The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 1

ISSN 2229-5518

Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers

Mona Mustafa

University of Wollongong

AbstractThe recent growth in teleworking has led to a variety of studies that analyse its significance along a spec trum of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of the teleworker. These studies tend to stress either one end or the other of the s pectrum and therefore give a somewhat bipolar perspective on telework (either ‘good’ or ‘bad’). This article arg ues that teleworkers’ experiences are characterised rather by ambivalence that is, that teleworkers express conflicting attitudes towards their conditions depending on whether work or home interests are uppermost in their minds at the time. The article, which is based on diaries, questionnaires and interviews amongst 70 self-employed teleworkers in France, the UK and USA, concludes that work-life balance proves elusive because of the endemic role conflict that lies at the heart of self-employed teleworking.

Index TermsAmbivalence; flexibility; self-employment; telework; work-life balance

—————————— ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION

variety of concerns, originating from employers, em- ployees and policy-makers alike, has led to a marked growth in teleworking in recent years across the indu- strialised world (ECaTT 2000; Ruiz and Walling 2005). Though these concerns vary in significance from country to country, they include matters like work-life balance, the costs of com- muting, reducing organisational overheads and rural unem- ployment, all of which may arguably be addressed through the adoption of telework. However, one of the principal prob- lems in evaluating the significance of telework lies in how to measure it. As Qvortup (1998, cited in ECaTT 2000:8) has ob- served, counting teleworkers is like measuring the length of a rubber band: it is not impossible but, as with a rubber band, it depends on how far you stretch your definition. Though nu- merous definitions exist, the following is particularly helpful as it draws attention to certain key features of telework that
are developed in this article:
Telework is the work performed by a teleworker (employee, self-employed, home-worker) mainly, or for an important part, at a location (s) other than the traditional workplace for an employer or a client, involving the use of telecommunica- tions (Blanpain et al. 2001: 6)
This definition highlights the significant point that, while telework always involves a workplace away from the employ- er or client, as well as the use of information and telecommu- nications technology (ICT), it is also compatible with a variety of forms of employment contract. Teleworkers may be em- ployed by an organisation, they may be self-employed (with or without employees) or they may be homeworkers. Indeed, in the case of the UK, figures suggest that 55% of teleworkers are employees, 43% are self-employed and 2% are unpaid fam- ily workers at home (Hotopp, 2002: 316).
An analysis of the impact of telework on those involved re-
quires making a distinction between two of its principal as- pects: the nature of the work process as such (that is, using ICT away from the traditional workplace, probably at home) and the nature of the employment contract in question (that is, employment by an organisation or self-employment without employees). Research till now has tended to focus on the con- ditions of employed teleworkers rather than on those of the self-employed and has sometimes conflated these two aspects. For example, it has been argued that the advantages of tele- work include improvements in concentration over what is otherwise possible in an office environment (Mirchandani,
1998) and the convenience of not having to commute to work
(Kerrin and Hone, 2001; Pitt-Catsouphes and Morcetta, 1991).
However, these advantages apply only to employed telework-
ers, that is, to those who would normally work in an office
environment, but they would not apply to self-employed te-
leworkers without employees working from home and not
requiring to commute in the first place. By contrast, telework
as such may allow both employed and self-employed the
means to ‘redress a perceived deteriorating work-family bal-
ance’ (Avery and Baker, 2002: 110) because it grants them the apparent autonomy as to when and where to work (though the ‘where’ is generally the home). Such flexibility underpins the reasons for understanding the benefits of telework for both
employed and self-employed alike (Gajendran and Harrison,
2007).

