The Relationship between Work and Non-Work - Literature review Example

The Relationship between “Work” and “Non-Work” Abstract Changing patterns in the world of employment has prompted most of the social researchers to focus significantly on family life and paid work. This piece of writing examines employment through congruent classical emerging sectors in UK and American economy (developed countries). These sectors include the recent improved technology in the western society which has a stunning growth to the economy. It has also enhanced households to easily earn daily care right from home. The paper has used Financial-based reports and Survey Census reports to analyze the intersection between work and non-work life. Also, policies and strategies that western culture has put in place in the labor market have been explained since it explains vital elements of this relationship. Business organizations on the other hand have encountered employee spillover which has led to the majority of employees to work from home. The study also identifies various ways in which individuals cope with complex situations in two work domains (work and non-work) and how they integrate diverse resources in pasturing and enlarging their income brackets. Introduction “Work” and “non-work” considerably takes political, social and scholarly debate especially in the western cultures. The interface in the two domains constitutes families, organizations and society. Apparently, the study of the relationship between work and non-work domains has duly risen in the 21st century with United States and UK pinpointing the vital elements of intersection. There is an element of analogous gender segregation in the current labor market which has contributed to dual-income contribution in the family. Therefore, the paper evaluates the relationships of work and non-work life through social and political avenues. Rothbard, (2000) found that 20 years ago, working at home and working in the organization in UK was more less the same. The intersection of workplace responsibilities and home life duties in two domains (work and non-work) is currently experienced in the modern economy. The empirical research by Bianchi and Milkie (2009) shows that this connection between institutional responsibilities and household duties has predominantly generated high income profiles in labor markets especially the families that have dual income generation. This shows that an employed member of the family will have to take double responsibilities which will make him/her to work more hours in order to earn day care for the family. Considering the campaign of the US president in 2008 about health reforms, it brought into attention the determinants of health living that focuses on cultural values especially those principles that are tied to gender and marriage (Bianchi and Milkie, 2009, pg. 704). The campaign gives us four vital examples of this intersection; Sarah Palin, who was the vice president in the Republican Party was having special needs child during highly profiled elections periods in Alaska. She had to step down from the campaign and look after the child, Michelle Obama who was a lawyer and a mother of two had to boycott her career in order to campaign for her husband who was going for presidential seat during the same campaign, Hillary Clinton took a position in the U.S government as a secretary of state. Joseph Biden, Vice President in Democrat Party became a single parent when his wife died in the road accident. He had to be commuting every day from his home to Washington in order to offer parental care to his children. The four ‘giant’ examples of work behaviors in the 21st century society shows how important dual-income families is of great important especially when institution responsibilities subjects them to multiple roles in the society. These examples identify three main areas of focus in work-life environment that majorly affect individuals in the societies as well as in the organizations. These areas include; life, power and diversity. In order to understand how life, power and diversity affects individual work behavior in the two domains, three aspects in the society that needs to be discussed. These include; 1. Gender inequality in the labor market, 2. Gender inequality at home, and 3. Economic insecurity that results from non-work. Most private organizations in United States are very vigilant when it comes to gender in employment policies. According to Pinnelli and Anker (2003), most women spend months or even years taking care of the new born, while others consider lower wage jobs in order to protect their social welfare. Gender inequality in labor market is also experienced in UK where women ask for ‘parenting time’ on a flat income mode thus they get fewer benefits from the employment. According to Rosenfeld (1993), the emergence of non-work life is due to motherhood and not fatherhood. Indeed, weaker labor market in United Kingdom is associated with women who cannot be employed on a full time basis unlike men who have higher chances to be employed on a full time basis. Gender inequality at home is a contentious issue at the moment as well. Taking into consideration both time assign to paid work and time devoted to non-paid work at home for men and women, women have less working hours on paid work compared to men who have more hours of paid work per week. Studies by Bianchi et al (2000) shows that the number of hours devoted to paid work by women is half less compare to that for men. This means that women and the single parents as well spend most of their