Work--Family Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Gender: Evidences From Asia

Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesXX(X) 1 –11© Baker College 2010Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1548051810368546http://jlos.sagepub.com

Work–Family Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Gender: Evidences From Asia

Peng Wang1, John J. Lawler2, and Kan Shi3

Abstract

This article examines the relationships between two types of work–family conflict (work interfering with family [WIF] and family interfering with work [FIW]), job-related self-efficacy, work satisfaction, and supervisor satisfaction in China and India. Central to the analysis is a comparison of the authors’ model between men and women, where important differences were projected to exist. Results showed that FIW was negatively associated with self-efficacy. WIF was negatively associated with work satisfaction. The relationships between WIF and work satisfaction and between FIW and self-efficacy were more negative for women than for men. No significant differences were found in any of these relationships between China and India. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

work interfering with family (WIF), family interfering with work (FIW), self-efficacy, work satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, gender differences, Asia

Work–family conflict is a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutu-ally incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work interfering with family (WIF) occurs when work pressures interfere with the quality of family life. Family interfering with work (FIW) happens when family pressures interfere with responsibilities at work. The globalization of the mar-ketplace has meant that changing patterns of family life are also increasingly prevalent in more traditional societies, especially those undergoing rapid economic development. Although research on work–family conflict has demon-strated several relationships than can be understood on theoretical grounds within advanced economies such as the Unite States, effort to extend this work to other cultures, especially developing countries, is quite limited. Some noteworthy work–family conflict studies in East Asia include a test of Frone, Russell, and Cooper’s (1992) work–family interface model among married Hong Kong employees by Aryee, Fields, and Luk (1999); a study of the antecedents and outcomes of job–spouse, job–parent, and job–homemaker conflict among married professional women in Singapore by Aryee (1992); a comparison of the effects of work and family demands on work–family con-flict between employees in manufacturing companies in China and the United States by Yang, Chen, Choi, and Zhou (2000); and a survey of work–family conflict and job, family, and life satisfaction among married professional Malaysian women by Ahmad (1996).

However, many of these studies are concerned with linking work–family conflict with general job and life sat-isfaction and various work and family stressors, but few have explored the relationship between work–family con-flict and specific facets of satisfaction such as satisfaction with supervision, coworker, pay, promotion, and work (see Boles, Howard, & Donofrio, 2001, as an exception). Scholars (e.g., Frone et al., 1992; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) theorized that job-related self-efficacy or employees’ judgment of perceived capabilities for per-forming their jobs may mediate the effect of FIW on job performance and life satisfaction; however, research has not explored the possible intervening role of self-efficacy in the relationship between work–family conflict and work-related outcomes. Furthermore, despite the fact that differences in men’s and women’s situations tend to be more pronounced in developing economies, these studies mostly ignore how men and women react differently toward work–family conflict. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, no prior research has explored how work–family conflict

1Miami University at Ohio, Oxford, OH, USA2University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA3Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Corresponding Author:Peng Wang, Department of Management, Farmer School of Business, Miami University at Ohio, Oxford, OH 45056.Email: [email protected]

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies OnlineFirst, published on May 10, 2010 as doi:10.1177/1548051810368546

by guest on September 12, 2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jlo.sagepub.com/

2 Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies XX(X)

influences specific facets of job satisfaction and job-related self-efficacy in the context of developing economies.

In this study, we look specifically at the relationships between work–family conflict, job-related self-efficacy, supervisor satisfaction, and work satisfaction, as well as possible gender differences in China and India. With eco-nomic development, dual-career families are increasingly commonplace in China and India. Both countries have very different cultural orientations when compared with the United States, with the dominant cultures being more col-lectivist (Hofstede, 1991). Compared with people in individualistic countries, people in collectivistic societies characterized by higher interdependence between in-group members (Hofstede, 1991) may have greater access to resources that cope with work–family stress such as more extended family social support. Thus, it is reasonable to enquire into the nature of work–family conflict and dis-cern the similarities and differences in these processes when compared with Western cultures. Both China and India are also highly masculine societies wherein traditional gender ideology is maintained (Hofstde, 1991). That might be related to the expectation of women in China and India being subservient to men and taking more family responsibilities, which enables the examination of gender differences in work–family conflict. Indeed, West-man (2002) suggested that individualism–collectivism and masculinity–femininity constructs appear to be the most rel-evant culture values for studying work–family issues across countries. Finally, it is desirable to have different levels of economic development and growth represented in the study, as culture may be affected by economic change (Triandis, 1995). China is among the world’s most rapidly developing economies; although its growth rate is somewhat lower than China’s, India has been quite successful because it signifi-cantly opened its economy in the early 1990s; and both countries present attractive investment opportunities for multinationals. Understanding how the work–family con-flict is influencing work-related outcomes in India and China should be of significant concern to practitioners as well as academics. Such findings may expand our understanding of what sorts of employment practices will work well with local employees in these societies.