2 WORKING TIME AND LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY

Working time flexibility allows individuals to exert control over their working hours and location of work. Control over working time has been defined as an individuals’ ability to increase either decrease or increase their working hours and to alter their work schedule as an when needed. (Breg et al. 2004) Working time has two dimensions: the duration of work and its timing. Control over the duration of work determines how many hours are worked each day or week, while control over

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 2

ISSN 2229-5518

the timing governs the time of day or week at which the work is carried out. Control over both the duration and timing of their work signifies that individuals have total control over their working time (Breg et al. 2004: 331).
A further dimension of flexibility is the ability to choose the location of work. Teleworking does not necessarily mean
‘working from home’ as it may be carried out while travelling, at a local centre or any remote location. In this respect, it also differs from ‘home work’ which generally implies work per- formed at home by the semi-skilled or unskilled on a piece- rate basis (Bradley et al., 2000: 60). By contrast, teleworking – a skilled or professional activity – can be conceived as the poten- tial for working where and when it’s best to do so for the indi- vidual (Status Report on European Telework, 1998). In brief, then, teleworkers may work from home, but do not necessari- ly do so.
Overall, in view of these opportunities for flexibility, telework has often been associated with moves towards improved work-life balance. Work-life balance – ‘an overall level of con- tentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of suc- cess at meeting work and family role demands’ (Valcour 2007:
1512) – may be achieved when people have enough time to fulfil activities in both work and family contexts (De Cieri et al. 2005; Voydanoff 2005). Temporal and locational flexibility are key elements in its achievement: the ability to control working time is essential in managing multiple demands (Thomas and Ganster 1995), while the opportunity to work from home allows people to handle family commitments with greater peace of mind (Hill et al. 2001).

3 WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND TELEWORKERS

Research relating to teleworking and its impact on work-life balance tends to polarise between studies that stress the ad- vantages and those that stress the disadvantages. Some studies reveal positive benefits for work-life balance (Bains, 2002; Bai- ly and Kurland, 2002; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003; and Hill et al., 1996). One analysis, reviewing 46 studies in the literature covering 12,883 employees, concluded that teleworking is ‘as- sociated with increased perceptions of autonomy and lower work-family conflict’ (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007: 1535). A further study that compared teleworkers with non- teleworkers discovered that teleworkers had fewer percep- tions of family conflict when compared with non-teleworking counterparts (Madsen, 2003).
However, another body of studies highlights opposite effects. Some of these focus on the ‘permeability of boundaries’ be- tween family and work, and ‘the degree to which either family or work encroaches on the other because they occupy the same place and, potentially, time’ (Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate
2000; Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Nippert-Eng 1996). Nega- tive emotions may follow from the spill-over of work into the home with some people finding it difficult to ‘switch off’ from work (Bains and Gelder 2002). Indeed, loneliness, worry, guilt and irritation may also arise (Mann and Holdsworth 2003), while the most frequently cited impact on social and emotion-
al life is isolation (Monnier 2001). Family conflict may result from having to find new ways to organise work space and run the household, for example, when changing the division of household tasks (Haddon 1994).

4 METHODS

There is, then, inconsistent evidence in the literature about the consequences of teleworking on work-life balance. Though it does increase opportunities for temporal and locational flex- ibility, it is less clear that these opportunities improve work- life balance as such. However, most research on teleworkers till now has focused on the employed rather than the self- employed (Bains, 2002; Osnowitz, 2005).
Participants had to fulfil three criteria to qualify for inclusion in this research: they had to be self-employed; their main place of work had to be the home; and they had to be using ICT to communicate with clients. They also had to commit to keep a diary for a period of four weeks, and to complete a survey. Initially only individuals from the UK were contacted but, as this resulted in a very limited response, the search was wi- dened to include individuals from France and the USA as well, countries selected on the grounds of comparatively low and high levels of teleworking respectively (ECaTT, 2000; Nilles, 2000).
In October 2004, 671 e-mails were sent to prospective partici- pants in France, UK and the USA using a variety of databases listing journalists, museum consultants and translators in these countries. The data were collected between November
2004 and March 2005. Seventy individuals completed the questionnaire, giving an overall response rate of 10.4% (24 from France, 25 from the UK and 21 from the USA). Of these
53 (76%) were female and 17 (24%) were male. Only four were
unwilling to keep a diary. All 70 respondents were contacted
later to participate in a telephone interview on boundary man-
agement. Of these, 20 agreed (seven from France, nine from
the UK and four from the USA). The full sample therefore in-
cluded 70 respondents who completed the questionnaire, of whom 66 also kept a diary and 20 were interviewed. The com- bination of these three methods – diaries, questionnaires and interviews – helped to ensure the validity and reliability of the
research.

