Worklife Balance On Woman With Flexible And Non Flexible Working Arrangement

Abstract

Being a working women has its own ups and down, not to mention juggling between work-life and family life. Flexible working arrangement can become an answer to provide a work-life balance to working women. The purpose of this study is to analyse the differences of work-life balance between women working with flexible working hours and women working with non-flexible working hours. The objects of this research are the working and married women with two different time management groups; the flexible group and the rigid/fixed group. The data collection method applied in this study is the purposive sampling method with the samples consisting of the women working as lecturers, insurance employees, bank employees and civil servants. The data used in this study are the primary data collected from the questionnaires. This study used the independent sample t-test, and the results show that there are differences of work life balance between women working with flexible working hours and women working with non-flexible working hours. The dimension that differentiates these two groups is on work interference with personal life (WIPL) dimension in which the women in the flexible group could freely choose and use their time to work so that they can balance their time used for their family and their job.

Keywords: Work-life Balance; Flexible Working ArrangementNon Flexible Working ArrangementWorking Women

Introduction

In modern times today, the phenomenon of working women is a common thing. The traditional role of women is identical to domestic work, now they can take part in the open and start a career. From the results of a survey conducted by Accenture which is a management consulting firm, technology services, and outsourcing that 42% of women in Indonesia prefer working than staying home (Deny, 2014). Later, a survey by Grant Thornton stated that Indonesia's is the highest sixth number of career woman in the world (Priherdityo, 2016). The background why women work, the economic motives, intention to build a career, and the awareness that the development requires the labour of both men and women (Kartono, 2008). The economic pressures that occurred in the last few decades have become one of the causes of women plunged into the world of work (Ford, B.A., & Langmaker, 2007). These days in a daily life, there are some women that can even reach a very high positions in an organization.

At this time, there is a shift in the kind of work done by women, so the jobs that used to be dominated by men, now mostly done by women (Handayani, 2013). However, the involvement of women in the world of work can be positive or negative. When viewed from the positive side, women can improve their quality by having a job and implement the educational results obtained in the world of work and can contribute to an equal relationship between husband and wife. Then, the negative impact that can occur if the woman is already married and at the same time have a career outside of home, it can cause a work life imbalance between work and family. If women have these two roles, then one will not be maximum, such as reduced time for husband and child, or unprofessional conduct at work due to family matters. Some women also even neglect their self-interest because they prioritize the interests of work and family.

Women were deemed incapable of balancing between work and their family (Lyness, 2014). The higher the work and responsibilities given to women than more time need to be spent on the job, and it can reduce the time for their family so that one of the roles will not be balanced. From these issues, women must balance between their work life and family life. The existence of a balance between working life and life outside work such as family, social, and community is called work life balance. Work life balance means that employees can freely use flexible working hours to balance their work or work with other commitments such as family, hobbies, art, study and not just focus on their work (Frame, 2003). Then according to Moore (2007), a good work life balance is defined as a situation where workers feel able to balance work and personal life or other commitments. Furthermore,) work life balance is defined as a state when a person experiences a balanced attachment and satisfaction in his or her role as a worker and within the family (Greenhaus, 2003). Another point was suggested that the balance of family labour is a state when the individual feels effective and feels satisfaction in the role of family and work that matches his or her life-scale priorities (Voydanoff, 2004). In the world of work, there are two types of working arrangement, flexible working arrangements, and non-flexible working arrangements. One form of flexible work arrangement is flexi-time, flexi-time is to work with a certain number of hours with greater flexibility or work not as much as working hours set in the office (Hooks & Higgs, 2002). Sabeer Dasgupta, Chief Operation Officer of InMobile Solution, said that flexible working hours make employees more productive (Utami, 2013). Types of work that usually apply a flexible working arrangement are lecturers, insurance employees, online business, and so forth.

