Liaison Between Staff Late Sittings and Manager Subordinate Relationship

[pic] LIAISON BETWEEN STAFF LATE SITTINGS AND MANAGER SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIP by ABDUL MOIZ-8272 DILEEP KUMAR-8348 FAWWAZ ANWER-8254 KASHIF REHMAN-9148 MUHAMMAD AMMAR ALAM-8253 A research report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Bachelor of Business Administration to Iqra University Research Center (IURC) at Iqra Unversity, Main Campus,Karachi. Karachi, Pakistan NOVEMBER, 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Firstly, we would like to thank Almighty Allah, who enabled us to accomplish this work. Secondly, we are eternally indebted to our internal advisor Dr.

M. I Subhani and Dr. Akif Hassan for all the help, invaluable guidance and generous support throughout our research project. Their professionalism, guidance, energy, humor, thoroughness, dedication and inspirations will always serve to us as an example in our professional life. ABSTRACT Staff late sittings and managerial subordinate relationship are two critical issues pertaining to every employee’s career. These issues might seem to be trivial ones yet they cast deep impressions in image building of an employee.

This study investigates the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. The research started of from formulating the hypothesis as H1 = there is a relationship between staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. The survey method was used for this research; it was conducted through the development of a questionnaire. The data collection was done by approaching managers, supervisors and subordinates belonging to various workplaces with different environment. The final sample size of the research was 200.

The results showed that there is no relation between working long hours and manager subordinate relationship. The results imply that the strengthening of managerial subordinate relationship is not directly proportional to working for late hours, unlike the traditional mindset among the people. TABLE OF CONTENTS |S. No. |Description |Page Number | |1. |ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………… |ii | |2. ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………. |iii | |3. |LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………… |v | |4. |LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………….. |vi  | |5. |CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………… |1 | |  | |  | |  |1. 1 Overview……………………………………………………….. |1 | |  |1. Problem Statement ………………………………………………. |3 | |  |1. 3 Hypotheses………………………………………………………. |4 | |  |1. 4 Outline of the Study……………………………………………… |4 | |  |  | | |6. |CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………… |5 | | | |  | |7. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS……………………… |15 | |  |  |  | |  |3. 1Method of Data Collection………………………………………. |15 | |  |3. 2 Sampling Technique……………………………………………. |15 | |  |3. 3 Sample Size…………………………………………………….. |15 | |  |3. Instrument of Data Collection………………………………….. |15 | |  | 3. 4. 1Validity and Reliability Test. ………………………………. |16 | |  |3. 5 Research Model Developed……………………………………… |17 | |  |3. 6 Statistical Technique…………………………………………… |17 | |8. |  |  | | |CHAPTER 4: RESULTS……………………………………………. 18 | | | | | | |4. 1 Findings and Interpretation of the results………………………… | | | |4. 2 Hypotheses Assessment Summary………………………………. | | |  |  |  | |9. |CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH…….. |19 | |  |5. 1 Conclusion………………………………………………………. 19 | |  |5. 2 Future Research…………………………………………………. |19 | |  | | | |10. |References………………………………………………………….. |20 | |11. |Appendix…………………………………………………………… |23 | LIST OF TABLES |S. No. |Tables |Page Number | |1. |4. Result…………………………………………………………………… |  18 | LIST OF FIGURES |S. No. |Figures |Page Number | |1. |3. 1 Research Model……………………………………….. |  17 | CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Overview The emerging competitive business environment cannot rely upon wasting an employee’s skills and technological knowledge. The workplace environment plays an important role in getting out the most from the employees.

A healthy, trustworthy, and honest work environment lifts up the morale of the employees thereby leading towards maximize productivity. Maintaining a good work/life balance and a welcoming manager subordinate relationship are two fundamental tools which help generate a pleasant yet efficacious work environment within an organization. In today’s modern era, the culture of late sittings at workplaces is emerging drastically at a fast pace (Khun & Lozano, 2006). The employees are compelled to work much more than their designated duty hours and the typical cenario of a 9 to 5 job has become a rare case nowadays (Drago, Black, & Wooden, 2005). This implies that the employees are working far off their way in order to get job survival and success (Gicheva, 2010). It seems as if late sittings in the office have become a part and parcel of every organization’s work environment thereby propagating the culture in the upcoming generation as well. It’s a vivid fact that a trustworthy, respectful and a positive relationship among employees and their managers boost up an organization’s image in the corporate market.