5 FLEXIBILITY: THE CHALLENGES

To evaluate in greater depth the challenges facing respondents in managing their temporal flexibility, 20 telephone interviews were conducted from the original sample of 66 diary-keepers (four from the USA, seven from France and nine from the UK). The data from the interviews indicate that all 20 respondents experienced the tension between work and non-work activi- ties and that, when there was a conflict between the two, work generally took priority, as it was a source of family income (Bains and Gelder, 2002).
Such conflict arose from a variety of sources. Some respon- dents experienced constant interruptions, and sometimes their work was not taken seriously by their family. They might be

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 3

ISSN 2229-5518

expected to deal with domestic issues whenever they cropped up, and they might suffer from a sense of isolation at both pro- fessional and social levels, placing pressure on their motiva- tion and health.

Interruptions

Interference with work resulting from interruptions by family and friends was reported by 15 of the 20 respondents inter- viewed. They observed that interruptions disrupted the work they should have been doing and their sense of duty towards their home.
Sometimes my parents used to come, and that was a problem because they kept interrupting me and I could not concentrate as much as I would like. They live five minutes’ walk from my house. [Helene]
Keeping people away was regarded as a general problem:
That is one of the most difficult things, to get people to under- stand that you may be at home but you are working. That is really difficult, so now I end up saying, ‘no I am not available
at that time’ or ‘I am not available on that day’, and they just have to come in the evening if they want to see me, or we can sort things out by phone. [Nadine]

Family needs, perceptions and expectations

Family members often expected respondents to be involved in
all home-related activities since they were physically present
at home. This led to a sense of work-life imbalance as they
tried to manage the demands of their work alongside the ex-
pectations of their family. Eleven respondents found that be- cause they were always at home their families had high expec- tations of them.

One observed:

When I accept a large translation I have to work a lot every
day, so I don’t have time to look after the house properly, and
my family complains because the house is not very clean, and
they don’t understand. If I wasn’t at home it would be differ-
ent. [Joanna]
Taking care of other family members was also a challenge for some respondents and sometimes actually affected the volume of work they accepted:
The problem is when I started working in 2003, my father was already ill with cancer, so I usually used to talk with him be- cause I knew that he would not be with me all the time. So it was very difficult to say no, but sometimes I had to tell him that I could not talk because my deadline was very tight, but I did not like to do that. The fact that my parents live nearby, and that they are old and my father was ill – that was a limit- ing factor to my professional activity because I did not try to get many clients. I voluntarily reduced my work because of my family. [Laila]
Another noted that her flatmates leave things that need to be done by her, as they know that she is going to be around:
In terms of the people I live with, it’s a bit annoying. Because they know that I’m at home, they’ll leave some chores for me. If the cat needs taking to the vet or something, they will as- sume that I’ll do it because it’s easier for me as I’m here any- way at home, whereas for them it would involve taking time off work. [Mary]
In addition to this, it was often felt that the work respondents do is not taken seriously. Fifteen out of the 20 interviewed complained that others did not perceive their work as ‘proper’ work:
When you work from home people do not view it as proper work, and so friends will phone expecting to have a long chat during the day and not respect the fact that I am trying to work. I often do not pick up the phone during the day. [Ka- triona]
These expectations cause pressure and role conflict. Being physically present in the home places extra demands on self- employed teleworkers. Families may place a strain on at- tempts to achieve a work-life balance by expressing little un- derstanding for heavy workloads and tight deadlines.