Theoretical Framework and HypothesesBased on the existing work–family conflict literature, we develop a model that explores the relationships among WIF, FIW, self-efficacy, supervisor satisfaction, and work satisfaction (Figure 1). This model is rooted in research conducted mainly in the United States. Our objective here is to see if similar processes are at work in

China and India, where cultural and institutional differ-ences are quite significant.

WIF and FIWThe literature suggests a reciprocal relationship between WIF and FIW. If an individual’s work-related responsibili-ties interfere with his or her fulfillment of family obligations, the unaccomplished family duties may then affect the per-son’s functioning at work, and vice versa (Frone et al., 1992; Schaubroeck, 1992). Although these arguments are expressed as causal relationships, in this study we were not able to differentiate each causal relationship. Thus, we only hypothesize a positive correlation between FIW and WIF in our structural model. Prior research has reported a moder-ately high correlation between WIF and FIW, ranging from .20 to .40 (e.g., Casper, Martin, Buffardi, & Erdwins, 2002; Greenhaus, Collins, & Parasuraman, 2001; Gutek, Searle, Klepa, 1991).

Hypothesis 1: WIF and FIW are positively associated.

WIF, FIW, and Job SatisfactionWe expect that WIF will be negatively associated with two facets of job satisfaction such as supervisor and work satis-faction. WIF may occur when time pressure associated with work makes it physically and psychologically impos-sible to meet the demands of family roles or when emotional strain arising from the work itself affects one’s ability to carry out family responsibilities (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For example, WIF can be predicted by work hours, overtime work, irregular work shift, and ambiguous work duties (e.g., Barling, & Rosenbaum, 1986; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinowitz, Bedeian, & Mossholder, 1989; Wall,

Self-Efficacy

SupervisorSatisfaction

Work InterferingWith Family (WIF)

Family InterferingWith Work (FIW)

Work Satisfaction

Figure 1. Proposed model



Wang et al. 3

Capela, & Greene, 2001). These work characteristics can be easily attributed to the supervisors who are responsible for planning and scheduling employees’ work, thus influencing attitudes toward supervisors. WIF can also result from emo-tional strains produced from the work itself, such as task challenge, variety, task importance, and task autonomy (Alsous, 1982; Wall et al., 2001). Goddard (1989) suggested that employees who work on nonchallenging, routine, or unimportant tasks may experience high levels of strain that in turn produces WIF. Therefore, individuals who experi-ence higher levels of WIF may exhibit dislike for their supervisors or the work itself, which is consistent with the work of Boles et al. (2001), which reported significant and negative associations between WIF and work and supervisor satisfaction in a sample of American probation and parole officers.

Hypothesis 2: WIF is negatively associated with job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with supervisor and with work).

We also propose that FIW will be negatively associated with supervisor and work satisfaction. People with high levels of FIW are more likely to suffer poor job perfor-mance because they spend less time and energy at work. Consequently, these workers may receive fewer promo-tions and lower wages. For example, a 2-year study con-ducted by the Across the Boundaries Project1 reported that many of the supervisors surveyed admitted that they had punished a worker for leaving work to deal with a child care situation. In a case study of “East Asian Airlines,” Ng, Fosh, and Naylor (2002) found women in lower grade jobs were more likely to be married and to have children than women in higher grade jobs. Poor performance (more important, its social, psychological, and economic implica-tions) may arouse negative moods such as distress, anxi-ety, and despair (Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002) that are generally reflected in an unfavorable attitude toward one’s environment (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Because one’s immediate supervisors are usually responsible for punish-ing poor performance, workers may feel negatively toward supervisors when their (the worker’s) family responsibili-ties interfere with work performance. Negative perfor-mance feedback and its punitive consequences may also undermine employees’ confidence in the adequacy of their efforts and skills (Lam et al., 2002). Feeling that there is a lack of fit between their jobs and their skill levels, these employees may eventually be emotionally uninvolved within the work and feel less intrinsically motivated. In a longitudinal field study, Szilagyi (1980) found that punish-ment and reprimand for lower performance acted as a source of work dissatisfaction. Boles et al. (2001) supported the

negative relationship between FIW and work satisfaction among police officers.

Hypothesis 3: FIW is negatively associated with job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with supervisor and with work).

Work–Family Conflict, Self-Efficacy, and Job SatisfactionWe expect that FIW will also have an indirect association with job satisfaction through self-efficacy. The scarcity hypothesis—that is, that time and energy are fixed (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974)—assumes that individuals who are involved deeply in one role will inevitably fall short of the resources needed to perform other roles. With FIW, people expend greater amounts of time and energy in fulfilling family duties, which leaves them with significantly fewer resources to meet work demand (Grandy & Cropanzano, 1996; Hobfoll, 1989). The inadequate resources available for work may undermine their capacities to accomplish job responsibilities, thus affecting their senses of personal competence (Cohen & Kirchmeyer, 1995). For example, Mathieu, Martineau, and Tannenbaum (1993) found that trainees who perceived more situational constraints such as competing time demands were less likely to believe that they can successfully master training materials. Netemeyer et al. (1996) found a negative and significant correlation between work–family conflict and self-efficacy in a sample of salespeople.

