Research paper (Impact Of Family Friendly Policy On Employees Job Satisfaction And Turnover Intention In Banking Industry Of Pakistan) Allied Bank

Impact of Family Friendly Policies

Impact Of Family Friendly Policy On Employees Job Satisfaction And Turnover Intention In

Banking Industry Of Pakistan.

Ayaz Khan

Hassan Ali Khalid

Haji Usman Shahid

Usman Ashiq

National University of Modern Languages



ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All Praise to Allah. First and foremost we thank Allah, the Generous, for having finally

made this effort a reality. we praise Him because if it were not for His Graciousness, it would

never materialize.

We extremely grateful to our course instructor Mr. M.M.Irfan, who spent a lot of

valuable time with us and gave all the related information and expertise very generously about

related courses.

We are thankful to ABL and its employees who provide the platform to complete our

research successfully, specially thanks to;

Branch Manager Operations: Yasir Zaman Kayani.

Customer Services Manager: Shahid Saleem.

Investment Consultant: Saleem Khan.

Special Thanks to Mr.Bilal Ahmed without his contribution and guidance this project

would have been impossible.

At last I, express my deepest gratitude to all those who contributed directly or indirectly

to bring this report to this final format, because I would never have been able to achieve this by

myself.

ABSTRACT


This is an educational research paper basically to understand the effect of job stress on

employees. The major objective of the study is to under stand the impact of family friendly

policies on job satisfaction and turnover intention in banking industry of Pakistan. We

comprehended that most of the employees wanted to have five day work policy implemented in

the bank as they are stressed out due to long working hours.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to look at the impact of family friendly policy on

employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intention in banking industry of Pakistan.

Research Questions

1) There is positive relationship between family friendly policies and employees’ job

satisfaction.

2) There is negative relationship between family friendly policies and employees’

turnover intention.

3) There is positive relationship between employee’s job satisfaction and turnover

intention.

4) Job satisfaction as a mediator between family friendly policies and turnover

intention.


Literature Review:

Rapid industrialization and economic investments have given Pakistan an exposure to better

and improved life styles and living standards. Information blast has unveiled many previously

neglected spheres of better, healthier and longer lives. At the same time, the line dividing family life

and work life has gradually blurred. Pakistan being a collectivist country, has always shared the

norms and values of male breadwinner/ female-homemaker model.

Work-Life Conflicts

Work-life conflicts exist when the line separating the work and personal/family activities

becomes diffused and blur. This work-life conflict can originate in the home or in the work

environment (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Work-life conflict is often the result of having too

many things to do and too little time in which to do them (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Voydanoff,

2002) since work schedules tend to be less flexible than personal schedules Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle

(1997). Consequently Greenhaus & Parasuraman (1999) found work is more likely the cause of

work-to-life conflicts. Work and life can not be treated as separate domains. Changes in one almost

always affect the other. Spending more time with family, for instance should require spending less

time working. The above situation becomes grimmer when according to some writers irrespective of

the antecedents of the work-life and life-work conflicts; an increase in one typically leads to an

increase in the other (Frone et al. 1997).

Organizational Culture: The quality of the social environment in the workplace is

associated with stress Cooper & Marshall (1976). The above review of literature

suggests that healthier culture makes work more enjoyable instead of strenuous thus leading

to a trivial desire to reduce work hours.

Work Hours: Work hours can be defined as, “the result of the interplay of three factors:

hours per week demanded by the employer, hours per week desired by the worker and the

institutional and legal environment”. Long work hours may impair personal health and jeopardize

safety both directly and indirectly (Spurgeon, Harrington and Cooper, 1997).


Elder & Child Care: Leaving children at day care or home while parents work may

result in serious concerns like safety, health, learning, supervision and nurturance. The findings of

Bailyn et al., (n.d.) suggested that families alone cannot change the structure of careers nor alter the

availability of child care. And when families experience crises, whether financial or personal,

external supports are needed.