The building up of a positive and long lasting manager subordinate relationship is an indicator of effective management within an organization. Maintaining an effective manager subordinate relationship is beneficial in favor of both the manager and the employee. The satisfaction of the manager from the employees is a key factor contributing towards the success of both the organization as well as the employee. In the present era, the fast moving world has compelled everyone to maintain a respectful yet responsive manager subordinate relationship in order to become a worthy employee of the organization.

The bond between the managers and their subordinate is like a two wheel vehicle, if either of them gets spoiled, the organization is definitely at a loss. From the perspective of the employee, it’s imperative for him to fulfill the manager’s requirements in order to attain a special place in his eyes, eventually leading towards the employee’s promotion. Thus, in this dilemma of competition, mundane glamour and technological war, casting an everlasting impression upon the manager has become principal objective of every employee.

Keeping the above mentioned issues in mind, our research survey focuses on the core factors contributing towards the promotion of “long sitting hour’s culture”. The research first highlights the reasons which force the employee to work for extra hours. The two major reasons behind this; one is the bundle of work, which overloads an employee, compelling him/ her to work for late hours in order to meet the deadlines (Marc, 2007). Second is the impression making factor, which compels an employee to work for extra hours eventually casting an impression of high sense of commitment towards the job upon their managers (Bien & Maslyn, 2003).

It has actually become the demand of this epoch, and those working only within the designated hours in the office are considered to be unpromising employees of the company. Although the criterion for a promising employee should be the quality time dedicated by the employees, not the quantitative time spent by them. Unfortunately, this trend has penetrated deep down in our working culture compelling the upcoming generation to incur late sittings as a part of their life. Not only this, the research covers a meticulous account of the manager subordinate relationship and its impact on the late sitting culture.

The manager subordinate relationship is a pivotal factor in determining the extent to which staff members are compelled to work for late hours (Campbell & Green, 2002). As mentioned above, the employees are mostly compelled to work for late hours in order to impress their managers, eventually leading towards the building up of a responsive manager subordinate relationship. So, the core focus of this research is to first figure out the reasons behind the staff late sittings. Next we will find out the extent to which this culture has propagated in our business work environment.

Lastly, we will examine the main central idea behind this research, which includes finding out the relationship between staff late sitting and manager subordinate relationship. This implies finding out whether a good manager subordinate relationship could be maintained without working for late hours in the office; or in other words, we are observing the impact of staff late sittings upon manager subordinate relationship. 1. 2 Problem Statement To study the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and anager subordinate relationship. 1. 3 Hypotheses H1 = there is a relationship between staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. 1. 4 Outline of the Study Chapter one includes an overview of variables, problem statement that shows the possible relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. Chapter two includes the literature review. In this chapter manager subordinate relationship and managerial handling of staff late sittings are explained.

Chapter three is comprised of method of data collection which is personal survey, sampling technique which is non-probability convenient sampling, sample size which is two hundred, instrument of data collection, research model developed which supports the problem statement and statistical technique which is correlation. Chapter four includes the results which show the relationships between variables. Lastly Chapter five includes conclusion, discussions, implications and possible future researches. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The present era is characterized by a muddled age of global rivalry, uncontrolled transformations, faster communication, enhancing business intricacies, and persistent globalization. This devastation has escort to the union of borders between personal and professional lives. The professionals are compelled to dedicate an immense portion of their time to the workplace (Sharma, 2011). An unforced infatuation to ceaseless work activity has become one of the prime dilemmas of this era. Work escalation, work obsession and interest in work hours have developed as a full-fledged concern of every employee and organization for the few precedent years.

Numerous factors have come together to raise hours spent at work, the kind of work itself, and motivations for functioning hard, mainly among managers and professionals (Burke, 2009). Thus it is essential to comprehend the boundary between justified workload and workaholism. The literature reveals a blend of positive and negative effects of long working hours upon the professionals and employees. Many researchers conjecture that long working hours are associated to consumerism, the perfect worker model, elevated levels of being-capital, and a high cost-of-job-loss.

Mundane glamour and desires oblige individuals for higher incomes which ultimately are catered with long working hours (Hart & Yue Ma, 2010). Not only this, the rising trend of debts is also a factor contributing towards staff late sittings. One research hypothesizes that long hours are correlated with future promotions. A supreme worker custom implies professionals to work long hours, with the minority breaks for holidays or vacations. Ultimately, the so called “supreme worker” is rewarded the most promotions to positions of power by paying the cost of family negligence.

