4bjhbhbhb

7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

1/16

The Effects of Work Demands and Resources on Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation

Author(s): Patricia VoydanoffReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, No. 2 (May, 2004), pp. 398-412Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3599845 .

Accessed: 01/03/2013 03:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3599845?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3599845?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

2/16

PATRICIA OYDANOFF University of Dayton

TheEffectsof WorkDemands ndResourcesnWork-to-Familyonflict ndFacilitation

Thisarticleusesa differentialalience-comparablesalienceapproach o examine he effectsof workdemandsand resources on work-to-familyon-flict and facilitation. The analysis is based ondatafrom 1,938 employedadults living with afamily member who were interviewed or the1997 NationalStudyof the ChangingWorkforce.The results support the differential salienceapproach by indicating that time- and strain-based workdemands howrelatively trongposi-tive relationships to work-to-familyconflict,whereas enabling resources and psychologicalrewards how relatively trongpositive relation-ships to work-to-familyacilitation. The avail-ability of time-basedamily supportpolicies andwork-family rganizational upport s negativelyrelated o conflictandpositivelyrelated ofacili-tation, thereby supporting he comparablesal-ienceapproach.

It has become evidentin recentyears thatpaidworkorganizedon the assumptionhatworkandfamily areseparatedomains s no longercompa-tible with reality.Fromthe perspectiveof eco-logical systems theory, work and family aremicrosystems onsistingof patterns f activities,roles, and interpersonalrelationships experi-enced in networksof face-to-facerelationshipsRaymondL.Fitz,S. M.,Center orLeadershipnCommunity,University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-1445 (Patricia.Voydanoff@ otes.udayton.edu).Key Words: work demands, work-family conflict, work-family facilitation, work-family policies, work resources.

(Bronfenbrenner,989). The linkages and pro-cessesoccurringetween woormoremicrosystemscomprise a mesosystem.When the boundariesbetweenthe work and family microsystemsaresufficiently permeableand flexible, processesoccur throughwhich characteristicsassociatedwith the work and family domains influenceeach other.Work-family onflict and facilitationarelinkingmechanismsn the processes hroughwhichworkandfamilycharacteristics re relatedto individual, work, and family outcomes(Voydanoff,2002).Work-familyconflict and facilitationconsistof cognitiveappraisals f the effects of the work(family) domain on the family (work)domain.According o LazarusandFolkman 1984), cog-nitiveappraisals "theprocessof categorizing nencounter,and its various acets, with respecttoits significance or well-being" (p. 31). Encoun-ters can be categorizedas positive, stressful,orirrelevantwithregardo well-being.Theoutcomeof the appraisalprocess dependson the relation-ship between an individual'sresourcesand thedemands of the environment.For example, astressfulappraisal ccurswhen the "relationshipbetween the person and environment...isappraisedby the personas taxingor exceedinghis or her resourcesandendangeringhis or herwell-being" (p. 19). Thus, the perceptionofwork-family onflictor facilitationderivesfromassessingthe extentto whichdemandshinderorresourcesenhancethe performance f work andfamily roles. Demandsare structural r psycho-logicalclaimsassociatedwithrole requirements,expectations,and norms to which individualsmust respondor adapt by exertingphysical ormentaleffort.Resourcesarestructural r psycho-

398 Journalof MarriageandFamily 66 (May 2004): 398-412

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

3/16

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation 399

logical assets thatmay be used to facilitateper-formance,reduce demands, or generate addi-tional resources.Work-familyconflict is a form of interroleconflict n whichthedemands f workandfamilyroles are incompatible n some respect so thatparticipationn one role is moredifficultbecauseof participationn the other role (Greenhaus&Beutell, 1985). Work-family acilitationis lessestablished as a concept than is work-familyconflict, going by various abels and definitions(see Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar,2003, for a review). Work-family acilitation sdefined here as a form of synergy in whichresourcesassociatedwith one role enhance or

make easierparticipationn the other role. Bothconflict and facilitation an take two forms: romworkto family and fromfamily to work. Work-family conflict and work-family acilitationareonly slightly correlatedwith each other. Somestudies have found that work-to-family onflictand facilitation are not correlated and formseparatefactors in factor analyses (Bakker&Geurts,2003; Grzywacz& Marks,2000; Sumer& Knight,2001), whereas othersreportcorrela-tions rangingbetween -.15 and -.20 (Colton,Hammer,& Neal, 2002; Tiedje etal., 1990).Comparablecorrelations are reportedbetweenfamily-to-work conflict and family-to-workfacilitation (Grzywacz & Marks; Sumer &Knight).Thus, work-familyconflict and work-family facilitationcan be viewed as independentconstructsrather hanoppositeends of a singlecontinuum.Previousresearchhas focusedon work-familyconflict as the cognitive linking mechanismbetweenworkandfamilycharacteristicsnd out-comes,whereaswork-familyacilitationhas beenrelativelyneglected(Parasuraman Greenhaus,2002).Thisimbalanceprovidesa one-sidednega-tive view of the work-familyinterface,whichmayhinder hedevelopment f morecomprehen-sive theoriesof work-familyinkagesandprovidea limitedview of the policies andprogramshatcould reducework-familyconflict and enhancework-familyacilitation.Documentinghe effectsof demands and resources on both conflictand facilitationhas implicationsfor the workand family outcomesthat work-familypoliciesand programsare designedto address.Work-tofamily conflict is associated with familyabsences, poor family role performance,andfamily dissatisfaction and distress, whereasfamily-to-work onflictis related o absenteeism,

tardiness,poor ob performance,nd ob dissatis-faction.The consequencesof work-family acili-tation have yet to be explored(see Frone,2003,for a review).This article presentsa differential salience-comparablesalience model in which within-domain demandsand resourcesare expectedtohave differentialsalience for work-familycon-flict andfacilitation,whereasboundary-spanningresources are expected to show comparablerelationships o conflict andfacilitation.It usesdata from the 1997 National Study of theChanging Workforce(NSCW) to explore theeffects of several categories of work-baseddemands and resourceson work-to-family on-flict and facilitation.It moves beyondpreviousresearchby investigatingherelativesalienceof arangeof work demandsandresources n relationto both work-to-family onflict and facilitationfor a large representativeampleof U.S. workersthat reflects the diversity of the U.S. laborforce.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKThe differential salience-comparablesaliencemodel, which is presentedn Figure1, includeswithin-domainwork demandsand resourcesandboundary-spanningesourcesas sourcesof work-to-familyconflict andfacilitation.A comparablemodel is appropriateor within-domain amilydemandsandresources n relationto family-to-work conflict and facilitation.However,becausethe measures reunavailable o test such a model,thispaper ocuses on work-to-familyonflict andfacilitation see Voydanoff,2003, fora testof thedifferential salience of family demands andresources or family-to-work onflict andfacili-tationusinganotherdataset).