It is widely believed that workers with preschool or grade school children will be

especially interested in reducing their hours, particularly if they (like many women) are

responsible for child care and household tasks. On the contrast, the desire for fewer work hours of is

only weakly related to having children (Clarkberg & Moen, 2001; Jacobs & Gerson, 2000; or an

employed spouse (Jacobs & Gerson, 2000).

FAMILY FRIENDLY ORGANIZATIONAL POLICES

One of the most dramatic demographic changes of the past thirty years has been the surge

of women, including mothers, into the workforce. This social revolution has given rise to a

feminist critique of existing workplace structures geared to an "ideal worker" who is able and

willing to devote himself single-mindedly to paid employment (Williams 2000).

Calling for reforms that make it easier to combine employment with family life, critics

seek to create a workplace that is more welcoming to employees with family responsibilities

(Williams 2000; Hochschild 1989, 1997).The "wish list" of features for the new family-friendly

workplace includes, among other things, shorter, more predictable, and more flexible working

hours; new part-time and job-sharing options; time off for emergencies and child care;

guaranteed leave with job security for childbearing and child rearing; child care subsidies and tax

breaks; and on-sight day care options (Alstott 2004; Jacobs and Gerson 2004).

The calls for reform have created dilemmas for private actors and for governments alike.

Corporations in their function as employers must confront the issue of whether and how to ease

the difficulties employees experience in discharging their duties on the job and at home.

Governments must decide how to intervene. They must determine whether and when to enact

regulations forcing private actors to accommodate family needs (Amy 2004). Private actors and


governments must also grapple with how and to what extent to mitigate the disadvantages that

commonly accrue to individuals who fall short of the traditional "ideal worker" model. One

particularly nettlesome issue is how proposed reforms should affect compensation and

prospects for promotion and advancement. Although there is widespread acceptance that pay

should reflect hours worked, it is unclear how work rewards and career trajectories should be

adjusted to reflect differential use of family-friendly policies (Amy 2004).

In developing approaches that could show the way to family-friendly reform, one

important consideration is whether proposed workplace changes are efficient or more

efficient than existing arrangements. If the answer to this question is positive, it follows

that proposed reforms will increase net social welfare, which will make society better off overall

(Amy 2004).The workplace is a highly interactive setting. Workers and manager do not operate

in isolation. Each participant's behavior affects the wellbeing of others who work in the same

firm or even the same industry. Payoffs or rewards to workers depend on what other workers do

and on the range of choices that firms offer. Any particular move will tend to set off responses in

other workplace actors (Estlund 2003).

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER INTENTIONS

A concentration on determining the causes of employee intentions to stay or leave has

been one of the recent research approaches in the organizational turnover literature (Thomas &

Martin,1979) However only recently has attention been drawn to the importance of gaining an

understanding of the potential impact of job performance on employee turnover processes (Steers

& Mowday, 1981)

It is also important to consider that the significance of turnover to an organization is

dependent on the performance levels of those who stay versus those who leave (Staw, 1980).

Also as a case in point, if the organization is losing its poorer performers, turnover may indeed

be having a positive effect on overall organizational effectiveness (Ellen, 1984).


The study of turnover recognizes that one action for individuals who are trying to get

away from an undesirable work situation is to look first within the current organization (Alfred,

1967), and then beyond to other organizations. Recent research has supported the inclusion of

movement within as well as across organizations in turnover research (Ellen, 1984). According

to Todor (1980) evidence shows that workers transfer jobs to get away from an undesirable work

situation. Individuals who did transfer or who requested transfer were less satisfied and had a

greater intention to quit than did employees who had remained on the same job and not requested

a transfer. At certain levels of performance, job satisfaction, for example, would be more

strongly related to turnover than at other levels of performance (Ellen, 1984). However from a

practical standpoint, the potential influence of job performance in the prediction of turnover is

significant (Ellen, 1984).