time in non-work household labor. However, 21st century has enlightened feminine gender in the labor market. According to Bianchi et al (2000), the gap between the working hours of men and women in United States has reduced substantially due to the modern life. However, women are still part of the majority who still take more responsibilities in the family. Study by Rosenfeld (1993) shows that non-work population especially women who are not employed, have created social pressure in the society. Two decades ago, United States enjoyed one of the stable economies in the economic history although there were non-work life situations in the households. The resent emergence of low wage labor market has enumerated problems to the single parents as well as married women in the society. Even with the previous welfare reforms of unemployed individuals in the family, the U.S government has not provided income replacement for the women on leave as a security of the nation’s economy. This is why individuals in non-work life become dependant and this situation impacted U.S economy later in the 20th century. Demerouti and Geurts (2003) stated that many individuals hypothesize life as a commitment for social support. This simply implies, as a parent, either single or married, whether in ‘single-income’ or dual-income family; one has the responsibility of supporting his/her family when it comes to day care. For instance, Burley (1995, pg. 486-489) did an analysis of heterosexual families in UK. The results showed that both partners had to work for a bracket of 25 to 35 hours a week for them to have satisfactory income for the family, home responsibilities inclusive. On the other hand, single parents had to devote more than 40 hours a week to both work and non-work duties in order for her or him to earn sufficient daily care for the family. However, Demerouti and Geurts (2003) discovered that women have limitations to longer hours of work (paid) in the society. From his research, 1/10 to 1/5 of the time spend by individuals is devoted to unpaid work. This normally affect women whereby they spend most of their time in their domestic duties for instance, cooking and caring, compared to men who take minor responsibilities in the households. A Mexican woman spends 4 hours more working on home duties compared to a man. Kellett (2000, pg. 205) follows up how domestic spheres can increase opportunities in the world of labor. He gives an example of a family shop that is managed by a wife while the husband works in an institution. A household enterprise flourishes when there is enough capital, time and space and is characterized by the following; 1. The household controls capital and land to which labor is functional, 2. Household land and capital is used for the enterprise, and 3. Labor provision is from the family. Bianchi and Milkie (2009, pg. 706) stated that recession not only affect institutional-based employment but also home-based employment. For instance, in 2009 when U.S was in a recession, a stretch of economic crisis was beyond unemployment, job security and stress factors. The crisis also affected family lives since it brought about income inequalities among the family members. Feasibly, power is the most influential factor of multiple roles in the society. A good example was mentioned earlier, the Vice President Joseph Biden, a single parent certainly. Similarly, in United Kingdom, there is a valuable sign of leaders to intersect home-based and institutional-based jobs. According to Pegani (2003), Europe at the moment has opened up digital world to more than 23 million households. Households can merge their products right from their premises to the outside world through Multimedia Meta-market. The report by European Working Condition Observation group (2011) shows that low and middle income families in United Kingdom, whether single parent of both parents working, are getting inspired day in day out by the modern work pressure that creates more opportunities as well as encouraging division of labor in the family. Therefore, the gab between the rich and the poor in the economy is definitely small since it has been reduced by this balance. Consequently, the small gap between the poor and rich will encourage economic growth in the long run without relative increase in wage demands in any sector. According to Demerouti (2003, pg. 279) women and single parents as homemakers, whether they produce paid or unpaid products, they contribute largely to the development of the economy. It is evident that employed workers especially the single parents and women take combine more obligations in both work and non-work life. They have also increased the competition in the labor market. As a result, National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) found that family conflict that are inclined to work stressors is among the major 10 causes of stressors in social partners. However, the development of work-life balance as a way of coping with these health risks has great benefits to the viability of organizations as well as the families in the western society (Demerouti, 2003 pg. 280). For instance; A recent research by national Institute for Occupational Health and Safety found that about 30% of women in United States Experience family conflicts that normally result from work life. However, the institution of work and non-work balance has helped both the single parents and women in coping up with these dual responsibilities. In most cases, they (women) fail to distinguish leisure activities and their real responsibilities. Therefore, work-life