Dr. Awais e Siraj Managing Director Genzee Solutions, A Strategy, Balanced Scorecard, Scenario Planning, Competency Based Human Resource Management Consulting Company

1. Subjugation of Work-Life Balance Policies to
Pressures of Work
Dr. Awais e Siraj Managing Director/CEO Genzee Solutions, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract:
This paper has critically looked at the changing patterns of work in the last few decades
specifically considering the ‘non-standard’ and contractual nature of jobs leading to
major shifts in the skills requirement, growing levels of job insecurity, patterns of
employee resistance and intensification of labor and concludes that despite the
increasing interest in the practices and policies of “work-life” balance, there is conflicting
evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the pressures of work are so great that work-
life balance policies will inevitably fail to deliver.
Introduction:
The fundamental causes of change in the world and more specifically in the UK have
been the rising levels of life expectancy, mortality rates, birth rates and migration
whereby the population of UK alone rose from 38 million in the year 1900 to 59 million in
2000. (CLMS: 2006) Likewise the labor market of the early decades of twentieth century
marked by ‘standard’ connotations of fixed location, time specificity, and open ended
nature changed to ‘non-standard’ connotations of self – employment, flexi – working,
franchising, outsourcing, home-working and sub contracting. These changes started
from the simple traditional factors whereby a vacancy had to be filled temporarily in the
absence of an employee on holiday, sick leave or maternity leave. Later on, bowing to
the increasing demand of employees to take up non-standard and flexible work
responsibilities, employers gave it a serious thought and incorporated the same into
their systems. This was eventually followed by market flexibility induced by market
uncertainty.
Defining Work – Life Balance:
Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) once remarked, "Why is it that I always get
the whole person when what I really want is a pair of hands?" Employment may be
regarded as the ownership on an employee’s time and presence by the employer for a
certain number of hours of part of the day. (Harvey, 1999; Felstead and Jewson, 1999)
But since people are different from machines, the boundaries between work and non-
work times remain indistinguishable and the spill-over effect is a common phenomenon.
Many attempts have been made to keep the life and work separate from one another
some of which have been partly successful. In societies where labor markets generate

2. and distribute income, the relationship between spaces of work and non work and
institutional and cultural times is defined as work-life balance. (Felstead et al, 2002)
Work – Life Balance Practices and Policies:
Work – life balance may also be defined as practices that enhance the independence of
workers to synchronize, coordinate and integrate work and non work facets of their lives
during employment and non-employment times. The core philosophy is that the workers
should be able to relate periods of work and non-work between short and long intervals
i.e. the breakup of number of hours in a day as well as the breakup of days in a year.
Work – life balance practices must enable the workers to improve autonomy and
flexibility in order to allocate full attention to work while they are attending to
employment. A small number of workers consider work and life as separate entities and
therefore balanceable. For a majority, life and work are amalgamated and intertwined
and this indistinguishable and inseparable from one another. (Eikhof and Haunschild,
2006) The underlying premise of all discussions is that employees have too much work
and long working hours. (IDS 2000) The management practices that explicitly recognize
work-life balance practices and incorporate them into their systems in order to improve
profitability and productivity of organization are work-life balance policies.
The history of work-life balance policies started with labor market trends made it difficult
to working parents to strike a balance between family responsibilities and work
commitments. (CLMS 2006) The classical pattern of families in UK comprises of a full –
time working father and a part – time working mother. The percentage of working
mothers with a child under five years of age rose from 43% in 1999 to 54% in 2001
whereas no change was seen in the employment rates of fathers. (Dex, 2003) More
than half of mothers and a majority of fathers (79%) were found to be working outside
the routine office hours of 9 to 5. More than half of fathers and more than one third of
mothers work on at least one Sunday in a calendar month. (La Valle et al., 2002)
Despite the Working Time Directive 6% mothers and 30% fathers cross the limit of 48
hours work week and over half of fathers and 13% of mothers work more than 40 hours
a week. Self employment together with atypical and long working hours, and weekend
working is a distinguishing phenomenon in 16% fathers and 8% mothers with
dependent children. (Bell and La Valle; 2003)
The percentage of “model employers” in the UK till 1996 was approximately 5. The term
‘model employers’ was designated to those who provided a family friendly atmosphere
to their employees through paternity leaves, extra-statutory maternity leaves, an
arrangement for non-standard form of work and childcare facilities. (Forth et al. 1997:
195) However these practices were more prevalent in public sector organizations and