Long working hours portrays a flexible work schedule of a professional which gradually leads to enhanced work incentives. Employers and their established situation of work have affected the course of long run trends labor deliver and in work time structures. A very basic reason for accepting long working hours in the professional routine is job security. As employees dread for their jobs more, they become more prepared to allow longer hours as the penalty of keeping their jobs safe. From the perspective of the firms, it is much easier for them hire new professionals as compared to giving higher wages for the long working hours.

This recession is the major factor which is promoting the staff late sitting culture in many organizations (Golden, 2009). Another reason is that some young staff has experienced difficult periods of restructuring in the past and, it appears, that this staff has got used to working long hours in fear of what might happen in the future. A further contributing factor to managers’ long hours is that they are often relatively young, without family responsibilities, and thus able to invest more time in the company. There is increasing support of widening in the cross-country dispersal in general working hours.

However, there has been considerable concentration given to the “long hour’s culture” occurrence identified in certain sectors of the labour market, in particular between professional and managerial staff (Zehra Waheed, 2010). Another researcher has pointed out a vivid fact that promotes late working hour’s culture. The present situation of stress an anxiety has compelled individuals to consider work as a source of escape from domestic tensions. Amplified stresses in the home make people to rather work than go home to their children and families. Long working hours are also related with self-respect, rank and comfort.

Individuals who work for long hours get more and more involved in their work and thus are much more satisfied. Their higher work involvement garners them the benefits of money, social and rewards. Some people take their job very seriously, and as a commitment towards completion of work on time, many managers have to work long hours. The majority employees in reality favor to work fewer hours though few actually apprehend their preferences (Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2009). Gicheva (2010) suggests long working hours to be closely related to effort based career opportunity.

Revenue maximizing organizations create encouragement for employees to work longer hours than the bargained ones, by making career prospects dependent on working hours. When effort based career opportunities are successful, they elevate working time and output per worker dropping workers’ effectiveness. He debated the fact that the apparent probability of promotion boost with working time and that this result is robust to various econometric stipulations (Guillaume & Pochic, 2009). It’s a clear fact that the bargaining power is high among the experienced professionals as compared to the fresh ones.

Thus the firms find it easier to use long working hours as a useful weapon to bring out more from the employee brains. If the workers’ bargaining power is below a given level, firms favor longer working hours than the bargained ones both in the case of efficient bargaining and in the case of working time decided unilaterally by workers. When the effort based promotion scheme is followed organizations always prefer long working hours of the employees rather than promoting the bargained ones. Due to this, workers best policy is to be familiar with working longer hours.

When firms use effort-based promotion schemes, each worker works longer hours than the ones she would have chosen, and has the identical likelihood to be promoted. Workers’ utility is reduced; people work longer hours liking less leisure. Work-to-family interface is an important domain which is closely affected by long working hours. The core motivation for employees wanting to work overtime is to improve their pay. This is negotiated as part of the package placing a maximum working hour’s limit. According to Karimi & Nouri (2009) there are basically two sorts of earners in a family.

One is the bread earner of the family, which actually has the autonomy, while all other earners fall in the category of social support. According to the research, the social support is unenthusiastically related to work-to-family edge, while autonomy is positively related to it. This means that if a bread winner of the family work for late hours then no one in the family will oppose it, as he is providing them with all their necessities whereas if any other member of the family work late, then this will surely give rise to conflicts in the family.

According to another research Individuals in executive and professional jobs are now work longer hours for a diversity of reasons. Building on preceding research on unrelenting need to work and on types of obsession, there are various categories of people who work for long hours. Some managers scoring top on addiction indicated more obsessive job behaviors, inferior work and extra work satisfactions, and lower levels of mental happiness. While some managers scoring higher on passion indicated less obsessive job behaviors, better work and extra-work satisfactions, and higher levels of mental comfort (Gielen, 2009)

According to Libano, Llorens, Salanova & Schaufeli (2010) higher wage acts like a magnet to attract a hefty amount of employees to fulfill the employer’s demand of working for long hours. Moreover, long working hours play a pivotal role in career progression and recognition. He stated that everyone was working for the same reason —‘money’ — no-one took into account extra hours worked. As discussed throughout, the employees are willing to do late sittings and work longer hours in order to signal a superior level of dedication to their employer.

