Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction in Married Couples

Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction in Married Couples DISCUSSION A struggle which is common in most of the people nowadays is Work-family conflict. It is a battle which everybody is fighting i.e. to maintain the balance between work and family. This conflict is also affecting major sub-areas of work and family life and one of those areas is Job-satisfaction. Hence the present research study was aimed to find the relationship between work-family conflict and job-satisfaction and therefore is titled as â€Å"Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction in Married Couples.† The study was conducted on the sample of 80 i.e. n=80 which comprised 40 (50%) males and 40 (50%) females. All the participants were the university professors at Amity University Sec-125 Noida, Uttar Pradesh. For the conduction of research study, two standardized questionnaires were used. They are Work Family Conflict Scale developed by R.G.Netemeyer, J.S. Boles, R.McMurrian (1996) and Job-Satisfaction Scale (JSS-R) by Dr.B.L.Gupta (2009). In the study the indepenpedent varia bles are Work intereference with family (WIF), Family intereference with work (FIW) and gender. The dependent variable in the study is Job-satisfaction. Statistical analysis was done with the help of MS-Excel 2010. In statistical analysis, mean, standard deviations, T-tests and Pearson’s coefficient of correlation was calculated. The findings of the study broadly explain the impact of work-family conflict on job-satisfaction among males and females. The analysis of the sample population made it clear that there is no significant gender difference in the level of perception of work-family conflict and job-satisfaction. Work family conflict is a conflict between different roles of life i.e. work and family. It is always the result of imbalance between the individual’s work and family life. It arises when people fail to fulfil their responsibilities in both the areas as well as towards their personal development. There is various cause of work-family conflict such as long working hours, increased family demands, increased work-pressure, personality differences etc. These factors increase the incongruity in work and family domains and eventually result into work-family conflict. Job-satisfaction is usually defined as the level of contentment or gratification an individual has with his/her working environment. It is none other than his or her attitude toward the work, nature of tasks, supervision, colleagues, environment etc. Job-satisfaction doesn’t get affected by any one aspect of the job but it is something which gets generated by the cumulative facets of one’s job or work. Hence we can easily assume that it is not the one dimensional concept rather a multidimensional construct. Now we take into account the negative correlation of work-family conflict and job-satisfaction level of males and females. It was found in the result that there was a negative correlation between the two which means greater the work-family conflict, lesser the job satisfaction and vice-versa. The finding of the research is also supported by Patel C.J, Beekhan A, Paruk Z, Ramgoon S (2008) who studied work-family conflict, job satisfaction and spousal support. They discovered the effect of work on functioning of the family and its association to job satisfaction and it was found in the study that work-family conflict and job satisfaction was negatively correlated. On further analysis of the gender differences between males and females, we found that there was no significant difference between male and female in the level of perception of work-interference to family (WIF). Similarly it was also found that there was no significant gender difference in the perception of family interference to work (FIW). The above results are well supported by the study done by Sadia Aziz Ansari (2011) who studied the occurrence of WIF and FIW in both the genders. The outcome of the study showed that there was no significant gender difference in relation to work interference with family and family interference with work. There was no significant difference between work-family conflict and job-satisfaction of males and females. HYPOTHESES TESTING There would be a negative correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction. The stated hypothesis was accepted as the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was -0.22. It indicates that as the work-family conflict increases, job-satisfaction decreases and vice-versa. Family interfering with work would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. The stated hypothesis was rejected since t-value (0.11) was not significant. Work interfering with family would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. The stated hypothesis was rejected since t-value (0.24) was not significant. There would be no significant difference on work-family conflict and job satisfaction of men and women. The t scores for work-family conflict and job satisfaction of men and women are 0.69 and 0.61 which are not the significant score. Hence our hypothesis stands accepted. CHAPTER-6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION SUMMARY The present investigation is titled as â€Å"Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction in Married men and women.. The concerned study is conducted on a sample of 80 with 30 (50%) males and 30 (50%) females were taken from universities across Noida , Uttar Pradesh . The study used the standardised test of Work-Family Conflict by R.G.Netemeyer, J.S.Boles, R.McMurrian (1996) and Job-satisfaction scale by Dr. B.L.Gupta (2009). The study showed that there is a negative correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction among males and females. This indicates there is an inverse relation between the two. The more the work-family conflict among individuals the lesser the job-satisfaction and vice-versa. The present study determines also revealed that there is no significant gender difference in the perception of work to family conflict and family to work conflict. It was also shown in the study