variables other than one, such as leadership style, self-efficient, personality, work-family role conflict, job satisfaction and motivation are jointly combined by the managers in work organizations. The finding of the study is very unique in establishing the relevance of work-family conflict as an important factor in the consideration of effective management of organizational resources for results.
Organizational commitment has become one of the most popular work attitudes studied by practitioners and researchers (Allen and Meyer, 2000). One of the main reasons for its popularity is that organizations have con-tinued to find and sustain competitive advantage through teams of committed employees. Meyer et al. (2000) have found that committed employees are more likely to remain with the organization and strive towards the organization’s mission, goals and objectives. Organizational commitment is defined as the degree to which the employee feels devoted to their organization (Spector, 2000). Further research into this variable has concluded that commitment is a diverse construct. Akintayo (2006) posited that there is general acceptance that organizational commitment has three main facets: affective, continuance, and normative, each with its own underlying ‘psychological states’. Affective commitment refers to the emotional bond and the identification the employee has with the organization. For the employees, the positives include enhanced feelings of devotion, belongingness, and stability (Meyer et al., 2003). Continuance (economic/calculative) commitment refers to what the employee will have to give up if they have to leave the organization or in other terms, the material benefits to be gained from remaining. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain with the organization because they feel they need to do so for material benefits (Meyer et al., 2003). Therefore, if the employees believe that fewer viable alternatives are available their continuance commitment will be stronger to their current employer. Lastly, normative commitment or moral commitment (Jaros et al., 2004) reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Bentein et al., 2005).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.