While, working women with non-flexible working arrangements experiencing working hours that have been set, and during the working hour employees continue to work to a predetermined limit and employees are not allowed to do other work than those assigned. Bank employees and civil servants are jobs that are considered as having non-flexible working arrangement. In previous research which is a literature research, showed that flexible working arrangements affect work life balance (Esther, 2017). Then, the relationship of burnout to work life balance of female lecturers (Darmawan, Silviandari, & Susilawati, 2015). The difference of this study with previous analyses is that this study will analyse work life balance practices and not only from both categories of working arrangement, flexible and non-flexible working arrangement, where the two groups of workers will be compared.

Problem Statement

Thus, the problem in this study is that “there is a difference in work-life balance of working women with non-flexible working arrangements and working women.

Research Questions

Based on the above descriptions, the research question in this study is whether there are differences in work life balance in working women using flexible work arrangements and working women who use non flexible work arrangements?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to analyse differences in work life balance in women who work using flexible work arrangements and women who work using non-flexible work arrangements. It is expected that the results of this study will provide benefits to the company to provide answers to what should the company do to its female employees for the role of women in the family and work remains balanced, and to help female employees who want to keep a career without sacrificing time with family.

Research Methods

This research is a quantitative research. The type of quantitative research used is comparative quantitative research. Comparative quantitative research is a study comparing the existence of one or more variables in two or more different samples, or at different times (Sugiyono, 2006).

The population in this study was 200 female workers. Samples to be taken include 100 female workers who use flexible work arrangements and 100 women workers who use non-flexible work arrangements. Sampling technique used in this research is purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is a technique of determining the sample with considerations or certain criteria in the sampling in accordance with the purpose of the study (Sugiyono, 2014). The criteria used in this study were the first married female workers, both using flexible work arrangements or non-flexible work arrangements. Flexible working arrangements are flexible working arrangements, the types of work with flexible work arrangements that will serve as objects of this study are lecturers and insurance employees. Then the work arrangement is not flexible is the form of work arrangements to employees where the working time has been set by the company such as working from Monday to Friday from 08.00 to 16.00, the type of work with flexible work arrangements that will serve as objects are employees of banks and civil servants civil.

Data collection is done by distributing questionnaires/questionnaires to female workers using flexible work arrangements and non-flexible work arrangements. Questionnaire is a technique of data collection conducted with the act of giving a set of questions or written statement to the respondent to be answered (Sugiyono, 2014). Questionnaires to be distributed to the object amounted to 200 questionnaires in which 100 questionnaires for female workers using flexible work arrangements and 100 questionnaires for female workers using non-flexible work arrangements. The questionnaire was taken from (Laela, 2015)

In this research, the analytical method used is statistical analysis or statistical test by using Two Independent Samples T test that is to know whether there are differences in work life balance on employees who use flexible work arrangements and employees who use work settings not flexible

Findings

By looking at the characteristics of the respondents, there are four types of occupations of respondents, there are lecturers, insurance agents, bank employees, and civil servants. The type of work of the most respondents is bank employees that are 70 people with 35% percentage. Furthermore, in the age category of the respondents, it can be concluded that the age of the most respondents are in the age group 31-40 and 41-50, the two age groups have the number of respondents each 91 people with a percentage of 45.5%. The category of income was divided into three categories: under Rp1,500,000, under Rp3,000,000, and above Rp3,000,000. 84% of respondents falls to category two.

In the category of work hours per day, the time most used by respondents is 8 hours per day with the number of 109 people with 54.5% percentage. Then, hours of work per day the least used by respondents is working hours less than 8 hours a day, i.e., as many as four people with 2% percentage. Then for the weekday work, divided into five groups namely five working days, six working days, and no special time (free). The most widely used weekday workweek by the respondents is five working days, 114 people with 57% percentage. While the lowest group used by the respondent is six working days with the number of respondents of 8 people constitutes as much as 4% percentage. Subsequently, respondents who used unpredictable (free) working days were 78 people with a percentage of 39%.

