The role of high performance work practices, work-family conflict, job stress and personality in affecting work life balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify the role of high performance work practices of banks, work-family conflict, job stress, and personality of bank employees in affecting their work-life balance. To accomplish this goal, self-administered structured questionnaires were distributed to those bank employees who were either married, divorced, or separated, had children, and at least one year working experience in that bank. Final sample was comprised of 726 employees from 277 banks of South Punjab. The results revealed that high performance work practices of banks, family to work conflict, and personality type B behavioral patterns of bank employees increase their work-life balance, and work to family conflict of bank employees decreased their work-life balance. However, job stress and personality type A behavioral patterns of bank employees did not affect their work-life balance. Contrary to previous studies, these results suggest that moderate family to work conflict is actually good for work-life balance, and job stress and personality type A behavioral patterns are inherently not bad for work-life balance. Hence, State Bank of Pakistan should consider developing policies to enhance employee friendly high performance work practices in banks. Banks should also consider taking personality tests prior to recruiting and selecting employees for hectic posts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".