DifferentialSalienceof Within-DomainDemandsand ResourcesThe model indicates hat within-domainemandsandresources redifferentiallyalient nrelation owork-to-familyonflict andfacilitation.This dif-ferentialsalienceapproachproposes hat within-domain work (family) demands are positivelyrelated owork-to-familyfamily-to-work)onflict,whereas work (family) resourcesare positivelyassociatedwith work-to-family family-to-work)facilitation.Within-domainemands rerelativelysalient for work-family onflict becausetheyareassociated with processes that limit the ability


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

4/16

400 Journal of Marriage and FamilyFIGURE1

DIFFERENTIALALIENCE-COMPARABLEALIENCEMODEL OFWORK-TO-FAMILY ONFLICTAND FACILITATION

Within-domainworkdemands:Time-baseddemandsStrain-based emands

Work-to-familyconflict

Boundary-spanning esources:Time-based amilysupportpoliciesWork-familyorganizationalsupport Work-to-familyfacilitation

Within-domainwork resources:EnablingresourcesPsychologicalrewards

of individualsto meet obligations in anotherdomain.The presentstudy includes time-basedand strain-based emands.Time-baseddemandsare related to work-familyconflict throughaprocessof resourcedrainin which the time orinvolvementrequiredfor participation n onedomain imits the time or involvementavailablefor participationn anotherdomain(Tenbrunsel,Brett, Maoz, Stroh,& Reilly, 1995).Strain-baseddemands are linked to work-familyconflict hrough processof psychologicalspillover in which the strain associated withparticipatingn one domain is carried over toanotherdomainsuch that it createsstrain n thesecond domain, thereby hinderingrole perfor-mance in that domain. Psychological spilloveroperates through transmission processes inwhich work (family) conditions are associatedwith psychological responses, which are thentransferrednto attitudesand behaviorsat home(work).Negativetransmission rocesses ncludenegative emotionalarousal,interpersonalwith-drawal, nergydepletion,andstress Piotrkowski,1979;Rothbard, 001).Within-domain esourcesarerelativelysalientfor work-family acilitationbecausethey engen-der processes that improve performancewhenthey are appliedacross domains. The resourcesexaminedn thisstudy ncludeenabling esourcesand psychologicalrewards.Enablingresources

from one domain may generate resources inanother omain hatprovide he means orenhan-cing participationn theseconddomain.Enablingresourcesgenerallyare associatedwith the struc-tureor contentof domainactivities,suchas skillsand abilitiesdevelopedthroughdomainactivity,behaviors associated with role activities, andthe availabilityof social supportfrom othersinvolved in the domain.Enablingresources inone domain ontribute o work-familyacilitationby increasing he competenceand capacitiesofindividuals to performin other domains. Forexample,skills and abilitiesdevelopedat workor at home,suchas interpersonalommunicationskills, mayfacilitateconstructive ommunicationwith membersof the other domain.In addition,positiveparticipationn domainactivitiesmaybeassociated with energy creation that enhancesparticipationn otherdomains Marks,1977).In early work addressing acilitation,Sieber(1974) proposed hat rewards rom one domainmightfacilitateparticipationn anotherdomain.These rewardsncludedprivileges, tatus ecurityand enhancement,and personalityenrichment.Rewards also include psychological resourcesthat are associated with feeling esteemed andvalued,andintrinsic ewards uch as meaningfulactivities. These rewardsmay be accompaniedby psychologicalbenefits,such as motivation,asense of accomplishment,elf-esteem, and ego


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

5/16

Work-to-FamilyConflict and Facilitation 401

gratification.They maybe related o work-familyfacilitation through processes similar to thosediscussedabove for strain-based emands-thatis, psychologicalspillover.Positivetransmissionprocesses include positive emotional arousal,interpersonalavailability, energy creation, andgratification (Piotrkowski, 1979; Rothbard,2001).The differential salience approach expandson the dual-processmodel of work-home nter-ferenceproposedby Bakkerand Geurts(2003).Bakkerand Geurts's indings supported modelin whichjob demands workloadand emotionaldemands)operatethroughexhaustionto createnegative work-homeinterference(interaction),whereasjob resources(autonomy,possibilitiesfor development, and performancefeedback)operate throughflow to create positive work-home interferenceor positive work-homenter-action;Demerouti& Geurts, n press).Thisstudyextendstheirapproachby incorporating widerrangeof resourcesand demands nto the analysisandby consideringprocessesotherthan exhaus-tion andflow.

Comparable alienceofBoundary-Spanningesources

In additionto the differentialsalience of workresources nddemandsorwork-to-familyonflictand facilitation,the conceptualmodel indicatesthat boundary-spanningesources have com-parablesaliencefor work-to-family onflict andfacilitation.They are expectedto be negativelyrelatedto work-to-family onflict andpositivelyassociated with work-to-family facilitation.Boundary-spanningesourcesfocus on aspectsof work and family roles that directly addresshow work and family connectwith each other,such as the flexibilityof the temporalboundarybetweenworkandfamilyand the level of organ-izationalsupport or employeeeffortsto coordi-nate work and family obligationsand activities.In a similarvein, DesrochersandSargent 2003)referto commuting ime,hoursworkedat home,and a family-unfriendlyorkculture sboundary-spanning tressors.Boundary-spanningesourcesmay reduce work-familyconflict and increasework-family facilitation through interrelatedprocesses hatenhanceworkers'perceived ontrolover managingthe work-familyboundaryandlegitimizethe use of work-familypolicies.This study examinestwo types of boundary-spanning esources:heavailability f time-based

family supportpolicies and work-familyorgan-izationalsupport.The availabilityof time-basedfamily supportpolicies may be relatedto work-familyconflict and facilitation hrougha processin which the availabilityof policies increases heperceived flexibility of temporal boundariesbetween work andfamilylife. Research uggeststhat the availabilityof family supportpoliciesenhancesemployee perceivedcontrol and sym-bolizes corporate oncernregardlessof whetheran employee uses the policies (Clark, 2002;Grover&Crooker, 995).Thisperceived lexibilityand control may reduce time-based demands,therebyreducingwork-to-family onflict. It alsomay increasework-to-familyacilitationby gen-eratingtime resources n the family domain.Organizationalwork-familysupport s linkedto work-family onflict andfacilitationbecause tacknowledges nd egitimizes heimportance ndvalue of coordinatingwork and family respon-sibilities. It counters a dominantview in workorganizationshatsuggeststhatwork must auto-matically take priorityover family needs andactivities.It legitimizesthe use of availablepoli-cies thatgive credence o theimportance f meet-ing family needs and workresponsibilities.Thislegitimacymayreducethe strainassociatedwithlack of support or needed work-familyadjust-ments,therebyreducingwork-to-family onflict.Acceptance and recognition of the value ofwork-family policies also may contributetowork-to-familyfacilitation. Therefore, controland legitimatizationprocesses are expected tobe of comparablealienceto bothwork-to-familyconflictand facilitation.

