Work‐family conflict, satisfactions and psychological well‐being among women managers and professionals in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although women continue to enter managerial and professional jobs in increasing numbers, they continue to be underrepresented at more senior levels of management. Several factors have been found to account for this, an important one being women's responsibilities for home and family functioning, often resulting in work‐family conflict (WFC). The purpose of this paper is to examine correlates and consequences of WFC among a sample of managerial and professional women working in Istanbul, Turkey. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 143 women, most working in the public sector, using anonymously completed questionnaires. About half were married and about half had children. WFC, both work interfering with family and family interfering with work (time‐, strain‐ and behaviour‐based) were measured by a scale developed and validated by Carlson et al., in a US study. Findings The respondents indicated relatively low levels of WFC. Levels of work interfering with family and family interfering with work were significantly and positively correlated. Hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for both personal demographic and work situation characteristics, showed that WFC generally predicted both work and psychological well‐being outcomes, work interfering with family being a consistently stronger predictor of these than was family interfering with work. Research limitations/implications Data collected at one point in time make it difficult to examine causality. In addition, most respondents worked in the public sector, raising the issue of generalizability to women managers and professionals in the private sector. Practical implications Practical implications are offered for individuals, families and workplaces to address work‐family issues. Originality/value This is one of the few studies of WFC among women managers and professionals in Turkey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".