Exploring Inter Role Conflict In the Lives Japanese Executives
A Pilot Survey

SSM Sadrul Huda
Assistant Professor
East West University
Bangladesh

Abstract:
This report deals with inter role conflicts of Japanese executives. The various dimensions of inter role conflict is
explored in this study based on a small sample of 55 executives. Gender comparisons are made to know thegender difference in various aspects of family, work and leisure lives. Inter role conflicts are associated with life
satisfactions of the employees. The study found that out of six inter role conflicts work family conflicts and work
leisure conflicts are most prevalent. The life satisfaction of both the male and female executives is also affected
mostly by work family conflict. The study also found that the nature and gravity of work family conflict does notvary in respect to working hour, home making time but it does vary in respect to availability of free time. The
study recommends future research actions to explore other aspects of inter role conflict.

Key Words: Work, Family, leisure, Conflict, Mediator, Predictor, Life Satisfaction

I. INTRODUCTION
Inter-role conflict is a situation where one of the life roles of individual may be in confrontation with other liferoles. Individual have three major life roles to play i.e. Family Role, Work Role and Leisure/Recreational Role.
Situations and activities of one life role may create demand which is incompatible with other life roles. Thus, theterm role conflict refers to a clash between two or more of a person’s roles or incompatible features within thesame role. These incompatibilities can consist of differing expectations, requirements, beliefs, and/or attitudes.
People in everyday life enact multiple roles simultaneously. For example, parent, employee, player, etc. Often,these roles are activated concurrently and harmoniously. One’s role as the primary wage earner for family is not
likely to be in conflict with h/her role as a supervisor at work though role of a supervisor may be in conflict withthe role of parent because the requirements of one role can clash with those of another. These contradictory
requirements of different life roles can produce role conflict within the same roles or between different life roles,
which are named as: intra role conflict, referring to incompatible requirements within the same role, and interrole conflict, referring to clashing expectations from different life roles of an individual (retrieved fromhttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045302298.html). One’s conception of being a good mother might
consist of having a job outside of the home. However, her mother-in-law might think that to be a good mother
she would need to relinquish her job to provide around-the-clock care for her children. Because of these differing
conceptions concerning the role of a mother, she is likely to experience intra role conflict. Intra role conflict canalso be created, when one same role may have opposing ideas. For example, a mother has to provide emotional
warmth to her children and also in some cases discipline her children for disobedience. Inter role conflict arises
when the requirements and expectations of one role interfere or conflict with those of another role. For example,
when one of her children becomes ill, a working mother may find that the demands of her job (e.g., staying atwork) are in conflict with the demands of motherhood (e.g., taking her child to the doctor). Thus inter –role
conflict may be defined as,“The role conflict that occurs when individuals have one role or more when within a group andthe behaviors and expectations and associated and is not consistent with one role and the behaviors andexpectations associated with another”
Retrieved from "http://psychologydictionary.org/interrole-conflict/"
title="interrole conflict">interrole conflict</a>2II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aim of the study is to explore the existence of inter role conflict in the lives of Japanese executives. The
study considers the three major life roles of executives i.e. work family and leisure/recreation. It is assumed thatrole expectations and role performances in all these three roles are not harmonious with each other. Thus, itcreates a situation where executives may receive complain from either of the roles for not fulfilling the role
demand adequately, which may cause role stress or role conflict. For example, work roles of executives may be
incompatible with family roles and vice-versa. Thus, work family conflict emerges, which are bi-directional innature, which means work may affect family and family may also affect work. Given that the interactions among
the three life roles (work, family and leisure) may produce six different types of inter role conflicts (Table 1).
Table 1 Types of Inter Role Conflict
Work Family Conflict

Family Work Conflict

Work Leisure Conflict

Leisure Work Conflict

Family Leisure Conflict

Leisure Family Conflict

The secondary objective of the conflict is to test the gender variation of the conflict in order to see how the natureof the conflict varies gender wise. Finally, the impact of inter-role conflict on quality of life is examined. The
core question here is to know whether quality of life is affected differently for male and female executives.
III. WORK LIFE ISSUES IN JAPANJapan was experiencing low birch rate for years and in 1989 its’ fertility rate declined to 1.57 in 1989, which was
the lowest in post war history. There are a variety of factors behind the decline in population growth. However,
one of the biggest reasons is the population shift from farming villages to urban centers causing an increase infamilies of employed laborers forming nuclear families, and as a result the birth rate have declined(Ikezoe H,
2014). Genda (2013) observed that the number of solitary non-employed person (SNEP) has topped 1.6 million
in Japan an increase over 50,000 since 2006. They have no social contact outside the family as they are
un-married, un-employed and not undergoing any education. Reacting to these phenomena, government of Japanendorses a plan namely, “Angel Plan” in 1994 to address the work-life issues of the employees. The plan
mentions female participation in higher education, career progression of the female due to increase need forachievement, and increases level of difficulty in child management as the reasons for low birth rate (Ikezoe H,
2014). Subsequently, “Plus One Measures to halt the Declining Birth rate” developed by the Ministry of Health,labor and Welfare in 2002 advocating the revision of working styles for both male and female. Eventually,

3

Charter for Work-Life Balance in 2007 is created for the promotion of work life issues of the employees. It
seems that the major reason, which triggers work-life balance issue, is declining birth rate due to child rearing
problem. The associated problems are non-participation of the male in house-keeping and child rearing (Ikezoe
H, 2014). Japanese husbands and wives generally expect to have separate, non-overlapping roles, limiting men’s
involvement in children’s care or housework. Work-life balance is typed as a women’s issue, making it difficult
for men to consider asking for their legal right to take leave or even return home from work before children are
asleep.
In general, women’s increased participation in paid employment has not been accompanied by an increase inmen’s participation in unpaid domestic work (comprised mainly of housework and caring for dependent
household members). Time use statistics show that in all regions, women dedicate much more time to domestic
work than men do spend an average of almost five hours a day on domestic work, whereas men spend on averageless than two and a half hours a day on this, or half the amount of time spent by women (UN, 2010). The same
report shows that in some countries – for example, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia – the difference is even greater, with women spending three to four-fold the amount oftime spent by men on domestic work. (UN, 2010).
Cultural conceptions of women’s and men’s roles no doubt play an important part in the unequal sharing ofdomestic work between the sexes. Interestingly, in Japan cultural expectation favors men’s non-participation in
management. One of the comments posted in Japan Times supports this proposition. The comment is as follows:“Even my wife doesn’t expect me at home”.
In Japanese society men are expected to be more work oriented. Even the wife is a full time worker with highincome women have to bear most of the household responsibilities (Ikeda, 2007). Late hour work is well
accepted in the society. This tendency has many implications to the society. One of those is lonely life anddeclining birth rate. Even if they are employed due to late work they cannot maintain family time. Japanese
men’s identities and social standing continue to be defined by employment. This gender-segregated social
strategy won wide respect because it served Japan well. The persistence of pre-industrial authority structures
enabled the country to endure rapid industrialization without the social upheavals experienced by othermodernizing societies (Goode, 1963). Industrialization usually causes divorce to increase, but in Japan it fell for
most of the 20th century, rising toward European levels only since the 1980s (Fuess, 2004).
Japanese women work to maintain family lifestyles; a bulwark against husbands’ employment instability or
falling wages. More women may also be working because they are divorced or single mothers (Ezawa, 2006;
Hertog, 2008). The majority of female workers are ippanshoku, a category comprising non-career, lower-paid

4

workers who do general office work. Sougoushoku denotes career workers, mostly men. They are subject totransfers, overtime at night, and work on weekends and holidays.
While women in other industrial nations enjoy increased independence((Ochiai, 1997),., Japanese women
accepted the government injunction to be “good wives and wise mothers,” producing and nurturing the increased
population needed to provide labor power for industrial growth and colonial adventures (Garon, 2010).

Women who worked generally did so only until marriage and/or childbirth. Leaving work at these junctures wascustomary. Coupled with so-called “lifetime employment” for husbands, women’s “retirement” resulted in the
country’s large cohorts of “professional housewives” (Ozawa, 2002).
Overall female employment has risen only 7% since the 1970s, accounting today for about 43% of the labor
force. Women of childbearing age make up much of the increase. However, unlike earlier female employment,
which tended to be “regular” or full-time, recent female labor force participation is largely part-time, “irregular,”or contract work. Less than half of employed females are “regular” full-time workers today in contrast to nearly
70% in 1985 (MHLW, 2008, 10). In view of their high levels of education, the under-utilization of women isseen as a major Japanese competitive weakness and evidence of continuing indirect discrimination (Sato, Osawa,
and Weathers, 2001).
Due to global economic instability, today’s highly educated Japanese workers anticipate working more andharder, with less guarantee of employment security. Simply having a family, let alone balancing family life withwork, is a challenge. In addition, the idea of work-life balance is not well known. A nationally representative
MHLW survey (2009a) of working households found 40% of respondents hoping for shorter work hours and
60% hoping for more personal free time. Yet in smaller firms (less than 100 employees) only about 10% of
workers knew of the term “work-life balance.” In larger firms, those with some knowledge of the concept or its
implications reached 30%.