THE PRESENT STUDY

This study tests hypotheses derived from themodelpresentedabove. The empirical estingofthe modelis limitedto the specificdemandsandresourcesanddimensionsof work-to-familyon-flict andfacilitation orwhichmeasures re avail-able in the data set used for secondaryanalysis.WorkDemandsand Work-to-FamilyConflictand Facilitation

Work demands are expected to contributetowork-to-family onflictby impedingthe perfor-manceof familyresponsibilities nd dutiesor bydepletingthe resourcesneeded for participationin familyactivities.The work demandsexpectedto be associatedwithwork-to-family onflictare


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

6/16

402 Journal of Marriage and Familyof two types:time basedand strainbased.Longpaid work hours limit the amountof time anindividual can spend with family members.This lack of available ime maymake it difficultfor employees to perform family duties andmaintain amily relationships.Previousresearchhas revealed consistent positive relationshipsbetween paid work hours and work-to-familyconflict(Clark,2001; Frone,Yardley,& Markel,1997;Grzywacz& Marks,2000;Major,Klein,&Ehrhart, 002; Thompson,Beauvais,& Lyness,1999). In addition,being required o work extrahourswithoutnoticeplaces time and schedulingconstraintson workers'abilities to meet familyresponsibilities.The lack of notice reduces theextent to which workersare able to be depend-able participantsn family activities. No studieswere located that examine the effects of extraworkwithoutnotice on work-to-familyonflict.Jobinsecurity rconcernoverlosingone'sjobis a strain-based emand hatthreatens he eco-nomic well-beingnecessaryto the stabilityandqualityof family life. The stressassociatedwithjob insecurityreducesinterpersonal vailabilityand limits effective participationn family life.One study reported hatjob insecurity s posi-tively related o work-to-family onflict for menand women (Batt & Valcour, 2003), whereasanother found a relationshipfor women butnot for men (Kinnunen& Mauno, 1998). Timepressureis a strain-baseddemand that can beexpectedto increaseemployees' negativeemo-tions, stress, and fatigue. These reactionsmayspill over into family life, which may increasework-to-familyconflict by limiting employees'abilitiesto perform amilyduties.Previousstud-ies show that time pressure s positivelyrelatedto work-to-familyconflict (Majoretal., 2002;Shaffer& Joplin,2001;Wallace,1999).However,these demandsare likely to be lesssalient for work-to-familyfacilitation becausefacilitation s expectedto resultfrom resourcesthat mobilize or engage individuals in familyactivitiesrather hanfrom a lack of demands. npreviousstudies,workdemandshave not shownstrong relationships o work-to-family acilita-tion. Work hours were unrelatedto work-to-family facilitation n two studies (Colton etal.,2002; Grzywacz& Marks,2000) but positivelyrelated o facilitation n a third(Wayne,Musica,& Fleeson, 2004). The Wayne etal. studyusesthe same sample as the Grzywaczand Marksstudybut with a differentset of predictors.Thediscrepancyn findingssuggests hat herelation-

ship reported y Wayneetal. is not robust.Workpressurewas positivelyrelated o work-to-familyfacilitation for men but not for women in onestudy (Grzywacz& Marks).Thus, the evidencesuggests that relationshipsbetween demandsand facilitationare weaker than those betweendemandsand conflict. The differentialsalienceapproachandpreviousresearchsuggestthe fol-lowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Time-based and strain-basedworkdemands are positively related to work-to-familyconflict, whereas they show weak negative rela-tionships to work-to-family facilitation.

WorkResourcesand Work-to-FamilyConflictandFacilitationAlthoughworkdemands reexpected o berelatedmore strongly o work-to-familyonflictthan tofacilitation,workresourcesareexpectedto showstrongerrelationshipswith facilitation hancon-flict. Enablingresourcesare associatedwith jobdesigncharacteristicsuchas autonomy nd earn-ing opportunities. utonomyrefers to the extentto which employeesare able to decide how todo their obs. Learning pportunitiesnhance hedevelopmentof skills and encouragecreativity.Thesecharacteristicsreassociatedwithresourcessuch as time managementand problem-solvingskills, nitiative,ctive earning,nd elf-confidence.They also contribute o a proactive tancethat isassociated with energycreation.Whenthey areapplied to family activities and relationships,they areexpected o contributeo work-to-familyfacilitation. Two studies have found that jobautonomyand learning opportunitiesare posi-tively related to work-to-family facilitation(Demerouti& Geurts, in press; Grzywacz &Butler,2003).Psychologicalrewards,such as respect andmeaningfulwork, are an aspect of personalityenrichmenthatincreases elf-esteemandgratifi-cation. These rewardsmay be transmitted ntofamily ife via thepsychologicalpilloverof posi-tive emotionsandenergyexpansion,hereby on-tributingo work-to-familyacilitation.No knownstudieshave examined he effects of respectandmeaningfulworkon work-to-familyacilitation.The extent to which enablingresourcesandpsychologicalrewards nfluencework-to-familyconflict,however, s unclear.Althoughautonomy


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

7/16

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation 403

provides control on the job that reduces jobstress, it may not carry over into family lifesuch that it reduces work-to-familyconflict.Learningopportunitiesare even less likely toreduce work-to-family conflict. Thus, theseresourcesare expected to be more salient forwork-to-family facilitation than for work-to-family conflict. Threepreviousstudies revealedthatjob autonomywas not relatedto work-to-family conflict (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Clark,2001;Parasuraman,urohit,Godshalk,&Beutell,1996), whereas two others found a negativerelationship Grzywacz& Marks,2000; Maume& Houston,2001). These findings suggest thatunder some conditions, autonomy may reducework-to-family onflict.Becausepsychologicalrewardsare transmittedthrough pilloverprocesses hatcreatesimilaritiesacrossdomains Edwards& Rothbard,000), it isnot expectedthatpsychologicalrewardswill berelatedtronglyowork-to-familyonflict.No stud-ies were located hatexamined heserelationshipsdirectly.However,Barnett,Raudenbush, rennan,Pleck,andMarshall1995)havereportedhatposi-tive changesin the averageof job rewardsandconcernsare negativelyassociatedwith psycho-logical distress. t is not clearwhether his resultwas influencedmore by the job rewardsor jobconcerns componentof the measure. Despitelimited and inconsistent esearch, he differentialsalienceapproachuggests hefollowing:

Hypothesis2: Enabling esourcesandpsycholo-gical rewardsare positively related to work-to-family facilitationand show weak negativerelationshipso work-to-familyonflict.

Boundary-Spanningesourcesand Work-to-Family Conflictand FacilitationBoundary-spanningesources ocus on the inter-face between he workandfamilydomainsratherthan on characteristics f the job itself. Someemployersprovidework-familypolicies that aredesignedto assist workers n meetingtheirworkand family obligations.Time-based amily sup-portpoliciesreduceworkrequirementso that itis easier for employeesto meet family responsi-bilities.They includepolicies that allow workersto take family-relatedeaves or to take time offduringthe workdayto meet personalor familyneeds. Thesepoliciesmayreducework-to-family

conflict and ncrease acilitationby limiting ime-based work demandsandcreating ime resourceswithin the family. Studiesof the availabilityoftime-basedfamily supportpolicies are sparse.One study reported hat the ability to take timeoff duringthe workday s negativelyrelatedtowork-to-family onflict (Majoretal., 2002). Noknown studies have examined relationshipsbetween the availabilityof parental eave andwork-to-family onflict. No studieswere foundthatexamined ime-based amily supportpoliciesin relation o work-to-familyacilitation.Thosestudying heeffectsof work-familypol-icies on workersandtheirfamilies have discov-ered that thesepolicies must be accompanied ya work-family ultureand supervisorswho sup-porttheir use. A supportivework-family ulturecountersa commonperceptionhat careerpenal-ties are associatedwith using work-familypol-icies, thereby increasing the likelihood thatworkerswill use them. A supportivework-familycultureenhancesemployee flexibility in coordi-natingworkandfamily responsibilitiesby legit-imizing employee efforts to meet family needsandby creatinga perceptionhatcareerpenaltiesare not associatedwith using availablepolicies.This legitimatizationrovides mplicitpermissionto use work-family policies, thereby reducingstrain and discomfortassociatedwith work-to-family conflict and increasing psychologicalrewards related to facilitation. Studies revealthat a supportivework-familycultureis nega-tively relatedto work-to-family onflict (Allen,2001;Behson, 2002; Coltonetal., 2002;Maume& Houston, 2001; Thompsonetal., 1999). Theone study that examined a supportivework-familyculture n relation o work-to-familyacil-itation ounda weakpositiverelationshipColtonetal.).Supportiveupervisorsmayprovidemoreexpli-cit support to employees. When supervisorsrespondpositively o discussingand accommodat-ing employees'family obligations, mployeesarelikely to feel comfortableusing availablework-family policies. Supervisorwork-family upportis negativelyrelatedto work-to-family onflict(Allen, 2001; Batt & Valcour,2003; Thomas &Ganster,1995).No knownstudieshave examinedrelationships between supervisor work-familysupport ndwork-to-familyacilitation.However,two studieshave reportedpositive relationshipsbetween job-oriented supervisor support andfacilitation(Colton et al., 2002; Demerouti&Geurts, in press). The comparable salience


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

8/16

404 Journal of Marriage and Family

approach nd thesefindings ead to the followinghypothesis:

Hypothesis: Boundary-spanningesourcesrenegativelyelatedowork-to-familyonflict ndpositivelyelatedowork-to-familyacilitation.

DemographicCharacteristicsDemographic haracteristics re includedin theanalysesto accountfor the effects of additionalvariables hatmayinfluencework-to-familyon-flict or facilitation.They includeeducation,gen-der, race/ethnicity,and the numberof childrenunder 6 years old in the household.Grzywacz,Almeida,andMcDonald 2002)conducteda rela-tively comprehensiveanalysis of demographiccharacteristicsn relation o bothwork-to-familyconflictandfacilitation.They reported hatedu-cation is positively associated with work-to-family conflict, whereas men and Blacks reportlower work-to-family onflict than women andnon-Blacks.Grzywaczetal. suggestedthat thefindings for educationand race/ethnicitymayreflect the socialrather hansocioeconomiccon-texts with which they are associated. Genderdifferences in the expectations and behaviorpatternsassociatedwith work and family rolessuggest hatwomenmay experiencehigherwork-to-familyconflict thanmen. AlthoughGrzywaczetal. did not find a statisticallyignificantpositiverelationship etweenhavinga child under6 andwork-to-familyonflict, amilydemands ssociatedwith having youngchildren n the home suggestthat t is importanto include n theanalyses.

Grzywaczetal. (2002) also examinedrelation-shipsbetweenthese fourdemographic haracter-istics andwork-to-familyacilitation.Theyfoundthat womenreportedhigher evels of facilitationthanmen, whereasthe otherthreedemographiccharacteristics id not show statisticallysignifi-cantrelationshipswithfacilitation. t is not clearwhy womenreporthigher evels of bothconflictand facilitation than men. Perhapsthis findingresultsfrom tradeoffsassociatedwith work andfamily demandsandresources.Becauseso littleis knownabout acilitation,t is difficultto inter-prettheweak effectsof education, ace/ethnicity,and number of childrenunder 6 years old onfacilitation. f they wereassociatedmorecloselywith demands hanwith resources, he differen-

tial salienceapproachwould predictweak rela-tionshipswithfacilitation.

METHODData

The data or thestudyarefromthe 1997NationalStudyof theChangingWorkforce.Usingrandom-digit dialing, a telephonesurvey interviewedanationallyrepresentativeampleof 3,551 adultsemployed n the civilianU.S. laborforce,whichincluded95% of householdsdeterminedo havean eligible respondent. Using an estimate ofeligible households for telephone numberswhere eligibility could not be determined, heoverallresponserateis 52.9%(Bond, Galinsky,& Swanberg,1998). The subsampleused in theanalyses ncludes2,012 wage andsalaryworkersages 18 to 64 who were living with a spouse,partner,child, or other relative. When thosewith missing values on any of the variablesareomitted, he sample s reduced o 1,938.Thenumberof missingcasesis highest or paidworkhours(23) andextraworkwithoutnotice(15).

MeasuresWork-to-familyonflictand acilitation.Work-to-family conflict s the meanresponse o five items(alpha=.86) asking respondents:"In the pastthreemonths,howoftenhaveyounothadenoughtime foryourselfbecauseof your ob?Howoftenhave you not hadenough ime foryourfamilyorother importantpeople in your life because ofyour ob?Howoften haveyounothadtheenergyto do thingswithyourfamilyor otherimportantpeople in your life because of yourjob? Howoften have you not been able to get everythingdone athome eachdaybecauseof your ob?Howoftenhaveyounotbeen in asgooda mood asyouwould like to be at home becauseof yourjob?Wouldyou say (5) veryoften,often,sometimes,rarely,or (1) never?"The measureof work-to-familyfacilitation is the mean of the followingtwo items (alpha=.53): "In the past threemonths,how oftenhaveyou hadmoreenergytodo things with your family or other importantpeople in your life because of yourjob?" and"How often have you been in a bettermood athome because of your job?" (1= never to5 ~veryften).


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

9/16


Within-domain emands. The measure of paidworkhours is the usual numberof hoursworkedper week at the respondent'smain job. Extrawork withoutnotice is assessedby responsestothe following: "How often are you required owork extra or overtime hours with little or noadvancednotice?"(1= never,6 = everyweek ormore often). The measureof job insecurityisbased on responsesto the following question:"How likely is it thatduring he next couple ofyears you will lose your present ob andhave tolook for a job with anotheremployer-(4) verylikely,somewhat ikely,not too likely,or (1) notat all likely?" The measure of time pressurereflects the responsesto the following question:"I never seem to haveenoughtime to get every-thingdoneon my job" (1 = stronglydisagreeto4 = stronglyagree).Within-domain esources.Autonomys assessedby averaging responsesto the following threeitems(alpha= .68):"Ihave the freedom o decidewhat I do on my job; it is basically my ownresponsibilityo decide how my job gets done;and I have a lot of say about whathappensonmy job" (1-strongly disagree to 4= stronglyagree). The measureof learningopportunitiessthe mean responseto the following four items(alpha= .66): "Myjob requireshatI keeplearn-ing newthings;myjob requireshatI be creative;my job lets me use my skills and abilities"(1= stronglydisagreeto 4= stronglyagree);and"How satisfiedareyouwith theopportunitieshatyou have at work to learnnew skills that couldhelp you get a better ob or find another quallygood job if this one doesn't work out?"(1- notsatisfiedat all to 4 = very satisfied).Themeasureof respect is the extent of agreementwith thefollowingitem: "At the companyor organizationwhere I work, I am treated with respect"(1 = stronglydisagreeto 4 = stronglyagree).Themeasure f meaningfulwork s the extentof agree-mentwith thefollowing tem: "The workI do onmy job is meaningful o me" (1= stronglydis-agree to 4 = stronglyagree).Boundary-spanningesources.The measureofparentalleave is a dummyvariablecoded 1 forthoseanswering es to bothof thefollowingques-tions:"Are women who work foryour employerable to take time off work to recuperate romchildbirth without endangeringtheir jobs, ornot?"and "Aremen whowork oryouremployerable to take time off work when they become

fatherswithoutendangeringheirjobs, or not?"Timeoff or familyis a single-itemvariablebasedon responsesto the following question:"Howhard is it for you to take time off duringyourworkday to take care of personalor familymat-ters-(1) veryhard,somewhat ard,nottoo hard,or (4) notat all hard?"Themeasure f a suppor-tivework-familyultures the meanof thefollow-ing four items (alpha .74): "There is anunwritten ule at my place of employment hatyou can't take care of familyneeds on companytime;atmy placeof employment, mployeeswhoput theirfamilyor personalneeds ahead of theirjobs are not lookedon favorably;f you have aproblemmanagingyourworkandfamilyrespon-sibilities, he attitudeat my placeof employmentis: 'You madeyourbed,now lie in it!'; and atmyplace of employment, mployeeshave to choosebetweenadvancingn their obs ordevotingatten-tion to theirfamilyor personal ives. Do you (1)strongly agree, somewhatagree, somewhatdis-agree, or (4) strongly disagree?" Supervisorwork-family upport is assessed by averagingresponses to the following five items(alpha=.84): "My supervisors fairand doesn'tshowfavoritism n respondingo employees'per-sonal or family needs;my supervisor ccommo-dates me when I havefamilyorpersonalbusinessto take care of; my supervisors understandingwhen I talk aboutpersonalor family issues thataffect my work;I feel comfortablebringinguppersonalor familyissues withmy supervisor;mysupervisor eallycares about he effects thatworkdemandshave on my personaland family life"(1 =strongly disagreeto 4 =strongly agree). Afactor analysisof the items used in the scalesdescribedabove shows that each item has aloading of at least .50 on the appropriatescale and no loadingsgreater han .25 on otherscales.Demographiccharacteristics.Gender is coded1 male and 0= female. Age is coded in yearsandrangesbetween 18 and 64. Education s cat-egorized as follows: 1-less than high school;2 = highschoolgraduateor GED;3 = some col-lege, no degree;4 = associatedegree;5 = 4-yearcollege degree;and 6= graduateor professionaldegree.Race/ethnicitys a dummyvariable oded1 = non-HispanicWhiteand0 = all others.Num-berof childrenunder6 is the numberof childrenunder6 yearsof age wholive with therespondentfor at least half the year, including biological,adopted,oster,or stepchildrencoded0-3).


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

10/16

406 Journal of Marriage and FamilyTable 1 presentsthe means, standarddevia-tions, and correlations or the variablesin the

analysis. The correlationsamong independentvariablesgenerallyarelow. The highestcorrela-tions are for meaningful work and learningopportunitiesr -.53) andrespectandsupervisorsupport r= .50).RESULTS

The hypotheses are tested through ordinaryleast squaresregressionanalysis.Tables2 and3presentthe findingsfor work-to-family onflictand work-to-family facilitation, respectively.Model 1 includes demographiccharacteristics.Within-domainorkdemands readded n Model2, followed by within-domainworkresources nModel 3 and boundary-spanningesources inModel 4.The results for demographiccharacteristicspresented n Model 1 in Table 2 indicatethatwork-to-family onflictis higherfor women andthose with more educationand childrenunder6yearsold in thehousehold.Table3 indicates hatwork-to-familyacilitations lower for thosewithmore educationandfor non-HispanicWhites.As predicted,Model 2 in Table 2 shows thattime-based workhours and extra work withoutnotice)andstrain-basedjob insecurityand timepressure)demandsarepositivelyassociatedwithwork-to-family onflict. All four within-domainworkdemands howstatistically ignificantposi-tive relationships o conflict. Also as expected,Table 3 reveals that the effects of these workdemandson work-to-family acilitation are notstrong.Threeof the four demandsshow modestnegativerelationshipso facilitation n Model 2.However,when resourcesareincluded n Models3 and4, only time pressure hows a statisticallysignificantnegativeassociationwith facilitation.Work demandsexplain 20% of the variance nwork-to-familyonflict,whereasheyexplainonly1% of variance in work-to-family acilitation.Thus,the findingssupportHypothesis1.Table 3, Model 3 documentsthat enablingresources autonomyandlearningopportunities)andpsychological ewardsrespectandmeaning-ful work)arepositivelyrelated o work-to-familyfacilitation.All fourwithin-domain orkresourcesshowstatistically ignificantpositiverelationshipsto facilitation. Table 2 reveals that three ofthe four resources show statisticallysignificantnegativerelationships ithwork-to-familyonflictin Model 3. However,when boundary-spanning