balance helps in identifying and reducing stress agents. Nevertheless, classical hypothesis about the intersection of work and non-work life considers the following three aspects of conflicts in the society. a) Time-based: This conflict results from time pressure. In this case, an individual perhaps may fail to physically complete assigned responsibility of one domain (for example, institution work) due to spending much time on the other domain (non-work). For example; long working hours in the organization may limit an individual from taking part in household activities. b) Strain-based: An individual may be stressed up by many responsibilities in one domain. Apparently, this will make it hard for him/her to conform to the demands of the other domain. c) Behavior: organization behavior may entirely change individual’s family behavior. For instance, intersecting both that professional attitudes and sensitive family attitude may compromise personal traits. Two decades ago, nuclear family with more than two children in UK was considered safe in terms of economic conditions at that moment. However, this is not the case recently. A study by Demerouti, (2003) shows how majority of the families in United States and United Kingdom have changed in order to adapt to the current labor dynamics in the modern society. Currently, the number of children in the family is based on the consumer ‘shape’ in the market and government policies. Institutional work and home life (parenting) in United States has dramatically changed and has resulted to development of maternal employment (Pinnelli and Anker, 2003). Job opportunities for single and married women are widely open now compared to 20 years ago since the traditional culture of a woman as a homemaker is now an exception rather than a rule. But the same question still remains, ‘who will take care the young kids if both the bread-winner and the homemaker is at an institutional work?’ American society has created opportunities that encourage multiple roles in which, at the end of the day, it facilitates both compensation and care-giving to the family. Though ‘split-shift’ parenting encourages high income to the family, single and married women suffer a lot of niggling problems. More often, they (single parents and married women) spend much of their time in labor market and so again in non-work limiting time for rest. And, if they become reluctant in pursuing these multiple roles, they are most likely to incur ‘mommy tax’ particularly women. Assessment of the intersection of work and non-work in the contemporary society Kompier et al (2009) defined work-home life as a social process in which a worker adjourns one particular domain of work life (institutional-based responsibilities) so as to take responsibilities that are derived in personal domain. Simply, it is a life style choice of an individual to prefer working at home. The sociological perception of non-work life rotates around the group of individual that are not included in the concept of working population (Kirby, 2000, pg. 8). Work life on the other side is a labor-time investment that leads to returns in terms of wage and salary in an institution ground. According to Kirby (2000), the transformation of the society especially in the western cultures has lead to people moving from agriculturally-based ventures to industrial engagement. This has encouraged majority of the families to move from rural to urban areas in order to adapt to the new ways of living. Marx and Weber believed that peoples’ existence in the society is highly dependable on material needs for instance clothing, shelter and food. Therefore, they should work in order to get these needs. Weber (1947) acknowledged the influence of non-work features that in most cases, these features perhaps affect either positively or negatively the behavior of an employee in the institution of work. However, the intersection of work life and non-work life in an ordinary society entirely depends on the psychological well being as well as person’s yield (income) intention. An evident study of dual-earners couples in the western society has portrayed a new picture in the modern world. Rothbard (2000, pg. 141) said that most of the cultural notions especially in the western (UK and U.S) have been outmoded. Women at the moment have been in-fluxed into the labor market and their responsibilities at home have been reduced. Efficient policies that intersect work life and family life is very vital to both organization and society. In some instances for example, an organization may open up a subdivision away from its main area of operation and may require one or two employees to work in this division. Apparently, employee will have to travel to the new location. Perhaps this may affect individual’s relationship with the family if the policies protecting his/her social life are not valuable. It may not be a surprise if he/she resigns from the job due to unfavorable terms in the organization. Later an individual may be jobless and therefore become dependant. Report by United States Census Bureau (2006) showed that there is a relationship between work and non work domains. Out of 116, 011, 000 households surveyed, the real median of their annual income was $50, 233. For men who worked for 40 hours a week (full-time) their annual median wage ranged from $43,000 to $45, 000. For women working the same hours as men, their annual wage ranged from $33, 000 to $ 35,000. Compiling the average annual wage per household (including working and non-working individuals), the median reduced to about $26, 