Higher level of job self-efficacy is likely to result in more desirable work-related attitudes. In a meta-analysis of self-efficacy and organizational performance, Salgado and Moscoso (2000) found that self-efficacy was posi-tively correlated with job satisfaction. Using participants employed by a health care firm, O’Neil and Mone (1998) reported the direct effect of self-efficacy on job satisfac-tion. Taken together, we propose FIW will be negatively associated with self-efficacy, which in turn is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: FIW is negatively associated with self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 5: Self-efficacy is positively associated with job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with super-visor and with work).

We do not expect that WIF will be negatively associated with job self-efficacy for two reasons. First, people perceiv-ing high levels of WIF are seemingly apt to devote more time and energy on work, so their job performance and sense of competence at work are not apt to be affected. Second,




individuals may be less likely to accept direct responsibility for managing their work roles in such a way that these do not interfere with their family lives (Frone et al., 1992). Rather, individuals may be more likely to attribute any adverse consequences of WIF to organizations, which may protect their sense of personal competence.

Gender Differences in Work–Family ConflictSocial identity theory suggests that various social roles occupied by an individual create multiple identities (Lobel, 1991) that are organized in a hierarchy of centrality (Thoits, 1991). Role stressors that threaten an individual’s identity in more salient roles are more psychologically damaging than those that endanger his or her identity in less salient roles (Thoits, 1991). According to traditional gender role expec-tations, work roles are more salient to men, whereas family and home responsibilities are more salient to women (Gutek, Nakamura, & Nieva, 1981). Despite changes in recent decades, this tradition still persists. Women continue to spend more time than men in housework or family activities (Denmark, Shaw, & Ciali, 1985; Pleck, 1985) and employed wives continue to hold two full-time jobs: one in the market and another in the home (Hochschild & Machung, 1989).

We anticipate, then, that women may feel more dissatis-fied with the source of WIF (e.g., the supervisor and work) because WIF threatens a woman’s highly salient family role. In contrast, men may feel less dissatisfaction with supervisors and work because WIF does not endanger the accomplish-ment of their more salient work roles. Kandel, Davies, and Raveis (1985) found that the strains in family roles had more severe consequence for women’s psychological well-being than occupational strains. Though not specifying the domains, Brown, Bifulco, and Harris (1987) found that women who experienced stress in their central domains were three times more likely to be depressed than women who experienced stress in their less central domains.

Because FIW threatens men’s valued work identities, they are apt to be more dissatisfied with the source of FIW (e.g., the family domain), which was not investigated in this study. We do not expect that men experiencing FIW will feel more dissatisfied with work and their supervisors, as work and supervisors are not the primary source of FIW.

Hypothesis 6: WIF is more negatively related to job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with supervisor and with work) in the case of women than men.

Individuals prefer to allocate greater resources (e.g., time and energy) to their more salient social roles (Burke, 1991). Men and women may react differently toward work–family conflict as they tend to attach different levels of importance to work and family activities (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). With the expectation of assuming most responsibilities at

home, women may be less likely to receive help from family members when experiencing FIW. Women may thus have to assign more of their personal time and energy to family activities, as these are highly salient to their self-identities. Greenhaus, Parasuranan, Granrose, Rabinowitz, and Beutell (1989) argued that the “motherhood mandate” is firmly entrenched in Asian societies and therefore married profes-sional women may have more difficulty than men in man-aging work–family conflict. In contrast, as major financial providers, men may obtain support from their family mem-bers more easily when family pressures affect work. Men are more able to increase the amount of time and energy available for work activities, which is their more valued role. Therefore, women may be less confident in their ability to perform well than men because they have to allow more interference of family into their work and thus have fewer resources for performing work responsibilities.

Hypothesis 7: FIW is more negatively related to self-efficacy in the case of women than men.

MethodSample, Setting, and Procedures

Our data were collected from branches of seven different banks in India and China, all which were locally owned. The Indian banks were all located in New Delhi, and the Chinese banks were all located in Beijing. Banks tend to employ sig-nificant numbers of women compared with men. As two of our hypotheses involve comparing men with women, this was an important consideration. Moreover, bank employees typically are somewhere in the middle class, where dual-career issues and changing family lifestyles may be most readily anticipated to generate work–family conflict prob-lems in developing countries. The chief human resource manager at each bank branch in our sample was contacted for approval of the study. The completed surveys were col-lected on-site by one of our researchers. Confidentiality and anonymity were assured to the participants by providing let-ters in the appropriate language detailing their rights under the procedures of our university’s institutional review board. In China, the questionnaire was translated into Mandarin Chinese following the conventional back-translation method. Given the relatively high educational levels of par-ticipants in India, our local collaborators advised that virtually all could be assumed to be fluent in English, so local language translation was not required, and the survey was administered in English.

Our sample consisted of 281 married respondents (China = 163, India = 118). Given that this study was conducted with organizational cooperation, response rates were gener-ally high (80% to 90%). Among them, 166 (or 59.1%) respondents were women, with 92 from China and 23 from



Wang et al. 5

India. A total of 19.9% of the respondents were managers (China = 11.7%, India = 31.4%), 29.2% were profession-als (China = 36.8%, India = 18.6%), 17.8% were clericals (China = 19.6%, India = 15.3%), and 14.6% held adminis-trative positions (China = 7.4%, India = 24.6%). Respondents were relatively well educated, with more than 95% having at least some college education. They ranged in age from 20 to 51 years, with a mean age of 34 (SD = 5.89) for China and 39 (SD = 7.71) for India. Respondents had a mean tenure of 8.78 years (SD = 4.98) for China and 12.89 (SD = 7.91) for India.

MeasuresWork–family conflict. WIF and FIW were assessed using

scales developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996), with responses ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5). A sample WIF item was, “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life.” A sample FIW item was, “Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.” The scale reliability was .79 for WIF (.78 for China and .81 for India) and .81 for FIW (.76 for China and .83 for India).

Job-related self-efficacy. Job-related self-efficacy was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker (1994). Responses were made on a 6-point scale ranging from Very inaccurate (1) to Very accurate (6). Sample items: “I have confidence in my ability to do my job” and “I am very proud of my job skills and abilities.” Scale reliability was .75 (.77 for China and .74 for India).

Job satisfaction. Eighteen items adopted from Smith, Ken-dall, and Hulin’s (1969) Job Descriptive Index were used to measure satisfaction with one’s supervisor and satisfaction with work. Respondents were asked to circle “yes” if the item described their work in general, “no” if the item did not, and “?” if they could not decide (sample items: “My work is boring most of the time,” “My work is challenging most of the time,” “My supervisor is annoying most of the time,” and “My supervisor knows how to supervise most of the time”). The scale reliability for work satisfaction was .87

(.87 for China and .82 for India) and supervisor satisfac-tion.81 (.81 for China and .82 for India).

Control VariablesPrevious research identified age, job level, tenure, and parental status as predictors of job satisfaction (e.g., Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar, 1992; Carlopio & Gardner, 1996; so we measured and used these factors as controls in our analysis. Age and organizational tenure were measured by actual numbers of years. Five job levels were identified and dummy coded, including managerial, professional, admin-istrative, clerical, and others. Parental status was dummy coded, with 1 indicating employees who had at least one child at home to take care of.

Measurement EquivalenceTo establish the validity and reliability of the scales used in this study as well as the equivalency of the scales between China and India and between men and women, we used a combination of mean and covariance structures analysis and simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Both techniques were performed using AMOS maximum likelihood estimation because its estimators are asymptoti-cally unbiased, consistent, and efficient (Bollen, 1989). Results indicated that the factor structures were approxi-mately equal across countries and genders.2

ResultsTables 1 to 3 present the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the scales.

Test of Hypotheses3

Direct effects. Structural equation models were generated to test the hypothesized relationships. In Model A, all the paths between the five studied variables were allowed to vary between China and India. In Model B, all the paths between the studied variables were constrained to be

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) for Scales

India China

Scale Men Women Men Women Total Men Women Total

WIF 3.14 (0.84) 2.88 (0.71) 3.19 (0.90) 3.21 (0.67) 3.19 (0.85) 3.08 (0.75) 2.80 (0.70) 2.92 (0.73)FIW 2.16 (0.74) 2.02 (0.70) 2.25 (0.76) 2.72 (0.77) 2.35 (0.78) 2.04 (0.71) 1.84 (0.55) 1.93 (0.63)Self-efficacy 4.65 (0.73) 4.60 (0.79) 4.59 (0.74) 4.24 (0.91) 4.52 (0.78) 4.73 (0.72) 4.69 (0.74) 4.70 (0.73)Supervisor 2.51 (0.51) 2.55 (0.42) 2.49 (0.53) 2.50 (0.43) 2.49 (0.51) 2.53 (0.48) 2.56 (0.42) 2.55 (0.45) satisfactionWork 2.41 (0.53) 2.05 (0.60) 2.57 (0.48) 2.21 (0.55) 2.50 (0.51) 2.20 (0.53) 2.00 (0.61) 2.09 (0.59) satisfaction




invariant across countries. Model B was used to test whether the hypothesized model held in both China and India. The fit statistics for Model A suggested a satisfactory fit of the

model to the data. The c2/df was 1.52, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was .88, the comparative fit index (CFI) was .93, and the root mean square error of approximation