Respondents in this study are determined on two types of work that is work that uses flexible work arrangements, and jobs that use work settings are not flexible. In both types of work, the occupational categories chosen for flexible working arrangements are women who work as lecturers and insurance agents. As for the non-flexible working, arrangements are women who work with banks and civil servants. Respondents who work as lecturers work at Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU) as much as 42 people with a percentage of 21%, then for insurance agents work on the company Bumiputera as many as seven people, Jiwasraya amounted to 1 person, and Prudential as many as 50 people. Then, for bank employees working in Bank Mandiri and BCA companies each amounted to 1 person, Panin Bank, and Danamon respectively four people, then BNI amounted to 3 people and respondents who work most at the BRI of 56 people with a percentage of 28%. Then, who worked on the Regional Secretariat as many as 30 people.

This study will analyse the differences in work life balance in women who work using flexible work arrangements and women who work using non-flexible work arrangements. The dimension of the work interference with personal life (WIPL) reflects the extent to which individual work can interfere with his or her personal life, so if the category is lower, then it is better because it indicates that the work undertaken does not interfere with personal life so that his work life balance will be good. Vice versa, if the category is higher, then it shows that work interferes with personal life. The dimension of personal life interference work (PLIW) reflects the extent to which individual personal life interferes with the life of the work, if the category is lower, then it indicates that the individual's personal life does not interfere with the life of his work or vice versa, if the category is higher, then it indicates that personal life individuals are increasingly disrupting the life of work. In the personal life enhancement of work (PLEW) dimension reflects the extent to which one's personal life can improve individual performance in the workforce. If this category gets higher then it gets better, it shows that support from one's personal life can help to boost performance in doing one’s work. If both roles in personal life and role in work mutually supported, then work life balance will be better.

Work enhancement of personal life (WEPL) dimension reflected the extent to which the work can improve the quality of one’s personal life, this again shows that if the categories fall into the higher category, then the work undertaken helps the individual to maintain family life to further improve the quality in family life so it will help to improve work life balance.

From the data summarized, the average of WIPL dimension for flexible group is 2.00 indicating a low WIPL, while non-flexible group is 2.99 indicating a sufficient WIPL. The average of PLIW dimension for flexible group is 2.25 indicating a low PLIW, while non-flexible group is 2.91 indicating a sufficient PLIW. The average of PLEW dimension for flexible group is 4.46 indicating a very high PLEW, and non-flexible group is 4.26 indicating a very high PLEW. The average of WEPL dimension for flexible group is 3.18 indicating a sufficient WEPL, and non-flexible group is 3.45 indicating a very high WEPL.

Work life balance variable has four dimensions: 1) Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL), working time, stiffness, and behaviour as indicators. 2) Personal Life Interference Work (PLIW), stress, family, and family time as indicators. 3) Personal Life Enhancement of Work (PLEW) emotional conditions and family support as indicators. 4) Work Enhancement of Personal Life (WEPL) job satisfaction, and support at work as indicators.

The t-Test exhibited that there are differences in work life balance in women who work using flexible working arrangements and women who work using non-flexible working arrangement. The list of statements given to the two groups of respondents shows the differences in work life balance in both groups. In the dimension of work interference with personal life (WIPL) in working time indicator (time of work affecting time in private life) in flexible group fall into low category. This dimension indicates that women who work using flexible working hours are not limited to a certain time at work, so the routine that is undertaken in the workplace no longer interfere with the routine with the family. Flexible groups do not feel the worry about the number of working hours that will disrupt the time with the family because the hours are flexible. Then for the result of the time indicator in non-flexible group resulting in high category. The two groups showed a very different comparison on this category. This category shows that the non-flexible group still tends to use overtime, and has a solid working hour so as not to give affection or attention to their children and then disturb the time with the family, because respondents are still busy doing work even after working hour. Therefore, they use more time to work thus it cost them their family time.

For the stiffness (rigidity of work) indicator, the two groups also showed different results in which the flexible group was categorized as very low while the non-flexible group was categorized as sufficient. Stability indicators in flexible groups fall into very low categories because flexible groups have no difficulty in managing personal life and job demands because those roles can be done at their own personal preferences because there are no working hours, flexible groups are free to choose when it is time to work and when it is time for family responsibilities. In contrast, non-flexible group, with fixed working hour that is set making it difficult for them and tends to prioritize important things between family and work so often times important responsibility in ordinary family life are ignored because the rules of the place work that requires them to work on business hours and cannot leave their working space unannounced.