3. large organizations. The demand or desire for flexi hours from employees rose
considerably between 1996 and 2000. (Hogarth et al. 2000: 16-17)
There are differing interests between employees and employers on the family friendly
employment policy. While employees wish for flexible working hours, non-standard
forms of work, paid leaves etc. etc., employers try to off-set the cost benefit of all these
facilities. (Holtermann, 1995; Scheibl and Dex, 1998) The private sector employers,
already pushed by the effects of globalization and competitiveness to keep a close
watch on the bottom line profits, find it difficult to justify the cost of disruption caused by
temporary reduction in productivity caused by absent colleagues and extra expenditures
on these family friendly policies. Moreover, they find it hard to justify the reduced level of
input to those who are not covered by such arrangements leading to resentments within
the team. It is difficult to compare the cost benefit ratio of such arrangements before and
after effecting these policies but some organizations in the UK have made their before
and after benefits public. Organizations like Asda, Chubb Group, National Westminster
Bank and Abbey National have reported and publicized that they have benefited from
these policies in terms of increased retention, reduced sickness and boosted morale
thus challenging the notion of a net loss through such activities. However, much more
data is awaited to reach a definitive conclusion.
In a landmark study done by Dex (2003), it has been revealed that father and mothers
put family life at the center of their attention. There are challenges at all levels, starting
from a little change in school time – tables of their children to changes in working hours
and changes in geographical locations of work, each one exerting a pressure of its own
kind on the parents. This, augmented by the shift towards atypical work has forced
families to take some drastic decisions about their personal and family life by either
moving to part time work or self employment. Some families have moved to convenient
geographical locations in order to adjust to these changes.
The Pressures of Work
The levels of occupational stress are increasing and work is intensifying. The impact of
work life pressures into domestic and family environment demonstrates itself in the
shape of exhaustion, stress and sleepless nights. (Hyman et al. 2003) The pressures of
work on employees are immense despite the repeated expression of the government to
provide opportunities for the employees to balance their personal life alongside work
life. (CLMS 2006)
The following key factors have been identified by researchers to be biggest source of
work pressures:

4. Non-Standard Employment
Although many positive connotations have been associated with the non standard form
employment, noteworthy among them being flexibility, creativity, positive response to
change and innovation, the list of negative connotations is equally long and strong. Non
standard form of employment is also associated with high turnover, insecurity, coercive
management, lowest wage rates, inconvenient and unsocial working hours and
intensified labor processes. (Felstead and Jewson: 1999) Evidence suggests that young
workers, women with dependent children, near retirement people and those from ethnic
minorities are more likely to be in non-standard jobs. (Dex and McCulloch, 1995:
Blossfield and Hakim, 1997) However some consider non standard work a blessing
because they can enjoy work as well as family. (Watson and Fothergill 1993) However,
majority of them were women with children who could thus find time to attend to family
as well as make some extra money.
The critical pressures for choosing between standard and non-standard works and
workforce have always been emanating from the strategy of organizations to remain
internationally competitive through flexibility, agility, subcontracting, niche marketing,
franchising or networking. Felstead and Jewson argue that it is the strategy whether
deliberate (Hunter et Al 1993) or emergent (Procter et al 1994) that decides which form
of work to choose for employees in order to remain competitive and profitable. Non –
standard form of work is also influenced by social process (Lane 1989) and economic
development and could be one of the ways of mobilizing cheap labor for rapid economic
growth necessary for globalization. Therefore the root of pressure on workers to
become a victim of non-standard form of work has its origins in globalization,
managerial decisions, society and economy.
Another element of pressure on the employees within the non-standard framework
emerged from the concept of “core” and “Peripheral” groups in an organization which
meant that an organization has to have a central group of smaller number of people
who are multi-skilled and could handle multi – tasking thereby remaining ‘flexible’ to the
changing environment. This phenomenon was labeled as ‘functional’ flexibility. On the
other hand, the same organization had a much larger ‘peripheral’ group of employees
who were labeled ‘flexible’ in terms of balancing out the ‘number’ of people in an
organization. Both groups remain under duress: The core group because of its
expectations to remain multi-skilled and ready for multi-tasking (which also means
extended work hours and handling of various functions simultaneously). The ‘peripheral’
group had the pressure of redundancy, low wages, absence of fringe benefits and
insecurity. (Pollert: 1988; Atkinson 1984; NEDO, 1986) A third type of ‘flexibility’ is the
decision ability of managers to upward and most commonly (and painfully) downwards

5. revision of wages by linking them to business environment. An interesting form of
numerical flexibility as described by Streeck (1987) is to engage the ‘core’ employees in
over-time work. Irrespective of the ways in which we classify this ‘flexibility’, it only adds
to the nervousness of employees because of uncertainty.
In a landmark study done by Felstead and Gallie (2002) have concluded that full time
employees are more skilled than part-time employees in terms of their computational,
people management and problem solving skills. Likewise, temporary workers are rather
more disadvantaged than their part time counterparts when compared to full time
employees vis-à-vis development and strategic planning opportunities. Temporary
workers also felt the most ‘insecure’ followed by part time and full time workers. Payne
and Payne (1993) found strong correlation between non-standard form of employment
and recent unemployment implying that people who remain our of employment for a
long period of time either restart at a lower skill level positions or prefer to engage in self
employment.
Changing Skills
Skills can be classified as A) Skills in Person i.e. the attributes in an individual acquired
by an individual through education, training, experience and qualifications. B) Skills in
Job i.e. discretion and complexity learned to comply with job requirements and C)
Setting i.e. social relations like teamwork, people skills, leadership, communication
(CLMS: 2006)
During the early decades of the second half of 20th century, educational qualifications,
analytical abilities and technical know-how was considered to be the main determinant
of skill. (Keep and Mayhew 1999) As early as 1977, it was recognized that in addition to
educational qualifications and certifications, the soft skills like personality, attitudes,
manners, appearance, teamwork etc. are the key distinguishing elements between the
employed and unemployed youth. (MSC 1977: 17, DES 1979a) Afterwards,
globalization, economic and technological changes tilted the understanding and
recognition towards relational and soft skills while still building on educational
qualifications and technical know-how. (Payne: 2000) The implications for this on the so
called ‘knowledge worker’ focused on processing of increasing amount of information
and knowledge across diverse contexts for decision making. (Reich: 1992) The
pressure is now on the employees to receive not only a broader formal education but
also get generic training on soft skills as well as vocational learning. (Green 1999b: 12)
The pressure of achieving an all round skill level is so great that a lot of employees
improve their educational qualifications during their employment to stay competitive.
(Murray and Steedman: 1998)

6. Intensity of Work and Job Security
Increasing level of work intensity and decreasing level of job security has been a focus
of attention of researchers despite high levels of employment. (CLMS 2006) However, it
is interesting to note that there is a big gap in the actual unemployment and perceived
unemployment. Employees are under the ‘impression’ and ‘fear’ that they have higher
chances of job loss and lower chances of getting an equally rewarding job if they are
laid off. Similarly the intensity of work, as measured by the number of hours spent on
work (Green: 2001) is also based on perception and not much reality because the
number of working hours have reduced over the years. However the distribution of
working hours shifted from majority to fewer numbers of people who worked much more
than others. (Green: 2001) Thus the increased number of hours increased for some but
not the entire work force.
Beatson (2002) found out that a majority (60%) of employees feel secure in their jobs
and only 19% feel insecure. This demonstrates that "Our perceptions not any objective
reality govern our emotional response and resulting behavior” (Dr Valeri O'Hara PhD,
Clinical Psychologist) On the other hand, work intensity, measured by the ‘work-efforts’
is demonstrated to have increased from 29% in 1986 to 50% in 2001. (Falstead et al
2002: Chapter 6)
The cost of enhancement in skills of employees is an increased work pressure and
deterioration in employee health and wellbeing. (Green et al 2002) The range of tasks
the employees perform, the pace at which they work, the pressure from managers,
colleagues, the responsibilities and the quantity of work have increased over time.
(Burchell et al 1999) The employee involvement programs were a welcome option only
if they allowed greater control over work and organization. However, all efforts remained
inadequately rewarded. One of the worst fears of changing intensity and increasing
flexibility was the perception of losing control over job and organization.
Falstead et al have demonstrated that job insecurity remained almost statistically
insignificant in their study through 1986 to 1997. They have still argued that insecurity at
work has a direct impact on the psychological ill health of the unemployed as well as its
household. The intensity of work, as measured by the ‘intensive effort’ was at its peak in
the 1980’s in the manufacturing sector which in the 1990’s shifted to public sector.
Green (2001) also established that across Britain, from 1992 to 1997, there was a steep
rise in ‘constrained efforts’ from employees at work followed by a rise in ‘discretionary
effort’. It was surprising to note that the rise in work intensity was primarily associated to
‘peer pressure’ instead of ‘supervisor pressure’.

