Next Article in Journal
Predictive Analysis and Wine-Grapes Disease Risk Assessment Based on Atmospheric Parameters and Precision Agriculture Platform
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Optimization of Tunnel Ventilation Flow Field in Long Tunnel Based on CFD Computer Simulation Technology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811488
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Can Decent Work Explain Employee-Level Outcomes? The Roles of Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict

by
Meryem Aybas
1,
Gaye Özçelik
2,* and
Cavide Uyargil
3
1
Business Department, School of Business Administration, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, 67100 Zonguldak, Turkey
2
Faculty of Communication, İstanbul Bilgi University, 34060 İstanbul, Turkey
3
School of Business, İstanbul University, 34322 İstanbul, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11488; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811488
Submission received: 8 June 2022 / Revised: 22 August 2022 / Accepted: 8 September 2022 / Published: 13 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Decent work (DW) has emerged as a growing paradigm for all, entailing fundamental principles and rights at work which can pervade all human resource management (HRM)practices. While studies on DW are generally examined on macro levels, such as social, economic, legal, and political, the rising emphasis to realize the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 8 of the UN and highlight the importance of quality of employment in this paper we draw our attention to the DW concept at the micro level The purpose of this study is to explore whether DW is associated with ‘employee performance’ and ‘intention to leave’. Additionally, the aim is to investigate whether work–family conflict (WFC) and family–work conflict (FWC) can serve as moderating variables under the job demands–resources (JD–R) model. Data were collected from employees working for 392 organisations, who represented their companies at a national career fair in Turkey. The results have revealed the role and importance of securing DW as a significant job resource for sustaining positive employee outcomes, including high performance and a reduced intention to leave. Furthermore, the study has shown that while WFC has moderating effects on performance and employees’ turnover intentions, FWC serves as a moderating variable, weakening the relationship between DW and intention to leave in case of adverse family demands.

1. Introduction

At the turn of the twenty-first century, dating back to the ILO’s history within the United Nations (UN) as of 1919, decent work (DW) has emerged as a growing paradigm for all people, entailing fundamental principles and rights at work which can pervade all human resource management practices. Securing decent work for all alleviates inequalities, increases people’s purchasing power, enhances social protection, and gives rise to more inclusive and sustainable economic development. DW, at this point, can be proposed as an ‘employee-centred approach’ [1] that provides employees with physically and interpersonally safe working conditions, access to health care, adequate compensation, adequate workload and working time [2], opportunities to learn and gain professional positions, satisfaction through career development processes [2,3,4,5], and the facilitation of goal accomplishments (e.g., social support, autonomy, and task significance) [6]. A hundred years ahead in 2019, DW has been declared to be one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (U.N.) focusing on the importance of quality of employment, safe and secure working environments, and social protection for all.
Work is considered a central aspect of people’s lives, which drives them to make it a fulfilling and productive activity. In today’s fierce competition, employees, in particular white-collar workers, are generally pushed to work harder and show high performances in the context of digitalization and Industry 4.0, which can put them under serious pressure, giving rise to negative work-related outcomes and the deterioration of their health and well-being. This draws attention to the fact that employees should be provided with a decent working context and that the importance of quality of employment and social protection should not be overlooked.
As a matter of fact, every job that people hold is surrounded by both job resources and job demands. Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, organizational, and social aspects of the job that can be exemplified as job autonomy, feedback, access to social support, a high-quality supervisor relationship [7], adequate working time and workload distribution, opportunities for personal and professional development as well as the provision of adequate remuneration, health, well-being, and security conditions [2,3,4]. Given the increased competition of modern times, higher levels of job demands accompanied by high work pressure, work overload, and other job stressors, i.e., job insecurity, work can turn into an exhausting experience. In cases in which the job demands exceed the job resources, these exceeding demands can hinder job resources, thus creating detrimental employee outcomes, such as low performance, intention to leave [8,9,10], and also health-impairing effects, e.g., acute fatigue and exhaustion [11]. Given the inevitability of high job demands in the current work environment, the idea of increasing job resources can be further acknowledged as buffering the negative outcomes of job demands. These arguments, in line with the literature [12,13], leads us to propose that the DW construct might well fit into the job demand–resources (JD–R) framework, which has been used in scholarly research to explain how working conditions influence employee behaviour, e.g., absenteeism, performance, and client satisfaction [14,15,16]. Central to the JD–R model is that adequate amount of resources can buffer the negative outcomes of job demands [8,9,10,11]. Hence, we propose that the availability of DW conditions in the workplace should be interpreted as the ‘job resources’ an employee utilizes in the workplace. The unavailability of decent working conditions can be associated with adverse job demands, while securing such conditions can help buffer the negative effects of job demands on employee outcomes [12].
Given DW was originally developed to examine its availability at a societal level [17], it has been criticized for its lack of focus on work life experiences at the individual level [18]. Nevertheless, there exists some recent empirical research on DW, which found significant associations with some employee-related outcomes, such as work motivation and psychological capital [2,4,19], well-being [17,20], work engagement [3], and employee trust [19,21]. By relying on the social justice aspect of decent work at a macro (societal) level, in this study we aim to contribute to fill in the gap regarding the testability of decent work as a set of practices at the individual level and the applicability of social justice in the context of employees. Therefore, our research is novel as it explores whether the availability of DW plays an important role in two plausible outcomes at the employee level: ‘employee performance’, as proposed by Ferraro et al. [2,4], and ‘intention to leave’, as held by Arnoux-Nicolas et al. [22]. According to the JD–R Model, an adequate amount of job resources—DW conditions—can buffer the negative outcomes of job demands, thus leading to higher employee performance and a reduced intention to leave [8,9,10].
The relationship of DW practices with performance and intention to leave may not be a direct one, as there may be other contextual factors that can alter the strength, level, and presence of these relationships. Increased competition and new technologies have changed work demands, i.e., the need to manage higher complexity, generate new knowledge, increase skill variety, and intensify work effort [23]. As a consequence, individuals have started to take on more and different roles, each bearing new responsibilities and expectations [24]. However, people have limited personal resources (e.g., time and energy), which makes it difficult for them to participate and meet the expectations of all their roles. The result is an increase in work–family conflict (WFC) and family–work conflict (FWC), the impact of which we aim to investigate in terms of the DW employee-level outcomes. While WFC addresses inter-role conflicts, whereby demands from the work domain can interfere with the family role requirements [25], FWC arises when family responsibilities affect one’s job demands [26]. It is also crucial to understand and address white-collar workers’ perceptions about DW, which has so far generally been studied among blue-collar workers [27].
We examine whether WFC and FWC conflict can play moderating roles and influence the magnitude and/or direction of the relationship between DW conditions, employee performance, and intention to leave, respectively, under the JD–R model, e.g., [11,28].
The present research contributes to the existing literature as follows. First, by integrating the DW construct into the JD–R Model, we make a contribution by providing findings on white-collar employees’ perceptions about the role and importance of securing DW as a significant job resource for sustaining positive employee outcomes, such as their performance, and as a buffer to reduce turnover intentions when faced with adverse job demands. Second, the study is aimed at obtaining a deeper understanding of the strength of WFC and FWC as moderating variables in the relationship between DW, employee performance, and intention to leave. Third, DW has, for the most part, been investigated for its impact at a societal level. We address this gap in the literature by taking a micro-level examination of DW practices and its influence on employee outcomes. Fourth, the present study contributes to the literature by drawing upon data from a Turkish sample, since most research on DW, WFC, and FWC has been focused on the Western world. Turkey represents a particularly interesting cultural context for examining WFC and FWC [29] (p. 454), given that it is a country that shares elements of both Eastern and Western values with modernity and traditionalism, which might affect work and family interference differently in ways that cannot be generalized to all contexts [30].