that there was no significant gender difference on work-family conflict and job-satisfaction. To make the research more scientific the following hypothesis were made There would be a negative correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction. Family interfering with work would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. Work interfering with family would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. There would be no significant difference on work-family conflict and job satisfaction of men and women. The findings of the research suggests There is correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction. It indicates that as the work-family conflict increases, job-satisfaction decreases and vice-versa. There is no significant gender difference in the perception of family interfering with work. There is no significant gender difference in the perception of work interfering with family. There is no significant difference in work-family conflict and job-satisfaction of males and females. CONCLUSION Work-family conflict and Job-satisfaction has a negative correlation. It mean they have inverse connection. If work-family conflict increases jobs-satisfaction tends to decline and vice-versa. There is no gender difference in the level of perception of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. There is no significant gender difference in job-satisfaction and work-family conflict. LIMITATIONS The present investigation may have some limitations as it was carried out in a short period of time and with limited resources. Some important limitations are: Due to sensitivity of the topic individuals might not have disclosed the truth completely. There was no control over other relevant variables. Small sample size might have the effect on the results. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Work-family conflict is a strong predictor of job-satisfaction among employees suggests that by being flexible as an employer one can increase the level of job-satisfaction. For reducing work-life conflict and increasing job-satisfaction level, an individual should learn to prioritize tasks. It would help him/her in a positive manner. If an individual is facing stress at work-place due to which he/she having conflicts with the family, in this case they need to identify the stressors and work upon them. Also they can communicate with their family members and share their concerns. Lastly it is very important to take out personal time i.e. a time which they spend with themselves. It will reduce the stress and pressure of an individual which would eventually lower the conflicts. The present investigation is titled as â€Å"Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction in Married men and women.. The concerned study is conducted on a sample of 80 with 30 (50%) males and 30 (50%) females were taken from universities across Noida , Uttar Pradesh . The study used the standardised test of Work-Family Conflict by R.G.Netemeyer, J.S.Boles, R.McMurrian (1996) and Job-satisfaction scale by Dr. B.L.Gupta (2009). The study showed that there is a negative correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction among males and females. This indicates there is an inverse relation between the two. The more the work-family conflict among individuals the lesser the job-satisfaction and vice-versa. The present study determines also revealed that there is no significant gender difference in the perception of work to family conflict and family to work conflict. It was also shown in the study that there was no significant gender difference on work-family conflict and job-satisfaction. To make the research more scientific the following hypothesis were made There would be a negative correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction. Family interfering with work would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. Work interfering with family would be more prevalent in women as compared to men. There would be no significant difference on work-family conflict and job satisfaction of men and women. The findings of the research suggests There is correlation between Work-Family Conflict and Job-Satisfaction. It indicates that as the work-family conflict increases, job-satisfaction decreases and vice-versa. There is no significant gender difference in the perception of family interfering with work. There is no significant gender difference in the perception of work interfering with family. There is no significant difference in work-family conflict and job-satisfaction of males and females. CONCLUSION Work-family conflict and Job-satisfaction has a negative correlation. It mean they have inverse connection. If work-family conflict increases jobs-satisfaction tends to decline and vice-versa. There is no gender difference in the level of perception of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. There is no significant gender difference in job-satisfaction and work-family conflict. LIMITATIONS The present investigation may have some limitations as it was carried out in a short period of time and with limited resources. Some important limitations are: Due to sensitivity of the topic individuals might not have disclosed the truth completely. There was no control over other relevant variables. Small sample size might have the effect on the results. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Work-family conflict is a strong predictor of job-satisfaction among employees suggests that by being flexible as an employer one can increase the level of job-satisfaction. For reducing work-life conflict and increasing job-satisfaction level, an individual should learn to prioritize tasks. It would help him/her in a positive manner. If an individual is facing stress at work-place due to which he/she having conflicts with the family, in this case they need to identify the stressors and work upon them. Also they can communicate with their family members and share their concerns. Lastly it is very important to take out personal time i.e. a time which they spend with themselves. It will reduce the stress and pressure of an individual which would eventually lower the conflicts.