7. “Higher skilled jobs engender greater enthusiasm but also greater anxiety” (Green and
Duncan: 2002) People with falling or stationary skills are less prone to stress than those
with an increasing levels of stress as higher levels of skills are directly proportional to
higher levels of arousal. The reason for this arousal as put forward by Green and
Duncan is greater involvement and task discretion in addition to empowerment and peer
support in learning new skills. Inexorably, high skilled jobs are associated to hard work
and there is hardly any doubt in the premise that hard work is associated to anxiety,
stress and physical well being. Another negative aspect for high engagement at
workplace is the spillover of work into non-work or family activities. (White et al. 2003)
Patterns of Resistance
The representation of workers in the unions has reduced from 40% to 18% in the last 30
years. (CLMS 2006) Trade unions are becoming less attractive to workers because of
shifting nature of power and “intellectual rediscovery of individualized forms of
resistance”. Historically trade unions at large workplaces had much higher penetration
levels and lower penetration at small workplaces. This tradition has changed to lower
penetration at large workplaces yet small workplaces are still the same. A new concept
of union employer partnership emerged and heavily supported by the government has
shifted the power and strength of trade unions to more of a promotion of shared interest
of the organizations. Workers became part of the corporate family because their
financial stakes in organizations gave them more say in day to day activities of the
organization. Therefore the most visible and obvious form of resistance two or three
decades ago have virtually disappeared. Hyman and Summers (2007) have found out
that the involvement of employees in work – life balance issues leads to ‘greater
breadth, codification and quality’ in the presence of recognized independent unions.
However most organizations remain within the minimal statutory levels of provision of
work-life balance practices.
Four theoretical positions have been identified for association of factors related to the
use work-life balance and family friendly working practices. They are briefly explained
as under:
Institutional Theory
According to institutional theory, the conformation and manifestation of organizations is
a direct reflection of the norms and pressures of a society. (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;
Oliver, 1991) “Social legitimacy” has been identified as the reason why these
organizations tend to remain in conformity with the societies in which they operate.
Large size corporations of public and private sector have a strong inclination to be
identified as ‘conformists’ because their size and business is clearly visible at local as

8. well international level and they are also accountable to the body of voters. Small
organizations of private sector can choose to remain unyielding to the social pressures
but those who have strategic intentions of growing bigger in future tend to remain
competitive by imitating the actions of ‘big brothers’. They understand that it is ultimately
their reputation that will help them attract good human resource for their operations.
(McKee et al. 2000) Trade unions in organizations may prove to be a double – edged
sword. If on one hand, their presence may encourage organizations to present
themselves as a family friendly organization to the society, yet on the other hand,
organizations may choose to react by remaining ‘within their shell’. Therefore according
to institutional theory, the espousal of work life balance policies in an organization is
related to its sector, size, industry and unionization.
Organizational Adaptation Theory
Organizational Adaptation Theory puts the values of senior management at the center
of all decisions relating to interpretation and perception of societal norms. Therefore it is
one step ahead of the Institutional Theory whereby in addition to mere response to the
societal norms, work-life balance practices are recognized, known and taken heads on
by the board of management. (Morgan and Milliken, 1992; Goodstein, 1992; Ingram and
Simons, 1995) The theory suggests that the characteristics of workforce would
determine the way in which work-life balance is organized. It is highly likely that if the
ratio of female to male employees in an organization, it will be more responsive to
societal pressures as women are under much greater pressure to succumb to family
demands. But on the other side, if the percentage of part-time employees is higher for
women, other aspects of work-family balance may take backstage position. In addition
to this, the negotiating position of highly skilled workers is much stronger as they are
difficult to replace, thus putting the management under pressure to adapt to their
demands of work0life balance policies. Last but not the least, if the composition of
management team is such that they have a ‘soft heart’ or one or more of its members
are going through a similar phase in life, the policies and practices are definitely going
to have a major inclination towards the resolve and commitment to implement
conducive and employee friendly work-life balance policies.
High Commitment Theory
One step ahead of organizational adaptation theory is the “High Commitment Theory”
whereby organizations use work-life balance policies and practices to raise the level of
commitment of employees towards their organization. (Gallie et al. 2001; Wood, 1999)
HR function can improve the ‘marketability’ of their organization by actively promoting,
supporting as well as propagating the family friendly environment thus improving the
binding of existing employees to the organization as well as attracting highly skilled