resources re added n Model4, onlythe relation-ship for meaningfulwork remainsstatisticallysignificant.Within-domainesources xplain10%of the variance n facilitation,compared o 4%for work-to-family conflict. These findingssupportHypothesis2.As predicted, ime-based amily supportpol-icies (parentaleave and timeoff for family)andwork-family organizational upport(supportivework-family ultureand supervisorwork-familysupport)show statisticallysignificant negativeassociationswith conflict (Table 2, Model 4)andpositiverelationshipso work-to-familyacili-tation(Table3, Model4). These fourboundary-spanning esources xplain6%of the variance nwork-to-family onflict, versus2% for work-to-family facilitation.Thus,support or Hypothesis3 is stronger or work-to-familyonflictthan forwork-to-familyacilitation.

DIscusSIONThis articlehas presentedand examineda con-ceptual model that posits that within-domainwork demandsand resources are differentiallysalient for work-to-family onflict and facilita-tion, whereasboundary-spanningesourceshavecomparable aliencefor conflictand facilitation.Within-domainworkdemandsand resourcesareproposedto influence conflict and facilitationthrough processes of resource drain, resourcegeneration,and negative and positive psycho-logical spillover.Study indingsndicate hatworkdemands xplain20%of the variance n work-to-family conflict, whereas resourcesexplain 4%.Work resourcesexplain 10%of the variance nfacilitation,whereasdemandsexplain1%.Theseresultssupporthe differential alienceapproach.A similarpatternof findings s found in the fewother studies that examine both work-to-familyconflict and facilitation Bakker& Geurts,2003;Grzywacz& Marks,2000).Considering eciprocal elationshipshatcreateloss andgain spiralsmay extend the differentialsalienceapproachurther.Onelongitudinal tudydocumentsreciprocalrelationshipsamongworkpressure,exhaustion,and work-home interfer-ence that create a "loss spiral" (Demerouti,Bakker,& Bulters,2004). Additional esearch sneeded to understand the extent to whichdemand-conflictand resource-facilitation ela-tionships are mutually reinforcingover time.However, these relationshipsdo not form a


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

11/16

00

ONz

Z

z0)< O

0).0

Z?)z.

7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

12/16

TABLE 2REGRESSIONS OF WORK-TO-FAMILY CONFLICT ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, WITHIN-DOMAIN DEMANDS AND RESOURCES,

(N= 1,938)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SEB beta B SEB beta B SEBDemographic CharacteristicsGender 1 = male) -.16 .04 -.08*** -.27 .04 -.14*** -.26 .04Education .06 .02 .09*** .01 .01 .02 .02 .01Race/ethnicity 1 = non-Hispanic White) .02 .05 .01 .05 .05 .02 .05 .05Numberof children< 6 .14 .04 .09*** .13 .03 .09*** .13 .03

Within-Domain DemandsPaidworkhours .01 .002 .14*** .01 .002Extraworkwithoutnotice .11 .01 .21*** .10 .01Job insecurity .21 .02 .20*** .16 .02Time pressure .20 .02 .24*** .21 .02Within-Domain ResourcesAutonomy -.11 .03Learningopportunities -.07 .04Respect -.12 .03Meaningfulwork -.07 .03

Boundary-SpanningResourcesParental eaveTime off for familySupportivework-familycultureSupervisorwork-familysupportR .02 .22 .26Change n R2 .02 .20 .04F for changein R2 11.02*** 125.47*** 24.77****p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 (two-tailed tests).


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

13/16


TABLEREGRESSIONSFWORK-TO-FAMILYACILITATIONNDEMOGRAPHICHARACTERISTICS,ITHIN-DOMAINEMANDSND

RESOURCES,AND BOUNDARY-SPANNING ESOURCESN= 1,938)Model I Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variables B SEB beta B SEB beta B SEB beta B SEB betaDemographic CharacteristicsGender(1 = male) .07 .04 .04 .08 .04 .04 .07 .04 .04 .06 .04 .03

Education -.05 .01 -.09***-.05 .01 -.08**-.07 .01 -.11***-.06 .01 -.11***Race/ethnicity -.16 .05 -.08** -.17 .05 -.08**-.17 .05 -.08***-.16 .05 -.08***(1 = non-HispanicWhite)Number of children< 6 -.02 .03 -.01 -.02 .03 -.01 -.01 .03 -.01 -.01 .03 -.01

Within-Domain DemandsPaid work hours .001 .002 .02 -.001 .002 -.02 -.001 .002 -.01Extra work withoutnotice -.02 .01 -.05* -.01 .01 -.02 -.002 .01 -.00Job insecurity -.06 .02 -.06* .02 .02 .02 .03 .02 .03Time pressure -.04 .02 -.06* -.07 .02 -.09***-.07 .02 -.08***Within-Domain ResourcesAutonomy .09 .03 .08** .06 .03 .05*Learningopportunities .19 .04 .13*** .16 .04 .11***Respect .15 .03 .12*** .10 .03 .09**Meaningfulwork .13 .03 .12*** .14 .03 .12***

Boundary-Spanning ResourcesParental eave .10 .04 .06*Time off for family .06 .02 .07**Supportivework-family .07 .03 .06*cultureSupervisorwork-family .13 .04 .10***

supportR2 .01 .02 .12 .14Changein R2 .01 .01 .10 .02F for change in R2 7.89*** 4.74** 54.59*** 9.18***

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 (two-tailedtests).

closed system. In the early models of Tables2and 3, some within-domainworkdemandshavelimited negativeeffects on facilitation,whereassome workresourceshavemodestnegativeasso-ciationswithconflict. Some of theserelationshipsarereduced yvariablesntroducednlatermodels.However, time pressureand meaningfulworkremain statistically significant across models,which suggests that some demands are able tolimit facilitation,whereas some resourcesmayreduceconflict.Thecomplexityof theserelation-ships may explain some of the mixed findingsfound in previousresearch,such as the positiverelationshipbetween work hours and facilitationand the negative relationshipbetweenautonomyand conflict. The differentialsalience approachdoes not precludesuch limited crossovereffects

of resourceson conflict or demandson facilita-tion. Instead, it emphasizesthat the dominantpatternof effects is from demandsto conflictand fromresources o facilitation.Theconceptualmodelalso assertshatboundary-spanning resources have comparablesaliencefor work-to-family onflict and facilitation.Per-ceived control and flexibilityregardinghe timeboundarybetween work and family and thelegitimacyassociatedwith work-family rganiza-tional supportare proposed to reduce work-to-family conflict and increase work-to-familyfacilitation.The findings ndicate hattime-basedfamily supportpolicies and work-familyorgan-izational upport renegativelyrelated o conflictandpositivelyassociatedwithfacilitation.Theseresourcesexplain6% of the variance n conflict,


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

14/16

410 Journal of Marriage and Familycomparedwith 2% for facilitation.Thus, theeffects of family supportpolicies and work-family organizationalsupport are somewhatstrongeror conflict than orfacilitation.The findings support the work of Glassand Estes (1997) and Batt and Valcour(2003),who pointedout that work-familypolicies andorganizational upportmay be necessarybutnotsufficient to reduce work-familyconflict. Thefindings show that both within-domainworkdemands and boundary-spanningesources areconsistentlyassociatedwith work-to-family on-flict. Inaddition,boundary-spanningesourcesdonot reduce the effects of demandson conflict.Thus, to lower work-to-familyconflict, it isessential to reduce the level of within-domaindemands and provide family supportpoliciesandorganizationalupport.Thisarguments sup-portedby theworkof Rapoportndhercolleagues(2002), who have documented he importance fworkdesignfor work-family ntegrationn threelargeU.S.corporations.t is therefore ecessaryoemploy a combination f work-relatedtrategiesto improveheabilityof employees o successfullyintegrate heir work and family responsibilitiesandrelationships.The demographic ariablesshow mixed rela-tionshipswithwork-to-familyonflict andfacili-tation. The findings for gender and numberofchildren ess than6 yearsold suggestthatthesecharacteristics re comparableo within-domaindemands.Womenandthose with childrenunder6 yearsold in the householdreporthigher evelsof work-to-familyonflict,whereas hesecharac-teristics are not relatedto facilitation.However,the findings orrace/ethnicity o not supporthisapproach.Racial/ethnicminoritiesreporthigherlevels of work-to-family acilitation than non-HispanicWhites.This suggeststhat socialratherthansocioeconomicresourcesanddemandsmaybe operating n this situation(Grzywaczetal.,2002). Thisapproach lso is supportedoreduca-tion, which is positivelyassociatedwith conflictandnegativelyrelated o facilitation.This study has taken a step toward betterunderstandingf the sources of work-to-familyconflictandfacilitationby examininga rangeofwork resourcesand demandsfor a large repre-sentative ampleof employees.However,despiteits strengths, he studysuffersimportantimita-tions.First,although he completionrate s 95%,theestimated verallresponse ate s low (52.9%)because the interviewerswere unableto deter-mine whether a large numberof households

includedaneligible respondent.Theimplicationsof thisproblem or the findingsareunclear.Second,the measureof work-to-familyacili-tation has limitedreliabilityandrange.An ade-quate measuremust include items that addressboth resourcegenerationand positive psycho-logical spillover. The National Study of theChangingWorkforce NSCW)measureconsistsof two items regardingmoodandenergy,whichfocus on spillover and one aspect of resourcegeneration.However,additionaltems areneededthat include otheraspectsof resourcegenerationsuchas workbehaviors,attitudes, ndskills.TheNSCW s one of two knownnational am-ples that include a measureof work-to-familyfacilitation.The other is the NationalSurveyofMidlife Development in the United States(MIDUS).The MIDUS surveyhas a somewhathigheroverallresponserate,60.8%.Themeasureof work-to-family facilitation includes threeitems (alpha=.73) that addressresourcegener-ation but none that considerspositive psycho-logical spillover(Voydanoff,2003). In addition,the MIDUSsurveydoes not includemeasuresofboundary-spanning esources. Therefore, theNSCW was chosenfor this study.Third, althoughthe multiple-itempredictorsgenerallyhave adequatereliability,severalpre-dictors consist of single items. Some of thesesingle-item measures are relatively unprob-lematic, such as paid work hours, extra workwithoutnotice,and time off forfamily.However,otherresourcesand demands,such as job inse-curity, time pressure,respect, and meaningfulwork,beg for morecomprehensivemeasures. naddition, he meaningof the measureof parentalleave to respondentss ambiguous.The fact thatonly 65% of respondents mployed n organiza-tionswith 50 or moreemployeesreport hatbothmothersand fatherscantakeparentaleave with-out endangeringheirjobs (comparedwith 60%of those employedin smallercompanies) sug-gests thatrespondentshave a broaderdefinitionof job endangermenthanthat articulatedn theFamilyandMedicalLeaveAct.Theselimitationsreducethe generalizability f the findings.A moreadequateest of the conceptualmodelalso wouldbenefitfrommeasuresof otherpoten-tially important emandsandresources,such asemotionaldemands,work-role onflict andambi-guity, psychological involvement,performancefeedback,andpsychological ewards uchas sta-tus enhancement and personality enrichment.Additional onceptualworkregardinghe nature


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

15/16


and operationof work demands and resourcesalso is needed. Some work characteristicsncor-porateboth resourcesanddemands;orexample,paid work hours reduce the time availableforfamily activities while bringingneeded incomeinto the home. In addition,some demands andresourcescanbe conceptualized s ranging romlow to high (forexample, ow to high time pres-sure),whereasotherscan be conceivedasrangingbetweenopposite poles (such as a supportive ounsupportivework-family ulture).In conclusion, the conceptual model hasreceivedempiricalsupportwithin the limitationsof thepresent tudy.Thestudyshowsthatarangeof work resourcesand demands s importantorreducing work-to-family onflict and enhancingwork-to-familyfacilitation. This increases ourunderstandingfthecomponentseeded oran nte-grated trategyo assistemployees n coordinatingtheirworkandfamilyactivitiesmoresuccessfully.Additionalwork is needed to furtherdelineatethe componentsof such a strategy and theirrelative importance n relation to work-familyconflictand acilitation. henegative onsequencesof work-familyconflict for both work organiza-tions and families make this an importantask.In addition, to the extent that work-to-familyfacilitationoccurs, the quality and functioningof family life may improve.This improvementmay in turn reduce family-to-workconflict,therebyncreasingworkproductivity,ommitment,and satisfaction and reducing turnover andabsenteeism.Futurework will reveal the extentto which and the processesthroughwhich thisoccurs.

REFERENCESAllen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive ork environ-ments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,414-435.Bakker,A. B., & Geurts,S. A. E. (2003). Towardsa

dual-process model of work-home interference.Underreview.Barnett,R. C., Raudenbush,S. W., Brennan,R. T.,Pleck, J. H., & Marshall,N. L. (1995). Changein

job and maritalexperiencesandchangein psycho-logical distress. Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology,69, 839-850.Batt, R., & Valcour,P. M. (2003). Human resourcepractices as predictorsof work-familyoutcomesand employee turnover. IndustrialRelations, 42,189-220.

Behson,S. J. (2002). Which dominates?The relativeimportanceof work-familyorganizational upportandgeneralorganizationalontexton employeeout-comes. Journalof VocationalBehavior,61, 53-72.Bond, J. T., Galinsky,E., & Swanberg,J. E. (1998).The 1997 National Studyof the ChangingWork-force. New York:Familiesand WorkInstitute.Bronfenbrenner,. (1989).Ecological systems theory.Annalsof ChildDevelopment, , 187-249.Clark,S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/familybalance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,348-365.

Clark,S. C. (2002, August).Bordersbetweenworkandhome, andwork/family onflict.Paperpresentedatthe annualmeetings of the Academyof Manage-ment, Denver,CO.Colton,C. L., Hammer,L. B., & Neal, M. G. (2002,April). Informalorganizational upportand workandfamilyoutcomes.Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingsof the Societyof Industrial ndOrganiza-tionalPsychology,Toronto,Ontario.Demerouti,E., & Geurts,S. (in press). Towardsatypology of work-home interaction.Community,Work& Family.Demerouti,E., Bakker,A. B., & Bulters,A. J. (2004).The loss spiral of work pressure, work-homeinterference nd exhaustion.Journalof VocationalBehavior,64, 131-149.

Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. D. (2003, March).Effects of boundary-spanningtressors,work stres-sors and coping resourceson dual earnercouples/work performanceand career satisfaction.Paperpresentedat the APA/NIOSHConferenceon Occu-pationalStressandHealth,Toronto,Ontario.Edwards, .R., & Rothbard,N. P. (2000).Mechanismslinkingwork and family.Academyof ManagementReview,25, 178-199.

Frone,M. R. (2003). Work-familybalance.In J. C.Quick& L. E. Tetrick Eds.),Handbook f Occupa-tionalHealthPsychologypp.143-162).Washington,DC: American sychological ssociation.Frone,M. R., Yardley,J. K., & Markel,K. S. (1997).Developingandtestingan integrativemodelof thework-familynterface. ournalof VocationalBehav-ior, 50, 145-167.

Glass,J. L., & Estes,S. G. (1997).Thefamily respon-sive workplace.Annual Review of Sociology, 23,289-313.Greenhaus, . H., & Beutell,N. J. (1985). Sourcesofconflict betweenwork andfamilyroles.Academyof

Management ournal, 10, 76-88.Grover,S. L., & Crooker,K. J. (1995). Who appreci-ates family-responsivehuman resource policies.PersonnelPsychology,48, 271-288.


7/29/2019 4bjhbhbhb

16/16

412 Journal of Marriage and Family

Grzywacz,J. G., & Butler,A. (2003, April).Jobchar-acteristics, ndividual esources,and workto familyfacilitation.Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingsof the Society for Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology,Orlando, L.Grzywacz,J. G., & Marks,N. F. (2000). Reconceptua-

lizingthework-familynterface. ournalof Occupa-tionalHealthPsychology,5, 111-126.Grzywacz,J. G., Almeida,D. M., & McDonald,D. A.(2002). Work-family pilloverand daily reportsofwork and family stress in the adult labor force.FamilyRelations,51, 28-36.Kinnunen,U., & Mauno,S. (1998). Antecedentsandoutcomesof work-family onflictamongemployedwomen and men in Finland.HumanRelations,51,

157-177.Lazarus,R. S., & Folkman, . (1984).Stress,appraisal,andcoping.New York:Springer.Major,V.S., Klein,K.J.,&Ehrhart,M. G.(2002).Worktime, work interferencewith family, and psycho-

logical distress. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 427-436.Marks,S. R. (1977). Multipleroles and role strain.AmericanSociologicalReview,42, 921-936.Maume,D. J., & Houston,P. (2001). Job segregationand gender differences in work-family spillover

among white-collar workers. Journal of Familyand Economic ssues,22, 171-189.Parasuraman, ., & Greenhaus, . H. (2002). Toward

reducing ome criticalgapsin work-family esearch.Human Resource Management Review, 12,299-312.Parasuraman,., Purohit,Y. S., Godshalk,V. M., &

Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables,entrepreneurialareer success, and psychologicalwell-being. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 48,275-300.

Piotrkowski,C. (1979). Workand thefamily sy;stem.New York:Free Press.Rapoport,R., Bailyn,L., Fletcher, . K., & Pruitt,B. H.(2002). Beyondwork-familyalance.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Rothbard,N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting?The dynamicsof engagement n work and familyroles.AdministrativecienceQuarterly,6, 655-684.Shaffer,M. A., & Joplin,J. R. (2001, August).Work-family conflicton international ssignments.Paperpresented t the annualmeetingsof the AcademyofManagement,Washington,DC.Sieber,S. D. (1974). Towarda theoryof role accumu-lation.AmericanSociologicalReview,39, 567-578.Sumer,H. C., & Knight,P. A. (2001). How do peoplewith differentattachment tyles balance work andfamily?JournalofAppliedPsychology, 6, 653-663.Tenbrunsel,A. E., Brett,J. M., Maoz,E., Stroh,L. K.,& Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamicand static work-family relationships.OrganizationalBehavior andHumanDecisionProcesses,63, 223-246.Thomas,L.T.,&Ganster, . C.(1995). mpact f family-supportive orkvariables n work-familyonflictandstrain. ournal fAppliedPsychology, 0, 6-15.

Thompson,C. A., Beauvais,L. L., & Lyness, K. S.(1999). Whenwork-familybenefits are not enough.Journalof VocationalBehavior,54, 392-415.Tiedje,L.B.,Wortman, .B.,Downey,G., Emmons,C.,Biernat, M., & Lang, E. (1990). Women with

multipleroles. Journalof Marriageand the Family,52, 63-72.Voydanoff,P. (2002). Linkages between the work-family interfaceand work, family, and individualoutcomes.Journalof FamilyIssues,23, 138-164.Voydanoff, P. (2003). The differential salience of

family and communitydemandsand resources orfamily-to-workonflictand acilitation.Under eview.Wallace, J. E. (1999). Work-to-nonwork onflictamong marriedmale and female lawyers.Journalof OccupationalBehavior,20, 797-816.

Wayne, .H.,Grzywacz, .G., Carlson,D. S.,& Kacmar,M. K. (2003).Work-familyacilitation:A theoreticalelaborationf the construct.Under eview.Wayne, J. H., Musica, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004).Considering he role of personality n the work-

family experience.Journalof VocationalBehavior,64, 108-130.

Documents

4bjhbhbhb