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) Model

The JD–R model proposes that all working environments and job characteristics can be classified into two different categories, namely job demands and job resources. Job demands involve those factors, such as work overload, role ambiguity [31], role conflict, and role stress [7], that put physical, social, psychological, and/or organizational pressure and strain on individuals which compels them to exert physical, psychological, and/or cognitive effort [32]. Job demands are divided into the dimensions of challenge and hindrance. Challenge demands can be exemplified as work load, time pressure, and cognitive processing requirements, which require a lot of effort but pave the way for goal achievement. In contrast, hindrance demands are obstructive and include job insecurity, organizational constraints, role ambiguity, interpersonal conflict, administrative hassles, rather inadequate resources [33], work overload, and excessive working hours [34], thereby preventing good employee morale, well-being, and job performance. Job resources refer to those factors that help reduce job demands, particularly alleviating the negative effects of hindrance demands and the associated physical, psychological, and cognitive costs in order to facilitate goal accomplishment (e.g., autonomy and task significance) [12] and also to allow for more personal learning and development [12,35]. The JD–R model proposes that the interaction between job demands and job resources displays itself in a way that job resources may buffer the negative outcomes of job demands, such as strain, burnout, and poor performance [12,34].
Previous studies have considered the JD–R model highly important in an organizational context as it enables professionals and organizations to recognize the factors related to motivation, performance, and employee well-being. One such study has found the role of job resources in the prevention of exhaustion [36]. Xanthopoulou et al. [37] have also found that employees provided with sufficient resources in their work environment are able to perform their tasks successfully, facilitating their work engagement. Bakker and Demerouti [14] also argue that job resources (i.e., autonomy, social support, fulfilling work, and performance) become particularly important and useful when the job demands are highly challenging.

2.2. Decent Work Construct

Dating back to the ILO’s history within the United Nations (UN) since 1919 [38], the “decent work” (DW) concept has thus been evolving for more than a century, arriving at its current framework and definition as a consequence of a series of conferences, declarations, treaties, etc. [39]. The concept formed the basis for raising awareness of working conditions, social justice, and human rights [40]. The official introduction of the DW construct was proposed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in the 87th session of the International Labor Conference in 1999 as “productive work in which rights are protected, which generates an adequate income, with adequate social protection” [41] (p. 13).
Ever since recent decades, the DW concept has further increased in importance given today’s globalized dynamic workplace contexts [2,4], increased employee responsibilities, [21] and accelerated competition in the workplace. While this changing trend has enabled employees to exercise more autonomy, equipped them for higher productivity, and engendered greater commitment, it has, however, at the same time, put them under further pressure in terms of employer demands, such as setting unrealistic and unachievable goals, excessive responsibilities in job descriptions, and excessive working hours [21]. This can lead to multiple negative outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction and poor work performance, as well as reduced care for the health and well-being of employees [42,43]. These changes have further drawn attention to the DW concept, which in particular has recently been put forward as one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (U.N.) in 2019, encompassing the importance of quality of employment and social protection. SDG No. 8 aims to “promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all”, in which workers have access to “safe and secure working environments” [44].
Taking the ILO documents [45,46,47,48] and the substantive elements explained in the Decent Work Agenda as the foundation, Ferraro, Pais, dos Santos, and Moreira [4] developed a Decent Work Questionnaire (DWQ) as a measurement instrument at the individual worker level and identified a number of factors or dimensions from workers’ subjective perceptions of the presence of DW conditions in their current job. They came up with seven dimensions of DW, as presented in the table below (Table 1).

2.3. Work–Family Conflict (WFC) and Family–Work Conflict (FWC)

Work and family are two of the important domains of employees in organizational settings and they might not always be compatible with one another, creating conflicts that give rise to negative outcomes, such as organizational dissatisfaction, psychological distress, lower job performance, etc. [25,49]. WFC takes place when matters at work (severe competition, long and/or inflexible working hours, demanding managers, etc.) affects one’s ability to meet the demands associated with the family context (care of elderly parents, kids, household duties, domestic spouse, etc.). On the other hand, FWC occurs when issues at work clash with family responsibility [24,25]. Previous studies have examined and discussed WFC and FWC (i.e., [50,51]). For instance, FWC was found to drive employees’ intention to leave their jobs [52], whereas WFC was negatively related with job performance [51,53].

2.4. Decent Work and Employee Performance

Several scholarly studies have examined the relationship between DW and employee outcomes, such as employee motivation [54,55], well-being, and work engagement [13,56], which bear implications for achieving superior performance-related results and coping with challenges in the workplace [13]. At the micro level, a DW environment can be created by organisational efforts to implement employee well-being-oriented HRM practices (e.g., jobs with appropriate workload, role clarity, and employee control, as well as information sharing, employment security, and supportive management), which enable employees to work under good employment conditions and benefit from human capital development opportunities [57]. As many of these practices are in line with the DW principles, employees’ perception of DW can be enhanced by organisational efforts to improve their HRM practices [58]. An HRM approach that focuses on well-being-oriented practices can help enhance employee performance [57]. In this respect, other scholarly research has provided evidence that employee-centred practices with adequate compensation, appropriate working conditions, workplace safety and security, and access to the healthcare, as well as a balance between work and private time enable individuals to direct their attention more to their role performance [20]. Hence, we consider that DW plays an important role in enhancing employees’ job performance.

2.5. Decent Work and Intention to Leave

Intention to leave or turnover intention refers to an individual’s perceived inclination of staying with or leaving the organisation [59]. The literature portrays that the more inferior the working conditions and the more unsatisfactory the remuneration [60], the more likely that the employees will consider leaving their organisation [5,22]. Furthermore, as it may reduce employees’ job satisfaction, the lack of congruence in goals and values of the organisation can be an antecedent to employees’ turnover intentions [5]. In a similar vein, a negative relationship was found between decent work and intention to leave [61]. Employees’ positive perceptions of access to decent working conditions have impacted their turnover intentions [62]. The dimensions of DW mentioned in the table above are used to state the forthcoming hypotheses of our study.

2.6. Model and Hypotheses

2.6.1. Moderating Effects of WFC on DW and the Employee Performance Relationship

When high levels of job demands exist in an employee’s work context, such as work overload, pressure to meet deadlines, and job insecurity, the family context of the employee can be negatively impacted, thus giving rise to WFC [11]. When work requirements are inconsistent with those of the family, it is perceived as representing work and family conflict [63]. WFC has been examined in the previous literature for its moderating role. For example, Raza et al. [63] found that WFC moderates the relationship between trait mindfulness and work–family balance. In another context, higher WFC can moderate the association between job demands and employees’ work performance [64,65,66].
While decent working conditions might bear implications for higher employee performance, we also propose that such a potential positive relationship might be alleviated by sources of stress coming from work–family demands. Therefore, we predict (see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
WFC moderates the relationship between DW and employee performance, such that increased WFC weakens the positive effect of DW upon employee performance.