IV. METODOLOGY
The pilot study is carried out on a small sample of 55 Tokyo executives. The purposive sampling method is
employed. The survey instrument is structured questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of MCQ, Likert scale5and open ended question items. The duration of the study is of three months from January 2013 to March 2013.
The questionnaires are sent by mail to the respondents. The response rate is 70.51% as 55 respondents out of 77
have responded. The data is analyzed by SPSS software. Simple frequency analysis, regression model and t-test
are the statistical tool used for survey data analysis.
V. MAJOR FINDINGSThe major findings of the study are presented in different sections. Firstly, the respondent profiles are presented
considering the gender variation of the sample.
A. Demographic Profile
Gender: The sample size is 55. Out of this 34 (61.8%) is male and 21 (38.2%) are female (See Table 2).
Table 2

GenderFrequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Male

34

61.8

61.8

61.8

female

21

38.2

38.2

100.0

Total

55

100.0

100.0

Educational Background: Majority of the respondents received university degree in both male and female
category. Out of the male respondents 82.4% and out of the female respondents 52.4% are graduate degree
holders. Interestingly, females have more post graduate degree than the males as 19% of the female respondents
have masters degree, whereas less than half of the males (5.9%) have masters degree. Around 28% femalecomprises e.g. junior college and senior high school degree holders and for the male this rate is only around 11%.
Considering the educational trend it is apparent that male are educated than female in this sample(See table 3).

Table 3: Educational Background
Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Senior HighSchoolJuniorColleage

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

3

8.8

8.8

8.8

1

2.9

2.9

11.8

6

femaleValid

Graduates

28

82.4

82.4

94.1

Masters+

2

5.9

5.9

100.0

Total

34

100.0

100.0

1

4.8

4.8

4.8
28.6

Senior HighSchoolJuniorColleage
Graduates

5

23.8

23.8

11

52.4

52.4

81.0

Masters+

4

19.0

19.0

100.0

Total

21

100.0

100.0

Yearly Income: The income levels of the male respondents are consistently higher in all income categories than
the female respondents. 11.8% male and 9.5% female respondents belong to the highest income category 10-15
million yen respectively. Majority of the male (44.1%) and female (42.9%) belong to 7-9 million yen category,
which signals that 7-9 million is the average income level. Income disparity between male and females
executives reveals in the lowest income category i.e. below 3 million yen. Only 5.9% male and 19% female
respondents belong to this category. The survey confirms that the male receives comparatively higher level ofincome than their female counterparts(see table 4).
Table 4: Yearly Income of the respondents
GenderMale

FemaleFrequency
Valid

Valid

below yen 3
millionYen3-5
millionyen 5-7
millionyen 7-9
millionyen 10-15
millionTotal
below yen 3
millionyen 3-5
millionyen 5-7
millionyen 7-9
millionyen 10-15
million
Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

2

5.9

5.9

5.9

4

11.8

11.8

17.6

9

26.5

26.5

44.1

15

44.1

44.1

88.2

4

11.8

11.8

100.0

34

100.0

100.0

4

19.0

19.0

19.0

2

9.5

9.5

28.6

4

19.0

19.0

47.6

9

42.9

42.9

90.5

2

9.5

9.5

100.0

21

100.0

100.0

Position at Work: The male respondents dominate the females in all categories of job positions. 20.6% male
respondents belong to upper level, 47.1% to mid level and 17.6% to lower level management positions. It
appears that female respondent’s represent mostly in mid (38.1%), lower (33.3% level positions and very few(9.5%) in upper level positions. The positional status of female respondents corresponds to their educational
status and income level as discussed in the preceding section (see table 5).
Table 5: Professional Position of the respondents
Gendermale

Validlower level
mid level
upper level

Frequency
616
7Percent
17.6
47.1
20.6

Valid Percent
18.2
48.5
21.2

Cumulative
Percent
18.2
66.7
87.9

7

4
Total

femaleMissing
Total
Valid

Missing

4
33
1
34
7
8
2
3
20
1
21

Systemlower level
mid level
upper level
4
Total
System

Total

11.8
97.1
2.9
100.0
33.3
38.1
9.5
14.3
95.2
4.8
100.0

12.1
100.0

100.0

35.0
40.0
10.0
15.0
100.0

35.0
75.0
85.0
100.0

Organization Type Most of the respondents belong to private sectors in both the gender categories.76.5% of themale respondents and 66.7% of the female respondents belong to the private sector job. The public sector share is
5.9% for male and 4.8% for female. 11.8% respondents of male group and 14.3% respondents of the female
group belong to others’ category(See table 6).
Table 6: Organization Type of professional attachment of respondents
Gendermale

femaleFrequency
Valid

Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Governme
nt
Private

2

5.9

5.9

5.9

26

76.5

76.5

82.4

Others

4

11.8

11.8

94.1
100

6

2

5.9

5.9

Total

34

100.0

100.0

Governme
nt
Private

1

4.8

4.8

4.8

14

66.7

66.7

71.4

Others

3

14.3

14.3

85.7

6

3

14.3

14.3

100.0

Total

21

100.0

100.0

Business Type: 61.8% and 29.4% respondents in male category work in consumer goods and bank/insurancecompanies respectively. 2.9% respondents work in each of real estate and education categories and another 2.9%
work in others organization. In female category 57.1% of the respondents work in consumer goods organizations,
19% work in educational organizations, 9.5% work in bank/insurance organizations, 4.8% in real estatecompanies and remaining 9.5% work in other organizations(See table 7).

Table 7 Business Type
Gendermale

Valid

OthersReal Estate
Bank/Insura
nce
Education

Frequency
10

Percent
2.9

Valid Percent
29.4

Cumulative
Percent
29.4

1

2.9

2.9

32.4

1

29.4

2.9

35.3

1

2.9

2.9

38.2

8

Consumer
goods
Total
female

Valid

21

61.8

61.8

100.0

34

100.0

100.0

Others

2

9.5

9.5

9.5

Real Estate

1

4.8

4.8

14.3

2

9.5

9.5

23.8

4

19.0

19.0

42.9

12

57.1

57.1

100.0

21

100.0

100.0

Bank/Insura
nce
Education
Consumer
Goods
Total

Marital Status & Working Spouse : Majority of the respondents in both categories are married. 76.5% of themale and 57.1% of the female is married. The unmarried rate is 23.5% for male and 33.3% for female. In female
category 9.5% are separated (See table 8).
Table 8 Marital Status
Gendermale

femaleValid

MarriedValid

Unmarried
Total
MarriedFrequency
26

Percent
76.5

Valid Percent
76.5

Cumulative
Percent
76.5

8

23.5

23.5

100.0

34
12

100.0
57.1

100.0
57.1

57.1

7

33.3

33.3

90.5

2

9.5

9.5

100.0

21

100.0

100.0

UnmarriedSeperated
Total

Family Composition: Majority of the male respondents belong to either forms of nuclear familyhusband/wife/children (79.4%), and husband/wife (11.8%). The rest 5.9% belong to other categories. Similarfamily types are observed in female category, where 28.6% belong to husband/wife/children and 38.1% belong
to husband/wife types of nuclear family. The remaining 28.6% belong to other categories(see table 9).

Table 9 family Composition (Group best describes your family)
Gendermale

Valid

Husband/wife
Husband/wife &children
Others
Total

Frequency
4

Percent
11.8

Valid Percent
12.1

Cumulative
Percent
12.1

27

79.4

81.8

93.9
100.0

2

5.9

6.1

33

97.1

100.0

9

Missing

SystemTotal
femaleValid

Husband/wife
Husband/wife &children
OthersMissing

1

2.9

34

100.0

6

28.6

30.0

30.0

8

38.1

40.0

70.0
100.0

6

28.6

30.0

Total

20

95.2

100.0

System

1

4.8

21

100.0

Total

Working Spouse: Spouse of the 67.5% of the male respondents is working, whereas spouses of 42.9% of thefemale respondents are working. The lower rate for working spouse for the female respondents is due to the factthat most of female respondents are aged so their spouses possibly retired from their job. 20.6% male respondents
and 9.5% female respondents reported that thy have elderly care responsibilities (See table 10)
Table 10: Spouse working
Gendermale

ValidfemaleMissing
Total
Valid

Missing
Total

yes
no
5
Total
System
yes
no
3
Total
SystemFrequency
23
6
1
30
4
34
9
7
1
17
4
21

Percent
67.6
17.6
2.9
88.2
11.8
100.0
42.9
33.3
4.8
81.0
19.0
100.0

Valid Percent
76.7
20.0
3.3
100.0

52.9
41.2
5.9
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
76.7
96.7
100.0