000 per annum in the year 2007. The current economic situation in United Kingdom has made individuals especially those living alone to live with their families. The Aviva Family Finances Report (2011) shows that this shift (individuals living with their families) has rise significantly from 1% to 2%. This has allowed multi-generation of income among family members in order to care for non-work individuals in the family in which at the end of the day, their annual mean salaries for the households will significantly reduce. The media annual net income for households (married couples and singles) in UK was $24,012 in May 2011. This reveals that there was a slight drop of 8% compared to the media annual income of the previous year. There were more than 40,000 non-work women the previous year since they chose to stay at home due to prevailing economic conditions. Therefore, this leads to decrease in the annual median income of the households in UK. Now, as much as the western countries enjoy the new version of ‘work at home life’, there are many challenges that are associated with this work dynamic as well. In an ordinary society, work is an important aspect in people’s live. When people engage in two or more work responsibilities they are able to obtain various benefits, for instance, good health, a man becomes a bread-winner to the family and eventually, this perhaps may lead to satisfaction of personal drive in life (Ponk, 2005, pg. 34). Work life has many positive attributes especially in the current society where the value of live has gone up. Though work life can influence family relationship, the reverse is also right. According to Ponk (2005), to optimize the satisfaction of an employee such that he or she has maximum benefits from both work and family, the intersection of social roles that harmonize the two domains (work and family) is very important. Coping with stress, conflict resolution as well as strain management are the major elements in individual life that need to be considered in order to make a health life. The management in the organizations should develop valuable policies and regulations that will enhance work-family balance of an employee. The policies in this case should include the following strategies; Flexible working hours Responsibility sharing that intersect with one or two family members Supportive departmental heads who not only supervise you in the institution but also gives support on non-work occasions, Effective communication. This enable effective settlement of work-family related conflict. A friendly institutional culture that encourages specialization and division of labor. It is evident therefore that non-work life has a significant impact on household income. Single parents as well as married women perhaps encounter similar challenges in the society. For instance, single parents may spend more hours in work since they carry majority of the responsibilities at home while married women on the other hand consider home ventures as a way of coping with high living standards. Actually, this may impact on individual’s health in the long run. In conclusion, western society, a good example is United States, have developed enlightening progressive politics that centers various aspects of social environment for the working individuals. Dependency, family and organizational conflicts, gender inequality, economic insecurity and ‘risk’ health life have been evaluated as the major intersection between work and non-work life. However, the resent research shows that most of the economies are implementing work-family balance policies in order to sustain the productivity of households in the economy. Bibliography Bianchi, S. and Milkie, M. 2009. Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st Century, journal of Marriage and Family. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jmuniz/work_bianchi_milkie2010_marriage%20and%20family.pdf Chesterton, G. K. 1926. Women in the Workplace and at Home. London. http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Women_in_the_Workplace.html Demerouti, E. and Geurts, S. 2003. Work/Non-Work Interface: A Review of Theories and Findings. Netherlands: University of Nijmegen Press. European Working Conditions Observatory, May 2011. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2011/06/UK1106039I.htm Hyman, J., Scholarios, D. and Baldry, B. 2005. Gettign on or Getting by? Employees Flexibility and Coping Strategies for Home and Work, Work Employment Society journal. DOI: 10.1177/0950017005058055. Kirby, M. 2000. Sociology in Perspective AQA Edition Student Book. London: Heinemann. Kompier, M., Ybema, J.F., Janssen, J. & Taris, T. 2009. Employment contracts: cross-sectional and longitudinal relations with quality of working life, health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health. Pinnelli, A. and Anker, R. 2003. Women in the Labor Market in Changing Economies: Demographic Issues. UK: Oxford University Press, 208-235. Pronk, N. 2005. Work Health Promotion, The Challenge of Work and Family Balance, Health and fitness journal. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Rosenfeld, R. A. 1993. Women’s Part-Time Employment: Individual and Country-Level Variation, International Sociological Association, Durham. Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms Linking Work and Family: Clarifying the Relationship Between Work and Family Constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 170-200. DIO:10.2307/259269 The Aviva Family Finance Report 2011. United States Census Bureau 2006. http://www.census.gov/# Read More