2.6.2. Moderating Effects of WFC on DW and Intention to Leave

Intention to leave or turnover intention refers to an individual’s perceived inclination of staying with or leaving the organisation [59]. The literature portrays that the more inferior the working conditions, the more likely that the employees will consider leaving their organisation [22]. It is reasonable to assume that when employees cannot fulfil their expectations due to such matters as poor and/or hazardous working conditions, perceptions of job insecurity, or the lack of sufficient remuneration, they are more likely to leave their current employing organisation [5]. Relatedly, there is an inverse relationship between DW conditions and employees’ intention to leave.
Moreover, high levels of conflict between various life domains, such as work and family, can compel individuals to manage a certain pool of personal resources [67]. The individuals might have to face WFC due to lack of support at work, particularly from the supervisor. They may have a poor-quality relationship with colleagues at the workplace, which can make them think that they are not cared for by their organisation and lead to them feeling more stressed when they come to work [68]. Moreover, they might sometimes encounter too many stressful work role demands. These demands from work consume employees’ limited resources (i.e., time and energy) and make it harder for them to fulfil their obligations with regards to their family roles (i.e., [67,69,70]). On the other hand, in line with the related literature, i.e., [71] even in the case of conflict due to demands from work impacting the family context, as long as DW conditions are maintained at the workplace, employees might be less likely to consider leaving their organizations. Therefore, we propose that (see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
WFC moderates the relationship between DW and intention to leave, such that increased WFC strengthens the negative effect of DW on intention to leave.

2.6.3. Moderating Effects of FWC on DW and Intention to Leave

Different scholarly research has presented evidence supporting the negative relationship between DW perception and intention to leave [72,73,74]. Poor working conditions, such as exposure to physical and mental risks, poor work-life balance, and perceptions of job insecurity, have been found to have an impact and increase employees’ intention to leave their organisation [22].
Along with poorer DW conditions, when employees face FWC, such as household and childcare duties interfering with working life when executing their work roles, further psychological distress will be incurred on the employees, which then might lead them to consider quitting as an option in order to eliminate further conflict [67,69]. In this respect, individuals’ family related roles are highly important. Researchers have argued that, when people have scarce physical and mental resources, thus making it harder to be devoted to both family and work domains, people are more likely to go for leaving their organisations, rather than deciding to stay [67]. Hence, we propose that (See Figure 1):
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
FWC moderates the relationship between DW and intention to leave, such that increased FWC weakens the negative effect of DW upon intention to leave.

2.6.4. Moderating Effects of FWC on DW and Employee Performance

While DW plays an important role in enhancing employees’ job performance, some sources of stress or support can enhance or reduce this relationship. Family–work conflict, being one of the most crucial stress factors, can occur when family demands become so overwhelming for an individual that they are unable to participate equally in their work role. As individuals exert too much time and mental and physical effort in the non-work domain, they are left with fewer cognitive resources to manage the demands coming from the work domain [75], which then might lower their work performance [76]. Hence, we state the following hypothesis as (see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
FWC moderates the relationship between DW and employees’ performance, such that increased FWC weakens the positive effect of DW on employee performance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The following survey methodology was used. Data were collected from employees working for 392 organisations, who represented their companies at a national career fair in Turkey. White-collar employees were included in the study. In this context, business owners, managers, supervisors, and professionals or semi-professionals were accepted as white-collar workers [77,78]. The reasons for choosing these participants for this study were in order to comply with the definition of white-collar workers and to ensure participation from all regions of the country. In this way, the problem of sample representation was attempted to be mitigated. In this fair organization held every year, there are representatives of medium- and small-sized companies as well as the largest companies operating in Turkey. Due to the workload of the fair, some participants did not agree to participate in the research. The data of the study were collected by the researcher by having the respondents fill out a paper-pencil question form. It took an average of half an hour to complete the survey due to participants having to understand the questions and needing additional information, as well as the interruptions due to the fair. All questionnaires were collected during the 2-day fair. In order to avoid influencing the respondents, the researcher’s role included choosing the appropriate people for the sample, giving short explanations in terms of constructs that are not understood when necessary, and motivating the respondents to participate in the research. While the respondent was filling out the form, the researcher kept a respectful distance and avoided any kind of guidance. In this way, while benefiting from the advantages of face-to-face surveys, its disadvantages were avoided as much as possible [79].
A self-report questionnaire survey was completed by 227 employees and the response rate was thus 57.9%. The organisations were operating in several sectors. The majority of the sample (58.6%) was male and the mean age was 32.13 years. A total of 34.7% of the participants were employees in managerial positions, 56.4% were married, and 48.9% were working in the private sector.
In the data analysis of research, we first applied various procedures to check the construct validity and reliability of the data. For this purpose, we examined convergent and divergent validity and composite reliability by performing CFA via AMOS 24. To test the reliability of the data, we looked at the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient using SPSS 26. We then performed descriptive analyses that included correlations, means, and standard deviations. SPSS 26 program was used for descriptive analysis. After the validity and reliability of the data were ensured, we proceeded to the hypothesis tests. For hypothesis testing, we performed path analysis through the AMOS 24. These analyses are detailed in the following sections.

3.2. Measures

DW was measured by a 31-item scale developed by Ferraro, Pais, dos Santos, and Moreira [4]. An example item is: “What I earn through my work allows me to live my life with dignity and independence” (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). WFC and FWC were measured on a 10-item scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and Mcmurrian [80]. Five items were used to measure work to family conflict, whilst the other five were used to measure family to work conflict. One sample item for WFC is: “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life” and one for FWC is: “The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities” (Cronbach’s α for WFC: = 0.90; FWC: = 0.90). Intention to leave was measured with a 3-item scale developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh [81], which is a subscale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. One sample item is: “I often think about quitting” (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Employee performance was measured with a 4-item scale developed by Erdoğan [82], and sample item is: “I reach my work goals more than enough” (Cronbach’s α = 0.77). DW, WFC–FWC, employee performance, and intention to leave were measured with continuous scale. All items (measures) in the survey were presented with a 5-point Likert scale. The items were rated from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”.

3.3. Control Variables

We identified several potentially relevant control variables. Gender is a potentially confounding variable because women are more likely than men to be exposed to work–family and family–work conflict due to gender roles. A similar situation may apply to the marital status of employees. In addition, studies have found some differences in terms of gender and marriage in the evaluation of the results of work–family and family–work conflict [68]. Additionally, it is possible for those in managerial positions and private sector employees with relative job guarantees to differ from others in terms of decent work practices perception. In addition to gender and marital status, those in managerial positions are most stressed and more likely to be exposed to work–family conflict and family–work conflict [83]. We controlled all these variables by including them in the analysis as dummy variables: female = 1, male = 0, married = 1, non-married = 0, private organization member = 1, public organization member = 0, manager = 1, and non-managers = 0.

3.4. Common Method Variance

To solve the common method variance problem, some ex-ante and ex-post approaches have been followed [84]. First of all, the confident of the respondents to the researchers was ensured by the data being voluntarily based and the anonymity of the responses guaranteed. In addition, the respondents were told that there was no right or wrong answer and they were asked to answer as honestly as possible. Since the data were collected in the form of questions and answers in a 30-min face-to-face interview, misunderstandings and ambiguity of the statements were eliminated. Secondly, while designing the research, a moderator variable was used based on theory. According to Chang, Witteloostuijn, and Eden [84] (p. 180), “including a non-linear interaction term in the model is likely to reduce CMV because such a complex relationship is, in all likelihood, not part of the respondents’ theory-in use”. Finally, Harman’s single factor test was used [85] as statistical remedy [86] as an ex-post remedy. While this approach does not eliminate possible CMV, it does provide information on whether CMV is a significant problem to assessing the common method bias. In this study, a single factor showed only 31.33% of the total variance, which confirmed that there is no issue regarding common method variance.

4. Results

First, we conducted a CFA on the five variables in our study (i.e., DW, WFC, FWC, employee performance, and intention to leave) to examine their discriminant and convergent validities. Second, we performed a path analysis to test our hypotheses by using AMOS 24.

4.1. Construct Validity

Before hypothesis testing, a confirmatory factor analytic model was performed using AMOS 24 to assess the structure of the variables as well as their convergent and discriminant validities relative to each other. The model testing followed a two-step approach of first specifying and assessing the measurement model, then specifying and assessing the structural model [87]. To assess the measurement model of the study’s variables of interest, namely DW, intention to leave, employee performance, WFC, and FWC, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. This model exhibited good psychometric properties. All observed indicators were specified to load onto their respective latent constructs and no observed indicator was allowed to cross-load. Model fit statistics were selected to capture aspects of absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit. The measurement model was evaluated through fit indices. The study results showed acceptable fit values (χ2 = 669,850, df = 370, χ2/df = 1.810, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.895, IFI = 0.91) in line with the suggested standard values [88,89,90]. These indices indicate that the structure of the measurement model was good [91].
The results from the CFA met Fornell and Larcker’s [91] guidelines, and these are presented in Table 2. The assessment of convergent validity showed that all items loaded significantly onto their respective factors, with the AVE for each latent construct exceeding 0.50. All measures in the analysis demonstrated acceptable construct reliabilities, with estimates that ranged from 0.776 to 0.927. Additionally, the AVE for each latent construct must exceed the respective squared correlation between factors to provide stringent evidence of discriminant validity [89,90,91,92]. Table 2 shows that the composite reliability (CR) score is greater than 0.70 for all the constructs and the average variance explained (AVE) is greater than 0.50. Moreover, CR is greater than AVE in the entire latent variable. In addition, Table 2 shows that the maximum shared variance (MSV) is less than the AVE in the cases of all the factors and the MSV is greater than the average shared variance (ASV). Thus, these meet the threshold as suggested by Gaskin [92] and these criteria support the convergent and discriminant validity.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

The correlations, means, standard deviations, and alpha levels for the variables are presented in Table 3. Firstly, Table 3 shows the mean scores for the variables. WFC (M = 3.0) was at the midpoint, while FWC (M = 2.40) and intention to leave (M = 2.46) were below. These findings indicated that, on average, FWC and intention to leave were reported to be higher than WFC. On the other hand, total DW practices (M = 3.45) and employee performance (M = 3.8) were above average.
DW practices were significantly positively correlated with employee performance (r = 0.474, p < 0.01), and negatively correlated with intention to leave (r = −0.390, p < 0.01) and WFC (r = −0.229, p < 0.01), but not significantly correlated with FWC (r = −0.062, p > 0.05). WFC was significantly positively correlated with FWC (r = 0.526, p < 0.01), whilst WFC (r = 0.540, p < 0.01) and FWC (r = 0.555, p < 0.01) were positively correlated with intention to leave. Age was negatively correlated with intention to leave (r = −0.203, p < 0.01).

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

Before starting hypothesis testing, we first checked for potential collinearity via SPSS 26. We used the variance inflation factor (VIF) to evaluate collinearity problems. As a result of the analysis, all tolerance values were above 0.20 and all VIF values were below the commonly accepted threshold of 5 to 10 [93] (see Appendix A).
To examine the potential influence of control variables [94], we examined the correlation matrix [95]. Managerial position was correlated with decent work practices such that managers had a higher perception of decent work practices than non-managerial workers. Organization type was correlated with family–work conflict such that private organization members had higher levels of FWC than public organization workers. Therefore, we controlled for organization type and managerial position status. We did not control gender because it was unrelated to our variables of interest. Although there was no relationship between marital status and independent variables, we decided to include it in the model because it was associated with performance in the correlation analysis. Accordingly, married employees’ performances were higher than those of single employees (as shown in Appendix B).
After that, for this study, Baron and Kenny’s [96] method was used to check the moderating impact of WFC conflict and FWC. Additionally, in order to examine the effect of control variables in path analysis, we added dummy variables to the model as suggested by Collier [97]. The results showed good fit values (χ2 = 5.584, df = 5 p = 0.349, χ2/df = 1.117 RMSEA = 0.02, NFI= 0.98, TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99). While the control variables, such as organization type (β = 0.051 p = 0.376) and managerial position (β = −0.088 p = 0.128), have insignificant effects on employee performance, the marital status effect is small but significant (β = 0.155 p = 0.008). Accordingly, married employees seem to have higher performances. Moreover, while organizational type (β = 0.066 p = 0.163) and marital status (β = −0.024 p = 0.618) do not have an effect on intention to leave, being in a managerial position has a significant effect on intention to leave (β = −0.120 p = 0.012). Those in managerial positions have a lower intention to leave than non-managers.
The path model as seen Figure 2 depicts the relationships between decent work practices–employee performance and decent work practices–turnover intention. It also examines whether work–family conflict and family–work conflict have moderating roles in these relationships. According to the model suggested in the study, DW’s impact on employee performance is β = 0.533, while the entire model explains a total variance of 29% (R2 = 0.294). DW’s impact on intention to leave is β = −0.244, while the entire model explains a 52% variance in total (R2 = 0.524). The results of the moderation analysis are presented in Table 4. It can be seen in Table 4 that the hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 are supported (for H4, fit values without removing insignificant FWC × DW > performance path χ2 = 0.397, df = 1 p = 0.529, χ2/df = 0.397, RMSEA = 0.000, NFI = 0.99, TLI = 1.094, CFI = 1.000).
Table 4 shows the standardized regression coefficients and other figures (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) accompany the results of our hypotheses and discussion as follows:
According to H1, the interaction term of WFC and DW is significantly associated with employee performance (β = −0.131, t = −2.234, p < 0.05). Figure 3 indicates that WFC impacts the relation between DW practices and employee performance at high and low values of WFC (one standard deviation above and below the mean constant). When there is a high WFC, the relationship between DW practices and employee performance is weakened. Thus, H1 is supported. That is, WFC dampens the positive relationship between DW practices and employee performance.
Regarding H2, the interaction term of WFC and decent work is also significantly associated with intention to leave (β = −0.179, t = −3.384, p < 0.01). Relatedly, Figure 4 indicates that WFC impacts the relation between DW practices and intention to leave at high and low values of WFC. When there is a high WFC, then the negative relationship between DW and intention to leave is strengthened. So, we find support for H2.
Considering H3, the interaction term of FWC and decent work practices is significantly associated with intention to leave (see Table 4 above) (β = 0.146, t = 2.744, p < 0.01). Relatedly, Figure 5 presents the results of the moderation analysis, indicating that FWC impacts the relation between DW and intention to leave at high and low values of FWC. When there is a high FWC, the negative relationship between DW practices and intention to leave is weakened. That is, FWC dampens the negative relationship between DW and intention to leave. Therefore, H3 is supported.
For the final hypothesis (H4), the interaction term of FWC and DW is not significantly associated with employee’ performance (β = −0.048, t = −0.748, p = 0.454) and hence, the moderating role of FWC is not present. Thus, H4 is not supported (See Table 4).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The results of this study are discussed in relation to the tested hypotheses, which helps in providing a more informed understanding of the effects of the DW context. First, our results reveal that DW has a positive significant effect on employee performance. These findings are consistent with the related literature, which reveals DW’s contribution to motivation [27,98] and work engagement [3], both of which are found to be associated with performance [3,27,98]. Furthermore, in alignment with the findings of Travaglianti, Fabrice, Babic, and Hansez [99], our study has found a negative relationship between DW and intention to leave.
In addition, the research has demonstrated the moderating effects of WFC on the relationship between DW and employee performance. That is, while employee performance is positively related with DW conditions, with high WFC, this relationship is weakened. Our findings are, thus, consistent with other studies in which WFC was treated as a moderating variable [100,101,102]. We posit that when individuals experience high conflict at home arising from work demands (i.e., work overload, increased working hours), they have to tackle higher levels of stress and anxiety, thereby reducing their capacity to perceive, process, and evaluate information [103]. Therefore, also consistent with previous research [104], WFC as a stressor can limit individuals’ cognitive resources available for work, thus lowering their performance level.
Second, the findings also reveal that DW has a significant negative effect on employees’ intention to leave, which is in line with related previous research findings [22,105]. It is evident that, when an organisation provides employees with fulfilling and productive work accompanied by appropriate working, health, and safety conditions, they will be less likely to leave.
Third, our study has also revealed a moderating effect of WFC on the relationship between DW and intention to leave. This would imply that intention to leave depends not only on DW conditions, but also on the existence of WFC. That is, despite the existence of DW conditions, if employees are exposed to excessive work demands (i.e., time and workload pressures), then the former may be insufficient to meet their family domain needs, which might inhibit their energy and psychological involvement [49]), thus resulting in negative attitudes towards work [103]. Similarly, the literature has also asserted that WFC is associated with lower organisational commitment [100]. In this respect, even under DW conditions, when faced with WFC, these employees are more likely to leave their organisations, as this would appear to alleviate the positive effect of DW.
Fourth, our study has revealed that FWC has no moderating effect on the relationship between DW and employee performance. Despite contrary research findings (i.e., [76]), this is in alignment with other scholarly work [23], such that the degree to which a person is involved with their family does not influence their performance level as long as DW conditions are secured.
Further, FWC has been found to play a moderating role in the association between DW and intention to leave. Consistent with similar studies, which have argued that the family lives of employees may undermine the results of HR practices (i.e., lower engagement and satisfaction) of the organisation (i.e., [100]), we posit that the family demands on the individual can put them under stress, thus reducing their likelihood of remaining. When organisations are able to take care of employees’ family concerns, this can be a positive contributing factor to alleviating individuals’ negative attitudes towards staying.
Consequently, our research on contextual factors, such as WFC and FWC playing moderating roles, are important aspects of employees’ work and life domains, and the presence of these contextual factors bear negative implications for their work-related attitudes and behaviours. The contribution of the research stems from highlighting the importance of DW within the organisational context and at the individual level of analysis, focusing on employees’ perceptions of their working conditions as well as their attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Limitations and future research implications are discussed in the following section.

6. Implications for Theory and Practice

This study has several theoretical implications. First, it contributes to the literature by filling in the gap regarding the testability of decent work as a set of practices at the individual level and the applicability of social justice in the context of employees. Second, the study highlights the importance of securing DW within the organisational HRM context. In particular, regarding the working conditions of white-collar workers, whose importance is increasing, in the context of digitalisation and Industry 4.0, it is also crucial to understand and address white-collar workers’ perceptions about DW, which has so far generally been studied among blue-collar workers [98]. Regarding the concept of DW at the micro level in relation to white-collar workers, this study has found evidence that HRM practices developed in accordance with DW principles help increase employee performance and reduce their intention to leave. In addition, our research findings on contextual factors, such as WFC and FWC playing moderating roles, are important aspects of employees’ work and life domains, and the presence of these contextual factors bear negative implications for their work-related attitudes and behaviours.
In this respect, the study contributes to the literature examining how DW-focused HRM practices can even interact with contextual conditions [106], regarding which, WFC has become a common experience for today’s white-collar workers [100,107,108], who are more likely to be exposed to more pressure for performance in this digitalised, competitive landscape.
Concerning practical implications, our results indicate that the emphasis on developing, maintaining, and promoting DW conditions can contribute positively to the performance, motivation, and resilience of employees. In the context of DW, showing respect for fundamental rights, fairness, promotion, providing career and development opportunities, social security, health-safety improvements as well as establishing fair incentive and performance-oriented wage and reward systems are all germane to the concept. Pursuing these objectives will foster the improvement of the performance of employees and reduce their intention to leave.
In addition, inducing an organisational culture that promotes work–life balance can alleviate the negative implications of WFC and FWC. For instance, the fact that white-collar employees are dealing with work demands (i.e., by spending more time and energy for working) that interfere with their family demands (i.e., resulting in less time and energy for family) will result in negative employee attitudes and behaviour (i.e., performance, intention to leave). Therefore, organisational managers should take more care in developing family-friendly human resource policies and practices, which can help individuals to balance their role requirements.

7. Limitations and Future Research Implications

This study has some limitations that should be noted and they can be considered as topics for future studies. First of all, the findings come from a cross-sectional study design and thus, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about causal relationships. It would be more accurate to undertake these measurements with different methods. Another limitation is that all the data were based on self-reports. Whilst the statistical analysis performed revealed that common method variance was not a significant problem, the results may be contaminated by the potential effects of such variance [85]. Future studies should collect data from multiple sources to avoid such a problem. Fourth, this study can only be generalised to a limited and defined population. Employees representing their organisations at the fair were taken as the data source. Though these employees are from different organisations operating nationwide, the size of sample limits the generalisability of the findings. That is, care should be taken when applying these findings to a larger, different population. Fifth, findings might be partly related to the composition of the sample, such that some people may consider the family domain as much more important than everything else. Hence, even though these individuals are secure with high DW conditions, they are more likely to leave their organisations when they face a conflict rising from their family domain, thus disregarding the positive influence of DW conditions. Future studies could extend such research to other contexts by taking individual differences into consideration, e.g., gender, education, age, and personality. Finally, this study has been conducted in a context located at the intersection of east and west, one that carries values of both modernity and traditional values [109]. Future research can take a cross-cultural perspective, emphasising the societal cultural dynamics within the DW context at the organisational level.

Author Contributions

Conceptuaization: G.Ö., M.A. and C.U. Formal analysis: M.A. Methodology: G.Ö. Writing—original draft: M.A. and G.Ö.; Writing—review & editing: M.A., G.Ö. and C.U. All authors have an equal contribution to the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Collinearity statistics of research variables.
Table A1. Collinearity statistics of research variables.
Coefficients a
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.Collinearity Statistics
BStd. ErrorBetaToleranceVIF
1(Constant)−0.0230.058 −0.3890.698
ZGDummy−0.0590.060−0.059−0.9900.3230.9141.094
ZOTDummy0.0520.0590.0520.8810.3800.9181.089
ZMaritalDummy0.1530.0600.1522.5390.0120.8911.122
Zmanager−0.0870.059−0.086−1.4570.1470.9161.091
DW_x_FWC−0.0440.061−0.047−0.7120.4770.7441.344
DW_x_WFC−0.0820.058−0.093−1.41601580.7411.349
ZFWC_Total−0.1010.071−0.101−1.4210.1570.6371.571
ZWFC_Total0.2540.0710.2523.5560.0000.6421.559
Zdecentwork0.5400.0620.5388.7470.0000.8481.180
a Dependent Variable: Zperformance.