The most obvious consequence of turnover is the energy and expense of finding

replacement personnel. When someone leaves an organization others must be recruited, screened

through some selection mechanism, and finally hired. If large numbers of people leave an

organization on a regular basis, the organization will most likely have adapted to this

consequence by retaining full-time specialists in recruitment and selection, thereby increasing its

administrative intensity (Kasarda, 1973).

JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction is one of the best-researched concepts in work and organizational

psychology for at least two reasons. Job satisfaction is relevant for all those who are interested in

the subjective evaluation of working conditions such as responsibility, task variety, or

communication requirements (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1980) because job satisfaction is

supposed to be strongly caused by such conditions. The significance of personality dispositions

in the development of job satisfaction has been subjected to much criticism and inspired an

intensive discussion in the literature during recent years (e.g., Arvey et al., 1989)

Measuring job satisfaction for organizational assessment, for example, work design or

organizational climate, would be questionable. Instead, based on the trait-like character of job


satisfaction, one would tend to follow suggestions to use individuals' job satisfaction in

personnel selection procedures (Staw et al, 1986) because highly satisfied people would be also

satisfied in the future. Job satisfaction may be affected by emotion-related personality traits

because job satisfaction has been equated with a pleasurable emotional state (Locke,1976).The

working conditions in turn affect job satisfaction. In other words, the effect of personality

dispositions on job satisfaction is mediated by working conditions. This may either take place via

self-selection and career decisions made by the individual or by selection and promotion by the

organization (Dormann & Zapf, 2001).

In contrast to other mechanisms, the usefulness of job satisfaction for evaluation purposes

is not threatened if selection due to personality dispositions applies because job satisfaction is a

reaction to working conditions (Dormann & Zapf, 2001).

Data and Methods

Methodology

Structured questionnaire (with both open-ended and close-ended questions) was designed

as research instrument. A total of 40 questionnaires were circulated in 2 different branches of

Bank ABL in Islamabad. Thirty Four questionnaires have been accounted for findings. Due to

the minimal interference at the banks, the study was conducted in a natural environment, and

therefore, can be coined as non-contrived setting or field study. As far as choice of bank for

survey is concern, non-probability convenience sampling was used. Within that convenience

sample, a purposive random sample method was employed in order to cover heterogeneity and

diversity. Interviews were also conducted with the managers of the bank and observation was

also implied as a method for conducting research.


Theoretical Frame Work

Independent

Moderating Variable

Job

Turnover

Dependent

Positiv

Family Friendly

Policies

1) Five day work

week

2) Flextime

3) Family Leave

Positiv

Positiv


FINDINGS

Demographic variables and data analysis

Gender

Q No.

1 Male

2 Female

0

5

10

15

20

25

Gender

1 Male

2 Female

S.No. Q No.

Q

No.

D1 D1

1 Male 24

2 Female 10

Age

Q No.

1 Less 252 26-30

3 31-354 36-over

0

5

10

15

AGE

1 Less 25

2 26-30

3 31-35

4 36-over

c

S.No. Q No.

D2

1 Less 25 9

2 26-30 13

3 31-35 7

4 36-over 5


Q No.

1 Inter

2 Dip

3 Bech.

4 Master s

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Education

1 Int er

2 Dip

3 Bech.

4 Mast ers

Education level

S.No. Q No. Q No.

D3 D3

1 Inter 0

2 Dip 1

3 Bech. 16

4 Masters 17

Marital status

S.No. Q No. Q No.

D5 D5

No Child 17

One 8

Two 5

Three 2

More 2 Q No.

1 Single

2 Marr ied

3 Divorced

4 Widow

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Maritial Status

1 Single

2 Marr ied

3 Divorced

4 Widow

Presence of dependent children

S.No. Q No. Q No.

D6 D6

1 Less 2 13

2 2 to 4 7

3 5 to 7 7

4 8 to 10 3

5 More 10 4

Dependent Children

49%

15%

6%

6%

24%

No Child

One

Two

Three

More


Tenure At Bank

Q No.