Dropout Rate among High School Students

Every year there are thousands of high school students who dropout of school for different reasons in the United States. The data’s statistics regarding the dropout rate of high school students in America since 1990 showed that it diminishes slowly and the problem has been continuing up to this present time. That is why; researches, campaigns and law have been promulgated to help on preventing students to dropout of school. However, the greatest thing to be done is the support of every individual on preventing and helping high school students to stay on schooling.Since the issue is not just pertaining to a dropout student but also with the society as well so every high school dropouts affects society on its economic status. Dropout Rate among High School Students Since the past years, the rate of high school dropouts was considerably higher and has been one of the great issues pertaining to education and to the society. Every time the clock ticks there is one student who drops out of school. And, this dropping out of school affects not only the individual’s life, career or future; but also the community and the economic status of the country as well.That is why it has been a great concern of every policymakers and educational institutions to resolve the problem which continually acts like a terrible disease, a â€Å"silent epidemic† of a country, taking into consideration the dropout rates in the past years in the United States. This paper will show the following information: 1. Dropout rate of high school in America. 2. Effects of high school dropouts to education and to the society. 3. How does dropout rate could be best resolved in both policy and innovative practices.Dropout Rate of High School in America From the early years of individuals’ education, students were compelled by parents to continue studying as much as possible. Because it is said that education is one of the major assets which one can keep for the whole lifetime. Education is a treasure which will give future career and better life. However, many high school students dropped out of school even if parents had given advice and thoughts regarding a better life with the help of standard education.The dropout rate of high school students never diminishes worldwide. In the United States’ rate of dropout, it shows a little change in the past years from 1990 to 2000 (Table 1). â€Å"Data compiled by NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) indicates that the percentage of 16-through 24-year-olds who were dropouts ranged between 10. 9 and 12. 5 percent† (General Accounting Office-GAO, 2002, p. 7).NCES’s dropout rates, of America, in percentage of 16- Through 24 yrs. old who were dropout from Oct. 1990 through Oct. 2000 (cited in GAO, 2002, p. 7) Although, region’s dropout rate shows a discrepancy wherein â€Å"[t]he highest dropout rates occurred in the South and West, while the lowest rates occurred in the Northe ast and Midwest† (GAO, 2002). It’s visible in table 2, â€Å"while the national portion of 16 through 24-year-olds that were dropouts was 10. 9 percent in October 2000, the regional averaged ranged from 12. 9 percent in the South to 8. 5 percent in the Northeast† (GAO, 2002, p. 8)

Sheena Pugh’s ‘The craft I left in was called Esau’ Poetry Analysis

We have been studying 3 of Sheena Pugh's poems which all relate to earth and mankind . In poem one titled ‘the craft I left in was called Esau' , it shows the weary travellers that had to leave earth for one reason or another in a timid and nervous mood , simply searching for a new place to live. The poem makes the reader feel tense almost waiting for something to happen. The fact they had to leave portrays a sense of imminent danger , the fact they scratched the word Esau on the door makes it seem like it was done in haste as if to say they could have been wiped out at any moment. The name Esau on the door relates to the bible story when Esau sells his heritage to his brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage which is to say that we've abused the earth. The second poem we read was called ‘Do you think we'll ever get to see earth sir? ‘ and it shows our characters taking trips to see earth like sightseers . Our teacher Christie stating the ideas concepts pointlessness as there is hardly anything to see. The third poem was called ‘Geography 1' and is about an island called Surtsey which was actually a volcano. This means that in the order of poems it shows the ‘end of the earth' , ‘returning to earth' , and ‘a new bit of earth'. In poem 1 the craft is called Esau because it insinuates that mankind threw away it's inheritance. They say in the text the name Esau was scratched on the door which portrays a sense of immediate danger or emergency which forced them to leave. ‘Incongruous' is used in the text and means something does not fit the pattern and so while the travellers are ‘joking nervously' it doesn't feel quite right somehow. We know the travellers are on their first journey of this kind because they were joking nervously as if they were just trying to ignore the fact they were travelling into the unknown. I don't think they are coming back because the reason they are