In the behavioural indicator, there are also differences in categories where flexible groups fall into low category while the non-flexible group included is on sufficient. This shows that the behaviours of flexible group respondents do not neglect responsibility in the family due to job demands. The attitude of this flexible group keeps balance between family and work is evidenced by the disapproval of those who do not often leave responsibility in the family for job demands. When with family, flexible groups do not do their work, so time for family is really used for family. However, in the non-flexible group who earn sufficient categories that indicate that the non-flexible group sometimes feels more focused on their work, it is not uncommon for family responsibilities to be left in advance to complete work in the company or office. But not many of the non-flexible groups leave no responsibility in the family so choose to be neutral in their behaviour.

Furthermore, for the personal life interference work (PLIW) dimension for stress indicator, the two groups show different categories in which the flexible group is in the low category and the non-flexible group is included in sufficient categories. Both categories differences show that the stress experienced by flexible groups and non-flexible groups is also different. The low category shown by the flexible group showed that the flexible group is not disturbed by their personal life while working so they can stay focused on doing the job. This group of respondents also do not feel disturbed by things in the life of his family because when working things that are considered is the responsibility of work, then at the time after work then they think of responsibility outside of his work. On the other hand, in a non-flexible group whose categorical results are sufficient, it indicates that the group still thinks about the family while working and is concerned about its responsibilities in the family, this is because less time is given to families where flexible groups tend to spend more time on premises work so that the responsibility that has not been done for the family will always be thought of while working because the responsibility in the family has not been resolved and then have to work again in the office.

In the family indicator, it also shows the different categories in which the flexible group fall into the low category while the non-flexible group is in enough category. Flexible groups have no difficulty in completing their work because they have to take care of the child and husband first because the group has plenty of time to take care of the family and feel not worried about things to do for the family because it is done well. However, the non-flexible group still tends to worry about the things that should be done to the family at work because of the lack of time with the family which causes non-flexible groups to worry about their responsibilities in the family. Not infrequently they also have difficulty in completing work at work because the responsibility in the family has not been completed so that both responsibilities are not balanced.

Then the time indicator (time in personal life affects time at work) also shows the different categories in which flexible groups fall into low categories and non-flexible groups fall into enough categories. The time in private life that flexible groups use does not affect the time at work, so they rarely delay procrastinating work because of the time demands at home, it is flexible groups because they can divide their time with family and work, the group does not delay her work at work because she has completed the responsibilities at home on time and does not interfere with her workplace responsibilities. In the non-flexible group, they tend to feel that time in their personal life also affects their time at work because they still carry out responsibilities within the family even though it should be used by them to work so that not infrequently they still postpone responsibility in their work in the office because of the demands of time at home and having to complete the responsibilities at home earlier.

Furthermore, in the personal life enhancement of work dimension with emotional condition indicator experienced by flexible group and non-flexible group does not show the difference in the indicator so that both groups are equally in very high category. This happens because both groups are equally happy and eager to work when family responsibilities have been made so that they can focus on doing responsibilities in the office. Also, both groups also felt that better emotional states could be felt when families provided better energy and mood and were experienced by both groups. Then for indicators of support from families both groups are equally needing and getting support from the family while working. Family support is the motivation and encouragement for both groups in doing the work.

For the work enhancement of personal life dimension with job satisfaction indicator, flexible group is in very high category; it shows that they are very satisfied with their work because besides that task given at work place can eliminate tension happened in private life so that moment work they can forget the tension. Similarly, the group is non-flexible, although the non-flexible group categories are high in categories, but they also feel that the work done by the group is able to remove the tensions they experience because of problems caused by their personal lives. For indicators of on-the-job support, these two groups are equally very high, indicating that although both groups have different working hours arrangements that are flexible and non-flexible, but support from the workplace is still given to the two groups, for example, they remain allowed to contact family during working hours.