9. workforce for future recruitment. (Felstead and Aston, 2000; Osterman 1995) While this
looks very attractive, there are some downsides of ‘work at home’ and flexi working
environments. Employers need to devise specific performance measurement systems
to monitor, control and execute the work of those working at home or during flexi hours
when formal checking systems are not in place. (DTI 2000; Dwelly, 2000; Huws, 1993)
The ones commonly in use are virtual meetings, conference calls, team get together
etc. that with the wider use of ICT has become much more prevalent.
Situational Theory
“Well established pressures towards profitability and productivity drive managers
towards work-life balance solutions to difficulties in recruiting and retaining high-quality
labor forces” (Felstead et al. 2002) Situational theory is not about ‘normative pressures
of society’ or ‘adaptation to organizational environment’ or ‘a step ahead in caring’. It is
purely a business proposition whereby the broader contextual environment is taken into
consideration and its dynamics of work environment are brought into practice. The
believers and practitioners of this theory wish to control the challenges of staff turnover,
absenteeism, recruitment, retention and unfilled vacancies on the premise that
situational theory sees the work life balance practices and policies as a direct
undertaking. This phenomenon does not consider the basis which may however lie in
the shifting gender proportions at workplace.
Are Work – life Balance Policies Doomed to deliver?
There is conflicting evidences and debates on defining a ‘real pressure’ on employees
and its credible source (s). There is even hazier clarity and inconclusive support as to
whether work-life policies and practices are doomed or not. What is now known is that
one factor alone is not responsible for employee stress but it is a combination of various
factors exerting varying degree of pressures at various times leading to work pressures.
We will look at them in bit more detail.
Hyman et al (2003) have found that organizational pressures and lack of work centrality
intrude into the non-work areas of employee lives. However their manifestations depend
on levels of worker autonomy, type of work and organizational support. These
interrelated factors result in conflicts because they create sizeable dents in the only
resources of ‘time and energy’ available to employees. (Cooper et al. 2001) Therefore,
this directly deals with lives of people and invites attention of employers and law makers
towards the need and process of striking balance between domestic life and compelling
demands of work. But despite this hullabaloo there are no recognized standards of
family friendliness or work-life balance. This becomes even more complicated in the so
called ‘knowledge economy’ and ‘information society’ where the intangibles like ideas,

10. services, softwares and relationships are more important than tangibles. (Newell et al.
2002) Such kind of economy is characterized by a variety of organizational forms,
greater percentage of women in workforce, different geographical boundaries and an
array of contractual employment options. Nevertheless, the most common element
among all such forms of employment would be the time as a measurement for
performance and use of Information Communications and Technology. (ICT)
The “Baseline Study on Work Life Balance” conducted by DfEE demonstrated that staff
working at most places worked for hours beyond their paid time. Employees explained
this phenomenon as a backlog or temporary addition in the workload. Almost 80% of all
work places reported that some employees would regularly stay in the office much
longer than they were expected to or paid for. Simpson (1998) attributed this to ‘growing
perceived insecurity’ which in fact is a demonstration of ‘commitment’ of technical,
managerial and professional staff to the organization. Managers and professionals work
the longest additional hours and that too without any financial rewards. (Hogarth et al.
2000) Surprisingly almost 10% men (one in nine) living as couple with dependent
children men worked at least 60 hours a week.
Historically, the ideal worker was expected to carry out the prescribed behavior of
obedience, punctuality and reliability within a rigidly prescribed managerial guidelines in
a factory setting. However, emotions, cognition and attitudes are seen as the primary
resources of production in a flexible workplace and the worker is supposed to surrender
his ‘self’ and relate it only to the organization. The management is clearly focused on its
goals and expects its employees to achieve them through an empowered feeling,
thought and action. (Cunningham et al. 1996) Studies of the exploitation of labor have
should that employees in the services sector are increasing expected demonstrate their
commitment by engaging their whole person into the job. (Scase 2002) However if the
organizations get the whole worker, the distinctions between home-life and work-life
begin to disappear. Social activities, team nights out, competition, ceremonies and
prizes for the employees or staff of modern organizations who are now labeled as
associates or members at workplace are all attempts to smudge distinction between
home and work life.
Increasing number of lone parent households, decline in the extended family
characterize the evolving structure of family life. (Crow and Hardey 1999) While
household life is becoming increasingly complex, work is playing an increasingly
prominent role in lives of people. The number of single parents with dependent children
has multiplied three times its figure in 25 years to 20% of all families. The resultant step-
relationships itself are a major source of tension and complexities in these families.
Because of longer life expectancy, the requirements of elder care have increased in the

