1 Introduction

The present study addresses the issue of well-being in the work domain and examines the role played by gender and status on the most relevant psychosocial constructs that characterise workplace experiences. Work-related well-being is a specific facet of subjective well-being that can be defined as a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state referred to the workplace experience (Bakker et al. 2008). Well-being at work is most commonly conceptualized as job satisfaction: if life satisfaction represents a global measure of subjective well-being (Diener 2000), job satisfaction refers to well-being in one particular domain, i.e. the occupational context (Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010; Thompson and Phua 2012). Job satisfaction has been defined as an individual’s perception of how desired outcomes match expected outcomes in his or her job situation (Oshagbemi 1999). High levels of satisfaction stem from a positive evaluation of how consistent work goals are with work demands and activities (Hill 2009). Indeed, when individuals respond to questions about their overall job satisfaction, they make judgments about the extent to which their job meets what they want and need from an occupation (Magee 2013).

Research has suggested a set of constructs that are related to job satisfaction. Among these constructs, one of the most relevant is work alienation. In organization studies, alienation refers to a psychological state of estrangement from work (Kanungo 1979), which implies distancing or detachment from occupational tasks (Organ and Greene 1981). In their recent meta-analysis, Chiaburu et al. (2014) provided convincing evidence that alienation represent a key concept in the study of employees’ well-being, as it predicts important attitudes (e.g. organizational commitment, job insecurity), withdrawal and health outcomes (e.g. absenteeism, intent to quiet, burnout), and even contextual performance (e.g. task performance, antagonistic behaviour).

Another relevant issue connected to well-being at work is the balance between paid work and private life. Although some scholars have recently investigated the positive interdependence between work and family roles (Greenhaus and Powell 2006), most studies have addressed such interdependence focusing especially on the construct of work-family conflict. Work–family conflict has been described as the result of incompatible pressures from an individual’s work and family roles (Cinamon and Rich 2002). It occurs when an individual encounters demands associated with one domain that are incompatible with demands associated with the other domain (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). In this perspective, the basic premise is that people have a fixed amount of time and energy, and thus the more roles they have to fulfil, the greater the need to set priorities and negotiate with other parties and, consequently, the greater the stress of meeting all expectations (Barnett 1998; Greenhaus and Singh 2004). Moreover, although a level of conflict between work and family life may be inevitable for people attempting to balance many different and time-consuming roles, the conflict is intensified in those workers who have a high centrality of the family role: the occupation is not assessed and considered to be anything other than an intrusion on the family role (Carlson and Kacmar 2000; Cinamon and Rich 2002).

In addition to individual factors, work places present structural constraints that can influence workers’ well-being. As Kanungo (1982) underlined, the perception of individual control and power over the work environment is a precondition for removing work alienation and increasing well-being. Indeed, the existence of mechanisms to voice opinions, i.e. decision participation, fosters employees’ opportunity to take ownership of their projects, which increases their engagement in the organization and their task, which ultimately leads to higher well-being (Chiaburu et al. 2014).

2 Occupational Status and Work-Related Well-Being

Although some scholars have documented higher levels of stress among professional or managerial workers, compared to lower-status workers (Moen and Yu 2000; Schieman et al. 2006), most studies yield the broad consensus that higher-status work conditions have positive effects on well-being (e.g. Booth and Van Ourse 2009; Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010; Clark et al. 2008; Salinas-Jiménez et al. 2013). In his classical study on job satisfaction, Gruenberg (1980) found that, compared to blue collar occupations, white collar occupations entailed fewer routinized job characteristics such as autonomy to plan, opportunities to learn, and chances to use one’s competences. Subsequently, the intrinsic gratification produced by these job conditions was the most powerful predictor of overall job satisfaction.

Indeed, prestige jobs are more likely to involve direction and planning. Individuals holding high-status occupations experience professional, nonroutine, and autonomous working conditions, associated with greater authority and pay (Riley and Keith 2004). Such conditions allow workers to develop a greater sense of control in their work than those who are less involved, which in turn leads them having a higher level of job satisfaction (Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010). On the contrary, lower occupational status and educational level are usually associated with higher physical stress, greater lack of job control and lower job satisfaction (Niezborala et al. 2003; Salinas-Jiménez et al. 2013).

The occupational status plays a relevant role also on work alienation. Since this concept refers to a psychological state of estrangement from work (Kanungo 1979), high-status workers should show lower alienation, as they are more engaged and autonomous in their job. Actually, empirical research confirms that the professional and managerial workers are the least alienated (Banai and Reisel 2003; Chiaburu et al. 2013). Moreover, the status influences the perception and the experience of the structural constraints of the organization. Indeed, the decision-making processes, which are so relevant for workers’ engagement and well-being (Chiaburu et al. 2014), are strongly connected to the occupational status, as low-status workers feel a lack of job autonomy and perceive a limited freedom to have an impact on their activities (Chiaburu et al. 2013). Particular types of work situation, such as machines, assembly lines, and continuous-process production, which are prerogative of low-status occupations, show a direct association with alienation and low decision-making (McKinlay and Marceau 2011). In low-skilled jobs, workers feel alienated and not involved in their work, because they seem to assume not to make a significant contribution to the core functions of the organization (Halbesleben and Clark 2010).

In sum, holding positions of greater autonomy and responsibility seems to have positive effects on work-related well-being. However, an alternative perspective has driven the attention to the potential costs of high status. According to Schieman et al. (2006), people in higher-status work conditions are exposed to a higher level of a particular chronic stressor: the work-family conflict. Based on studies that documented this conflict among professional or managerial workers (Grzywacz et al. 2002; Moen and Yu 2000), these authors suggest the stress of higher status hypothesis: since high-status workers have more job demands, they also experience conditions, such as working longer hours, which foster work-family conflict. In line with the stress of higher status hypothesis, Schieman et al. (2006) found that among a large sample of Canadian workers both men and women in higher-status jobs reported higher levels of work-family conflict than those in lower-status occupations. Divergent results were obtained by Lyonette et al. (2007), who examined work-life conflict in men and women with manual versus managerial roles in two different European countries, i.e. Portugal and Great Britain. They found that two groups experienced very high levels of work-family conflict: routine and manual women in Portugal and professional and managerial women in Britain. These differences were explained referring to the national contexts, as Portugal and Britain are different in terms of attitudes toward gender roles and the domestic division of labor. Specifically, long hours of domestic work and lack of support from partners and networks would contribute to the conflict showed by Portuguese women working in manual jobs, whereas the increasing work demands experienced by British women would contribute to their high level of work-family conflict (Lyonette et al. 2007).

3 A Gender Lens on Well-Being at Work

It is well established that gender is a powerful differentiator of experiences in the workplace (e.g. Bond et al. 2004; Michael et al. 2009; Ngo et al. 2014; Salinas-Jiménez et al. 2013; Yoo 2003). Although women’s involvement in higher education and in the labor market has increased noticeably in the industrialized countries (Chao and Rones 2007), research on the gendered patterns in workplaces still demonstrates differences in career success and occupational sex segregation, both across occupations and within occupational categories (Bond et al. 2004). Women face both the “glass ceiling”, i.e. the invisible barrier that keeps women from rising higher status roles, regardless of their qualifications and competences, and the “sticky floor”, i.e. the absence of career movements beyond the initial entry-level job (Cotter et al. 2001).

Many studies have addressed the issue of well-being at work from a gender perspective. Considering the above described disparities, female workers, compared to their male counterparts, should report lower levels of job satisfaction and should experience higher alienation and work-family conflict. However, findings are equivocal. Most studies identify women as experiencing higher levels of stress and lower levels of job satisfaction (Wilks and Neto 2013; Clawson et al. 2009; Matud 2004; Osorio et al. 2003; Pines and Zaidman 2003; Tytherleigh et al. 2007). Nonetheless, some research across different countries reports that women have equal or even greater levels of overall job satisfaction compared with men (Lowe 2007; Magee 2013; Shields 2006). These results have been considered paradoxical because women tend to receive fewer job-related resources than do men (Cranford et al. 2003; Magee 2013; Phelan 1994). Two possible explanations have been advanced. First, in respect to men, women might have lower expectations concerning their jobs and their career aspirations (Heinz et al. 2005). Second, female workers might make their comparisons against the labor market positions of other women, rather than all employees, and thus feel comparatively more satisfied (Magee 2013; Phelan 1994).

Despite the relevance of gender on work-related issues, surprisingly in research on work alienation gender has all but disappeared. Indeed, in many recent studies data are collected from male workforce (Shantz et al. 2014) or participants’ gender is even not specified (i.e. Ceylan and Sulu 2011; Sookoo 2014; Sulu et al. 2010). One of the few exception is represented by the meta-analysis of Chiaburu et al. (2014): although their work was not focused on gender, the relationship between gender and work alienation was tested and no significant evidence was found.

Instead, a large body of research from a gender perspective has specifically focused on the role played by the work-family conflict, i.e. the experience of activities related to work that interfere with family responsibilities. Studies which have examined gender differences in work-family conflict have shown mixed results, but generally report that women experience greater conflict than men (e.g. Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010; Cinamon and Rich 2002; Colombo and Ghislieri 2008; Cortese et al. 2010; Duxbury and Higgins 1994; Gutek et al.1991; Lyonette et al. 2007; Van Veldhoven and Beijer 2012). These results are usually explained in the light of social norms and stereotypes. As the role congruity theory of prejudice underlines, the social context affects the level of work-family conflict through descriptive and injunctive norms (Eagly and Karau 2002). Such norms, held by individuals themselves, or by others in the work environment, prescribe what a good parent—and especially a good mother—is or should be like and thus intensify the conflict when individuals fail to match the prescribed roles (Heilman and Okimoto 2008; Okimoto and Heilman 2012; Rollero and Fedi 2014; Van Engen et al. 2012). However, research has also demonstrated that perceptions that family roles positively influence work roles (positive family-to-work spillover) relates to higher work-related well-being (Allis and O’Driscoll 2008) and increased career satisfaction and job performance (Graves et al. 2007; Miner et al. 2014).

4 The Current Study

As seen, research has documented that well-being in the work domain is conceptualized through specific constructs, such as job satisfaction, work alienation, work-family conflict, and the perception of decision-making. On the one hand, literature from a gender perspective has examined gender differences in relation to these variables, showing that—compared to men—women in most cases experience lower job satisfaction and higher work-family conflict (Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010; Cinamon and Rich 2002; Matud 2004; Osorio et al. 2003; Tytherleigh et al. 2007; Van Veldhoven and Beijer 2012). On the other hand, a body of studies has driven the attention to the impact of the occupational status, demonstrating a general positive effect of high-status occupations, even with some divergent results about the influence of status on work-family conflict (Booth and Van Ourse 2009; Calvo-Saluguero et al. 2010; Clark et al. 2008; McKinlay and Marceau 2011; Salinas-Jiménez et al. 2013; Schieman et al. 2006). However, with the only exception of Lyonette et al. (2007) about work-family conflict, research has not considered the impact of both gender and status on work-related well-being. Indeed, the above documented gender differences may also be influenced by the fact that women generally hold lower positions and less control over their own work, as well as the effects of status may be related to the prevalence of men in high-status job. Thus, we believe in the importance of examining the relative salience of both gender and status to understanding well-being at work.

Specifically, the present study aimed at assessing the influence of both gender and status on the most relevant well-being related constructs in the work domain: job satisfaction, work alienation, work-family conflict, and decision-making. On the grounds of previous research we set the following hypotheses:

Occupational status would positively affect job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1), would decrease work alienation (Hypothesis 2), and would increase work-family conflict (Hypothesis 3) and the perception of decision making (Hypothesis 4).

In respect to women, men would report higher levels of job satisfaction (Hypothesis 5), lower rates of work-family conflict (Hypothesis 6) and a more relevant perception of decision making (Hypothesis 7).

5 Method

5.1 Participants

A total of 238 adults (52.5 % males) aged from 20 to 70 (average age = 39.56; SD = 13.70) and living in Italy participated in the research. Among participants, 58.6 % were married, 32.4 % were unmarried, and 9 % divorced or widowed. About the education, the majority was high school (43.8 %) or college graduated (31.7 %), whereas the others (24.5 %) had a lower level of education. Concerning occupational status, 98 subjects (58.2 % males) where considered high-status workers, as they managed or supervised at least three other workers in public or private organizations (e.g. hospitals, schools, hotels, banks). The 140 low-status subjects (48.6 % males) were instead recruited among sales personnel in superstores.

5.2 Measures

Data were collected via a self-reported questionnaire, which took about 20 min to complete. Anonymity of the respondents was assured.

The following variables were investigated:

5.2.1 Job Satisfaction

Participants responded to the Job Satisfaction Blank (McNichols et al. 1978), a wide used scale made up of four items (i.e. “I feel satisfied with my job”). Items were scored on a seven-point scale from (1) never, to (7) always. For the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .89.

5.2.2 Work Alienation

The alienation was assessed using the eight-item Work Alienation Scale (Nair and Vohra 2009) (i.e. “I do not feel connected to the daily events in my workplace”). Answers were provided on a seven-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. For the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

5.2.3 Work-Family Conflict

Participants responded to the Work To Family subscale of the Work Family Conflict Scale (Matthews et al. 2010). The subscale was made up of three items (i.e. “I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities”) scored on a five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. For the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .60.

5.2.4 Decision-Making

The perception of decision-making in the workplace was investigated using the four-item Decision Making Scale (Hage and Aiken 1967) (i.e. “I feel that I am my own boss in most matters”). Items were scored on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. For the current study Cronbach’s alpha was .84.

5.2.5 Socio-Demographic Items

We collected the following data items: age, gender, marital status, educational level, and occupational status.

6 Results

The statistical analyses were carried out using the software SPSS 21.0. Table 1 reports descriptive statistics and correlations among all measures. Job satisfaction resulted negatively related to work-family conflict and work alienation, but positively related to decision-making. A strong positive correlation was found between work alienation and work-family conflict, whereas work alienation and decision-making were negatively correlated.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations between the studied variables
Full size table

Subsequently, four general linear model analyses were performed to test the effect of gender, occupational status, and interaction between gender and status on: (1) job satisfaction, (2) work alienation, (3) work-family conflict, and (4) decision-making. Concerning job satisfaction, both gender and status played a relevant role, as women and high-status workers showed higher satisfaction than their male and low-status counterpart respectively (Tables 2, 3). In case of work alienation, only status was significant, being low-status subjects more alienated than high-status workers (Tables 4, 5). Similar results were obtained about work-family conflict: only occupational status influenced such conflict (Tables 6, 7). Finally, decision-making was considered as dependent variable: in this case a significant interaction between gender and status was found, as high-status women showed the highest scores of decision-making (Tables 8, 9).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics concerning job satisfaction
Full size table
Table 3 GLM analysis: the effect of gender and status on job satisfaction
Full size table
Table 4 Descriptive statistics concerning work alienation
Full size table
Table 5 GLM analysis: the effect of gender and status on work alienation
Full size table
Table 6 Descriptive statistics concerning work-family conflict
Full size table
Table 7 GLM analysis: the effect of gender and status on work-family conflict
Full size table
Table 8 Descriptive statistics concerning decision-making
Full size table
Table 9 GLM analysis: the effect of gender and status on decision-making
Full size table

7 Discussion

As above explained, literature reports two alternative perspectives to explain differences in work related well-being, i.e. one focused on gender and the other focused on occupational status. The present study was designed to assess the effect of both gender and status on the most relevant well-being related constructs in the work domain: job satisfaction, work alienation, work-family conflict, and decision-making. Taken together, results indicate that, compared to gender, status plays a more relevant role, as it influences all the considered variables. As expected (Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3), high-status subjects show higher job satisfaction but lower work alienation and work-family conflict. In line with literature (Booth and Van Ourse 2009; Calvo-Saluguero et al. 2010; Clark et al. 2008; McKinlay and Marceau 2011; Salinas-Jiménez et al. 2013), our findings confirm a general positive effect of high-status occupations.

Results concerning gender and the interaction between gender and status appear to be more controversial. First, contrary to what would be expected (Hypothesis 5), women refer higher job satisfaction than men. Similar results in previous studies have been considered paradoxical, because women tend to receive fewer job-related resources than do men (Cranford et al. 2003; Magee 2013; Phelan 1994). However, when men and women occupy similar positions and thus receive similar job-related resources—as in the present study—such findings can not be considered paradoxical. The higher satisfaction in women could be related to traditional gender roles and cultural stereotypes. Indeed, on the one hand, cultural stereotypes depicting women as relationship and nurturing-oriented and men as task-oriented influence both genders expectations about job (Eagly and Karau 2002; Okimoto and Heilman 2012; Rollero and Tartaglia 2013): in respect to men, women might have lower expectations about their professional aspirations and thus might feel more satisfied than men, professional status being equal (Heinz et al. 2005). On the other hand, in evaluating job satisfaction individuals could make comparison within their gender group: thus, women could feel comparatively more satisfied than men because they consider the labor market positions of other women, rather than all employees (Magee 2013; Phelan 1994).

Second, contrary to expectations (Hypothesis 6), gender did not play a relevant role in work-family conflict. In line with the role congruity theory of prejudice (Eagly and Karau 2002), literature generally report that women experience greater conflict than men (e.g. Calvo-Salguero et al. 2010; Cinamon and Rich 2002; Duxbury and Higgins 1994; Gutek et al. 1991; Lyonette et al. 2007; Van Veldhoven and Beijer 2012). We may put forward two hypotheses to explain our divergent results. One hypothesis may be that long lasting gender differences in the work domain are actually decreasing, as a result of women’s stronger involvement in the labor market and in high-status positions. The other hypothesis may be that working women tend to reduce the cognitive dissonance between their two commitments, i.e. work and family. They are in some way at odds with each other and, therefore, minimize the contrast and any difficulties in managing these different roles (see also De Piccoli and Rollero 2010). Indeed, psychological and social costs may be greater when individuals move away from traditional roles, as in the case of women holding professional positions, which could interfere in their traditional role of focusing on the family (Slotkin 2008).

Third, contrary to our hypothesis (Hypothesis 7), high-status women showed the highest scores of decision-making. This finding may be explained referring to the same considerations reported about job satisfaction and work-family conflict. On the one hand, high-status women could make comparison within their gender group rather than within their occupational status. On the other, since they have moved away from traditional gender roles, they “need” to emphasize the benefits of their professional position.

In sum, the present study highlights a core point: when the relative salience of both gender and status is considered to understand well-being at work, status counts most. Since there are no gender differences within the same status groups on work alienation and work-family conflict, we can conclude that alienation and conflict are not gender issues, but status issues. Nevertheless, gender remains a significant dimension that may not be neglected, as it plays a relevant role, along with status, on job satisfaction and perception of decision-making.

Some caveat deserves mention. One of the most significant issue pertains to the importance of the cultural context. Our research was carried out in Italy, which is one of the less equalitarian European countries according to the Gender Empowerment Measure index (i.e. a rank of 21st among 91 world nations) (UNDP 2007). As Lyonette et al. (2007) have documented, there are cultural specificities that affect gender roles and the work domain. Indeed, they demonstrated relevant differences between two European countries (i.e. Portugal, 19th rank according to the Gender Empowerment Measure index, and Great Britain, 15th rank) due to cultural attitudes toward gender roles and social expectations. Thus, generalising our results to other cultural contexts requires caution. Rather, future research should investigate the replicability of these findings in different countries.

Moreover, since we obtained several unexpected results and could only suppose potential explanation, further studies should investigate whether the suggested considerations are meaningful to male and female workers. Specifically, qualitative studies can contribute to better understand this issue and to examine more in depth the impact of status and gender on work-related well-being. For example, the issue pertaining social comparisons could be explicitly addressed, exploring whether women evaluate their work-related well-being making comparisons against the occupational positions of other women.

Finally, future research should consider the effects of both gender and status on other relevant and complex outcomes, such as the quality of working life. As Sirgy et al. (2001) underline, quality of working life goes beyond job satisfaction, as it involves the influence of the workplace on satisfaction in non-work life domains, and satisfaction with overall life, as well as personal happiness, and subjective well-being.