6 DISCUSSION

This article has focused on the issue of flexibility, which was raised by most respondents as a key determinant of their high level of attachment to teleworking. ‘Flexibility’, ‘freedom’,
‘independence’, ‘autonomy’, and ‘control’ are words used by respondents to describe why they would generally not return to traditional forms of employment. Their flexibility is some- thing very valuable to them and they are not willing to give it up, even in exchange for higher levels of job security. Respon- dents mention the ability to structure their own working day, something they greatly appreciate.
However, despite the temporal flexibility which respondents enjoyed, many reported challenges in reconciling the demands of work and home. Most said they felt a tension between the two. Self-employed teleworkers faced constant interruptions from family members who did not regard their work as being
‘proper’ and expected them to be available throughout the
day. This was stressful, particularly during times when dead-
lines were tight.
A striking feature of the questionnaires, diaries and interviews is the complexity of variables that they reveal. The range of personal circumstances of the respondents was wide in terms of age, gender, presence of a partner (working or not) and children, presence of other dependants (such as elderly rela- tives), number of clients, reliability of work flow and attitude towards working time, to name just the most salient. It was impossible to correlate these variables to the number and tim- ing of hours worked, though the French worked the fewest hours and the least anti-social hours, and the Americans the most. However, the sample was not representative, and it was not the intention to draw statistically valid conclusions from the research.

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 4

ISSN 2229-5518

What emerges overall is a sense of ambivalence amongst the teleworkers towards their working conditions. The literature implies that self-employment and teleworking are likely to benefit work-life balance on account of the flexibility they bring. Indeed, the diaries analysed in this article reveal great flexibility in the number of hours worked and when (for ex- ample at weekends or at night). The timing of hours worked compensates for time otherwise spent with the family – for example, time spent during the day with the children can be made up at night when they are in bed. However, the inter- views reveal the challenges: the interruptions, and the conflict- ing family needs, perceptions and expectations. These chal- lenges help to explain a certain polarity in the literature be- tween those researchers who emphasise the advantages and those who emphasise the disadvantages. This article reveals that the truth may lie between: namely that the same tele- workers who appreciate the flexibility at one moment may also experience considerable conflict the next. The advantages and disadvantages are not an either/or as sometimes por- trayed in the literature, but rather a both/and. The use in this article of questionnaires, diaries and interviews helps to un- cover the shifting moods and reactions of respondents in a way that only one method would not.
The key concept here is ‘ambivalence’: ‘the simultaneous exis- tence of attraction and repulsion, of love and hate’ (Smelser
1998: 5):
The nature of ambivalence is to hold opposing affective orien- tations toward the same person, object or symbol... With some exceptions, preferences are regarded as relatively stable; am- bivalence tends to be unstable, expressing itself in different and sometimes contradictory ways as actors attempt to cope with it. (ibid: emphasis in original)
So a teleworker may welcome working time flexibility, but get exasperated by the interruptions; she may welcome the relief from commuting and office politics, but regret the isolation; she may welcome the autonomy of working with clients, but feel guilty at leaving the children to fend for themselves. These disjunctions are not experienced when working at an office. The organisation helps to create the division between work and non-work by establishing separate physical locations for each: at work the employee is a professional, a colleague and a salary earner, whilst at home she is a partner, parent, relative or friend. As the following quotation reveals, such role divi- sions may break down for teleworkers:
Sometimes I feel that I would be spending more time with my children if I had a traditional job because I could really cut, I would say I would leave the office and that is it and the rest of the time is with my family. Now I still answer calls in the evening. [Helene]
Role is therefore a critical element in understanding the con- tribution that telework makes to work-life balance: ‘Social roles...are bundles of expectations directed at the incumbents of positions in a given society’ (Dahrendorf 1973: 18). Conflict between roles occurs ‘when a person [is] obliged to play one
or more roles with contradictory expectations’ (Dahrendorf
1973: 54). This article has documented both the roles of tele-
workers – at work and in the home – and clear cases of conflict
between these roles, particularly when attempting to meet the
expectations of clients in producing good quality work to
deadlines on the one hand and the expectations of family with
respect to domestic responsibilities and dealing with emer- gencies on the other. Without the temporal and locational bar- riers between home and work provided by commuting to an organisation for purposes of paid employment, the teleworker is thrown back on her own resources to manage the competing expectations generated by clients and family. It is for this rea- son that teleworkers express such ambivalence towards their
working conditions: her views will change according to the interest uppermost in her mind at that moment – her ability to produce a good piece of work for the client (in which case she will focus on the advantages of flexibility) or her concerns about the family (in which case she will focus on the disadvan- tages of working at home).
An important finding of this article therefore is that although individuals do experience a degree of temporal flexibility and are able to fit in non-work related activities in their working day, this does not necessarily mean that their work-life bal- ance is enhanced. It is certainly not a straightforward solution to balancing the needs home and work. Social attitudes, par- ticularly those expressed in the home, do not yet understand the demands of telework. Temporal flexibility brings with it new challenges which have to be managed carefully: self- employed teleworking brings with it a set of benefits and chal- lenges which co-exist, and to emphasise the one at the expense of the other may be misleading. ‘Work-life ambivalence’ may be nearer the mark than ‘work-life balance’ for these workers.