11. absence of institutional care. 45% of women are now in work of which 70% are in paid
work and 65% have dependent children. There has been minimal or no change in the
domestic responsibilities of women despite the fact that their numerical representation
has grown considerably in paid work.
Men in Great Britain work for 3.5 hours per week more than men in Greece (second
highest in Europe) and women in Sweden (second highest in Europe) follow British
women by 0.8 hours per week. (Social Trends 2001) This phenomenon is more
attributable to ‘long hours culture’ than actual work load. (White et al 2003) However,
raising hue and cry about this phenomenon is also commonly evident in the shape of
stories in the press about the damaging effects of long working hours to the workers
and their families. Politicians and government have been quick to respond to the call as
a result of which family policy and Child Care Strategy was evolved in Green Paper (DTI
1998). Work – Life Balance Campaign was launched by labor government in the year
2000 which was aimed at propagating work life balance practices as a benefit to the
employers. The Green Paper did not only seek family friendly policies for married
people or parents but it included everyone’s personal and professional life challenges. It
strongly promoted the philosophy that work-life balance is beneficial not only for
employees but also for the employers.
Employees, overwhelmed by work intensification, increased influx of women in labor
market, widespread feelings of job insecurity, non standard forms of work, increasing
use of information and communication technologies and work at odd hours tend to hold
time pressures responsible for everything. (Roberts 2007) Employees complaint about
time pressures, work-life imbalance and long hours irrespective of the fact the working
time has not lengthened. It is highly unlikely that the number of hours will be reduced
further because of high opportunity costs. The good thing to note is that competitive
employees have started using self help strategies to get the most out of their time and
life.
Moore (2007) conducted a research to compare and contract managers and workers of
a multinational company to see how they made attempts to reach and maintain worklife
balance. She found out that although the work-life balance initiatives were primarily
focusing on managers, the workers did better in terms of balancing their work with life.
Managers displayed more loyalty to the organizations. Neither managers nor workers
displayed a positive attitude to their work. While the focus of workers was on personal
satisfaction, managers focused on achieving status. The conclusion drawn from this
study is that work-life balance initiative may in fact have a deleterious impact on work
and family life.

12. Summary and Conclusion:
The debate is still open and ongoing whether work-life balance policies and practices
deliver their desired results of employee satisfaction and lesser degree of pressures at
work. Hyman et al (2003) have found that organizational pressures and lack of work
centrality intrude into the non-work areas of employee lives. The “Baseline Study on
Work Life Balance” conducted by DfEE demonstrated that staff working at most places
worked for hours beyond their paid time. Cunningham et al demonstrated that the
management is clearly focused on its goals and expects its employees to achieve them
through an empowered feeling, thought and action. Crow and Hardey identified step
relationships as a source of stress. White et al concluded that work pressure is more
attributable to ‘long hours culture’ than actual work load. Roberts emphasized a
combination of many factors and Moore identified conflicting interests between
managers and worker. Scheibl and Dex propagate that a relationship of trust and
commitment between employer and worker can be a new way of addressing these
challenges.
It is yet to be conclusively decided whether the actual pressure on employees is
emanating from time, family, ‘non-standard’ and contractual nature of jobs leading to
major shifts in the skills requirement, growing levels of job insecurity, and intensification
of labor increased influx of women in labor market, widespread feelings of job insecurity,
increasing use of information and communication technologies, globalization,
competition or work at odd hours. It could also be combination of all or few that gives an
overwhelming feeling to employees about work. Therefore, it would not be intelligent to
lay everything on work-life balance policies let alone declare them doomed to deliver.
References:
1. Atkinson, J. (1984) “Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations”, Personnel
Management, 16(8): 28 – 31
2. Beatson, M. (January 01, 2000). Job "quality" and job security. Labour Market
Trends, 108, 10.)
3. Bell, A., and La Valle, I., (2003) Combining Self Employment and Family Life,
Bristol; Policy Press.
4. Burchell, B. J., Day, D., Hudson, M; Ladipo, D; Mankelow, R.; Nolan, J. P; Reed,
H; Wichert, I. C. and Wilkinson, F., (1999) Job Enrichment or Job
Impoverishment, Chap. 5, Job Insecurity and Work Intensification, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. Pp29-39 & 68-70
5. CLMS 2006, Changing Skills, Module 2 Option 2G, Unit 3, p6-7 Center for Labor
Market Studies, University of Leicester.