Table 2. Correlation Matrix for Chinese/Indian Subsamplesa

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age — .68 .10 -.11 .09 .05 .19 -.04 -.12 .15 .19 .05 2. Tenure .25 — .05 -.27 .27 .15 .03 -.06 -.16 .24 .12 .18 3. Job level— .11 .00 — -.32 -.39 -.29 .06 .18 .06 .04 -.01 -.03

manager 4. Job level— .05 -.06 -.28 — -.27 -.20 -.19 -.12 .01 -.07 -.05 -.20

professional 5. Job level— .06 .03 -.10 -.22 — -.24 .05 -.21 -.06 .07 .08 .00

administrative 6. Job level— -.07 .03 -.18 -.38 -.14 — .04 .02 -.02 .05 -.08 .12

clerical 7. Parental .43 .30 -.04 .08 .00 .02 — -.02 .04 -.01 .11 -.05

status 8. WIF -.03 .02 .00 -.08 -.08 -.06 .16 — .30 -.21 -.26 -.08 9. FIW .04 .10 -.12 .12 -.05 -.09 .15 .17 — -.50 -.18 -.1610. Self-efficacy .01 .12 .16 .00 .05 -.09 .03 .03 -.43 — .17 .0311. Work .27 .01 .14 .12 -.04 .00 .08 -.17 -.09 .17 — .23

satisfaction12. Supervisor .04 -.14 -.06 -.01 .11 .10 -.03 -.11 -.13 .06 .32 —

satisfaction

NOTE: WIF = work interfering with family; FIW = family interfering with work.a. Correlations below the diagonal are from Chinese subsample (n = 163). Correlations greater than .15 or less than -.15 are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). Correlations above the diagonal are from Indian subsample (n = 118). Correlations greater than .18 or less than -.18 are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Table 3. Correlation Matrix for Male/Female Subsamplesa

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age — .56 .14 -.10 .17 .05 .41 -.01 -.02 .04 .23 -.04 2. Tenure .45 — .03 -.19 .35 .09 .25 -.01 -.01 .16 .16 .06 3. Job level— .05 .13 — -.35 -.28 -.25 -.03 .13 .03 .06 .08 -.09

manager 4. Job level— .04 -.16 -.23 — -.25 -.22 -.01 -.13 -.06 .03 -.05 -.04

professional 5. Job level— .05 -.03 -.10 -.28 — -.18 .10 -.12 .02 .00 .17 .02

administrative 6. Job level— -.06 .11 -.16 -.43 -.20 — .05 .02 -.01 -.03 -.04 .09

clerical 7. Parental .28 .21 .02 .06 .03 .01 — .21 .20 -.02 .07 -.01

status 8. WIF -.05 -.01 .02 -.07 -.12 -.07 .04 — .26 -.14 -.20 -.15 9. FIW .10 .08 .03 .15 -.01 -.12 .13 .26 — -.44 -.10 -.2210. Self-efficacy .01 .09 .06 -.04 .06 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.55 — .15 .0811. Work .29 .00 .07 .14 -.05 .01 .14 -.19 .02 .07 — .26

satisfaction12. Supervisor .18 -.05 .08 -.14 .07 .14 -.06 .02 -.04 .02 .28 —

satisfaction

NOTE: WIF = work interfering with family; FIW = family interfering with work. a. Correlations below the diagonal are for the female subsample (n = 166). Correlations greater than .15 or less than -.15 are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). Correlations above the diagonal are the male subsample (n = 115). Correlations greater than .18 or less than -.18 are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).



Wang et al. 7

(RMSEA) was .04. Model B presents almost identical fit indices: The c2/df was 1.49, the GFI was .88, the CFI was .93, and the RMSEA was .04. Because Models A and B are nested, their differences in chi-square can be compared with their differences in degrees of freedom: the ratio was 5.97/8 = .75, p > .1. This insignificant chi-square statistic indicates that the proposed relationships in Figure 1 are approximately equivalent in China and India. Because Model B was more parsimonious than Model A, Model B was used to test the proposed relationships in China and India.

The unstandardized path coefficients and standard errors in Model B are shown in Figure 2. WIF and FIW were posi-tively and significantly associated (covariance = .08, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. WIF was sig-nificantly and negatively associated with work satisfaction (b = -.17, p < .01), but not with supervisor satisfaction (b = -.05, p > .10). So Hypothesis 2, concerning the relationship between WIF and job satisfaction, was partially supported. As expected, FIW had a negative and significant relation-ship with self-efficacy (b = -.64, p < .01), in support of Hypothesis 4. Self-efficacy was significantly and positively associated with work satisfaction (b = .26, p < .05), but insignificantly associated with supervisor satisfaction (b = .01, p >.10). Hypothesis 5 was thus partially supported. However, no significant relationships were found between FIW and work satisfaction (b = .06, p > .10) and between

FIW and supervisor satisfaction (b = -.07, p > .10), failing to support Hypothesis 3.