This might in return increase their chances of securing promotion or a better job, and moving further along the wage distribution associated with their firm or industrial grouping. Such an interpretation is easily placed on the hour’s deviation model. In most organization culture promotions are based on the working hours and not on the ability of the employees. Work is a positive value for people in our current society but, when it is over-important for people, it could have negative consequences such as workaholism.

Many studies affirm that long working hours have detrimental impact on the staff. The foremost disadvantage is health impairment. Also studies prove that exhaustion-related errors done by subordinates working in long-hour schedules and schedules relating unusual shift work can have grim and adverse consequences on employees. The research speculated that certain unsocial behavior is the result of working long hours. As long working hours lead to fatigue, the workers feel tired and irritated at times which make them quite short tempered (Dembe, 2009).

Not only this, this dilemma of working late hours makes them prone to certain type of illness as well, because one is not able to take out time for exercise and leisure which ultimately disturbs the entire life style. A research by Schieman, Milkie & Glavin (2009) brings out the fact the staff shortage is one essential factor related to late working hours. In many organizations there is a shortage of expert technical staff. There are many tasks which can only be accomplished by the minority ones who posses the jewels of technical skills.

Due to this deficiency, the work could not be delegated to other staff members, thereby overloading the technical staff. Moreover, the organization neither possesses many resources to double up the technical staff for achieving workload equilibrium. Line managers are also an important part of the late working hour culture. Senior line managers who work for late hours cast a poor impression upon other employees. Managers who send emails at midnight over the weekend, and call meeting in the evening are the ones who are promoting this culture (Ladyshewsky, 2010).

This was considered to create a cycle of expectation among the employees. It was also noted that even where line managers did not expect their staff to work long hours, they were generally satisfied when they did. This therefore encouraged individuals keen to gain recognition and progress in their career, to work long hours. The rate of change has become so swift that it has taken different type of firms to be governing and is able to mark entirely new era of business which is differentiated by escalating work pressures, harsh competitors, and day to day challenges and so on.

This has lead to the convergence of boundaries between personal and professional lives. According to Wooden, Warren & Drago (2009) there is a perception that long working hours is a cultural feature of the organization, encouraged by the exemplar of senior management who work very long hours. Older managers are less restricted with regard to working time than their younger counterparts. It is difficult to break the long-time habits that veteran managers have developed. According to Bradley, Brown, Lingard, Townsend & Bailey (2010) long working hours leads to many backlash issues within an organization.

There are some employees who have the complex that they have limited career opportunities because they cannot work long hours. They have the inferiority complex of being penalized for not being able to stay late, although it’s not true. Some people feel they are being excluded from projects because they have to get home to look after their children. On the contrary, people who can stay late become fed up because they work longer hours. Moreover, they get envious with the group of people which doesn’t stay up late.

There is reported to create a lot of tension in some organizations. Late sittings in the office create an imbalance between work and social life. The poor social functioning of work addictors has also proven to be poor and have reported disproportion between work and social life (Sirgy & Wu, 2009). They are so much engrossed in their work that they get limited to the work place only. They are deprived of easy access to potential new friends. This becomes a big barrier for work addicts in creating a social circle, thus their interaction with the other people becomes negligible.

Most of the studies put forward the fact that the culture of staff late sitting needs to be revised for the welfare of working professionals (Michel & Clark, 2009). The management should set objectives which are successful and pragmatic. With this the individual will be able to manage his/her workload effectively and will prioritize their time according to its importance so that time can be given to personal lives after finishing the work. Late staff sittings result in low staff morale (Maksoud, Cerbioni, Ricceri & Velayutham, 2010).

Some managers feel that long hours build work pressure. Heavy and unrelenting workloads could lead to increased anxiety which in turn could result in low morale. Moreover, if the organization did not take much account of individuals’ interests and their feelings, then it also affects levels of morale within the staff. The research conducted by Mackenzie (2010) suggests that the role of today’s manager has changed a great deal due to the immense advancements in communication and technology. Traditionally, the ways and behaviors of managers thrived within face-to-face work environments.