REFERENCES

Alaszewski, A. (2006) Using Diaries for Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G. and Fugate M (2000) ‘All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions’. Academy of Man- agement Review, 25(2): 472-491.
Avery, G. and Baker, E. (2002) ‘Reframing the informated household workplace’. Information and Organization, 12: 109-
134.
Bailey, D. and Kurland, N. (2002)‘A review of telework re- search: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 23: 382-400.
Bains, S. (2002) ‘New technologies and old ways of working in the home of the self-employed teleworker’. Work and Employ- ment 17(2): 89-97.
Bains, S. and Gelder, U. (2003) ‘What is friendly about the workplace in the home? The case of self-employed parents

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 5

ISSN 2229-5518

and their children’. New Technology, Work and Employment
18(3): 223-234.
Baruch, Y. (2000) ‘Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as per- ceived by professionals and managers’. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1): 34-49.
Benson, E. (2009) ‘Employment Protection’ in M. Gold (ed.) Employment Policy in the European Union. Origins, Themes and Prospects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blanpain, R., (2001): The legal and contractual situation of tele- workers in the European Union: The law aspects including self- employed (Consolidated report). Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.(there are lots of names here, more than 10, they are the National rappor- teurs here is the link
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/1997/28/en/1/wp9728en.p df
Bradley, H., Erickson, E., Stephenson, C. and Williams, S. (2000) Myths at Work. Oxford: Blackwell
Breg, P., Appelbaum, E. and Kalleberg, A. (2004) ‘Contesting time: International comparisons of employee control of work- ing time’. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 57(3): 331-349.
Dahrendorf, R. (1973) Homo Sociologicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J. and Pettit, T. (2005)
‘Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies
in Australian organizations’. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 16(1): 90-103.

ECaTT (2000) ‘Benchmarking progress on electronic commerce and new ways of working’, Available: www.ecatt.com. (Ac- cessed: 2005, October 30).
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard N.P. (2000) ‘Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs’. Academy of Management Review, 25:
178–199.
Gajendran, R. and Harrison, D. (2007) ‘The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psycho- logical mediators and individual consequences’. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 92(6): 1524-1541.
Haddon, L. (1994) ‘Benefits and tensions: A study of home teleworking’. European Journal of Teleworking, 2(3): 18-20.
Hill, J., Hawkins, A. and Miller, B (1996) Work and family in the virtual office: Perceived influences of mobile telework’. Family Relations, 45(3): 293-301.
Hill, H., Hawkins, A., Ferris, M. and Weitzman, M. (2001)
‘Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of per-
ceived job flexibility on work and family life balance’. Family

Relations, 50(1): 49-58.