13. 6. CLMS 2006, Long – Term Changes to the Labor Market, Module 2 Option 2G,
Center for Labor Market Studies, University of Leicester.
7. Cooper, C., Dewe, P. and O’Driscoll, M. (2001) Organizational Stress, London:
Sage
8. Crow, C. and Hardey, M. (1999). Diversity and Ambiguity among lone-parent
households in modern Britain, In G. Allan (ed.), The Sociology of the Family.
Oxford: Blackwell
9. Cunningham, I., Hyman, J., Summers, J. and Wise, S. (2002). Empowerment:
The Power to Do What? Industrial Relations Journal, 27: 143 – 54
10. Department of Education and Science (1979), A Better Start in Working Life,
Vocational Preparation for Unemployed Young People in Britain (London:
HMSO)
11. Department of Trade and Industry, (DTI) (1998), Fairness at Work, Cm. 3968,
London: Stationery Office
12. Dex, S, (2003) Families and Work in the Twenty-First Century, York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
13. Dex, S., McCulloch, A., & Great Britain. (1995). Flexible employment in Britain: A
statistical analysis. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
14. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W., (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American
Sociological Review, 48:2, 147-160
15. DTI (2000) Working Anywhere: Exploring Teleworks for individuals and
organizations, London: Department for Trade and Industry.
16. Dwelly, T. (2000) Living at Work: A new policy framework for Modern Home
Workers, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
17. Eikhof, D. R. and Haunschild, A. (2006), Lifestyle meets market, Bohemian
Entrepreneurs in Creative Industries” Creativity and Innovation Management,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 234-41
18. Falstead, A., Burchell, B., and Green, F., (1998), New Economy, Vol. 5, Issue 3,
Danvers, MA, USA: Blackwell.
19. Falstead, A., Gallie, D., and Green, F., (2002) Work Skills in Britain, 1986-2001,
London, Department for Education and Skills, www.skope.ox.ac.uk
20. Felstead A., and Jewson, N. (1999), Flexible Labor and Non-Standard
Employment: An Agenda of Issues, Global Trends in Flexible Labour, London:
Macmillan.
21. Felstead, A., & Gallie, D. (January 01, 2004). For better or worse? Non-standard
jobs and high involvement work systems. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15, 7, 1293-1316.
22. Felstead, A., & Jewson, N. (1999). Global trends in flexible labour. Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Macmillan Business.

14. 23. Felstead, A., and Ashton, D. (2000). Tracing the Link: Organizational Structures
and Skill Demand, Human Resource Management Journal, 10:3, July, 5-21.
24. Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A., & Walters, S., (2002) Opportunities to
work at home in the context of work life balance, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, London: Personnel Publications. Pp54-76.
25. Forth, J., Lissenburgh, S., Callender, C., and Millward, N. (1997) Family Friendly
Working Arrangement in Britain – 1996, Department for Education and
Employment Research Report No. 16.
26. Gallie, D., Felstead, A. and Green, F. (2001) Employer policies and
organizational commitment in Britain 1992 – 7. Journal of Management Studies,
37:6, December, 1081-1101
27. Goodstein, J. (1994). Institutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness:
Employer involvement in work-family issues, Academy of Management Journal,
37:2, 350 – 382.
28. Green A., (1999) Comparative perspectives on Skills Formation in Japan, South
Korea, Singapore and Germany, The ESRC High Skills Project, Working Paper
5, Post – 16 Education Center, Institute of Education, London.
29. Green, F. (January 01, 2001). It’s Been A Hard Day’s Night: The Concentration
and Intensification of Work in Late Twentieth-Century Britain. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 39, 1, 53-80.
30. Green, Francis & Gallie, Duncan (2002), High Skills and High Anxiety: Skills,
Hardwork and Mental Well-Being, SKOPE Research Paper No. 27, Spring,
Oxford and Warwick, Department of Economics, University of Oxford and
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.
31. Hakim, C. (1995) ‘A Sociological Perspecitve on Part-Time Work’, in Blossfeld,
H.-P., & Hakim, C. (1997). Between equalization and marginalization: Women
working part-time in Europe and the United States of America. New York: Oxford
University Press.
32. Harvey, M., (1999) Economies of Time: A Framework for Analyzing the
Restructuring of Employment Relations in “Global Trends in Flexible Labor” A.
Felstead and N. Jewson (eds) London: Macmillan
33. Hogarth, T. Hasluck, C., Pierre, G., with Winterbotham, M., and Vivian, D., (2000)
Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline Study of Work-Life Balance Practices in Great
Britain – Summary Report, London, Department of Education and Employment.
34. Holtermann, S. (July 01, 1995). The Costs and Benefits to British Employers of
Measures to Promote Equality of Opportunity. Gender, Work & Organization, 2,
3, 102-112.
35. Hunter, L., McGregor, A., Maclnnes, J., & Sproull, A. (September 01, 1993). The
‘Flexible Firm’: Strategy and Segmentation. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
31, 3, 383-407.