Today’s business era is inhabited with individuals who are digitally connected to clients, contractors, managers, and employees. As computer-mediated technologies persist to change the boundaries of the business community, permit alternative worksites to increase, and the traditional workday to disappear, the role of the manager has changed. Most studies have entirely focused on trust when it comes to evaluating manager subordinate relationship. Studies indicated that joint effects of trust between manager and subordinate behavior and intentions are most encouraging when there is high mutual trust.

Other findings disclose exclusive associations of trust in manager and trust in subordinate on work done, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and aim to leave (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, Dineen, 2009). A significant question in the control journalism concerns the tasks of interpersonal faith in propose and performance of formal control systems for shared settings. Hartmann & Slapnicar (2009) argued that subordinate’s reliance in the superior depends on the requirement of the performance evaluation system and that this bond is mediated by managerial sensitivity of justice and feedback.

Furthermore, the research revealed that formality matters more for trust development for those managers that are in functions with less contractible outputs. A better manager-subordinate relationship could give in more effort on the part of the subordinate to make sure that the manager’s objectives are met. One of the popular agendas’ of the management study around the world surrounds the gender biasness or non-biasness in performing the basic managerial tasks. It is often implicit that cross gender manager subordinate relationships are better than same gender manger subordinate relationships.

But according to Hasan, Zahid & Subhani (2011) results showed that male managers involve male subordinates more in managerial tasks than female subordinates. On the other hand, the female managers have the same level of involvement of both the genders. The research by Markos (2010) points out that employee involvement is a vast construct that concludes almost all parts of human resource management. The employees will not yield with their best performance graphs until and unless all the related human resources are addresses completely.

The bond between the employee and the employer strengthens only with employee engagement. Engaged employees are emotionally attached to their organization and highly involved in their job with a huge enthusiasm for the betterment of their employer, going extra mile beyond the employment contractual agreement. Organizations increasingly rely upon teams to provide high levels of services. The study indicates that manager subordinate relationship is positively associated with employee performance and organizational citizenship behavior.

The results showed that concentration towards the employee-manager relationship, team member interactions and the importance of team development and training improves performance (Wech, Kennedy & Schmelz, 2009). In corporate environment, many times late office sittings are encouraged, supported and compensated for unhealthy patterns for short term gains in terms of productivity and profits. The managerial staff does not pay attention to the fact that the employees in the organization are often referred as the internal customers of the organizations (Hung & Hsiang, 2009).

On the other hand, the employees play an imperative role in shaping and directing the organizations efficiency and accomplishment of goals and its overall success. Understanding the attitudes, behavior, motivation, feelings of employees becomes an elementary apprehension for most of the organizations. Thus the organization can play an important role in determining the right type of approach, work behavior in employees which can help in overcoming the pessimistic causes linked with this new concept of staff late sittings.

So far the studies focus on the impact of late sittings of employees and employers, none of the studies relate them with the manager subordinate relationship. The research covers a thorough account of the manager subordinate relationship and its contact with the long working hour’s culture, apart from this to look in an account that does the manager subordinate relationship is a fundamental factor in determining the degree to which staff members are forced to work for longer hours. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 3. 1 Methods of Data Collection

The foremost task for the research was to design a proper questionnaire, including all the necessary details essential for determining the relation between the two defined variables. After the development of the questionnaire, we collected the data by approaching managers, supervisors and subordinates belonging to various workplaces with different environment. This includes people from IT sector, teachers from reputable institutions, managers from financial sector and supervisors from industrial fields. 3. 2 Sampling Technique

First the size of our research survey was defined, which implies the number of respondents to be covered from each different sector. Since managers and subordinates from the business sector are easily approachable, so our major portion of the survey will cover these respondents. After having the population breakdown for various sectors of respondents, Convenience sampling was used, which implies sorting out the questionnaires filled by the respondents and finally the evaluation was done in order in order to determine the results. 3. Sample size The number of respondents for the research survey was two hundred (200). 3. 4 Instruments of data collection To study the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship a questionnaire was developed comprising of fourteen questions. The first question is about the respondents’ designation level at work. The second question asks the respondents that how they work, i. e either full time or part time. The third question inquires about the official work timings of the organization.

The fourth question is divided in two parts, focusing on the flexible time concept. The fifth question asks respondents that how often they work late. The sixth question inquires about the particular time at which the late sittings are done the most. The seventh question is also divided into two parts; it is about how the employees are compensated for the extra hours worked. The eighth question focuses on the reasons of staff late sittings. The ninth question is about the respondent’s work life balance. The tenth question asks the respondents about level of relationship with there boss.