nervous is that they know that if everything goes wrong then they don't have a safe-house to return to. The poet uses the word ‘still' twice in succession to emphasise it (the stillness) , a new ocean portrays a new task or challenge waiting to be mapped out. They say â€Å"it seemed natural to look for a horizon† because the word ‘natural' because it suggests that they're going purely on instinct while if it were normal then it would be a tried and tested method of tracking position. The ‘charted coastlines' mentioned in the poem suggest an unstarted map , a blindly followed path in search for a new home. â€Å"Our late guesthouse† suggests it's not the last part of the story , it isn't the end as if there's more to come or they are part of a much deeper plot. This poem has no poem but has simple language however the reader is compelled to continue reading just in case they miss something important that's about to happen. The second poem we have studied that is written by Sheena Pugh is called ‘Do you think we'll ever get to see earth sir? ‘. It is about a cynical earth survivor getting quite emotive about the concept of savouring lost memories or in this case , earth. The poem is written as a brief lecture to a student , which almost instructs the student about what to do if he sees even the smallest image of the past. The writer makes us think about the future by making us think about how we will be remembered by our descendants. While reading you can't help but think about what fate could lead to the evacuation of earth , the thing that hangs in my mind is the concept of a nuclear war , the reason this ties in with the poem is that we hear the teacher say â€Å"they're still toxic† †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ nuclear war could potentially do this. This poem has a person telling it with a very sharp , sarcastic tone in their voice , this gives the impression that this person just wants the chance to forget. This poem makes me feel insecure because the best thing about earth is the sense of security you get when say†¦ at home in your room because in a way nothing can touch you there. The other thing about this poem is that it has no verses as if all the points that are made are inter-twined and need not be separated. The word ‘look' is used very often as if to say be a part of it not just stare and gaze upon it. She says things like â€Å"see it with your skin† etc which I think means that you should see it with all your senses and not just sight. If I had to pick one , my favourite word would be ‘damascening' because it sounds like a very rigorous describing word. The third poem we have studied is called ‘Geography 1' and the person in the poem is describing the birth of a new part of earth , the island of Surtsey. Surtsey was a small island that was formed by a volcanic eruption , Surtsey was said to be important because it was like seeing the earth being born again. I think Surtsey was used as a lesson to the pupils because it shows a fresh start which can lead on to better times. Throughout the poem I believe Sheena is trying to say that novelties do eventually turn old and unimportant. The mood of this poem is of a non-caring , ignorant – to – the past mood for example when he says â€Å"fancy that , but I hadn't time to look properly†. Throughout the poem Pugh makes us feel gripped and embraced until the ironic ending. The language does encourage this mood with powerful describing phrases ie â€Å"flood of colours†. I think this poem is written in verses to separate the different points the poet is trying to convey , for example in the 4th paragraph they show the novelty of Surtsey by saying â€Å"Surtsey was important† but the 5th paragraph contradicts this by saying that it was forgotten, â€Å"even the birds nested in a few years†. Christie is supposed to be teaching a Geography lesson in the poem. I quite like the phrase â€Å"with angry energy , it wanted to shout† because while reading it you do get a rush of energy. I do not like the phrase â€Å"Surtsey was important because it was like seeing the earth being born again† because I feel this point is obvious and has already been made. I do like the poem however because it has powerful phrases and has a point (volcanic eruption), which can be easily pictured because unlike the other two poems it is a concept that man can currently experience. I definitely prefer this poem as it has good describing phrases and high octane adjectives. The first poem made me feel quite tense because you had to imagine being on a ship seeing your life fade into the distance , poem two made me feel quite cynical as the fact it's a personal poem makes it easier to fal into the very plot of the character Christie and so you do see the point he is making. The third poem ‘Geography 1'gave you a feeling of having too much energy followed by too little because it's a transition from â€Å"that flood of colours† to â€Å"just an offshore island†. I did prefer the third poem because as I said before it has a conceivable concept. These three poems do show ‘the end of earth', ‘returning to earth', ‘and a new bit of earth', this shows devolution but in a way evolution because a new bit of earth implies a new, fresh start.