Hotopp, U. (2002) ‘Teleworking in the UK’, Labour Market

Trends, June. London: Department of Trade and Industry, pp.

311-318.
Karoly, L. and Zissimopoulos, J. (2004) ‘Self-employment
among older US workers’. Monthly Labour Review, 127(7): 24-
47.
Kerrin and Hone, M. (2001) ‘Job seekers perception of tele- working: A cognitive mapping approach’. New Technology, Work and Employment, 16(2): 130-143.
Lewis, S. (2003) ‘The integration of paid work and the rest of
life: Is post-industrial work the new leisure?’ Leisure Studies,
22(4): 343-345.
Madsen, S. (2003) ‘The effects of home-based teleworking on work-family conflict.’ Human Resource Development Quarterly,
14(1): 35-58.
Mann, S. and Holdsworth, L. (2003) ‘The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions, and health’. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3): 196-211.
McKenzie, J. (1983) ‘The accuracy of telephone call data col-
lected by diary methods’. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4):
417-27.
Merton, R.K. with Barber, E. (1976) Sociological Ambivalence and

Other Essays. New York: Free Press.

Mirchandani, K. (1998) ‘Protecting the boundary: Teleworker
insights on the expansive concept of work’. Gender and Society,
12(2): 168-187.
Mirchandani, K. (2000) ‘The best of both worlds and cutting my own throat: Contradictory images of home-based work’. Qualitative Sociology, 23(2): 159-180.
Monnier, S. (2001) ‘Travail à domicile: Une liberté a bien sur-
veillé’. Tertiaire, 97: 64-66.
Nelson, M. (1994) ‘Vive’ la différence: A study of teleworking
in France’. European Journal of Teleworking, 2(2): 17-20.

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

The research paper published by IJSER journal is about Work-life Balance or Work-life Ambivalence? Managing Flexibility amongst Self-employed Teleworkers 6

ISSN 2229-5518

Nilles, J. (2000) ‘Telework America Research: Key Findings’,
October. International Telework Association and Council. Availa- ble: www.telecommute.org. (Accessed 15 November 2002)
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996) ‘Calendars and keys: The classification
of ‚home‛ and ‚work‛.’ Sociological Forum, 11(3): 563-582.
Osnowitz S. (2005) ‘Managing Time in Domestic Space: Home-
based Contractors and Household Work’, Gender and Society,
19(1): 83-103
Pitt-Catsouphes, M. and Morchetta, A. (1991) The Coming of Age: Telework. Boston: Boston University Centre for Work and Family.
Qvortrup (1998) in ECATT 2000 ‘Benchmarking progress on new ways of working across Europe, p.8 (full reference from ECATT 2000, p.8?)
Ruiz, Y. and Walling, A. (2005) ‘Home-based working using communication technologies’. Labour Market Division, Office for National Statistics 113(10): 405-436.’the title of the article is cor- rect’
Saunders, M., Lewis, A. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Me- thods for Business Students. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Sixsmith, J. et al. (2001) When work comes home: Mapping the work-family interface. Manchester Metropolitan University: Re- search Institute for Health and Social Change.
Smelser, N.J. (1998) ‘The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences: 1997 Presidential Address’, American Sociologi- cal Review, 63(1): 1-16.
Status Report on European Telework (1998) Available at:
http:www.eto.org.uk/twork/tw98/word/tw98-7.doc. (Accessed
3 June 2004)
Thomas, L. and Ganster D. (1995) ‘Impact of family supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 615.
Valcour, M. (2007) ‘Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work- family balance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1512-1523.
Voydanoff, P. (2005) ‘Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: A demands and resources ap- proach’. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4): 822-836.

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org