Gender effects. Sample size limitations prevented separate analyses of the posited gender effects by country. There could be a problem here in that the proportion of men in the Indian sample was much higher than in the Chinese sample. Had there been cross-country differences, differences between men and women in a pooled sample may have been the con-sequence of different ratios of Chinese to Indians in the two gender groups. However, because the structural parameters in our basic model were found to be equivalent between coun-tries, pooling of the data seemed justified. Following Frone et al. (1992), within- and between-gender group models were specified to examine gender differences in our sample. An examination of the within-group fit indices revealed that the model fit well for both women (c2/df = 1.22, GFI = .88, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .04) and men (c2/df = 1.45, GFI = .90, CFI = .95, and RMSEA = .05). The simultaneous between-gender analyses showed acceptable fit indices for both unconstrained and constrained regression coefficient models (c2/df = 1.33, GFI = .89, CFI = .95, and RMSEA = .03 for the unconstrained model; c2/df = 1.36, GFI = .89, CFI =.95, and RMSEA = .03 for the constrained model). The between-group chi-square difference was significant at the .05 level, c2 (8, N = 281) = 19.87, p < .05, suggesting that one or more individual param-eter estimates varied across gender groups.

–.17(.05) **

.08 (.10)

.26(.12) *

.01(.10)

.08(.02)**a –.05(.05)

–.64 (.08) **

–.07(.09)

Self-Efficacy

SupervisorSatisfaction

Work InterferingWith Family (WIF)

Work Satisfaction

Family InterferingWith Work (FIW)

Figure 2. Results for the proposed model for the full sampleNOTE: Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Standard errors are in parentheses. Regression coefficients of control variables are not reported and details are available from the authors on request.a. Covariance is reported.*p < .05. **p < .01.




We used t tests to compare pairs of raw regression coef-ficients between women and men corresponding to our gender difference hypotheses. Examination revealed two significant differences. First, FIW showed stronger negative association with self-efficacy for women (b = -.80, SE = .11, p < .01) than for men (b = -.49, SE =.09, p < .01) at .05 level (t = -2.19, df = 279), in support of Hypothesis 7. Second, WIF was more negatively related to work satisfaction among women (b = -.33, SE = .12, p < .01) than among men (b = -.11, SE = .06, p < .05) at .05 level (t = -1.7, df = 279). How-ever, WIF did not show a more negative association with supervisor satisfaction among women than among men (for women, b = .17, SE = .09, p > .05; for men, b = -.08, SE = .06, p > .05; t = 0.39, p > .1, df = 279). Thus, Hypothesis 6, which specified a gender difference in the relationship between WIF and job satisfaction, was partially supported.

DiscussionWith increasing female labor force participation and more dual-career families in developing countries, the conflicts and stresses familiar in more economically developed coun-tries might be expected to have an increasingly pervasive impact, especially in those sectors at the forefront of eco-nomic advancement. To see if processes at work in societies such as the United States extend to such settings, we pro-posed and tested a model of the relationships between work–family conflict, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction after controlling for the effect of parental status, age, tenure, and job types in the context of two large and rapidly devel-oping countries: China and India.

The finding that WIF was negatively and significantly associated with work satisfaction is consistent with work of Boles et al. (2001). However, the association between WIF and supervisor satisfaction is not supported in our sample. There might be two reasons for the lack of support for the relationship between WIF and supervisor satisfaction. The first possible explanation is the collectivist tendencies in both China and India. As Hofstede (1991) suggested, indi-viduals from collectivistic cultures are more likely to seek to maintain harmony with other in-group members and avoid direct confrontation. In contrast, people from individualistic cultures can speak out their minds more easily. Although both work and supervision can be sources of WIF, employ-ees in collectivistic cultures may be more likely to show their negative affect toward work itself but are less likely to express their dissatisfaction toward supervisors in order to maintain interpersonal harmony, which is a very strong social norm. As more collectivist cultures also tend to be more hierarchical (i.e., greater power distance), this might also be explained in terms of the tendency of individuals in such circumstances to defer to and avoid challenging superi-ors out of respect for their position. The second possible

explanation may be related to the role of supervisor in deci-sion making in a professional setting. When supervisors are perceived to be directly responsible for work-related deci-sions (i.e., work demand, schedule, etc.), employees are more likely to attribute to them (the supervisors) as the cause for the perceived work interfering with family and thus feel negatively toward them. Perhaps, the lack of the support for the relationship between WIF and supervisor satisfaction was because supervisors in our sample were mostly middle-level managers and had limited impact on the workplace policies that directly result in the interference of work with family. So employees might not blame their supervisors for the perceived work interfering with family and thus did not feel negatively toward them.

Contrary to expectation, FIW had neither negative nor significant associations with work satisfaction and supervi-sor satisfaction in China and India. Perhaps the apparent absence of these relationships is a cultural effect. Expecting a long-term exchange relationship with their employees and focusing on maintaining interpersonal harmony in col-lectivistic culture, managers may be more tolerant toward employees’ temporarily lower performance resulting from FIW. As a result, workers may not receive a sharp decrease in promotion, benefits, and wages, which may result in a less negative attitude toward their environment. In contrast, people in individualistic cultures tend to establish calcula-tive and short-term relationships with their organizations (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Negative performance is more likely to be sanctioned quickly, thus stimulating a more negative attitude toward the work environment. Notwithstanding, we found that FIW was negatively and significantly related to job self-efficacy, which in turn was positively and signifi-cantly associated with work satisfaction. This suggests that FIW is associated with work satisfaction indirectly through job self-efficacy. FIW is a possible mechanism through which job self-efficacy may be diminished. However, addi-tional research is needed to examine whether self-efficacy mediates the relationship between FIW and work-related outcomes.

Our findings that the associations between WIF and work satisfaction and between FIW and self-efficacy were more negative among women than men support the traditional gender-role ideology: men work while women care for family. When work and family conflict with each other, women may be more likely to side with their valued family roles. Our results further corroborate the social identity theory (Thoits, 1991) that individuals are more stressful when their salient role identity is threatened. Unexpectedly, we failed to support the gender difference in the relationship between WIF and supervisor satisfaction. Our further exploration revealed the expected relationship between WIF and supervisor satisfaction is insignificant in both the gender sample and the pooled sample. Perhaps, the insignificant



Wang et al. 9

main effect of WIF on supervisor satisfaction in our sample makes it difficult to discern the expected gender difference.

That we did not find substantial differences in the model between China and India suggests that our findings may be relatively robust across developing countries (at least those of East and South Asia). However, future research should include different culture types to explore how such culture differences may play out when cultural differences are more extensive than in the case of China and India. For example, both China and India have a strong tradition of extended family involvement in one’s family lives. The extended family involvement, particularly the extended family support for child care, may result in the work and family dynamics that are significantly different from that in the United States where extended family involvement and supports are gener-ally lacking in one’s family lives. Future research may help enrich our knowledge of work–family dynamics by directly comparing work–family conflict relationships in cultures with distinct tradition of extended family involvement.

ImplicationsThe present study provides several theoretical and practical implications for future research on work–family conflict. First, by examining work–family issues in an Asian setting, our results may enhance our knowledge of work–family conflict as the majority of work–family research has been conducted in the North American context. However, a direct comparison of work–family relationships between North American culture and Asian culture is needed in future research to clearly reveal the role of culture difference in work–family dynamics. Second, by supporting the gender differences in work–-family relationships, this research fills up a research gap, as there are limited empirical evidences for the differences in work–family dynamics between men and women (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Finally, this study may improve our understanding of the role of self-efficacy in the relationship between work–family conflict and work-related outcomes, which has been generally ignored in prior research, even in Western settings.

Practically, established employer practices seem to reveal that family-friendly policies (e.g., employer assis-tance with dependent care, leaves to accommodate family needs, and counseling on family problems) can enhance work-related attitudes and behaviors among American employees (e.g., Grover & Crooker, 1995; Kirchmeyer, 1995). Our findings indicate the potential for the transfer-ability to developing economies of family-friendly human resource management practices and related policies. Firms in such settings that view employees as a competitive resource may need to introduce family-friendly policies to assist employees’ integration of their work and family responsibilities. Our findings also suggest that a firm should

be especially sensitive to the work and family demands of female employees.

LimitationsAs with all research, our study has certain limitations that warrant further attention. First, the present study did not include family-related variables. Future studies might expand the analysis to include some family-related variables (e.g., sat-isfaction with family life). Second, the use of cross-sectional data precludes definitive assertions regarding causality and directionality. For example, it is plausible that job-related self-efficacy could be the cause rather than the consequence of FIW. Individuals who have strong beliefs in their work-related capacity may perceive that less family pressure has interfered with their work. Longitudinal designs are needed in future research to explore the alternative causal directions. However, such studies must take into consideration the opti-mal time lag; otherwise, longitudinal data could provide biased parameter estimates that are worse than those obtained from cross-sectional data. Third, we did not examine the rela-tionship between work–family conflict and other facets of job satisfaction such as coworker satisfaction, because this relationship may be biased without controlling for the task type (i.e., interdependent or independent), which were not measured here. An individual’s experienced work–family conflict may be more likely to influence relationships with coworkers that require lots of interaction. Several organiza-tions participating in the study were unwilling to have the pay/rewards battery administered (because they were con-cerned about employees’ reactions), so it was not possible to test the relationships between work–family conflict and remaining facets of job satisfaction including satisfaction with payment and satisfaction with promotion in our study. Therefore, we encourage future studies to conduct a more comprehensive test of the relationships of multiple facets of job satisfaction with work–family conflict. A final limitation is the fact that the present sample involved a single industry—banking. Though this allowed us to match samples across cultures, our sample pool is restricted to the banking sector. Future research is encouraged to replicate these findings in a more occupationally diverse sample.