The Beginning of the American Civil War

On February 4, 1861, delegates from the seven seceded states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) met in Montgomery, AL and formed the Confederate States of America. Working through the month, they produced the Confederate States Constitution which was adopted on March 11. This document mirrored the US Constitution in many ways, but provided for the explicit protection of slavery as well as espoused a stronger philosophy of states rights. To lead the new government, the convention selected Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as president and Alexander Stephens of Georgia as vice president. Davis, a Mexican-American War veteran, had previously served as a US Senator and Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce. Moving quickly, Davis called for 100,000 volunteers to defend the Confederacy and directed that federal property in the seceded states immediately be seized. Lincoln and the South At his inauguration on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated that the US Constitution was a binding contract and that the Southern states secession had no legal basis. Continuing, he said that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed and did not plan on invading the South.  Additionally, he commented that he would take no action that would give the South justification for armed rebellion, but would be willing to use force to retain possession of federal installations in the seceded states. As of April 1861, the US only retained control of a few forts in the South: Fort Pickens at Pensacola, FL and Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC as well as Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas and Fort Zachary Taylor at Key West, FL. Attempts to Relieve Fort Sumter Shortly after South Carolina seceded, the commander of the Charleston harbor defenses, Major Robert Anderson of the 1st US Artillery Regiment, moved his men from Fort Moultrie to the nearly-complete Fort Sumter, located on a sandbar in the middle of the harbor. A favorite of general in chief General Winfield Scott, Anderson was considered an able officer and capable of negotiating the increasing tensions in Charleston. Under increasingly siege-like conditions through early 1861, that included South Carolina picket boats observing the Union troops, Andersons men worked to complete construction on the fort and emplace guns in its batteries. After refusing requests from the South Carolina government to vacate the fort, Anderson and the eighty-five men of his garrison settled in to await relief and resupply. In January 1861, President Buchanan attempted to resupply the fort, however, the supply ship, Star of the West, was driven away by guns manned by cadets from the Citadel. First Shot Fired During Attack on Fort Sumter During March 1861, a debate raged in the Confederate government regarding how forceful they should be in trying to take possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens. Davis, like Lincoln, did not wish to anger the border states by appearing as the aggressor. With supplies low, Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he intended to have the fort re-provisioned, but promised that no additional men or munitions would be sent. He did stipulate that should the relief expedition be attacked, efforts would be made to fully reinforce the garrison. This news was passed to Davis in Montgomery, where the decision was made to compel the forts surrender before Lincolns ships arrived. This duty fell to Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard who had been given command of the siege by Davis. Ironically, Beauregard had previously been a protà ©gà © of Anderson. On April 11, Beauregard sent an aide to demand the forts surrender. Anderson refused and further discussions after midnight failed to resolve the situation. At 4:30 am on April 12, a single mortar round burst over Fort Sumter signaling the other harbor forts to open fire. Anderson did not reply until 7:00 AM when Captain Abner Doubleday fired the first shot for the Union. Short on food and ammunition, Anderson sought to protect his men and limit their exposure to danger. As a result, he only permitted them to use the forts lower, casemated guns which were not positioned to effectively damage the other forts in the harbor. Bombarded through the day and night, Fort Sumters officers quarters caught fire and its main flag pole was toppled. After a 34-hour bombardment, and with his ammunition almost exhausted, Anderson elected t o surrender the fort. Lincolns Call for Volunteers Further Secession In response to the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 90-day volunteers to put the rebellion down and ordered the US Navy to blockade Southern ports. While the Northern states readily sent troops, those states in the upper South hesitated. Unwilling to fight fellow Southerners, the states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina opted to secede and joined the Confederacy. In response, the capital was moved from Montgomery to Richmond, VA. On April 19, 1861, the first Union troops arrived in Baltimore, MD on their way to Washington. While marching from one train station to another they were attacked by a pro-Southern mob. In the riot that ensued twelve civilians and four soldiers were killed. To pacify the city, protect Washington, and ensure that Maryland remained in the Union, Lincoln declared martial law in the state and sent troops. The Anaconda Plan Created by Mexican-American War hero and commanding general of the US Army Winfield Scott, the Anaconda Plan was designed to end the conflict as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. Scott called for the blockade of Southern ports and capture of the vital Mississippi River to split the Confederacy in two, as well as advised against a direct attack on Richmond. This approach was mocked by the press and public which believed that a rapid march against the Confederate capital would lead Southern resistance to collapse. Despite this ridicule, as the war unfolded over the next four years, many elements of the plan were implemented and ultimately led the Union to victory. The First Battle of Bull Run (Manassas) As troops gathered in Washington, Lincoln appointed Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell to organize them into the Army of Northeastern Virginia. Though concerned about his mens inexperience, McDowell was forced to advance south in July due to growing political pressure and the impending expiration of the volunteers enlistments. Moving with 28,500 men, McDowell planned to attack a 21,900-man Confederate army under Beauregard near Manassas Junction. This was to be supported by Maj. Gen. Robert Patterson who was to march against an 8,900-man Confederate force commanded by Gen. Joseph Johnston in the western part of the state. As McDowell approached Beauregards position, he looked for a way to outflank his opponent. This led to a skirmish at Blackburns Ford on July 18. To the west, Patterson had failed to pin down Johnstons men, allowing them to board trains and move east to reinforce Beauregard. On July 21, McDowell moved forward and attacked Beauregard. His troops succeeded in breaking the Confederate line and forcing them to fall back on their reserves. Rallying around Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Jacksons Virginia Brigade, the Confederates stopped the retreat and, with the addition of fresh troops, turned the tide of the battle, routing McDowells army and forcing them to flee back to Washington. Casualties for the battle were 2,896 (460 killed, 1,124 wounded, 1,312 captured) for the Union and 982 (387 killed, 1,582 wounded, 13 missing) for the Confederates.