The Role of Cognitive Appraisal in Work-Family Experiences of Indian IT Employees

Abstract

Demographic changes have had a catalytic effect on the number of people participating in multiple roles and juggling them as they go through various life functions. Two of the major domains where these roles are based are work and family. This study draws on Person-environment fit theory to understand to what extent congruence between an individual and her⁄his environment affects her⁄his experience of work-family interface. Through this, the study seeks to capture the cognitive appraisal process by which work and family experiences can exacerbate work-family conflict (WFC) and enhance work-family enrichment (WFE). This study is an attempt to respond to calls by researchers to look at the process of cognitive appraisal and congruence which have largely been ignored in work-family literature. These processes could help understand why given the same situation and environmental contexts, individuals might differ in their work-family experiences. Congruence, measured at two levels — congruence and incongruence — has been taken as the independent variable in the study. The different measures of work-family conflict and work-family enrichment have been taken as the dependent variables. Responses in the study were drawn from software professionals working in IT organizations. It was found that the incongruent individuals reported significantly higher levels of work-family conflict on all the dimensions of conflict as compared to the congruent individuals. In contrast, when it came to work-family enrichment, congruent individuals reported significantly higher levels of enrichment on all the dimensions as compared to incongruent individuals. By capturing the role of cognitive appraisal on work-family interface, the study contributes theoretically and empirically to the extant literature on work and family. As organizations across sectors are taking steps to promote work-life harmony, the finding that congruence leads to greater work-family enrichment and incongruence leads to greater work-family conflict has important practical implications for the formulation of work-family policies.

The Use of Work-Home Practices and Work-Home Conflict: Examining the Role of Volition and Perceived Pressure in a Multi-Method Study

“…The importance of this distinction has also been shown in other research domains, like research on embeddedness (Lee et al, 2004) and turnover (Hom et al, 2012). These findings are also in line with earlier suggestions that work and private life may affect work-home conflict differently, and that the private life context should best be included when understanding employees’ work-home conflict (Edwards and Rothbard, 1999; Poelmans, 2005; Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014). Overall, it seems important for future research to examine further why these differences between different sources of external pressure occur and to include these explanations in further theorizing on this issue.…”

“…In particular, in such cases of low volition, people are managing their work-home boundaries in a way that is not in line with their preference and, consequently, they may experience incongruence between their work and home domain (Edwards and Rothbard, 1999), which may induce stress or strain (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). This stress may interfere with one’s abilities to address the demands of the different life domains, thus increasing work-home conflict (Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014). For instance, the stress may increase ruminating over the discrepancy, which consumes energy and would leave less time to fulfill particular domain demands (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014).…”

“…This stress may interfere with one’s abilities to address the demands of the different life domains, thus increasing work-home conflict (Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014). For instance, the stress may increase ruminating over the discrepancy, which consumes energy and would leave less time to fulfill particular domain demands (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014).…”

“…Since pressure related to one’s work-home practice use concern how individuals manage their work and home roles, they are likely to affect individuals’ work-home conflict (Piszczek and Berg, 2014). In addition, individuals have a tendency to evaluate their (work and home) environment against internal standards such as their preferences, desires, values or goals (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014). When individuals experience external pressure to act in another way than they prefer, they are likely to appraise the environment as a threat (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991), which may elicit negative emotions such as frustration or guilt, inducing stress and therefore (work-home) conflict (Guendouzi, 2006; Morgan and King, 2012; Bochantin and Cowan, 2016).…”

“…When individuals experience external pressure to act in another way than they prefer, they are likely to appraise the environment as a threat (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991), which may elicit negative emotions such as frustration or guilt, inducing stress and therefore (work-home) conflict (Guendouzi, 2006; Morgan and King, 2012; Bochantin and Cowan, 2016). Also the person-environment fit literature suggests that a perceived mismatch between the environment and one’s personal preferences–like in the case of perceived pressure–may induce negative emotions and stress (Harrison, 1978; Edwards and Rothbard, 1999; Padhi and Pattnaik, 2014). Applying this to the specific case of home-based telework, part-time work and work-home conflict, insufficient supplies from the environment to accord with individuals’ preferences concerning the management of boundary domains will create unfulfilled needs and create tension and conflict between these domains, i.e., work and home (Ammons, 2013).…”