52.9
94.1
100.0

Presence of Children: Of the male respondents 73.5% have children. Of them 5.9% have children of the age 3
years or less, 11.8% have 6 to 9 years, 14.7% have 10—to 12 years, and 44.1% have more than 13 years oldchildren. Of the female respondents 9.5% have 10—to 12 years, and 23.8% have more than 13 years old children.
No female respondents have children in the remaining age categories (See table 11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4).
Table 11.1: Children
Gendermale

Valid

MissingyesFrequency
25

Percent
73.5

Valid Percent
80.6

Cumulative
Percent
80.6

no

6

17.6

19.4

100.0

Total

31

91.2

100.0

System

3

8.8

Total
female

Valid

34

100.0

yes

6

28.6

28.6

28.6

no

15

71.4

71.4

100.0

Total

21

100.0

100.0

Frequency
2

Percent
5.9

Valid Percent
100.0

32

94.1

34
21

100.0
100.0

Table 11.2: AgeChild3 yr or less
Gender
male

Valid

yes

Missing

SystemTotal
femaleMissing
SystemTable 11.3: Agechild6 to 9 yrs

Cumulative
Percent
100.0

10Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

yes

4

11.8

Missing

System

30

88.2

34
21

100.0
100.0

Frequency
5

Percent
14.7

Total
femaleMissing
SystemTable 11.4: Agechild10 to 12 yrs
Gender
male

Valid

yes

Missing

SystemTotal
femalePercent

29

85.3

34

100.0

Valid

yes

2

9.5

Missing

System

19

90.5

21

100.0

Total

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

100.0

100.0

Valid Percent
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 11.5 Age Child more than 13 yrs
Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Missing

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Yes

15

44.1

93.8

93.8

5.00

1

2.9

6.3

100.0

Total

16

47.1

100.0

System

18

52.9

34

100.0

5
16
21

23.8
76.2
100.0

Total
femalePercent

Valid

Yes

Missing
Total

System

100.0

100.0

Elderly Dependent: Only 20.6% of the male and 9.5% of the female respondents report that elderly dependent
live with their family (See table 12).
Table 12: Elderly dependant living with you
Gendermale

Valid

Missing
Valid

Missing

Cumulative
Percent
21.2

76.5

78.8

100.0

97.1

100.0

yes

Percent
20.6

no

26

Total

33

System

1

2.9

Total
femaleValid Percent
21.2

Frequency
7

34

100.0

yes

2

9.5

no

17

Total

19

System

2

9.5

21

100.0

Total

10.5

10.5

81.0

89.5

100.0

90.5

100.0

Types of Residence: Majority of the respondents in male category (35.3%) live in own independent house,
29.4% live in own apartment, 20.6% in rented apartment, and 8.8% live in other sorts of residence. Respondents
in female category also have similar types of residential pattern. 38.1% of them live in rented apartment, 33.3%
live in own independent house, 19% live in own apartment and 4.8% live in other types of residential
arrangement (See table 13)
Table 13 Type of Residence

11Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Missing

Own
Independent
House
RentedApartment
Own Apartment

Valid

Missing

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

12

35.3

37.5

37.5

7

20.6

21.9

59.4

10

29.4

31.3

90.6

Others

3

8.8

9.4

100.0

Total

32

94.1

100.0

System

2

5.9

34

100.0

7

33.3

35.0

35.0

8

38.1

40.0

75.0

Total
femalePercent

Own
Independent
House
RentedApartment
Own Apartment

4

19.0

20.0

95.0

Others

1

4.8

5.0

100.0

Total

20

95.2

100.0

System

1
21

4.8
100.0

Total

Working Hour: Of the male respondents only 2.9% have 8 hrs/day work time, whereas 28.6% of the females respondents
have these many hours of work time. The most popular work time for both the male and female respondents is 8 to 10 hrs
per day. 94.1% of the male and 71.4% of the female respondents belong to this category. But compared with female much
more male respondents belong to this work hour category. It appears that male work much more hours than their female
counterparts(See Table 14.). Further s (See table 14.1)

Table 14: Working Hour * Gender Cross tabulation
Gendermale
Working Hour

8 hrs/dayCount
Expected Countfemale

Total

1

6

7

4.3

2.7

7.0

12

% within
Working Hour
% within Gender% of Total
8-10hrs/day

14.3%

85.7%

100.0%

2.9%

28.6%

12.7%

1.8%

10.9%

12.7%

32

15

47

29.1

17.9

47.0

68.1%

31.9%

100.0%

94.1%

71.4%

85.5%

58.2%

27.3%

85.5%

Count
Expected Count% within
Working Hour
% within Gender% of Total

Others

Count

1

0

1

Expected Count

.6

.4

1.0

100.0%.0%

100.0%

2.9%

.0%

1.8%

1.8%

.0%

1.8%

% within
Working Hour
% within Gender% of Total
Total

Count
Expected Count

34

21

55

34.0

21.0

55.0

% within
Working Hour
% within Gender

61.8%

38.2%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%% of Total

61.8%

38.2%

100.0%

Table 14.1: Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Df

8.100(a)
8.537

2
2

.017
.014

5.297

1

.021

55

a 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .38.

Table 15: Gender * Home making time Cross tabulation

Gender

Male

Count
Expected

Less than halfhour/day20
14.6

half to one
hour/day

Home making time
One to two
Two to threehours/dayhours/day
8
1
2

8.9

5.1

3.2

Others

Total
2

33

1.3

33.0

13

Count% within
Gender% withinHomemaking time
% of Total
Female

24.2%

3.0%

6.1%

6.1%

100.0%

87.0%

57.1%

12.5%

40.0%

100.0%

63.5%

38.5%

15.4%

1.9%

3.8%

3.8%

63.5%

3

6

7

3

0

19

8.4

5.1

2.9

1.8

.7

19.0

15.8%

31.6%

36.8%

15.8%

.0%

100.0%

13.0%

42.9%

87.5%

60.0%

.0%

36.5%

5.8%

11.5%

13.5%

5.8%

.0%

36.5%

23

14

8

5

2

52

23.0

14.0

8.0

5.0

2.0

52.0

44.2%

26.9%

15.4%

9.6%

3.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

44.2%

26.9%

15.4%

9.6%

3.8%

100.0%Count
ExpectedCount% within
Gender% withinHomemaking time
% of Total

Total

60.6%

Count
ExpectedCount% within
Gender% withinHomemaking time
% of Total

Home Making Time: It appears from the table that majority 60.6% of the male respondents spend less than 1/2 hour per
day on home making. A good number (24.2%) spend ½ to 1 hour, a marginal number 3.0% spend 1 to 2 hours per day andonly 6.1% spend 2 to 3 hours per day. Conversely, 15.8% of the male respondents spend less than 1/2 hour per day on homemaking. (31.6\%) spend ½ to 1 hour, a marginal number 36.8% spend 1 to 2 hours per day and 15.8% spend 2 to 3 hours
per day. It appears that female respondents spend much higher amount of time than male in all categories of home making
time. As expected females respondents are more involved with home making effort than the male respondents and this also
statistically proved (See table 15). As further statistical analysis (Chi-Square) shows that this difference between male andfemale home making time is statistically significant(see 15.1).
Table 15.1: Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)df

17.015(a)18.580

4
4

.002
.001

5.692

1

.017

52

a 5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .73.

Table 16: Gender * Amount of free time Cross tabulation

less than halfhour/day
Gender

male

Count

4

Amount of free time
half to one
One to two
two to threehour/dayhours/dayhours/day4
11
12

Others

Total
1

32

14

Expected
Count% within
Gender% withinAmount offree time% of Total
female

4.5

3.8

11.5

11.5

.6

32.0

12.5%

12.5%

34.4%

37.5%

3.1%

100.0%

57.1%

66.7%

61.1%

66.7%

100.0%

64.0%

8.0%

8.0%

22.0%

24.0%

2.0%

64.0%

3

2

7

6

0

18

2.5

2.2

6.5

6.5

.4

18.0

16.7%

11.1%

38.9%

33.3%

.0%

100.0%

42.9%

33.3%

38.9%

33.3%

.0%

36.0%

6.0%

4.0%

14.0%

12.0%

.0%

36.0%

7

6

18

18

1

50

7.0

6.0

18.0

18.0

1.0

50.0

14.0%

12.0%

36.0%

36.0%

2.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

14.0%

12.0%

36.0%

36.0%

2.0%

100.0%Count
ExpectedCount% within
Gender% withinAmount offree time% of Total

Total

Count
ExpectedCount% within
Gender% withinAmount offree time% of Total

Amount of Free Time
12.5% of the male respondents enjoy both less than 1/2 hour and ½ to 1 hour free time per day. (34.4\%) enjoys 1 to 2 hours
and 37.5% enjoys 2 to 3 hours free time per day. Conversely, 16.7% of the female respondents enjoy less than 1/2 hour and11.1% enjoys ½ to 1 hour free time per day. Besides, 38.9\% enjoys 1 to 2 hours and 33.3% enjoys 2 to 3 hours free time
per day(see table 16). It is observed that the difference of free time between male and female respondents is not statisticallysignificant as shows by the chi-square test result (p=.932) (See table 16.1).
Table 16.1 Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)df.845(a)
1.171

4
4

.932
.883

.304

1

.581

50

a 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .36.

Table 17: Sleeping Time * Gender Cross tabulation
Gendermale
Sleeping timeLess than 5 hourCount
Expected Countfemale

Total

5

2

7

4.4

2.6

7.0

15

% within Sleepingtime% within Gender% of Total
5-7 hours

Count
Expected Count% within Sleepingtime% within Gender% of Total

7-9 hours

Count
Expected Count% within Sleepingtime% within Gender% of Total

Total

Count
Expected Count

71.4%

28.6%

100.0%

15.2%

10.5%

13.5%

9.6%

3.8%

13.5%

24

15

39

24.8

14.3

39.0

61.5%

38.5%

100.0%

72.7%

78.9%

75.0%

46.2%

28.8%

75.0%

4

2

6

3.8

2.2

6.0

66.7%

33.3%

100.0%

12.1%

10.5%

11.5%

7.7%

3.8%

11.5%

33

19

52

33.0

19.0

52.0

% within Sleepingtime% within Gender

63.5%

36.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%% of Total

63.5%

36.5%

100.0%

Amount of Sleeping Time
15.2% of the male respondents and 10.5% of the female respondents have less than 5 hours of sleeping time per day.
(72.7\%) of the male and 78.9% of the female have 5-7 hours and only 12.1 male and 10.5% female have 7-9 hours of
sleeping time. The most prevalent pattern of sleeping time is 5 to 7 hours for both the gender. It is also seen that female hasless sleeping time in the highest category 7-9 hours per day. Conversely, male has the lowest sleeping time as theirpercentage is a bit higher in the 1lowest patter of sleeping time i.e. 5-7 hours per day (See table 17). However, thedifference sleeping time between male and female respondents is not statistically significant as shows by the chi-square test
result(p=.869) (see table 17.1).
Table 17.1: Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)df.280(a)
.288

2
2

.869
.866

.044

1

.835

52

a 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.19.

Table 18.1: Usage of Dishwashing Machine
Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

yes

10

29.4

30.3

30.3

No

23

67.6

69.7

100.0

16

Missing

Total
SystemTotal
femaleValid

Missing

33
1

97.1
2.9

100.0

34

100.0

yes

7

33.3

35.0

No

12

57.1

60.0

95.0

5

1

4.8

5.0

100.0

Total

20

95.2

100.0

System

1

4.8

21

100.0

Total

35.0

Use of Time Saving Machines: It appears that one third of both the male (29.4%) and female (33.3%)
respondents use dishwashing machine and very few male (11.8/%) and 9.5(%) female use cleaning robot forhome making purpose. It appears that use of time saving machine is yet to become popular among the
respondents(See table 18.1 & 18.2).
Table 17.2: Usage of Cleaning Robot
Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Missing

yes

4

11.8

No

29

Total

33

System

1

2.9

Total
femaleValid

Missing

Percent

Cumulative
Percent

12.1

12.1

85.3

87.9

100.0

97.1

100.0

34

100.0

yes

2

9.5

No

18

Total

20

System

1

4.8

21

100.0

Total

Valid Percent

10.0

10.0

85.7

90.0

100.0

95.2

100.0

Table 19: Free Time Activities
Cases
Valid
Park

N
21

Male
Percent (%)
38.18

N
14

Percent (%)
41.2

N
7

FemalePercent (%)
33.3

17

Movie Hall
15
27.27
7
Museum10
18.18
5
Library
6
10.90
3Long drive
59.09
4Village16
29.09
11
Meeting Friends
16
29.09
8
Meeting28
50.90
15
Relatives*Extracted from Multiple Response Analysis Considering Yes option

20.6
14.7
8.8
11.8
32.4
23.5
44.1

8
5
3
1
5
8
13

38.1
23.8
14.3
4.8
23.8
38.1
61.9

Leisure Practices: Its’ apparent that visiting park is the most common form recreational habit of both the gender.
Spending times with friends, traveling to villages, and meetings relatives are other common form of leisurepractices for the both the gender. A certain level of consistency in leisure practices is observed in all type leisurebehavior of both the male and females respondents. The need for belongingness is found to be higher for female
than the male as female respondents are prone to meet friends (61.9% and relatives (38.1%). The male
respondents are more outward oriented as they are prone to visit parks (41.2%), & villages (32.4%), and loves
long drive (11.8%) than females. Conversely, the female are more indoor oriented as they are more inclined tovisit library, museum and movie hall than males(See table 19).
Table 20: Household Responsibility
Cases
Valid
Cleaning House
Preparing Food
Childcare
Shopping
Managing
Garbage
Washing
OthersMale

Female

N
30
19
15
26
32

Percent
54.54
34.54
27.27
47.27
58.18

N
13
5
9
10
18

Percent
38.2
14.7
26.5
29.4
52.9

N
17
14
7
16
14

Percent
81
66.7
33.3
76.2
66.7

27
7

49.09
12.72

9
6

26.7
17.6

18
1

85.7
4.8

Household Responsibility: Its’ very clear that female respondents’ carry out the major household
responsibilities. Male respondents share is less in all categories compared to female. Men (52.9%) playsignificant role in garbage management with females (66.7). They are least bother about food preparation(14.7%). Its’ seen that washing (85.7%), cleaning house (81%) and shopping (76.2) are primarily females
responsibility. It seems men assist female in cleaning (38.2%), child care (26.5%), washing (26.7%) andshopping (29.4)(see table 20).

Table 21: Work Responsibility
Cases
Valid

Male

Female18

Decision
MakingCommunication
Planning
Coordinating
OthersN
19

Percent
34.54

N
14

Percent
41..2

N
5

Percent
23.8

25
15
22
3

45.45
27.27
40.00
5.45

13
13
12
2

38.2
38.2
35.3
5.9

12
8
10
1

57.1
38.1
47.6
4.8

Work Responsibility: It is clear that men dominate the process of decision making as their involvement(41.2%) is much more than female (23.8%) in this area. Conversely, females are more involved incommunication and coordination. Female (57.1%) involves in communication, whereas male (38.2) takes part incommunication. Female are better coordinator as they (47.6%) perform the job of coordination, whereas male
(35.3%) involve in coordination. Interestingly, male and female have almost equal share in planning thoughmale marginally overpower female in this regard(see table 21).
Table 22: Professional Position of the Respondents

Gendermale

Frequency
Valid

Missing
Valid

Missing

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

lower level

6

17.6

18.2

18.2

mid level

16

47.1

48.5

66.7

upper level

7

20.6

21.2

87.9

others

4

11.8

12.1

100.0

Total

33

97.1

100.0

System

1

2.9

Total
femalePercent34

100.0

lower level

7

33.3

35.0

35.0

mid level

8

38.1

40.0

75.0

upper level

2

9.5

10.0

85.0

Others

3

14.3

15.0

100.0

Total

20

95.2

100.0

System

1

4.8

21

100.0

Total

Management Position: Majority of the male respondents either belong to the mid level (47.1%) or to the upper
level position (20.6%). Conversely, majority of the female respondents belong to either mid-level (38.1) or lower
level (33.3%) positions. Only 9.5% of the female respondents belong to the top level management positions.
This finding corresponds to the income level of male and female respondents. Majority of the male respondent
belongs to the higher income bracket justifying their upper level positions in management level. This finding
also confirms a global report on management, which reports that female participation in top level management is
at lowest in Japan in the whole world(see table 22).

Table 23: Weekly Holiday
Gendermale

Valid

I day/week:
2 days aFrequency
3

Percent
8.8

Valid Percent
8.8

Cumulative
Percent
8.8

31

91.2

91.2

100.0

19

week
female

Valid

Total

34

100.0

100.0

I day/week:

2

9.5

9.5

9.5

19

90.5

90.5

100.0

21

100.0

100.0

2 days a
week
Total

Weekly Holiday: It is apparent that two days weekly holiday is common in Japanese work culture. More than 90
percent respondents enjoy two days holiday in both gender category. Very few respondents 8.8% male and 9.5%
female work in one day weekly holiday culture(see table 23).
Table 24: Nature of job
Gendermale

femaleFrequency
Valid

Valid

Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid Percent

Fulltime

32

94.1

94.1

94.1

Part time
Others
Total

1
1
34

2.9
2.9
100.0

2.9
2.9
100.0

97.1
100.0

Fulltime

15

71.4

71.4

71.4

Part time

5

23.8

23.8

95.2
100.0

Others

1

4.8

4.8

Total

21

100.0

100.0

Nature of Job: Majority of the respondents work full time in both male (94.1%) and female (71.4%) category.
Interestingly, the percentage of part timers are much higher in female category (23.8%) compared to male, which
is only (2.9%). It shows that females do not take professional life seriously in Japanese societies(see table 24).
B. Nature of Inter role Conflict
Table 25: Inter Role Conflict

Descriptive Statistics
N

Minimum

Maximum

33

1.00

5.00

2.5152

1.22783

33

1.00

5.00

2.3182

1.08842

Family to Leisure Conflict

32

1.00

4.00

1.9219.92553

Leisure to Family Conflict

32

1.00

4.00

1.8750.86136

Leisure to Work Conflict

33

1.00

3.00

1.7273.67420

Family to Work Conflict

32

1.00

4.50

1.6875.83037

Valid N (listwise)

31

Work to Family Conflict
Work to leisure Conflict

Mean

Std. Deviation

Its’ apparent that work domain is producing the two most prevalent types of inter role conflicts i.e. work tofamily conflict and work to leisure conflicts. Conversely, family domain’s interference is relatively lower. For
example, family interferes with leisure life (mean value 1.92) and with work with the lowest mean value (1.68)
which is considered as the least prevalent form of inter role conflict. Leisure domain interference with family
and work is also moderate as the corresponding mean values are 1.8 and 1.7 only. Its’ also seen that the intensityof the inter role conflict is not very high as has been indicated by their corresponding mean values. Most of the20

mean values are less than two except for work to family conflict and work to leisure conflict. Only the severest
forms of inter role conflict, work to family conflict has the mean value of more than 2.5. It can be also said that“family” and “leisure” are the two most affected domain of respondents’ life as work the aggressor domain
encroaches both the family and leisure life(see table 25). Gender variation of the conflict is presented in the next
section.

3
2.5
2
1.5
Series11
0.5
0Work toFamilyConflict

Work toleisureConflict

Family to Leisure to Leisure to Family to
LeisureFamilyWork
Work
Conflict
Conflict
Conflict
ConflictFig 1 Inter Role Conflict
C. GENDER VARIATION OF INTER ROLE CONFLICTThe study wishes to study whether the inter role conflict varies gender wise. The results are given below.
Table 26 : Inter Role Conflict: Male

Descriptive Statistics(a)N
19

Minimum
1.00

Maximum
5.00

Mean
2.2632

Std. Deviation
1.34751

19

1.00

5.00

2.15791.26987

18

1.00

4.00

1.8889.94799

19

1.00

3.00

1.6842.73050

Family to Leisure Conflict

18

1.00

3.50

1.6667.80440

Family to Work Conflict

18

1.00

2.50

1.4444.53930

Valid N (listwise)

17

Work to Family Conflict
Work to leisure Conflict
Leisure to Family Conflict
Leisure to Work Conflicta. Gender = male

I. Male Case: The work life being the central focus of the male respondents, male put most emphasize on work.
Consequently, work interferes with family much more intense than family interference with work. Its also seenin this sample that among all the inter role conflicts, male respondents experience work to family conflict mostand family to work conflict least. They also experience work to leisure conflicts to a significant extent andmoderate level of leisure to family and leisure to work conflict. For the male respondents mean values for interrole conflicts are less than 2 for all cases except work to family and work to leisure conflict. The mean value for21

work to family conflict is 2.26 and the standard deviation is 1.34, which means high level of variation in
responses within this variable. The lowest (.53) standard deviation is for family to work conflict, which means
less variation in responses within this variable(see table 26).
Table 27 : Inter Role Conflict: Female

Descriptive Statistics(a)NMinimum

Maximum

14

1.00

5.00

2.8571.98895

14

1.50

4.00

2.5357.77122

Family to Leisure Conflict

14

1.00

4.00

2.2500.99518

Family to Work Conflict

14

1.00

4.50

2.00001.03775

Leisure to Family Conflict

14

1.00

3.00

1.8571.77033

Leisure to Work Conflict

14

1.00

2.50

1.7857.61125

Valid N (listwise)

14

Work to Family Conflict
Work to leisure Conflict

Mean

Std. Deviationa. Gender = female

II. Female Case: Work interference with family is also highest for the female respondents. The mean value is2.85 and standard deviation is .98. Work to leisure conflict is next significant form of inter role conflict withmean 2.53 and standard deviation .77. It seems work also most frequently interferes with family in the lives offemale respondents. The least significant conflict for female is leisure to work conflict with a mean value 1.78
and standard deviation .61 because female do have any leisure as such. Female also experience moderate level offamily to leisure and family to work conflict (mean more than 2), which confirms family still being the central
focus for the female respondents(See table 27).

3
2.5
2
1.5
Male
1

Female0.50Work toFamilyConflict

Work toleisureConflct

Leisure to Leisure to Family to Family to
FamilyWork
LeisureWork
Conflict
Conflct
Conflct
ConflictFig 2 Gender Variation of Inter Role Conflict

Female respondents’ experiences more inter role conflicts than the male respondents in all forms inter role
conflicts. The mean values for conflicts are higher for females than males. For the female respondents mean
22

values for four conflicts are more than two out of six conflicts, whereas for male is male mean values are morethan 2 only for two types of conflict. It is also seen that female respondents have lower standard deviation thanthe male respondents, which means that there are less variation in responses among the female respondents
confirming intensity of the conflict among them. The graphical representation of the conflict is shown in
Figure 2. Though the difference of conflict is apparent its’ to know heather the conflicts are statisticallysignificant, which is discussed in the next section.
III. Significance Test of Gender Variation
Gender variation of conflict is investigated through independent sample T-test. The test results show that no
statistically significant difference in conflict between male and females respondents exists except for work tofamily conflict (p=.154). As has been presented before that work to family conflict is the severest form ofconflict for both the gender. It seems nature and gravity of work to family conflict is different for male andfemale respondents(see table 28). It would be also interesting to know that whether inter role conflict affect theoverall quality of life of the respondents. The next section discusses the issue.

Table 28: Gender variation

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances

F

Work to leisure
Conflict

Equal variances
assumed

2.687

Sig.

.111

Equal variances notassumed
Leisure to Work
Conflict

Equal variances
assumed

.340

.564

Equal variances notassumedFamily to
Leisure Conflict

Equal variances
assumedEqual variances notassumed

.352

.557

T

t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
Mean
Std. Error(2-tailed Differenc Differenc
)
e
e

df

95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

-.985

31

.332

-.37782.38354-1.16006.40442-1.05930.091.298-.37782.35687-1.10655.35091

-.422

31

.676

-.10150.24058-.59217.38916-.434

30.424.668-.10150.23404-.57919.37618-1.83530.076-.58333.31790-1.23256.06590-1.78624.693.086-.58333.32663-1.25647.0898123

Leisure to
Family Conflict

Equal variances
assumed

.681

.416

.102

30

.920

.03175.31196-.60537.66886.104

29.919.917.03175.30383-.58883.65232-1.39431.173-.59398.42624-1.46331.27534-1.46030.999.154-.59398.40673-1.42351.23554-1.96230.059-.55556.28318-1.13388.02277-1.82118.414.085-.55556.30509-1.19550.08439Equal variances notassumedWork to Family
Conflict

Equal variances
assumed

3.302

.079

Equal variances notassumedFamily to Work
Conflict

Equal variances
assumed4.079

Equal variances notassumed.052

The study also wishes to know the predictors and mediators of the inert role conflict. This information would
help to develop management plan for dealing with conflict at personal, corporate, community and state level.
The next section discusses the family and work predictors of the conflict. The next section discusses the issue.
IV. Predictors of Inter Role Conflict
Its’ assumed that the situations and factors in work and family lives trigger inter role conflict. This study tries tofind out the work and family predictors of the conflicts. First the work predictors of conflict are identified
followed by family predictors.

Table 29: Work Predictors of Inter Role Conflict
Cases
Male

Valid
StrictCompany
PolicyExtended work Hr
Fixed work Hr
Nature of Task
Travel Time
FamilyTime
Spend for work
Location of work
Place
InfluenceofColleague

FemaleN
5

Percent
9.09

N3

Percent
9.7

N2

Percent
10

16
1
19
1
6

29.09
1
34.54
1
10.90

10
1
10
1
3

32.3
3.2
32.3
3.2
9.7

6
0
9
0
3

30
0
45
0
15

17

30.90

8

25.8

9

45

13

23.63

6

19.4

3

15

A). Work Predictors of Inter Role Conflict: It is evident that in general work predictor bother more the female
respondents than the male respondents. It appears that extended working hour (32.3%) and nature of task

24

(32.3%) are the two critical factors originated from work domain, which creates inter-role conflict among male
respondents. Location of work place, which determines traveling time from home to office, is another criticalwork predictor of conflict for male respondents. For the female respondents two most critical work predictors ofinter role conflict are nature of task (45%) and location of work (45%). Extended work hour (30%) is also
considered as other predictors of inter role conflict for female respondents. It seems nature of work, extended
work hour and location of work place are generally responsible for inter-role conflicts for both the gender (seetable 29. Next section discusses the family predictors of conflict.
Table 30: Family Predictors of Inter Role Conflict
Cases
Male

Valid
Absence of Joint
FamilyElderly Dependent
in family
Location of
Residence
Unequal Share ofHouseholdresponsibility
No Domestic HelpWork Time spentfor family
Conflictamongfamily members
OthersFemaleN
6Percent
11.05

N
5

Percent
14.7

N1

Percent
4.8

21

40.04

15

44.1

6

28.6

15

28.5

7

20.6

8

38.1

9

17.3

5

14.7

4

19

3
4

5.8
7.5

2
1

5.9
2.9

1
3

4.8
14.3

7

13.5

5

14.7

2

9.5

13

25.00

7

20.6

6

28.6

B). Family Predictors of Inter Role Conflict: Interestingly, it appears that in general family predictors bothermore the male respondents than the female respondents. For example, 14.7% male respondents consider
absence of joint family as cause of inter role conflict whereas only 4.8% female consider it as cause for inter role
conflict. Similarly, presence of elderly dependent is considered as reason for inter role conflict by 44.1% male
respondents and 28.6% female respondents. Conflict among family members affects male more (14.7%) than thefemale (9.5%). Domestic help also bothers male (5.9% more than female (4.8%). What does bother most thefemales? The answer is the location of family residence. 38.1% female respondents consider it as the mostimportant reason of inter role conflict followed by elderly dependent care(28.6%), unequal share of family y
responsibilities (19%) and work time spent for family responsibilities(14.3%). Female respondents want to
reduce commuting time so that they can save time and give it to family or themselves. It is also evident thatelderly dependent care and location of family residence are the two most cited factors causing inter role conflict(see table 30).
V. Mediators of Inter Role Conflict
Inter role conflicts can be neutralized through family factors and work factors which are discussed below.
Table 32: Family Mediators of Inter Role Conflict
Cases
Male

Valid
N

Percent

N

FemalePercent

N

Percent25

Supportive Spouse
Redistribution of
FamilyResponsibility
Relocating ofResidence
Pleasant
interaction
withjoint family
Others

31
16

56.36
29.09

19
9

55.9
26.5

12
7

57.1
33.3

7

12.72

1

2.9

6

28.6

6

10.90

6

17.6

0

0

7

12..72

4

11.8

3

14.3

A). Family Mediators of Inter Role Conflict: The female respondents (57.11%) consider supportive spouse as
the most effective tool for resolving conflict followed by redistribution of family responsibilities (33.3%), andrelocation of residence (28.6%). Male respondents (55.9%) also consider supportive spouse as the most effective
followed by re-distribution of family responsibilities (26.5%) and pleasant interaction with joint family members(17.6%). It is also observed that supportive spouse and redistribution of family responsibility are two mosteffective factors. It is observed that female respondents also consider the family mediators more seriously thanthe male respondents, which means female respondents desire to resole the inter role conflict is more intensethan the male respondents (see table 32).
B). Work Mediators of Inter Role Conflict: It appears that work mediators of inter role conflicts are more
appreciated by the female respondents. Flexible working hour is considered as the most effective by (52.4%) of
the female respondents followed by supportive manager, supportive co-worker, and team work by 38.1%, 33.3%,
and 23.8 female respondents respectively. Male respondents (35.3%) consider good working condition as themost effective followed by supportive manager (23.5%), team work (20.6%), supportive co-worker (20.6%) andflexible working hour (17.6%). Its’ observed that only good working condition is considered more effective by
male respondents (35.3%) than the female respondents (14.3%). In all other categories, female considers work
mediators more effective than the males. It would be interesting to see the reactions of both the gender to family
mediators(see table 33).
Table 33: Work Mediators of Inter Role Conflict
Cases
Male

Valid
FamilyCounselingWork CounselingSupportive
manger
Flexible working
HourCollective
Decision Making
Team WorkGood
Working
Condition
Supportive
Co-Worker

FemaleN
4

Percent
7.27

N2

Percent
5.9

N2

Percent
9.5

3
16

5.45
29.09

0
8

0
23.5

3
8

14.3
38.1

17

30.90

6

17.6

11

52.4

5

9.09

3

8.8

2

9.5

12
15

21.81
27.27

7
12

20.6
35.3

5
3

23.8
14.3

14

25.45

7

20.6

7

33.3

26

It would be also interesting to know that whether inter role conflict affect the overall quality of life of the
respondents.
D. LIFE SATISFACTION AND INTER ROLE CONFLICT
Its’ assumed that inter role conflict situation may affect over all life satisfaction of the employees. Lifesatisfaction is an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s life at a particular point in time ranging
from negative to positive. It is one of the three major indicators of well-being: life satisfaction, positive affect,
and negative affect (Diener, 1984). This study also explores the overall life satisfaction situation of the Japanese
executives, which is discussed below.

3.55
3.5
3.45
Series1
3.4
3.35
3.3
Male

FemaleTotal

Fig 3 Life satisfaction

Interestingly, its’ seen that female experience higher level life satisfaction than the male respondents (see Fig 3).
It shows that even though female experience higher level of conflict than the males, they do embrace life morepositively than the males. It is also a fact that while men have one major preoccupation in life i.e. work, female
embraces both work and family life, which means female has two sources of satisfaction, while men has only one
i.e. work. As a result dissatisfaction in one domain can easily offset by the satisfaction from other domain. As
seen from the descriptive table 34 mean of the item,
Table 34: Life Satisfaction
Gendermale

Descriptive Statistics

I have a very enjoyable leisure life
I am equally involved in-and equallysatisfied with-my work, leisure and myfamily life
I believe that my simultaneously
involvement in multiple work and familyroles is beneficial for my physical, mental,
and social health
I can confidently say that I am happy withwhat I am and What I have
Valid N (list wise)N

Minimum

Maximum

34

1

5

Mean
3.35

Std. Deviation
1.041

34

2

5

3.26

.751

34

2

5

3.62

.985

34

1

5

3.09

.965

34

27

femaleI have a very enjoyable leisure life
I am equally involved in-and equallysatisfied with-my work, leisure and myfamily life
I believe that my simultaneously
involvement in multiple work and familyroles is beneficial for my physical, mental,
and social health
I can confidently say that I am happy withwhat I am and What I have
Valid N (list wise)

21

1

5

3.29

1.146

21

2

5

3.38

1.024

21

1

5

3.90

1.179

21

1

5

3.29

1.189

21

“I believe that my simultaneously involvement in multiple work and family roles is beneficial for my physical,
mental, and social health” for men is 3.62, while for female is 3.90. The mean score of the item, “I am equally
involved in-and equally satisfied with-my work, leisure and my family” for male is lower (3.26) than female (3.38). It
confirms the earlier propositions that females’ multiple role involvement assist them in coping with life stress ingeneral. Its’ also observed that standard deviation of the female respondents are mostly more than 1, whereas formale respondents for most of the item the standard deviations are less than 1, which means that male respondents
are more consistent about their responses. However, the gender difference in life satisfaction is not foundstatistically significant by Independent Sample T Test as shown in table 35.

Table: 35: Gender Difference of Life satisfaction Independent Samples T-Test
Levene's Test
for Equalityof Variancest-test for Equality of Means
Std.
Sig.
Mean
Error
(2-tailed Differen Differen
F
Sig.
T
Df
)
ce
ce

Life
satisfaction

Equal variances
assumedEqual variances
not assumed

.480

.494

95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

-.555

31

.583

-.14098.25420-.65942.37747

-.529

22.81
1

.602

-.14098.26635-.69222.41027

It would be interesting to know whether there is any relation between life satisfactions and inter role conflict.
This research specifically tries to find out that how the six different forms of inter role conflicts actually impact

28

life satisfaction of the respondents and whether the impact differs for male and female. In order to see thedifference a regression model is developed considering both the gender which is presented below.
Inter Role Conflict & Life Satisfaction
Now it’s to know whether inter role conflicts affect the life satisfaction of the respondents. The impact of interrole conflicts is assessed by a regression model, where quality of life LS is considered as independent variable
and six inter role conflicts are treaded as independent variables. Two regressions models are developed one formale and other for female. Regression model was used to test the relationship between the inter role conflict andquality of life of the respondents.
Table 36
GenderModel Summary(c)
Model

male

1

female1

R
SquareR.856(a).733

Adjusted
R SquareStd. Error of
the Estimate.572

DurbinWatson

Change Statistics
R Square
Change.733.42519

F
Chang
e
4.570

df1
6

df2
10

Sig. F Change
.017

2.577

.895(b).800.629.51298
.800
4.681
6
7
.031
1.740
a Predictors: (Constant), Family to Work Conflict, Work to leisure Conflict, Leisure to Work Conflict, Leisure to Family Conflict, Family to Leisure
Conflict, Work to Family Conflictb Predictors: (Constant), Family to Work Conflict, Work to leisure Conflict, Leisure to Family Conflict, Family to Leisure Conflict, Leisure to Work
Conflict, Work to Family Conflictc Dependent Variable: Quality of Life

Table 37:
Gendermale

femaleANOVA(c)
Model
1

1

Sum ofSquaresdf

Mean Square

Regression

4.957

6

.826

Residual

1.808

10

.181

Total

6.765

16

Regression

7.390

6

1.232

F

Sig.

4.570

.017(a)4.681.031(b)As the results indicate (see table 37) the models are significant at P=.017(F=) and P=.31(F=) respectively formale and female and explains 57.2% and 62.9% of the variation in the dependent variable respectively for maleand female model (see table 36).Three conflicts namely, ‘leisure to work’, ‘work to family’ and ‘family to work’
emerged as significant to influence the life satisfaction of males and other three conflicts, “work to leisure’,‘family to leisure” and ‘work to family” proved to be significant to influence the quality of life of females. . The
standardized betas indicate that the greatest impact on life satisfaction of the male respondents caused by work tofamily conflict and family to work conflict and on life satisfaction of the female caused by work to leisureconflict and work to family conflict(see table 38).
Table 38
GenderModel

Coefficients(a)Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

t

Sig.

29

male

female1(Constant)

2

Work to leisure
Conflct
Leisure to Work
Conflct
Family to
Leisure Conflct
Leisure to
Family Conflict
Work to Family
Conflict
Family to Work
Conflict(Constant)

Work to leisure
Conflict
Leisure to Work
Conflict
Family to
Leisure Conflict
Leisure to
Family Conflict
Work to Family
Conflict
Family to Work
Conflict
a. Dependent Variable: Life satisafction

B
4.603

Std. Error
.460

-.176

.132

.216

Beta
10.002

.000

-.355

-1.331

.213

.148

.250

1.459

.175

.433

.370

.540

1.172

.268

-.058

.119

-.085

-.487

.636

-.348

.222

-.722

-1.565

.149

-.692

.297

-.592

-2.332

.042

4.794

.653

7.343

.000

-.909

.240

-.832

-3.790

.007

.098

.334

.071

.293

.778

-.315

.169

-.372

-1.867

.104

-.064

.229

-.058

-.278

.789

.691

.212

.-810

3.260

.014

-.137

.204

-.169

-.671

.524

The items, which measures the six types of inter role conflicts are presented in the following table. The table also
shows the item mean, standard deviation, and alpha values.
Table 39:

Scale Description
Item Statistics

Scale
Work-Leisur
e Conflict

Leisure-Wor
k Conflict

Items
For all the work demands, I am too
stressed to do the things I enjoy
My job makes it difficult for me torelax when I'm away from work
I cannot concentrate on my work for
my pre-occupation with leisureactivities.
I'm often feel tired at work for myparticipation in late night parties

Mean

S.D.

2.48

1.17

2.11

1.00

2.53

1

2.35

Scale Statistics
Alpha

Mean

S.D.

0.751

4.59

1.95
7

0.379

3.71

1.39

1.16

30

Family-Leisu
re Conflict

Leisure-Family Conflict

Work-Family
conflict

Family-Work
Conflict

I cannot enjoy my favorite TV
program because I have to remain
busy
After completing my family
responsibilities, I hardly get any freetime
Unable to participate in the family
activities because of recreational
activities
I am pre-occupied with recreational
activities, so I cannot concentrate on
familyMy job keeps me away from myfamily too much
My family's unhappiness about thework time
Due to stress at home, I am
preoccupied with family matters atwork
I often feel tired because of work at
home

1.91

1.13

2.07

1.01

2.13

1.12

1.58

.770

2.58

1.24

2.38

1.25

1.67

.777

1.93

0.821

3.98

1.91

0.69

3.72

1.69

0.83

4.96

2.31
7

0.642

3.59

1.59

1.061

Its’ apparent from the table that alpha values for most of the scales are more than .60, which are acceptableaccording to nually(70). The scale mean is the highest for work family conflict and lowest for leisure work
conflict. Item mean is the highest for the item, “My job keeps me away from my family too much”, which alongwith the item, “My family's unhappiness about the work time” constitute the work family conflict scale.

E. GENDER WISE VARIATION IN WORK FAMILY CONFLICT(WFC) IN RESPECT TO
SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE
It is to know that whether inter role conflict relates to different life situations of the employees. Out of six typesof inter role conflicts, work family conflict is chosen as this is the conflict which actually varies gender wise.
One way Anova test is performed to see whether variation in work family conflict is observed in respect todifferent categories of working hour, home making time and free time. Its’ seen that work family conflict is not
related to different categories of actual working hour for both the male and female respondents as p value is morethan .05(see table 40 & 41).
ANOVA
Table 40: WFC VS Actual Working Hour MaleSum ofSquaresdf

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

31

Between Groups

8.288

2

4.144

Within Groups

24.396

16

1.525

Total

32.684

18

2.718

.096

F

Sig.

.265

.773

Table 41 WFC VS Actual Working Hour Female
Sum ofSquares

Mean
Squaredf

Between Groups

.500

2

.250

Within Groups

8.500

9

.944

Total

9.000

11

Work Family Conflict also does not relate to home making time for male and female respondents as p value ismore than .05(see table 42 & 43).
ANOVA
Table 42. WFC VS Home Making time: MaleSum ofSquares

Df

Mean Square

Between Groups

2.351

3

.784

Within Groups

30.333

15

2.022

Total

32.68418

Table 43. WFC VS Home Making time: Female
Sum ofSquares
Df
Between Groups
1.042
2Within Groups
7.958
10
Total

9.000

Mean Square
.521

F

Sig.
.388

.764

.654

Sig.
.541

F

.796

12

Interestingly work family conflict relates to amount of free time for both the male and female respondents as pvalues are less than .05(see table 43 & 44).
ANOVA
Table 43 WFC VS Free Time

Between Groups

Sum ofSquares
20.872

Within Groups
Total

df
4

Mean Square
5.218

11.81314.844

32.684

18

F
6.184

Sig.
.004

F
5.901

Sig.
.016

Table 44 WFC VS Free Time

Between Groups

Sum ofSquares
5.967

df
3

Mean Square
1.989
.337

Within Groups

3.033

9

Total

9.000

12

VI. CONCLUSIONS:

32

This report explores different aspects of Japanese work, family and leisure life. It is seen that work and family
lives of Japanese workers are different in many respects. The highlight of findings are presented below insummarized form:
1.

The male executives are more educated than the females. Though more females have higher degree thanmales, the rate of education for males is higher than females.

2. The income levels of the male respondents are consistently higher in all income categories than thefemale respondents
3. The male executives dominate the females in all categories of job positions i.e. male executives holdhigher positions in management than the female executives.
4. Most of the executives work in consumer goods industry in private sector.
5. Most of the respondents in both categories are married
6. Majority of the male respondents belong to either forms of nuclear family husband/wife/children andhusband/wife. Very few executives have dependent care responsibilities and most of them live inapartments.
7. Majority of the male executives have working spouse, where spouses of less than fifty female executives
are working.
8. Majority of the male respondents have children. Most of the children are 13 years or more, whereas
majority of the female respondents have children more than 13 years old.
9. Most of the executives belong to nuclear family as very few of The tendency of the respondents.
10. The most common pattern of working hour for both male and female executives is 8-10 hours per day.
However, most men work more hours than female as percentage of men working 8-10 hours is more thanfor male than for female. Statistical analysis shows that the difference between male and female work hour issignificant.

11. Female respondents spend much higher amount of time than male in all categories of home making time and thedifference is statistically significant.

12. No gender difference is found in respect to enjoyment of free hours between the gender. The most common patternof free hours is 5-7 hours.

13. The use time saving machine is not very common among the executives.
14. The male respondents are more outward oriented as they are more prone to visit parks & villages andloves long drive than females. Conversely, the female are more indoor oriented as they are more inclined
to visit library, museum and movie hall than males.

3315. Female respondents’ carry out the major household responsibilities. Male executives involves withgarbage management. Its’ seen that washing, cleaning house and shopping are primarily females
responsibility.
16. Men dominate the process of decision making. Conversely, females are more involved in communicationand coordination.
17. Majority of the male respondents either belong to the mid level or to the upper level position. Conversely,
majority of the female respondents belong to either mid-level or lower level position.
18. Majority of the respondents work full time and two days weekly holiday are common in Japanese society.
19. Extended working hour and nature of task are the two most common work predictors of conflict for maleand location of work (commenting time form home to office) is for female.
20. Female respondents want to reduce commuting time so that they can save time and give it to family orthemselves. So elderly dependent care and location of family residence are the two most cited factors
causing inter role conflict for female. Interestingly, it appears that in general family predictors bothermore the male respondents than the female respondents.
21. Work mediators of inter role conflicts are more appreciated by the female respondents. Flexible working
hour is considered as the most effective by the female executives whereas good working condition isconsidered more effective by male respondents
22. Supportive spouse is considered as the most effective family mediators of conflict.
23. Its’ apparent that work interference with other domain of life i.e. family and leisure is most common as
work to family conflict and work to leisure conflicts are most prevalent.
24. In general, work interferes with family is much more intense than family interference with work. Male
respondents experience work to family conflict most and family to work conflict least.
25. Work interference with family is also highest for the female respondents.
26. Female respondents’ experiences more inter role conflicts than the male respondents in all forms interrole conflicts. Its’ proved that the nature and gravity of work to family conflict is different for male andfemale respondent.
27. Female executives experience higher level life satisfaction than the male respondents. However, thegender difference in life satisfaction is not found statistically significant
28. The greatest impact on life satisfaction of the male respondents caused by work to family conflict andfamily to work conflict and on life satisfaction of the female caused by work to leisure conflict and work
to family conflict.

3429. Work family conflict does not vary in respect to different categories of actual working hour and homemaking time for both the male and female respondents. However, work family conflict varies in respect
to availability of free hour for both gender.

FINAL COMMENTS
Kuroda (2010) showed that Japanese people’s average sleeping time is declining since 1970s. Compared to 30
years ago Japanese men and female sleep four and three fewer hours respectively. OECD 2009 reports also
showed that Japanese average sleeping hour is the second shortest after South Korea among 18 countries, which
signals extended working hour in Japanese society for both male and female employees. This signals thatJapanese executives are over worked and over stressed, which force them to sleepless night. This study finds also
proves like previous studies (Watai et al,.2008) that flexible time is helpful for the workers to maintain work life
balance. This research also traced the presence of work family conflict in the lives of Japanese executives.
Greenhaus & Beutell (1985) first introduced the concept of work family conflict to denote the work interferencewith family and vice versa. Frone et a., (1992) identified different predictors and outcome of work family
conflict. This study also finds that extended work hours and nature of work are predictors of work family conflict
and flexible time and convenient work locations are mediators of conflict.

At the end it can be said that though this study explores the issues of inter role conflict in the lives of Japanese
executives, further research is required with bigger sample size to identify different dimension of inter role
conflict not only for executives but also for different other professionals groups. Its’ seen that out of six possible
types of conflict, work family conflict is most researched. So future research should focus more on other types ofinter role conflicts.

35

REFERENCES

Bianchi, S. M, 2000. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor.Social
Forces, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 191–228.
Ezawa, Aya. 2006. Ezawa, Aya, “How Japanese Single Mothers Work,” Japanstudien, 18; special issue on“How Japan Works,” edited by René Haak: 59-83
Frone MR, Russell M and Cooper LM,(1992), Antecedents and Outcomes of Work Family Conflict: Testing a
Model of the Work-Family Interface. J Appl Psychol 77,65-78(192a)
Fuess, Harald. 2004. Divorce in Japan. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Garon, Sheldon. 2010. “State and Family in Modern Japan: A Historical Perspective.” Economy and Society,
39:3, 317-336
Genda Y 2013 Koritsu Mugaesha, Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo
Goode, William. 1963. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Basic Books.

36

Greenhaus JH and Beutell NJ, 1985 Sources of Conflict between Work and Family roles, Academy ofManagement Revenue 10, 76-88
Hertog, Ekaterina. 2008. “’The worst abuse against a child is the absence of a parent’: how Japanese unwed
mothers evaluate their decision to have a child outside wedlock.” Japan Forum v20, 2: 193-217.
Ikeda S, 2007, Employment Management in Companies and Family-friendly support. In: The Japan Institute forLabor Policy and Training, ed.Project research series. No 7, Work and Life. Tokyo: JILPT, 2007:48-120.
Ikezoe H, 2014 Work life Balance in Japan: Outline of Policies,Legal Systems and Actual Situations, Japan
Labor Review, Vol 11, Number 1, Winter 2014
Kuroda S 2010 Do Japanese work shorter than before? Measuring trends in market work and leisure using
1976-2006 Japanese Time Use surveys, Journal of Japanese and International Economies, 24 No 4: 481-502.
MHLW (Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare). 2008. Heisei 19 Nenban Hataraku Josei no Jitsujô (Situation ofWorking Women, 2007). Available at http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2008/03/h0328-1.html
MHLW. 2009a. Shigo to seikatsu no chôwa (wa-ku rairu baransu) to kôkyaku ne-zu ni kan suru ishiki chôusa nokouhyô ni tsuite [Results of a survey of attitudes regarding consumer needs and work-life harmonization (work-lifebalance). Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Government of Japan
Ochiai, Emiko. 1997. The Japanese Family System in Transition. Kyoto: International Research Center for JapaneseStudies.

Ogasawara, Yuko. 1998. Office Ladies and Salaried Men: Gender, Power and Work in Japanese Companies.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Ozawa, Mari. 2002. Twelve Million Full-Time Housewives: The Gender Consequences of Japan’s Postwar
Social Contract. In Social Contracts Under Stress: The Middle Classes of America, Europe, and Japan at theTurn of the 4 Century, edited by Oliver Zunz, Leonard Schoppa, and Nobuhiro Hiwatari. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation; 255-277
Sato, Hiroki, Osawa Mari, and Charles Weathers. 2001. “’Atypical’ and ‘Irregular’ Labour in Contemporary Japan:
The Authors Debate.” Social Science Japan Journal 4: 219–223
Statistics Sweden, 2009. Harmonized European Time Use Survey: web application.
https://www.testh.scb.se/tus/tus .
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009. Charts from the American Time Use Survey.
http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/home.htm.
Watai I, Nishikido N & Murashima S, 2008, Gender Difference in Work and Family Conflcit among Japanese
Information Technology Engineers with Pre-school Children, Journal of Occupational Health, 50-317-327

37

Appendix 1
Population

Age structure

Dependency ratios

Median age
Population growth rate
Birth rate
Death rate

Japan At A Glance
127,253,075 (July 2013 est.)
0-14 years: 13.4% (male 8,808,568/female 8,204,514)
15-24 years: 9.7% (male 6,394,809/female 5,958,408)
25-54 years: 38.3% (male 24,149,308/female 24,588,409)
55-64 years: 13.8% (male 8,785,719/female 8,786,968)
65 years and over: 24.8% (male 13,656,792/female 17,919,580) (2013 est.)
total dependency ratio: 61.6 %youth dependency ratio: 21.1 %elderly dependency ratio: 40.5 %potential support ratio: 2.5 (2013)
total: 45.8 years
male: 44.4 years
female: 47.2 years (2013 est.)-0.1% (2013 est.)
8.23 births/1,000 population (2013 est.)
9.27 deaths/1,000 population (2013 est.)

38

Net migration rate

0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2013 est.)
urban population: 91.3% of total population (2011)
Urbanization
rate of urbanization: 0.57% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)
TOKYO (capital) 36.507 million; Osaka-Kobe 11.325 million; Nagoya 3.257
Major cities - population
million; Fukuoka-Kitakyushu 2.809 million; Sapporo 2.673 million (2009)at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
0-14 years: 1.08 male(s)/female
15-24 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
Sex ratio
25-54 years: 0.98 male(s)/female
55-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.76 male(s)/female
total population: 0.95 male(s)/female (2013 est.)
Mother's mean age at first birth 29.4 (2007 est.)
total: 2.17 deaths/1,000 live births
Infant mortality rate
male: 2.4 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 1.92 deaths/1,000 live births (2013 est.)
total population: 84.19 years
Life expectancy at birthmale: 80.85 years
female: 87.71 years (2013 est.)
Total fertility rate
1.39 children born/woman (2013 est.)
54.3%
Contraceptive prevalence rate
note: percent of women aged 20-49 (2005)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence
less than 0.1% (2009 est.)
rate
HIV/AIDS - people living with
8,100 (2009 est.)
HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS - deaths
fewer than 100 (2009 est.)
improved:
urban: 100% of population
Drinking water source
rural: 100% of population
total: 100% of population (2010 est.)
improved:
urban: 100% of population
Sanitation facility accessrural: 100% of population
total: 100% of population (2010 est.)
noun: Japanese (singular and plural)
Nationality
adjective: JapaneseJapanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%
Ethnic groups
note: up to 230,000 Brazilians of Japanese origin migrated to Japan in the 1990s
to work in industries; some have returned to Brazil (2004)
Shintoism 83.9%, Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%
Religionsnote: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people belong to both
Shintoism and Buddhism (2005)39

Languages

Japanesedefinition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
Literacy
male: 99%
female: 99% (2002)
total: 15 years
School life expectancy
male: 16 years(primary to tertiary education)
female: 15 years (2010)
Education expenditures
3.8% of GDP (2010)Maternal mortality rate
5 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)
Health expenditures
9.3% of GDP (2011)
Physicians density
2.14 physicians/1,000 population (2008)
Hospital bed density
13.7 beds/1,000 population (2009)
Obesity - adult prevalence rate 5% (2008)
Source: CIA World Factbook

40