From the results of the exposure to the indicators above can be seen that, very different indicators seen in the time indicator where the flexible group answered low while the flexible group answered high, the time difference used by both groups affect the life to be lived with family, where to flexible groups of time used freely or they can do the job anytime because it is erratic and unregulated so that the time with the family will not be ignored, therefore the time of work and time with family balanced. In contrast to groups that use non-flexible work arrangements, working hours are more manageable, e.g., from 8:00 to 16:00 per day so at that time they have to do their work, and if at the same time the family also needs them then one should be sacrificed. Although after 8 hours, the time after work can be used with family, but will not maximal because of fatigue in doing the job, so there is no balance between work and family. From these time differences will impact on various other factors such as job responsibilities that should be done at home for the family to be rarely done because of the amount of time spent to discharge work in the office.

Female employees cannot balance between life in the workplace and their families because it has two roles, namely the role of housewife and the role of worker, research can answer that women can balance workplace life and life in their families by working with flexible working hours [ (Handayani, 2013); (Frame, 2003); (Lyness, 2014)]. This is evident in this study, where in this study women who do work with flexible working hours can balance between family life and workplace life.

Flexible working hours arrangements can be a win-win situation for companies and employees through job designs where employees can work at home, at work, or throughout the workweek. That way employees can freely determine the time to work and time to carry out responsibilities at home. So when doing responsibilities at home no longer disturbed by the task of the office, vice versa (Blair, 2002).

Conclusion

Based on the results of research that has been done, it can be concluded that there are differences in work life balance in working women with flexible working arrangement and non-flexible work arrangements. The most visible aspect of difference for these two groups is in the work interference with personal life (WIPL) dimension where flexible groups can freely choose and use their time to work so they can balance the time spent on the family and for work, then work that is not rigid. In contrast to non-flexible groups that have hectic working hours are even still busy doing the job though after coming home from work, and have a set working hours that seem rigid and difficult to balance between personal life and life in their work.

The findings of this study suggested that there was a difference in work life balance in women who work using flexible work arrangements and women work using non-flexible work arrangements, so the findings supported previous research by (Handayani, 2013); (Frame, 2003); (Lyness, 2014) who presented the results of their research on work life balance where female employees cannot balance the time in his working life and life in his family because it has two roles, namely the role of a worker and the role of a housewife so that both roles cannot be done with the maximum. Then support research conducted by (Esther, 2017) which stated that flexible work arrangements help employees to balance work and family. Then in this study, the side that shows the most significant difference is in the dimension of work interference with personal life (WIPL) regarding time, stiffness and personal dimensions of personal interference work (PLIW) seen on the side of family influence.

Things that can be suggested in this study, especially for the company, is the company should not add work to the employees at the weekend because on a normal day has been used to do the job so that the time of the weekend given to employees to gather with family, for example not assigning employees out of town during the weekend. Then, the company may provide benefits not only to the individual of the employee but may compensate family members such as providing educational allowances, and other benefits. So that employees get support from families such as families provide energy, as well as a better mood to perform tasks at work.

In this study, there are some limitations on this questionnaire statement submitted to the respondent is closed, so it is not possible for the respondent to give a reason. So anything else that should be explored to find other problems is limited. Further study is needed on how should and what are the things need to be done for working women who cannot have a flexible working arrangement.

