Impact of Work-life Balance on Employees Productivity and Job Satisfaction in Private Sector Universities of Pakistan

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 242)


The objective of this research paper is to discuss the nature of work and family policies in Pakistan’s environment particularly in Education Sector. There are 133 universities in Pakistan, of which 73 are Public sector universities and Private universities are 63 which are functioning under Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. This study will further assess that how different Educational sectors in Pakistan have approached the work life balance agenda and examines the actual outcomes for both the employees and the employers. Employees can achieve a healthy balance between work and family life through flexible working arrangements. Results of this study will be beneficial for organizations to better choose the policies to formulate, therefore helping organization to increase the effectiveness and productivity. There is a positive moderate relationship between job satisfaction and work-life balance; which suggests that universities should focus their efforts on formulating and implementing work-life balance policies. the questionnaire to tell partakers the rationale of this study, which is to evaluate employees work related approach on family friendly/work-life balance policies execution among different universities of Pakistan Chi square test and regression analysis was conducted to examine the strength of relationship between work-life balance policies and employees job satisfaction.


Degree Awarded Institute (DAI) Higher Education Commission (HEC) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen TD (2001) Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(3):414–435Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bond S, Wise S (2003) Family leave policies and devolution to the line. Personnel Review 23(1):58–72Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks NR (1999) Workers place more value in training, flexibility than pay, survey show. Los Angeles TimesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clifton TJ, Shepard E (2004) Work and family programs and productivity: Estimates applying a production function model. International Journal of Manpower 25(8):714–728Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Community Business (2004) Work-life balance in Hong Kong. Survey Result. Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galinsky E, Stein PJ (1990) The impact of human resource policies: Balancing work and family life. Journal of Family 11(4):368–383Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crooker KJ, Grover SL (1993) The impact of family responsive benefits on selected work attitudes. In: The National Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Families and work institute (1998) The 1997 national study of the changing workforce, executive summary. Families and work institute, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodstein JD (1994) Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal 37(2):350–382Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenberg J (1990) Looking fair versus being fair: Managing impressions of organization justice. Resaerch in Organization Behaviour 12:111–157Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grover SL, Crooker KJ (1993) Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organisational attachment of parents and nonparents. Personnel Psychology 48(2):271–288Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartin W (1994) Employment law. Corporate Management 46(2):75–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johns G (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review 31(2):386–408Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lockwood NR (2003) Work-life balance: Challenges and solutions. HR Magazine, Alexandria 48(6):S1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milliken FJ, Martins LL, Morgan H (1998) Explaining organisational responsiveness to workFamily issues: The role of human resource executives as issue interpreters. Academy of Management Journal 41(5):580–592Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moss SA, Bardoel EA, Smyrnios K et al (1999) Employee characteristics associated with the provision of work-family policies and programs. International Journal of Manpower 20(8):563–577Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Narayan VK, Nath R (1982) Industrial relations. A Journal of Economy and Society 21(2):216–230Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papalexandris N, Kramar R (1997) Flexible working patterns: Towards reconciliation of family and work. Employee Relations 19(6):581–595Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Saltzstien AL, Ting Y, Saltzstein GH (2001) Work family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review 61(4):452Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Strachan G, Burgess J (1998) Towards a new deal for women workers in Australia? Growing employment share, enterprise bargaining and the family friendly workplace. Equal Opportunities International 17(8):1–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and EconomicsUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Management Science DepartmentBahria UniversityKarachiPakistan
  3. 3.General Studies DepartmentYanbu Industrial CollegeMadinatYanbu Al Sinaiyah Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations