Logo image
Back
Time in the workplace: Is it too much or too few resources to use our time that is problematic?
Abstract   Peer reviewed

Time in the workplace: Is it too much or too few resources to use our time that is problematic?

Prudence M Millear
Proceedings of the 10th European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology Conference, pp.355-356
European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP) Conference, 10th (Zurich, Switzerland, 11-Apr-2012–13-Apr-2012)
2012
url
http://www.eaohp.org/uploads/1/1/0/2/11022736/eaohp2012_book_of_proceedings_2012.pdfView
Webpage

Abstract

Psychology
It is a common lament among the working population that there is not enough time in the day for work and family. Using the Job Demand-Resource model, 'time' was compared by the demands on the individual (i.e. what is required or fixed) against the resources that the individual could use (i.e. that which allows effective and purposeful management of work and family roles) for burnout, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and negative spillover amongst a large, convenience sample of employed Australian adults. Demographics were entered first in the regressions, followed by the demands on time, then the resources of time usage. Time demands were measured as hours per week (including overtime), preferred hours (more or less than currently worked), and felt time pressure (i.e. subjective busyness). Time resources were measured as the ability to control time, as job autonomy and skill discretion, and the ability to meet work-life roles, as the responsiveness of their managers and social support generally from colleagues and supervisors. Dividing time into demands and resources significantly explained all the outcomes, although time resources were more broadly important that time demands, except for similar contributions to emotional exhaustion and negative work-to-family spillover. The employee who was able to choose how and when they would work and had social support in general, as well as specifically for work-life matters, reported less emotional exhaustion and cynicism, higher levels of professional efficacy and greater satisfaction and attachment to their work. Both forms of social support were most useful to reduce negative work-family spillover, as was skill discretion for negative family-to-work spillover. Time demands were better represented as whether work hours were what the individual preferred and how busy they felt, as actual work hours were of limited predictive value. When individuals preferred to work less hours than they were currently working, this was associated with greater emotional exhaustion and cynicism, more spillover between roles and less job satisfaction and affective commitment. Increasing levels of time pressure were strongly associated with negative spillover between roles and with greater emotional exhaustion. Hours alone do not reflect the complexities of the working week, rather how much control the individual has over their time and whether the hours suit the individual, were more important. An emphasis on providing resources to use time, whilst minimising differences between actual and preferred hours, can promote better work experiences and greater balance between work and family roles.

Details

Metrics

4 File views/ downloads
470 Record Views
Logo image