References

1. Almer, E., & Kaplan, S. (2002). The Effects of Flexible Work Arrangement on Stressors, Burnout, and Behavioral Job Outcomes on Public Accounting. Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol 4.: 1-34.
2. Beauregard, T. A. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human resource management review, Vol.19. No.1: 9-22.
3. Blair, M. L. (2002). Employees Use of Work-Family Polices and the Workplace Social Context. Social Forces, Vol.80 No.3: 813-845.
4. Darmawan, A., Silviandari, I. A., & Susilawati, I. R. (2015). Hubungan Burnout dengan Work Life Balance pada Dosen Wanita. Jurnal Mediapsi, 28-39.
5. Delecta, P. (2011). Work Life Balance. International Journal of Current Research, 3 (4), 186-189.
6. Deny, S. (2014, March 7). 42% Wanita RI Lebih Pilih Bekerja Daripada Diam di Rumah. Retrieved from www.liputan6.com: http://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/2019532/42-wanita-ri-lebih-pilih-bekerja-daripada-diam-di-rumah
7. Dunham, e. (1996). Contract, Specifications, and Law For Engineers. . New York: McGraw Hill, Company.
8. Esther, K. D. (2017). Achieving Work Life Balance Through Flexible Work Schedules and Arrangements. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol.9. No.1: 455-465.
9. Fisher, S. a. (2001). Mengelola Konflik: Ketrampilan dan Strategi Untuk Bertindak. Jakarta: The British Council, Indonesia.
10. Ford, M., B.A., h., & Langmaker, K. (2007). Work and Family Satisfaction and Conflict: A Meta-Analysis if Cross-Domain Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1: 57-82.
11. Frame, P. a. (2003). From Rhetoric to Reality. Into The Swap of Ethical Practice: Implementing Work-Life Balance. Business Ethics: A Europe Review, Vol. 12 No.4: 358-367.
12. Grawitch, M. d. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A ctitical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58. 129-147.
13. Greenhaus, J. H. (2003). The relationship between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 63 No.3: 510-531.
14. Handayani, A. (2013). Keseimbangan Kerja Keluarga pada Perempuan Bekerja: Tinjauan Teori Border. Buletin Psikologi, Vol.21. No.2: 90-101.
15. Hooks, K., & Higgs, J. (2002). Workplace environment in a professional service firm. Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.14 No.1: 10-28.
16. Kalliath, T. a. (2008). Work–Life Balance: A Review of The Meaning of The Balance Construct. Journal of Management and Organization, Vol.14: 323–327.
17. Kartono, K. (2008). Pemimpin dan Kepemimpinan. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
18. Komaruddin. (2006). Ensiklopedia Manajemen. Jakarta: Penerbit Bumi Aksara.
19. Laela, C. R. (2015). Pengaruh Relation-Oriented Leadership Behavior Terhadap Work-Life Balance pada Wanita Pekerja. http://lib.unnes.ac.id/21933/1/1511411145-s.pdf.
20. Lewison, J. (2006). The Work Life Balance Sheet So Far. Journal of Accountancy, Vol.202. No.2: 45-49.
21. Lyness, K. S. (2014). Gender Egalitarianism and Work Life Balance for Managers: Multisource Perspectives in 36 Countries. Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No.1: 96-129.
22. McDonald, P. d. (2005). Explanations for The Provision-Utilisation Gap in Work-life Policy. Women in Management Review, Vol.20. No.1: 37-55.
23. Priherdityo, E. (2016, March 8). Wanita Karier Indonesia Terbanyak Keenam di Dunia. Retrieved from www.cnnindonesia.com: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/gaya-hidup/20160308121332-277-116053/wanita-karier-indonesia-terbanyak-keenam-di-dunia
24. Ridley, J. (2008). Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja. Jakarta: Erlangga.
25. Robbins, S. P. (2010). Manajemen. Jakarta: Erlangga.
26. Schermerhorn. (2005). Management. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
27. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Basic Human Value: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
28. Su’ud, M. (2007). Orientasi Kesejahteraan Sosial. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka.
29. Sugiyono. (2006). Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta.
30. Sugiyono. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan Kombinasi (Mixed Methods). Bandung: CV. Alfabeta.
31. Utami, W. K. (2013, December 2). Retrieved from www.lifestyle.kompas.com: https://lifestyle.kompas.com/read/2013/12/02/1323057/Jam.Kerja.Fleksibel.Bikin.Karyawan.Lebih.Produktif
32. Voydanoff, P. (2004). The Effects of Work Demands and Resources on Workto-Family Conflict and Facilitation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 66. No. 1: 398-412.