Less 22 to 4

5 to 78 to 10

More 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Tenure at BANK

Less 2

2 to 4

5 to 7

8 to 10

More 10

S.No. Q No. Q No.

D6 D6

1 Less 2 13

2 2 to 4 7

3 5 to 7 7

4 8 to 10 3

5 More 10 4

Family Friendly Policies

Has your company implemented the five-day work week policy in workplace?

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A1 A1

1 Yes 1

2 No 33

Q No.

1 Yes

2 No

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Five Day Work Week

1 Yes

2 No


If NO, is there any plan that the policy will be implemented in your company within the

coming two years?

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A1 A1

1 Yes 0

2 Don’t 28

3 No 6

Q No.

1 Yes

2 Don’t

3 No

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 Yes2 Don’t 3 No

Suppoters of Five-day Work week.

In your opinion, do you support the implementation of five-day work week policy in

the workplace?

How will you spend your leisure time during weekend?

Take care of children

Q No.

1 Highest

3 Neither5 Low est

0

2

4

6

8

10

Children Care

1 Highest

2 High

3 Neither

4 Low

5 Low est

S.No. Q No.

Q

No.

A2ai A2ai

1 Highest 9

2 High 7

3 Neither 4

4 Low 7

5 Lowest 0


Deal with family issues/ household work S.No. Q No. Q No.

A2aii A2aii

1 Highest 8

2 High 12

3 Neither 3

4 Low 1

5 Lowest 3 Q No.

1 Highest2 High

3 Neither4 Low

5 Lowest

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Family Issues

1 Highest

2 High

3 Neither

4 Low

5 Low est

Continuing Education S.No. Q No. Q No.

A2aiii A2aiii

1 Highest 4

2 High 11

3 Neither 6

4 Low 3

5 Lowest 3 Q No.

1 Highest

2 High3 Neit her

4 Low5 Lowest

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Continue Education

1 Highest

2 High

3 Neit her

4 Low

5 Lowest

Enjoy the personal life (e.g. entertaining or gathering with friends)

Q No.

1 Highest

2 High

3 Neit her

4 Low

5 Lowest

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Enjoy Life

1 Highest

2 High

3 Neither

4 Low

5 Low est

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A2aiv A2aiv

1 Highest 4

2 High 13

3 Neither 8

4 Low 1

5 Lowest 1


Family Leaves

Shorter work days for family

Q No.

1 Provided

2 Don't Know

3 Not Provided

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Family Leaves

1 Provided2 Don't Know3 Not Provided

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A3a A3a

1 Provided 18

2 Don't Know 1

3 Not Provided 15

Compassionate leave

S.No. Q No.

Q

No.

A3b A3b

1 Provided 22

2

Don’t

Know 5

3

Not

prod. 7 Q No.

1 Pr ovided

2 Don’ t Know

3 Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Compassionnate Leaves

1 Pr ovided

2 Don’ t Know

3 Not pr od.


Extended paid maternity leave

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Maternity Leaves 1 Provided

2 Don’t

3 Not provided

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A3c A3c

1 Provided 16

2 Don’t 11

3 Not prod. 6

Paid leave to care for sick family members

Q No.

1 P r ovi ded

2 Don’ t

3 Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Paid Leaves Sick care

1 P r ovi ded

2 Don’ t

3 Not pr od.

S.No. Q No.

Q

No.

A3d A3d

1 Provided 25

2 Don’t 1

3

Not

prod. 8


Employee Assistance Programs(EAPs)

Professional counseling .e.g. family/ career

Q No.

S1

S2

S3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Professional counselling

Ser i es1

Ser i es2

Ser i es3

Q No.

A4a

Provided 16

Don’t

Know 7

Not

Provided 11

Life skill programs. e.g: stress management

Q No.

S1

S2

S3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Employee Wellness

Ser ies1

Ser ies2

Ser ies3

S.No. Q No.

A4b

Provided 6

Don’t Know 14

Not

Provided 14


Subsidized exercise or fitness centre S.No. Q No.

A4c

Provided 4

Don’t Know 3

Not

Provided 27

Q No.

S1

S2

S3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Subsidized exercise

Series1Series2Series3

Flextime

Flexi Timing

Q No.

Pr ovided

Don’ t

Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

FLEX SCH

Pr ovided

Don’ t

Not pr od.

Q No. Q No.

A5a A5a

Provided 8

Don’t 2

Not prod. 24


Q No.

Pr ovided

Don’ t

Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Job Sharing

Provided

Don’t

Not prod.

Job sharing (several employees doing the same job) Q No. Q No.

A5b A5b

Provided 23

Don’t 1

Not prod. 10

Work at home

S.No. Q No.

Q

No.

A5c A5c

1 Provided 5

2 Don’t 1

3

Not

prod. 28 Q No.

Pr ovi ded

Don’ t

Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Work at Home

Pr ovi ded

Don’ t

Not pr od.

Part time work

Q No.

Pr ovided

Don’ t

Not pr od.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Part Time

Pr ovided

Don’ t

Not pr od.

S.No. Q No. Q No.

A5c A5c

1 Provided 5

2 Don’t 1

3

Not

prod. 28


Listed below are statements describing employees’ job satisfaction towards their career. For each

statement, please circle one response to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement.

All in all, I am satisfied with my working hour.

Q No. Q No.

B1 B1

Strongly Agree 6

Agree 15

Neither agree nor

disagree 5

Disagree 3

Strongly Disagree 5

1Strongly Agree

Disagree

02468

10121416

Work Hours Satisfaction

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither agree nordisagreeDisagree

Strongly Disagree

All in all, I am satisfied with my co-workers.

B2 B2

Strongly

Agree 14

Agree 19

Neither agree

nor disagree 1

Disagree 0

Strongly

Disagree 0

1

Strongly Agree

Neither agree nordisagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

Co workers

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


All in all, I am satisfied with my supervisors.

1

Strongly Agree

Agree


DisagreeStrongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

Supervisors

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

S.No. Q No. Q No.

B2 B2

1

Strongly

Agree 16

2 Agree 14

3

Neither agree

nor disagree 3

4 Disagree 0

5

Strongly

Disagree 1

I am satisfied with my pay.

1Strongly Agree

Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

Pay Satisfaction

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

S.No. Q No. Q No.

B2 B2

1 Strongly Agree 1

2 Agree 16

3

Neither agree nor

disagree 9

4 Disagree 4

5 Strongly Disagree 4


Result Majority of the participants were male. The major age segment was 26-30 . Major

employees has a master degree. 49% employees had no libality regarding child care. While 24%

had one child to care. Majority of the bank employees had less than two year in bank.

On asking 95% of employees said that they do not have 5 day work policy. On asking

90% of employees had know idea if 5 day week policy will be implemented in the near future.

People focuced of family issues more than any thing. How ever low age span had

education as the priority. Most people also wanted to enjoy life on the weekends.

Family leaves had a conflicting result mainly due to different departments. Where the

ratio was 2:1. Many people agreed that they get compassionate eaves.There was no consensus of

the Maternity leave issue as male participants were un aware of the policy, however majority

agreed that they get maternity leaves.There was a unanimous agreement of paid sick leaves.

Talking about professional counseling half the employees agreed that they get some sort

of professional counseling. In the form of different training courses and refresh courses. Howerer

majority disagreed that they have any sort of employee wellbeing programs. 90% of the

employees disagreed when we asked them that if the company provides fitness centers.

Flex Schedules are provided in the bank as 80% disagreed, however some departments

such as marketing department’s employees agreed that they do have flex schedule. 67% of the


employees highly agreed that they are provided with job sharing facility. Work at home was

unanimously disapproved as it was allow by the bank but 90% of the employees prefer finishing

their work at office. Part time jobs are not allowed. It was surprising to notice that the results

showed that many employees are satisfied with their working hours.