Despite these limitations, our study makes a contribution to understanding the processes in which work–family con-flict affects work-related beliefs and attitudes in developing economies. This area of research still merits further empirical investigation before conclusive generalizations can be made. Therefore, we hope that the results of the current study will stimulate further investigation into this research area.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.




Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Center for International Business Education Research (CIBER) at the Uni-versity of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and by NSFC 90924007.

Notes

1. See the report “Raiding Families and Keeping Jobs in Low-Income America: It Just Doesn’t Work,” visit www.radcliffe.edu/pubpol/boundaries.pdf.

2. Details are available from the authors on request.3. Regression coefficients of control variables are not provided.

Details are available from the authors on request.

References

Ahmad, A. (1996). Work-family conflict among married profes-sional women in Malaysia. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 663-666.

Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813-837.

Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491-511.

Alsous, J. (1982). Two paychecks: Life in dual-earner families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Barling, J., & Rosenbaum, A. (1986). Work stressors and wife abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 348-351.

Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 33-48.

Boles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An inves-tigation into the inter-relationships of work-family conflict, family-work conflict and work satisfaction. Journal of Mana-gerial Issues, 13, 376-390.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown, G. W., Bifulco, A., & Harris, T. O. (1987). Life events, vulnerability, and onset of depression. British Journal of Psy-chiatry, 150, 30-42.

Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836-849.

Carlopio, J. M., & Gardner, D. (1995). Perceptions of work and workplace: Mediators of the relationship between job level and employee reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 68, 321-326.

Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work-family conflict, perceived organizational sup-port, and organizational commitment among employed mother. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99-108.

Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). A multidimensional approach to the relation between organizational commitment and nonwork participation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 189-202.

Denmark, F., Shaw, J. S., & Ciali, S. D. (1985). The relation-ship among sex roles, living arrangements and the division of household responsibilities. Sex Roles, 12, 617-625.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents, and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78.

Goddard, R. W. (1989). Standing up to the demands of success. Management World, 18, 8-13.

Grandy, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. C. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350-370.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. K., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989). Source of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 133-153.

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Parasuraman, S. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as moderators of relation-ships between work-family conflict and withdrawal from a pro-fession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91-100.

Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C. Y., & Nieva, V. F. (1981). The inter-dependence of work and family roles. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 1-16.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 55, 259-286.

Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). Second shift: Inside the two-type marriage. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its impact for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kandel, D. B., Davies, M., & Raveis, V. H. (1985). The stress-fulness of daily social roles for women: Marital occupational and household roles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 64-78.



Wang et al. 11

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Managing the work-non-work boundary: An assessment of organizational responses. Human Relations, 48, 515-536.

Lam, S., Yik, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectiv-ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 192-201.

Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and implications for research. Acad-emy of Management Review, 16, 507-521.

Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strains: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociologi-cal Review, 42, 921-936.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Person-nel Psychology, 46, 125-147.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Develop-ment and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410.

Ng, C. W., Fosh, P., & Naylor, D. (2002). Work-family conflict for employees in an East Asian airline: Impact on career and relationship to gender. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 23, 67-105.

O’Neil, B. S., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sen-sitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 805-816.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S., Bedeian, A., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives’ employment and husbands’ well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 185-201.

Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/ working husbands. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and out-come expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1017-1034.

Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2000). Self-efficacy and orga-nizational performance criteria. Apuntes de Psicologia, 18, 179-191.

Schaubroeck, J. (1992). Investigating reciprocal causation in organizational behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 17-28.

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 39, 567-578.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measure-ment of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. New York, NY: Rand McNally.

Szilagyi, A. D. (1980). Causal inferences between leader reward behaviour and subordinate performance, absenteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 195-204.

Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101-112.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), The culture and psychology reader. New York: New York University Press pp. 326-365.

Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on per-sonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.

Wall, G. D., Capela, L. M., & Greene, W. E. (2001). Towards a source stressors model of conflict between work and family. Review of Business, 22, 86-91.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and conse-quences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Westman, M. (2002). Work-family conflict: A cross-cultural perspective. Paper presented as part of at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Yang, N. N., Chen, C., Choi, J., & Zhou, Y. M. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 113-123.

Bios

Peng Wang is an Assistant Professor in Department of Management at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. She received her PhD in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include leadership, creativity, work-family conflict, diversity, and cross-cultural management.

John Lawler is Professor of Labor and Employment Relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His principal interest is in comparative HRM, with a focus on Asia. He earned his PhD from the University of California at Berkeley.

Kan Shi is Professor of Management School, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. He dedicates in the academic field of organizational behavior and human resource management, and his research interests include leadership and human resource development based on competency model. He published over 200 scientific articles and books and has undertaken many projects from Chinese National Natural Science Foundation, Chinese National Science & Technology Ministry and Chinese National Education Ministry.



Documents

Work--Family Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Gender: Evidences From Asia