The eleventh question asks the respondents about their willingness to work late. The twelfth question asks if forced by the boss, the respondents keenness to work late. The thirteenth question consists of different statements regarding long working hours and the respondents are asked to give there opinion of agreement/disagreement for each statement. Similarly the fourteenth question also consists of different statements, but regarding manager subordinate relationship and the respondents are asked to give there view of the level agreement/disagreement for each statement.

In short the questionnaire was designed to collect about employees work practices, the culture of organization they work in, the managerial characteristics and the level of manager subordinate relationship. 3. 4. 1 Validity and Reliability Test The instrument used in our research is valid and reliable. Because it is particularly designed to collect data specifically required to study the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. To check the validity and reliability of instrument we conducted pre testing and found the instrument valid and reliable in accordance with our study.

Consequently data collected through this instrument is also valid and reliable and leads us to more useful and precise results. 3. 5 Research Model Developed The framework was developed to study the actual relation that exists between staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship. In order to accomplish the goal of our research, we found out the answer to two questions. First being that, if an employee maintains a sound relationship with the manager, is it going to help him in lessening the burden of late working hours?

In other words, an employee can easily get rid of working for late hours, if he has friendly relations with the manager. The second part questions that if an employee works for late hours; then this compliance act of him could easily help him earn a nice place in the manager’s eye. 3. 6 Statistical Technique Correlation was used for data analysis. We have used correlation because it is the statistical technique which enables us to understand and interpret the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 4. 1 Findings and interpretation of the results |Correlations | | | |Staff_Late_Sittings |Manager_Subordinate_Relationship | |Staff_Late_Sittings |Pearson Correlation |1 |. 080 | | |Sig. (2-tailed) | |. 63 | | |N |200 |200 | |Manager_Subordinate_Relationship |Pearson Correlation |. 080 |1 | | |Sig. (2-tailed) |. 263 | | | |N |200 |200 |

The research findings show that all hypotheses have been rejected. It has shown that all the factors do not have significant impact on customer’s spending patterns. For a hypothesis to be accepted all the significance value has been less than . 05. In all the cases after analysis through regression and chi square, all four factors are exceedingly higher than . 05 hence all the factors have been rejected. 4. 2 Hypotheses Assessment Summary After the conducting the research and going through the result of the analysis it clears that the hypothesis has been rejected.

The summary of it is that staff late sittings do not have significant impact on manager sub-ordinate relationship. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 5. 1 Conclusion The results showed that there is no relation between working long hours and manager subordinate relationship. No sign of correlation between the two independent variables was found after going through the data analysis process. Our research castoffs believe that many employees tend to work late in order to build a strong relationship with their respective boss.

This implies that late sittings in the office have minimal impact on fortifying the manager subordinate relationship. Moreover, it put forwards the fact that the core reason behind working late hours in the office is not only casting a good impression upon the boss, there exists many other reasons behind this culture, which could be studied in detail further on. In a nutshell, the research proves that the current generation does not considers, working for late hours as a source of making their boss satisfied. 5. 2 Future Research

Despite the fact that we thought that the relationship between managerial handling of staff late sittings and manager subordinate relationship was a very crucial relationship; but since the results have shown that there is no correlation between the two variables, it means that in future lot needs to be done in this in a newly identified direction. In this unexplored direction and field of study researchers can study many variables like impact of higher pay on the employee’s level of willingness to work for longer hours. Moreover, they could also work out in finding factors which will strengthen the manager subordinate relationship.

References Drago, R. , Black, D. , & Wooden, M. (2005). The Persistence of Long Work Hours. Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series, 12, 05, 01-36. Campbell, D. , & Green, F. (2002). The Long Term Pay-Off From Working Longer Hours. University of Kent (Department of Economics) Studies in Economics, 0205, 01-19. Marc, C. (2007). Still At Work? An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of the Long Hours Culture. MPRA Paper, 1614, 01-51. Kuhn, P & Lozano, F. (2006). The Expanding Workweek? Understanding Trends in Long Work Hours Among U. S. Men, 1979-2004. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Discussion Paper, 1924, 01-47.

Bien, U. M. , & Maslyn, M. J. (2003). Reciprocity in Manager-Subordinate Relationships: Components, Configurations, and Outcomes. Journal of Management, 29, 4, 511–532. Gicheva, D. (2010). Working Long Hours and Early Career Outcomes in the High-End Labor Market. University of North Carolina (Department of Economics) Working Papers, 10, 3, 01-66. Lee, H. W. , , C. H. (2009). The relationship among achievement motivation, psychological contract and work attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37, 3, 321-328. Jesse, S. M. , & Malissa, A. C. (2009). Has it been affect all along?

A test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 3, 163-168. Joseph, S. , & Jiyun, W. (2009). The Pleasant Life, the Engaged Life, and the Meaningful Life: What about the Balanced Life?. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 2, 183-196. Cecile, G. , , P. (2009). What Would You Sacrifice? Access to Top Management and the Work–life Balance. Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 1, 14–36. Zehra, W. (2010). The Long Work Hours Culture: Causes, Consequences and Choices. Facilities, 28, 7/8, 395 – 396. Hart, R. & Yue, M. (2010). Wage–hours contracts, overtime working and premium pay. Labour Economics, 17, 1, 170-179. Richard, K. L. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 4, 292 – 306. Anne, C. G. (2009). Working hours flexibility and older workers’ labor supply. Oxford Economic Papers, 61, 2, 240-274. Maksoud, A. A. , Cerbioni, F. , Ricceri, F. , & Velayutham, S. (2010). Employee morale, non-financial performance measures, deployment of innovative managerial practices and shop-floor involvement in Italian manufacturing firms.

The British Accounting Review, 42, 1, 36-55. Lisa, B. , Kerry, B. , Helen, L. , Keith, T. , & Caroline, B. (2010). Talking the talk and walking the walk: How managers can influence the quality of work-life balance in a construction project. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3, 4, 589 – 603. Mark, W. , Diana, W. , & Robert, D. (2009). Working Time Mismatch and Subjective Well-being. British Journal of Industrial Relation, 47, 1, 147–179. Solomon, M. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance.

International Journal of Business and Management, 5, 12, 89 – 96. Maureen, L. M. (2010). Manager communication and workplace trust: Understanding manager and employee perceptions in the e-world. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 6, 529-541. Ronald, J. B. , & Lisa, F. (2009). Work Motivations, Satisfactions, and Health among Managers. Cross-Cultural Research November, 43, 4, 349-365. Barbara, A. W. , Karen, N. K. , Dawn, R. , & Deeter, S. (2009). A multi-level analysis of customer contact teams. Journal of Services Marketing, 23, 6, 436 – 448. Frank, H. , & Sergeja, S. (2009).

How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 6-7, 722-737. Parul, S. (2011). Work-Addiction: A Poison by Slow Motion. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 2, 3, 86-91. Libano, M. , Llorens, S. , Salanova, M. , & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Validity of a brief workaholism scale. Psicothema, 22, 1, 143-150. Holly, H. B. , Scott, W. L. , Audrey, K. , & Brian, R. D. (2009). A Closer Look at Trust between Managers and Subordinates: Understanding the Effects of Both Trusting and Being Trusted on Subordinate Outcomes.

Journal of Management, 35, 2, 327-347. Scott, S. , Melissa, A. M. , & Paul, G. (2009). When Work Interferes with Life: Work-Nonwork Interference and the Influence of Work-Related Demands and Resources. American Sociological Review, 74, 6, 966-988. Hasan, A. , Zahid, I. , & Subhani, I. (2011). The effects of supervisor-subordinate genders on subordinates involvement across managerial functions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3, 2, 314-324. Lonnie, G. (2009). A Brief History of Long Work Time and the Contemporary Sources of Overwork. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 2, 217-227. Ronald, J. B. (2009).

Working to Live or Living to Work: Should Individuals and Organizations Care?. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 2, 167-172. Allard, E. D. (2009). Ethical Issues Relating to the Health Effects of Long Working Hours. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 2, 195-208. Appendix Dear respondents: Given below are some questions pertaining to your work environment. Kindly respond to the questions given below. Your response will be treated confidentially. Thank you for the cooperation. Questionnaire Q. 1) How would you describe your designation level at work? (Tick only one) ? Senior manager ? Manager (Functional Manager such as Marketing) Supervisor (Assistant Manager) ? Employee (No subordinate) ? Any other please specify: ……………………………… Q. 2) How do you work? (Tick only one) ? Full-time ? Part-time ? Any other (please write in) ………………………………………………. Q. 3) What is the official working time in your organization for you? From: ………………. To: ……………….. Q. 4) Do you have a flexible time concept in your organization? (Tick only one) ? Yes ? No Q. 4 a) If Yes, then how many hours per week you are suppose to give: …………… Q. 5) Over the last three months, how often do you think you have worked extra hours? Please tick only one) ? Almost Every day ? 3 – 4 times a week ? Once or twice a week ? Less than once a week ? Never (If never than go to Question No. 9) Q. 6) Over the last three months, when have you worked these extra hours? (Tick as many boxes as apply) ? Early morning ? Late evening ? Lunch times ? Weekends ? Holidays ? Any other (Please specify) ………………………… Q. 7 ) Over the last three months were you compensated for any of the extra hours you worked through paid over time or time off in lieu or through working flexi time? (Please tick one box) ? Yes ? No If No, please go to Question No. 8 Q. a) How were you compensated for any of these extra hours worked? (Tick as many boxes as apply) ? Paid over time ? Time off in lieu ? Flexitime ? Any other (Please specify) ………………………………………………………. Q. 8) State your core reason behind working late hours in office. (Tick all that apply) ? You enjoy it ? You believe that working long hours is the only way to get promotion ? You do not want to be seen to leave the office first ? You have to support your co-workers ? You cannot leave the office before your boss ? Your job is a sort of escape from your home ? You were over burdened with work Any other please specify: ………………………………………. Q. 9) Rate your “Work-Life balance”. Do you have? (Tick only one) ? Too much work ? A little too much work ? My life is very balanced ? A little too much leisure time ? Too much leisure time Q. 10) How would you describe your relationship with your subordinate/manager? (Tick only one) ? Official ? Friendly ? Casual ? Strictly Reserved ? Any other please specify: ………………………………………. Q. 11) If given the option, will you be willing to work for extra hours? (Tick only one) ? Yes ? No ? Depends if: …………………………………………………… Q. 2) What if your manager/boss forces you to stay up late at the office to complete your daily task. Will you stay? (Tick only one) ? Of courses Yes ? Still No ? Yes, but not always. Q. 13) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by ticking the box that best represents your views. (Tick only one for each statement) | |Strongly Agree |Agree |Neutral |Disagree |Strongly | | | | | | |Disagree | |13. Working long hours is expected and accepted as part of the | | | | | | |culture where I work | | | | | | |13. 2 I feel less secure in my job if I do not put in as many hours | | | | | | |as my colleagues | | | | | | |13. I work long hours because I am committed to my job | | | | | | |13. 4 If you want to progress in your career it’s essential to work | | | | | | |long hours | | | | | | |13. 5 Pressure to work long hours has increased in the last few years| | | | | | |13. My manager is aware of the hours I work | | | | | | |13. 7 Working long hours is sometimes necessary to finish an urgent | | | | | | |piece of work | | | | | | |13. 8 I need to work long hours to improve my pay | | | | | | |13. Most of the need to work long hours could be removed by | | | | | | |redistributing staff work loads | | | | | | |13. 10 Staying up late at office is only way to impress your | | | | | | |boss/manager and to build a strong relationship. | | | | | | |13. 1 Working late hours promotes a sense of discrimination among the| | | | | | |employees. | | | | | | Q. 14) Given below are some statements which may or may not reflect your working relationship with your boss. For each of the statement kindly specify your level of agreement or disagreement by putting a checkmark in the appropriate box. (Tick only for each statement) |Statements |Strongly Agree |Agree |Neither Agree Nor |Disagree |Strongly Disagree | | | | | |Disagree | | | |14. 1 |My boss is very friendly. | | | | | | |14. 2 |I am very happy to work with | | | | | | | |this boss. | | | | | |14. 3 |If given a choice I would have| | | | | | | |selected the same boss. | | | | | | |14. 4 |My boss and I have good | | | | | | | |working relationship. | | | | | |14. 5 |I have no problems in | | | | | | | |communicating with my boss. | | | | | | |14. 6 |There is a strong relationship| | | | | | | |of trust between me and my | | | | | | |boss. | | | | | | |14. 7 |One of the best things about | | | | | | | |your work place is your boss. | | | | | | ———————– Figure 3. 1 Manager Subordinate relationship Staff Late Sittings Table 4. 1 18 18