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Correlations between research and control variables.
Table A2. Correlations between research and control variables.
123456789
Age1
Marital status0.544 **1
Gender−0.266 **−0.266 **1
Organization type−0.238 **−0.156 *0.0751
Managerial postion0.266 **0.131 *−0.061−0.0151
performance0.0760.145 *−0.1090.1040.0621
Decent work 0.004−0.013−0.0270.1260.216 **0.474 **1
WFC0.0380.025−0.0180.089−0.0410.063−0.229 **1
FWC−0.0430.051−0.0500.150 *−0.089−0.013−0.0620.526 **1
** Significance at p < 0.01, * Significance at p < 0.05.

References

  1. ILO. Reducing the Decent Work Deficit: A Global Challenge Report of the Director-General. In Proceedings of the International Labour Conference, 89th Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 5–21 June 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ferraro, T.; Moreira, J.M.; dos Santos, N.R.; Pais, L. Decent work, work motivation and psychological capital: An empirical research. Work 2018, 60, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Graça, M.; Pais, L.; Mónico, L.; dos Santos, N.R.; Ferraro, T.; Berger, R. Decent Work and Work Engagement: A Profile Study with Academic Personnel. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2019, 16, 917–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ferraro, T.; Pais, L.; dos Santos, N.R.; Moreira, J.M. The Decent Work Questionnaire (DWQ): Development and Validation in two Samples of Knowledge Workers. Int. Labour Rev. 2018, 157, 243–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Lei, J.; Yu, Y. Burnout in Chinese Social Work: Differential Predictability of the Components of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2019, 28, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bakker, A.B.; de Vries, J.D. Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping 2021, 34, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W. A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for Improving Work and Health. In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach; Bauer, G.F., Hämmig, O., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 43–68. [Google Scholar]
  9. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. The Job Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011, 37, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lewig, K.A.; Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Dollard, M.F.; Metzer, J.C. Burnout and connectedness among Australian volunteers: A test of the Job Demands–Resources model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 429–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gu, Y.; Wang, R. Job Demands and Work–Family Conflict in Preschool Teachers: The Buffering Effects of Job Resources and Off-Job Recovery Experiences. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 40, 3974–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Taris, T.W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Schreurs, P.J. A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2003, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kashyap, V.; Nakra, N.; Arora, R. Do “Decent Work” Dimensions Lead to Work Engagement? Empirical Evidence from Higher Education Institutions in India. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2021, 46, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Multiple Levels in Job Demands-Resources Theory: Implications for Employee Well-Being and Performance. In Handbook of Wellbeing; Diener, E., Oishi, S., Tay, L., Eds.; DEF Publishers: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. J. Occup. Psychol. 2017, 22, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job Demands-Resources Theory. In Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Work and Wellbeing; Chen, P.Y., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  17. Blustein, D.L.; Olle, C.; Connors-Kellgren, A.; Diamonti, A.J. Decent Work: A Psychological Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Deranty, J.; MacMillan, C. The ILO’s Decent Work Initiative: Suggestions for an Extension of the Notion of “Decent Work”. J. Soc. Philos. 2012, 43, 386–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferraro, T.; dos Santos, N.R.; Moreira, J.M.; Pais, L. Decent Work, Work Motivation, Work Engagement and Burnout in Physicians. Int. J. Appl. Posit. Psychol. 2020, 5, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kozan, S.; Işık, E.; Blustein, D.L. Decent Work and Well-Being among Low-Income Turkish Employees: Testing the Psychology of Working Theory. J. Consuel. Psychol. 2019, 66, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Braganza, A.; Chen, W.; Canhoto, A.; Sap, S. Productive Employment and Decent Work: The Impact of AI Adoption on Psychological Contracts, Job Engagement and Employee Trust. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 131, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Arnoux-Nicolas, C.; Sovet, L.; Lhotellier, L.; Di Fabio, A.; Bernaud, J. Perceived Work Conditions and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Meaning of Work. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meyer, S.; Hünefeld, L. Challenging Cognitive Demands at Work, Related Working Conditions, and Employee Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Soomro, A.A.; Breitenecker, R.J.; Shah, S.A.M. Relation of Work-Life Balance, Work-Family Conflict, and Family-Work Conflict with the Employee Performance-Moderating Role of Job Satisfaction. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2017, 7, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kossek, E.; Lee, K. Work-Family Conflict and Work-Life Conflict. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. 2017. Available online: http://business.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-52 (accessed on 7 August 2022).
  27. Ferraro, T.; Pais, L.; Moreira, J.M.; dos Santos, N.R. Decent Work and Work Motivation in Knowledge Workers: The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2017, 13, 501–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Aycan, Z.; Eskin, M. Relative Contributions of Childcare, Spousal Support, and Organizational Support in Reducing WFC for Men and Women: The Case of Turkey. Sex Roles 2005, 53, 453–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gurbuz, S.; Turunç, Ö.; Çelik, M. The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Work–Family Conflict: Does Role Overload have a Mediating Role? Econ. Ind. Democr. 2013, 34, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bakker, A.B. A job demands-resources approach to public service motivation. Public Admin. Rev. 2015, 75, 723–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Demerouti, E.; Bouwman, K.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Job resources buffer the impact of work-family conflict on absenteeism in female employees. J. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 10, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Crawford, E.R.; LePine, J.A.; Rich, B.L. Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 834–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 389–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bakker, A.B. An Evidence-Based Model of Work Engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 20, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Euwema, M.C. Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Xanthopoulou, D.; Baker, A.B.; Heuven, E.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. Working in the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2008, 13, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Treaty of Versailles. In Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany; Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles: Paris, France, 1919.
  39. Ferraro, T.; dos Santos, N.R.; Pais, L.; Mónico, L. Historical Landmarks of Decent Work. Eur. J. Appl. Bus Manag. 2016, 2, 77–96. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pouyuad, J. For a Psychosocial Approach to Decent Work. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. ILO. Decent Work. Report of the Director-General. In Proceedings of the International Labour Conference, 87th Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 1–17 June 1999. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tentama, F.; Rahmawati, P.; Muhopilah, P. The Effect and Implications of Work Stress and Workload on Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 2498–2502. [Google Scholar]
  43. McCalister, K.T.; Dolbier, C.L.; Webster, J.A.; Mallon, M.W.; Steinhardt, M.A. Hardiness and Support at Work as Predictors of Work Stress and Job Satisfaction. Am. J. Health Promot. 2006, 3, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development Goals. 2019. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/economic-growth/ (accessed on 25 June 2021).
  45. ILO. Measurement of Decent Work. In Proceedings of the Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work, Geneva, Switzerland, 8–10 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. ILO. Decent Work Indicators: Concepts and Definitions. In ILO Manual, 1st ed.; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. ILO. Decent Work Indicators: Guidelines for Producers and Users of Statistical and Legal Framework Indicators. In ILO Manual, 2nd ed.; International Labor Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. ILO. Report on Progress and Outcomes on the Monitoring and Measurement of Decent Work. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, Switzerland, 2–11 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Voydanoff, P. Work Demands and Work-to-Family and Family-to-Work Conflict: Direct and Indirect Relationship. J. Fam. Issues 2005, 26, 707–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nohe, C.; Michel, A.; Sonntag, K. Family–work conflict and job performance: A diary study of boundary conditions and mechanisms. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Netemeyer, R.G.; Brashear-Alejandro, T.; Boles, J.S. A cross-national model of job-related outcomes of work role and family role variables: A retail sales context. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2004, 32, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Varokka, A.; Febrilia, I. Work-Family Conflict and Job Performance: Lesson from a Southeast Asian Emerging Market. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 2015, 2015, 420802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Karatepe, O.M.; Kilic, H. Relationships of Supervisor Support and Conflicts in The Work-Family Interface with the Selected Job Outcomes of Frontline Employees. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 238–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, J. Join the Fight Against Poverty: Utilizing HRD Practices to Support Pathways to Sustainable Employment and Decent Work. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2020, 23, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P.; Hofmann, D.A. Safety at Work: A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Link between Job Demands, Job Resources, Burnout, Engagement, and Safety Outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wollard, K.K.; Shuck, B. Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review of the Literature. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2011, 13, 429–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guest, D. Human Resource Management and Employee Well-Being: Towards a New Analytic Framework. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tao, Q.; Shuang, L.; Ting, W. The relationship between decent work and engagement: Role of intrinsic motivation and psychological needs. J. Sichuan Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2016, 5, 134–143. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cotton, J.L.; Turtle, J.M. Employee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and Review with Implications for Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singh, P.; Loncar, N. Pay Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intent. Relat. Ind.-Ind. Relat. 2010, 65, 470–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Urgan, S.; Murat, A.K. İşe Tutulma ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti Arasında İnsana Yakışır İşin Düzenleyici Rolü: Belediye Çalışanları Üzerine Bir Araştırma Moderating Role of Decent Work on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Intention to Leave Work: A Study on Municipal Employees. J. Organ. Behav. Rev. 2022, 4, 266–280. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ribeiro, M.A.; Teixeira, M.A.P.; Ambiel, R.A.M. Decent work in Brazil: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 112, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Raza, B.; Ali, M.; Naseem, K.; Moeed, A.; Ahmed, J.; Hamid, M. Impact of Trait Mindfulness on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: Mediating Role of Work–Family Balance and Moderating Role of Work–Family Conflict. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1542943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peeters, M.C.W.; ten Brummelhuis, L.L.; van Steenbergen, E.F. Consequences of Combining Work and Family Roles: A Closer Look at Cross-Domain Versus Within-Domain Relations. In New Frontiers in Work and Family Research; Grzywacz, J.G., Demerouti, E., Eds.; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2013; pp. 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Netemeyer, R.G.; Maxham, J.G.; Pullig, C. Conflicts in the Work-Family Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer Purchase Intent. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Greenhaus, J.H.; Parasuraman, S.; Collins, K.M. Career Involvement and Family Involvement as Moderators of Relationships Between Work–Family Conflict and Withdrawal from a Profession. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001, 6, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rubenstein, A.L.; Peltokorpi, V.; Allen, D. Work-Home and Home-Work Conflict and Voluntary Turnover: A Conservation of Resources Explanation for Contrasting Moderation Effects of on- and off-the-Job Embeddedness. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kokoroko, E.; Sanda, M.A. Effect of workload on job stress of Ghanaian OPD nurses: The role of coworker support. Saf. Health Work 2019, 10, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Yang, J.; Bently, J.R.; Treadway, D.C.; Brouer, R.L.; Wallace, A. The Role of Affective Commitment and Political Skill in the Work Interfering with Family (WIF) Conflict–Voluntary Turnover Relationship. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Halbesleben, J.R.; Harvey, J.; Bolino, M.C. Too Engaged? A Conservation of Resources View of the Relationship between Work Engagement and Work Interferences with Family. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1452–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Blomme, R.J.; Van Rheede, A.; Tromp, D.M. Work-family Conflict as a Cause for Turnover Intentions in the Hospitality Industry. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2010, 10, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kılıç, S.N.; Avcıkurt, C. Otel Çalışanlarının “Düzgün İş” Koşullarına Yönelik Algıları ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi (Perceptions of Hotel Employees towards “Decent Work” Conditions and Its Effect on Turnover Intention). Gaziantep Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 2020, 19, 1402–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Burakova, M.; Ducourneau, J.; Gana, K.; Dany, L. Prediction Intention to Leave among Volunteer Fire-fighters in France. Psychol. Française 2014, 59, 273–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cottini, E.; Kato, T.; Westergaard-Nielsen, N. Adverse Workplace Conditions, High-Involvement, Work Practices and Labor Turnover: Evidence from Danish Linked Employer-Employee Data. Lab. Econ. 2011, 18, 872–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Eddleston, K.A.; Sieger, P.; Bernhard, F. From Suffering Firm to Duffering Family? How Perceived Firm Performance Relates to Managers’ Work-to-Family Conflict. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mohsin, M.; Zahid, H. The Predictors and Performance-Related Outcomes of Bi-directional Work-Family Conflict: An Empirical Study. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 11504–11510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Lips-Wiersma, M.; Wright, S.; Dik, B. Meaningful work: Differences among blue, pink-, and white-collar occupations. Career Dev. Int. 2016, 21, 534–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hu, X.; Kaplan, S.; Dalal, R.S. An examination of blue-versus white-collar workers’ conceptualizations of job satisfaction facets. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 76, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. De Leeuw, E. Self-administered questionnaires and standardized interviews. In Handbook of Social Research Methods; Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., Brannen, J., Eds.; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 313–327. [Google Scholar]
  80. Netemeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.S.; Mcmurrian, R. Development and Validation of Work–Family Conflict and Family–Work Conflict Scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cammann, C.; Fichman, M.; Jenkins, D.; Klesh, J. The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpubl. Manuscr. Univ. Mich. Ann. Arbor. 1979, 71, 138. [Google Scholar]
  82. Erdoğan, E. Etkili Liderlik Örgütsel Sessizlik ve Performans İlişkisi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Master’s Thesis, Gebze İleri Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze, Turkey, 2011, unpublished. [Google Scholar]
  83. Abbott, J.; De Cieri, H.; Iverson, R.D. Costing turnover: Implications of work/family conflict at management level. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 1998, 36, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chang, S.; Van Witteloostuijn, A.; Eden, L. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2010, 41, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.; Podsakoff, N. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of The Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hao, Z.; Lirong, L. Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 12, 942. [Google Scholar]
  87. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  90. Malhotra, N.K.; Dash, S. Marketing Research an Applied Orientation; Pearson Publishing: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  91. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gaskin, J. “CFA”, Gaskination’s StatWiki. 2021. Available online: http://statwiki.gaskination.com (accessed on 3 July 2021).
  93. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications Limited: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bernerth, J.B.; Aguinis, H. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Pers. Psychol. 2016, 69, 229–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bauer, T.N.; Erdogan, B.; Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J. A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Collier, J.E. Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using Amos: Basic to Advanced Techniques, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ferraro, T.; dos Santos, N.R.; Pais, L.; Moreira, J.M. Decent Work and Work Motivation in Lawyers: An empirical research. Rev. Psicol. Organ. Trab. 2017, 17, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Travaglianti, F.; Babic, A.; Hansez, I. Relationships between Employment Quality and Intention to Quit: Focus on PhD Candidates as Traditional Workers. Stud. Contin. Educ. 2018, 40, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chen, Y.; Jiang, Y.J.; Tang, G.; Cooke, F.L. High-Commitment Work Systems and Middle Managers’ Innovative Behavior in the Chinese Context: The Moderating Role of Work-Life Conflicts and Work Climate. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1317–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hussain, A.H.M.B.; Endut, N. Do Decent Working Conditions Contribute to Work–Life Balance. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 2018, 12, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Choi, H.J. Moderating Effects of Work-Family Conflict Between Job· Organizational· Career Characteristics and Turnover Intention among Nurses in Small and Medium-Sized Hospitals. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2015, 21, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hobfoll, S.E. The Influence of Culture, Community, and The Nested-Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ahmad, A. Direct and Indirect Effects of Work-Family Conflict on Job Performance. J. Int. Manag. Stud. 2008, 3, 176–180. [Google Scholar]
  105. Buyukgoze-Kavas, A.; Autin, K.L. Decent work in Turkey: Context, Conceptualization, and Assessment. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 112, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chang, S.; Jia, L.; Takeuchi, R.; Cai, Y. Do High-Commitment Work Systems Affect Creativity? A Multilevel Combinational Approach to Employee Creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 99, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Stankevičiūtė, Ž.; Savanevičienė, A. Can Sustainable HRM Reduce Work-Related Stress, Work-Family Conflict, and Burnout? Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2019, 49, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Li, A.; Bagger, J.; Cropanzano, R. The Impact of Stereotypes and Supervisor Perceptions of Employee Work–Family Conflict on Job Performance Ratings. Hum. Relat. 2017, 70, 119–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Aycan, Z. Key Success Factors for Women in Management in Turkey. Appl. Psychol.-Int. Rev. 2004, 53, 453–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 11488 g001 550
Figure 1. The research model.
Figure 1. The research model.
Sustainability 14 11488 g001
Sustainability 14 11488 g002 550
Figure 2. The path diagram of the research model. *** Significance at p < 0.001, ** Significance at p < 0.01, * Significance at p < 0.05. Estimates are standardized path coefficients.
Figure 2. The path diagram of the research model. *** Significance at p < 0.001, ** Significance at p < 0.01, * Significance at p < 0.05. Estimates are standardized path coefficients.
Sustainability 14 11488 g002
Sustainability 14 11488 g003 550
Figure 3. DW–employee performance–relations with WFC.
Figure 3. DW–employee performance–relations with WFC.
Sustainability 14 11488 g003
Sustainability 14 11488 g004 550
Figure 4. DW–intention to leave–relations with WFC.
Figure 4. DW–intention to leave–relations with WFC.
Sustainability 14 11488 g004
Sustainability 14 11488 g005 550
Figure 5. DW–intention to leave–relations with FWC.
Figure 5. DW–intention to leave–relations with FWC.
Sustainability 14 11488 g005
Table
Table 1. Decent work dimensions and descriptions.
Table 1. Decent work dimensions and descriptions.
DW DimensionsDescriptions
Fundamental Principles and Values at WorkJustice, dignity, freedom, fair treatment at work, acceptance (without discrimination), clarity of norms, trust, solidarity, participation, and mental health comprise the core of the concept of DW and its foundations.
Adequate Working Time and WorkloadA decent balance between personal and work life is essential. The efforts made for work, deadlines, shifts, and schedules should be adequate.
Fulfilling and Productive WorkPerception that work has some meaning, contributes to personal and professional development, and creates value for the individual and multiple stakeholders at large.
Meaningful remuneration for the exercise of citizenshipPerception that the remuneration received for work is fair and allows individuals and their families a life with dignity and autonomy, enhancing their well-being.
Social ProtectionPerceptions or expectations of workers as to whether they and their family can be socially protected by public or private insurance in case of illness, unemployment, or retirement through a system of social security or that they can be repaid for committed efforts at work in the long run.
OpportunitiesWorkers’ perceptions of the existence of opportunities for their employability and entrepreneurial activities and their perceptions of their degree of optimism for better futures and careers with regard to professional positions, assignments, challenges, learning, income, and benefits.
Health and SafetyPerception of being protected from risks to physical and psychological health at work and of having safe environmental conditions at the workplace.
Note: Based on Ferraro, Pais, dos Santos and Moreira, [4] and ILO [45].
Table
Table 2. Measures and validation of constructs.
Table 2. Measures and validation of constructs.
CRAVEMSVMaxR(H)ItoleaveDecentWorkWFCFWCEmp.
Per
Itoleave0.8850.7190.3560.8850.848
DecentWork0.9270.6470.3360.933−0.4310.804
WFC0.9040.6530.3560.9110.597−0.2530.808
FWC0.9080.6650.3200.9250.566−0.0250.5160.816
Emp.Per0.7760.5390.3360.799−0.1420.5800.039−0.0040.734
Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), and Average Shared Variance (ASV). Reliability: CR > 0.7, Convergent Validity: AVE > 0.5, Discriminant Validity: MSV < AVE, Square root of AVE greater than inter construct correlations.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of the variables.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of the variables.
MSD12345678910111213
1. Age32.137.91
2. WFC3.001.130.038(0.90)
3. FWC2.401.12−0.0430.526 **(0.90)
4. Intention to leave2.461.27−0.203 **0.540 **0.555 **(0.88)
5. Principles3.470.92−0.034−0.243 **−0.051−0.357 **(0.84)
6. Timeload3.370.910.034−0.353 **−0.102−0.388 **0.672 **(0.73)
7. Fulfilling3.650.870.051−0.182 **−0.063−0.393 **0.757 **0.651 **(0.81)
8. Social protection3.161.02−0.003−0.104−0.003−0.199 **0.630 **0.605 **0.645 **(0.77)
9. Opportunities3.411.00−0.040−0.1120.031−0.257 **0.750 **0.591 **0.722 **0.646 **(0.81)
10. Remuneration3.551.080.027−0.118−0.117−0.343 **0.560 **0.551 **0.564 **0.644 **0.556 **(0.84)
11. Health and safety3.550.980.008−0.223 **−0.088−0.359 **0.723 **0.648 **0.692 **0.660 **0.654 **0.638 **(0.76)
12. Decent Work3.450.800.004−0.229 **−0.062−0.390 **0.891 **0.803 **0.870 **0.823 **0.849 **0.752 **0.844 **(0.95)
13. Employee performance3.800.900.0760.063−0.013−0.1030.416 **0.402 **0.462 **0.339 **0.397 **0.373 **0.375 **0.474 **(0.77)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) for the constructs are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.
Table
Table 4. The results of the moderation analysis.
Table 4. The results of the moderation analysis.
HypothesesHypothesised PathsStandardised
Regression Weights (β)		t-Valuep-ValueResults
H1Zperformance←Zdecentwork0.5349.202***Supported
Zperformance←ZWFC0.1933.337***
Zperformance←DW_x_WFC−0.131−2.3040.021
H2ZIntLeave←Zdecentwork−0.244−4.939***Supported
ZIntLeave←ZWFC0.2283.992***
ZIntLeave←DW_x_WFC−0.179−3.384***
H3ZIntLeave←Zdecentwork−0.244−5.592***Supported
ZIntLeave←ZFWC0.4247.500***
ZIntLeave←DW_x_FWC0.1462.7440.006
H4Zperformance←Zdecentwork0.5408.963***Rejected
Zperformance←ZFWC−0.098−1.4140.157
Zperformance←DW_x_FWC−0.048−0.7480.454
*** Significance at p < 0.001. ← shows hypothesized paths.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aybas, M.; Özçelik, G.; Uyargil, C. Can Decent Work Explain Employee-Level Outcomes? The Roles of Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811488

AMA Style

Aybas M, Özçelik G, Uyargil C. Can Decent Work Explain Employee-Level Outcomes? The Roles of Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811488

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aybas, Meryem, Gaye Özçelik, and Cavide Uyargil. 2022. "Can Decent Work Explain Employee-Level Outcomes? The Roles of Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811488

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop