support programs which refer to initiatives to improve work-life balance and / or provide support to employees outside workplace( Kelly, Kossek, Hammer, Durham, Bray, Chermack, Murphy, and Kaskubar 2008). Examples of such initiatives can be more leaves, result-only work environment, flexi timings, management support( Higgins & Duxbury, 2008; Kelly et al., 2008).
Organizations have finally begun to appreciate how important the work-life balance is to the success of their human resource. More proactive employers have started providing compulsory leave, roof on maximum working hours and foster an environment that values smart workers.
This model examines how the ease in achieving work – family balance can relieve an employee of job stress and how the difficulty in achieving work-family balance can lead to job stress. Previous researches( Frone, 2003; Grover and Crooker, 1995) have given much evidence suggesting that experiences where work and family roles interfere with each other can lead to negative effects on the employees as well as their organizations.
Frone( 2003) has indicated that these results have caused companies to address workers ' wishes for family responsive workplaces, by assisting through various work – family schemes to help employees strike a balance between the two roles. Organizational schemes meant to help employees in balancing work and family can enhance the ability of individuals to achieve organizational as well as personal goals. Common schemes used to balance work – family include not only the formal policies and benefits available to employees, but also more informal, emotional support, such as the workplace being supportive of the use of these types of policies, as well as an individual ' s supervisor demonstrating family supportive behaviors. For instance, Lapierre and Allen( 2006) found family supportive supervision to increase levels of employee well-being. Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, and Hammer( 2011) found family supportive supervision to have a stronger correlation with work – family balance as compared to general supervisor support. Accordingly, informal work – family support received from supervisors may play an important role in decreasing work – family conflict, as well as facilitating work – family enrichment and subsequent positive outcomes. Research( Dikkers, Geurts, Dulk, Peper and Taris, 2007) shows that culture of sharing in the work place positively affected selfreported job performance and decreased work related stress, found an organizational culture that is perceived as work – family supportive and does not hinder career opportunities, promoted the use of work-home arrangements which in turn reduced work related stress. So it can be said that, not only are benefits and supervisor support important to employees, but so is the overall work – family organizational support.
Role conflict and role ambiguity are regarded as important variables affecting organizational behavior which in turn is related to employee performance( House & Rizzo, 1972). Role Ambiguity: Unclear job descriptions with ambiguity concerning roles, responsibilities, authority and duties( French & Caplan, 1972). Role Conflict: Contradictory demands posed by various stakeholders, say Supervisors and subordinates causing conflict( Beehr, T. A., 1976). Role conflict is a state of conflict that takes place when one is forced to take on two different and incompatible roles at the same time and a related term role ambiguity occurs when two people are given roles that are overlapping or not clearly defined.
In various attempts to study the impact of job stress on employee performance across various professions like nurses, bank employees, employees in IT, manufacturing, athletic trainers etc. the antecedents of job stress were deemed to be role ambiguity, complexity and conflicts.
Several factors are frequently suggested as major causes of job stress in past research literature. One factor is role complexity caused due to differing expectations, multiple changes in work due to dynamism in environment, heavy work load( Franch and Caplan, 1972; Russek and Zohman, 1958). Another factor is role ambiguity which is the degree of mismatch between authority to perform one ' s role effectively and responsibly( French and Caplan, 1972; Kahn et al, 1964). Role Conflict: Supervisors or subordinates place conflicting demands on the individual or the roles have conflicting demands and the incumbent selected for role has differing beliefs, attitude and personality with that of the role.( Beehr, T. A., 1976; Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison and Pinneau, 1975; Kahn et al, 1964) have been repeatedly cited. The most commonly used and extensive model of occupational stress( Caplan, et al, 1975) includes work demands that symbolize responsibility for persons, role conflict and uncertainty as potent stressors.
A substantial body of empirical research on role stress has shown that high levels of role conflict and role ambiguity result in unfavorable outcomes for both the individual and the organization( House & Rizzo, 1972; Kahn et al, 1964; Morris, Steers, & Koch, 1979). Role conflict has been defined as the incongruity of expectations associated with a role( Kahn et al, 1964). Role ambiguity has been defined as the degree to which information is lacking regarding expectations of methods for fulfilling, or consequences of, various roles( Kahn et al., 1964). House and Rizzo( 1972) separated role conflict and role ambiguity by defining role conflict in terms of“ congruency-incongruence”. In contrast, role ambiguity is defined in terms of“ deficiencies”. The research on role dynamics has suggested that, as a predictor of performance outcomes, role ambiguity is more impacting than role conflict( House & Rizzo, 1972;
11