Employees are satisfied with their co-workers.Most of Employees are satisfied with their

supervisors. Most of employees are satisfied with their salary package, they are getting what they

are expecting.


References

Alfred, T. M. Checkers or choice in manpower management. Harvard Business Review,

1967, 45(1), 157-169.

Alstott, Anne L. 2004. No exit: What parents owe their children and what society owes

parents. New York: Oxford University Press.

Amy L. Wax. 2004. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

Vol. 596, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding

Professions, pp. 36-61

Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ Jr, Segal NL, Abraham LM. 1989. Job satisfaction:

environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 187-192.

Bailyn, L. , Drago, R. & Kochan, T. A. (n.d.), Integrating Work and Family Life; A Holistic

Approach: A Report of the Sloan Work –Family Policy Network.

Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Appelbaum, E. 2003, “Balancing work and family: The roleof

high-commitment environments”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42, pp 168–188.

Clarkberg, M., & Moen, P. 2001. “Understanding the time-squeeze: Married couples

preferred and actual work-hour strategies”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 44, pp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=annaameracadpoli


1115-1136.

Cooper,L.C. & Marshell 1976 “Occupational Sources of Stress: a Review of the

Literature relating to Coronary Heart Disease and…”

Journal of Occupational Psychology.

Dormann, C. & Zapf, D. 2001. “Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Stabilities”, Journal

of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 483-504

Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L.1997. “Inter role conflicts and the

permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences?” Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Vol.50.

Ellen, F. Jackofsky. 1984, Turnover and Job Performance: An Integrated Process Model,

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 74-83.

Estlund, Cynthia. 2003. Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse

denmocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frone, M.R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. 1997. “Developing and testing n integrative

model of the work-family interface”, Journal of vocational behavior, Vol 50, pp 145-167.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985, “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol 10, pp 76–88.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jorgabeha

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jorgabeha


Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. 1999. “Research on work, family, and gender:

Current status and future directions”, In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp.

391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 276

Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass.

Hochshild, Arlie. 1989. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home.

New York: Viking. . 1997. The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work.

New York: Metropolitan

Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. 2000. “Do Americans feel overworked?: Comparing ideal

and actual work time”, In T. L. Parcel & D. B. Cornfield (Eds.), Work & family: Research

informing policy (pp. 71–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, Jerry A., and Kathleen Gerson. 2004. The tiwme divide: Work, family, and

gender inequality. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kasarda, J. 0. (1973). 'Efforts of personnel turnover, employee qualifications, and

professional staff ratios on administrative intensity and overhead', Sociological Quarterly, 14,

350-358.


Locke EA. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational psychology, Dunnette MD (ed). Rand McNally: Chicago, IL; 1297-1349.

Martin, T. N., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. Job Performance and turnover, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1981, 66, 116-119.

Moen, P. 2001, The Career Quandary. Reports on America, Vol. 2, No. 1. Washington, DC:

Population Reference Bureau.

Staw, B. M. 1980. The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupa- tional Behavior, pp

253-273

Staw BM, Bell NE, Clausen JA. 1986. The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: a

lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 56-77.

Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. Employee turnover and the post decision

accommodation process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1981, 235-281.

Spurgeon, A., Harrington, J. and Cooper, C. 1997, “Health and Safety Problems

associated with Long working hours: a Review of the Current Position”, Occupational

and Environmental Medicine, Vol 54, pp 367-375.


Thomas, N. 1979, A Contextual Model of Employee Turnover Intentions, The Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 313-324.

Todor, W. D. A movement paradox: Turnover? Transfer? Paper presented at the Annual

Academy of Management, Detroit, 1980.

Voydanoff, P. 2002. “Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family,

andindividual outcomes—an integrative model” Journal of Family Issues, Vol 23, pp 138–164.

Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do

about it. New York: Oxford University Press.

Documents

Research paper (Impact Of Family Friendly Policy On Employees Job Satisfaction And Turnover Intention In Banking Industry Of Pakistan) Allied Bank