15. 36. Huws, U. (1993) Teleworking in Britain: A Report to the Employment Department,
Employment Department Research Series, No. 18, Susses: IES
37. Hyman, J. and Summers, J. (2007) Work and Life: Can Employee
Representation Influence Balance, Employee Relations, Vol.29 No.4 pp367-384.
38. Hyman, J., Baldry, C., Scholarios, D., and Bunzel, D., (2003) Work life imbalance
in call centers and software development, British Journal of Industrial Relations,
41(2): 215 – 239.
39. Income Data Services (2000), Income Data Services Work Life Balance, IDS
Studies, p 698
40. Ingram, P. and Simons, T, (1995). Institutional and Resource Dependence
determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues, Academy of Management
Journal, 3:5, 1466-1482
41. Kalleberg, A. L. (January 01, 2001). Organizing flexibility: The flexible firm in a
new century. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 4.)
42. La Valle, I., Arthur, S., Millward, C., Scott., and Claydon, M., (2002) Happy
families? Atypical Work and its Influence on Family Life, Bristol: Policy Press
43. Lane, C. (November 01, 1989). From `Welfare Capitalism' to `Market Capitalism';
A Comparative Review of Trends towards Employment Flexibility in the Labour
Markets of Three Major European Societies. Sociology, 23, 4, 583-610.
44. Manpower Services Commission (1977) Young People and Work, Report on the
feasibility of a new programme of opportunities for young people. (Sheffied:
MSC)
45. Mayhew, K., & Keep, E. (November 30, 1998). The assessment: knowledge,
skills, and competitiveness. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15, 1, 1.
46. McKee, L., Mauthner, N., and Maclean, C., (2000), “Family Friendly” policies and
practices in the oil and gas industry: Employers’ Perspectives’, Work,
Employment and Society, 14:3, 557 – 571.
47. Moore, F. (2007) Work – Life Balance: Contrasting Managers and Workers in an
MNC, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 4 pp385-399
48. Morgan, H. and Milliken, F. J. (1992) Key to Action: Understanding Differences in
Organizations’ responsiveness to work and family issues, Human Resource
Management, 31:3, 227 – 248
49. Murray, A., & Steedman, H. (1998). Growing skills in Europe: The changing skills
profiles of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.
London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and
Political Science.
50. NEDO (1986) Changing Working Patterns: How Companies Achieve Flexibility to
Meet New Needs, London: National Economic Development Office.
51. Newel, S., Robertson, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2002) Managing
Knowledge Work, Basigngstoke: Palgrave.

16. 52. O’Hara V., Stress and the Role of Perception, http://stresscourse. tripod. com/
id100.html
53. Oliver, C., (1991), Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of
Management Review, 16:1, 145-179
54. Osterman, P.(1995). Work/Family Programs and the Employment Relationships,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:4, 681-700.
55. Part-time employment and attitudes to part-time work. (January 01, 1993).
Employment Gazette, 101, 5, 213.
56. Payne, J. (May 01, 2000). The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing
meaning of skill in UK policy discourses and some implications for education and
training. Journal of Education Policy, 15, 3, 353-369.
57. Payne, J., & Payne, C. (December 01, 1993). Unemployment and Peripheral
Work. Work, Employment & Society, 7, 4, 513-534.
58. Pollert, A., & University of Warwick. (1987). The "flexible firm": A model in search
of reality (or a policy in search of a practice)?. Coventry: Industrial Relations
Research Unit, School of Industrial and Business Studies, University of Warwick.
59. Procter, S. J., Rowlinson, M., McArdle, L., Hassard, J., & Forrester, P. (June 01,
1994). Flexibility, Politics & Strategy: In Defence of the Model of the Flexible
Firm. Work, Employment & Society, 8, 2, 221-242.
60. Reich, R. B. (1992). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century
capitalism. New York: Vintage Books.
61. Roberts, K. (2007) Work – Life Balance – The Sources of Contemporary Problem
and the Probable Outcomes – A review and interpretation of the evidence,
Employee Relations, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp 331-351
62. Scase, R. (2002). Living in the corporate Zoo, Oxford: Capstone
63. Scheibl, F., and Dex, S. (1998) Should we have more family friendly policies?,
European Management Journal, 16(5): 586 – 599.
64. Simpson, R. (1998) Presenteeism, Power and Organizational Change, British
Journal of Management, 9: 37 – 50
65. Social Trends (2001). London: Office for National Statistics
66. Streeck, W. (1986). The uncertainties of management in the management of
uncertainty: Employers, labor relations and industrial adjustment in the 1980s.
Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.
67. White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C. and Smeaton, D. (2003) High
Performance Management Practices, Working Hours and Work-Life Balance,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41:2, June 2003 0007-1080 pp. 175-195
68. Wood, S. (1999). Getting the Measure of the Transformed High Performance
Organization, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37:3, September, 391-417