15
Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231–245 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Public Relations Review A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives Hua Jiang Department of Mass Communication and Communication Studies, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Keywords: Employee–organization relationships Transformational leadership Procedural justice Family-supportive workplace initiatives a b s t r a c t This paper tested a new model of employee–organization relationships (EORs) by introduc- ing types of work–life conflict as variables leading to EOR outcomes, and by investigating the possible effects of transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives upon employees’ perceptions of work–life conflict and relationships with their employers. Data were collected from a survey of 396 U.S. employees. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was adopted to address the multilevel structure of collected data. Time-based work–life conflict, individualized consideration, and procedural justice were found to be associated with quality of EORs significantly. Fair work–life policy-making procedures also significantly predicted perceived levels of work–life conflict. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Organization–public relationship (OPR) management has been widely used as a useful framework for public relations research, teaching, and practice (e.g., Hon & Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; Ledingham, 2003). Two extensively examined mod- els of OPRs include (1) Broom, Casey, and Ritchey’s (2000) model emphasizing perceptions, motives, needs, and behaviors as predictors of relationships and their consequences (p. 16), and (2) Grunig and Huang’s (2000) model elaborating situa- tional antecedents, relationship maintenance strategies, and relationship outcomes (p. 34). Nevertheless, the two models have not been extensively applied to employee publics (Freitag & Picherit-Duthler, 2004; McCown, 2007). One important research direction that has not been fully developed is new models of relationships integrating variables that can impact the development of relationships between organizations and their strategic employees (Kim, 2007). Managing work–life conflict has become a critical and highly salient challenge for employees and employers in the 21st century (Ellin, 2003). Public relations researchers have recognized the significance of work–life conflict for organizations and revealed the conflict as a critical gap in scholarship (Aldoory, Jiang, Toth, & Sha, 2008). Aldoory et al. qualitatively examined public relations professionals’ perceptions, narratives, and coping strategies. They called for studies that can quantify work–life conflict and further explore its potential contribution to public relations theory building. Employees’ immediate supervisors’ supportive leadership behaviors may be one type of organizational responsiveness associated with work–life issues (Allen, 2001). Public relations scholars have suggested that leaders in effective organizations perform transformational leadership styles (Jin, 2010). Moreover, scholars have called for research examining the variables related to “managers’ behaviors” that could potentially mitigate work–life conflict (Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998, Tel.: +1 410 704 3195; fax: +1 410 704 3656. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] 0363-8111/$ see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.11.007

A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

Ara

HD

a

KETPF

1

reathrt

caeq

apr

0d

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organizationelationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice,nd family-supportive workplace initiatives

ua Jiang ∗

epartment of Mass Communication and Communication Studies, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:mployee–organization relationshipsransformational leadershiprocedural justiceamily-supportive workplace initiatives

a b s t r a c t

This paper tested a new model of employee–organization relationships (EORs) by introduc-ing types of work–life conflict as variables leading to EOR outcomes, and by investigating thepossible effects of transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportiveworkplace initiatives upon employees’ perceptions of work–life conflict and relationshipswith their employers. Data were collected from a survey of 396 U.S. employees. HierarchicalLinear Modeling (HLM) was adopted to address the multilevel structure of collected data.Time-based work–life conflict, individualized consideration, and procedural justice werefound to be associated with quality of EORs significantly. Fair work–life policy-makingprocedures also significantly predicted perceived levels of work–life conflict.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Organization–public relationship (OPR) management has been widely used as a useful framework for public relationsesearch, teaching, and practice (e.g., Hon & Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; Ledingham, 2003). Two extensively examined mod-ls of OPRs include (1) Broom, Casey, and Ritchey’s (2000) model emphasizing perceptions, motives, needs, and behaviorss predictors of relationships and their consequences (p. 16), and (2) Grunig and Huang’s (2000) model elaborating situa-ional antecedents, relationship maintenance strategies, and relationship outcomes (p. 34). Nevertheless, the two modelsave not been extensively applied to employee publics (Freitag & Picherit-Duthler, 2004; McCown, 2007). One importantesearch direction that has not been fully developed is new models of relationships integrating variables that can impacthe development of relationships between organizations and their strategic employees (Kim, 2007).

Managing work–life conflict has become a critical and highly salient challenge for employees and employers in the 21stentury (Ellin, 2003). Public relations researchers have recognized the significance of work–life conflict for organizationsnd revealed the conflict as a critical gap in scholarship (Aldoory, Jiang, Toth, & Sha, 2008). Aldoory et al. qualitativelyxamined public relations professionals’ perceptions, narratives, and coping strategies. They called for studies that canuantify work–life conflict and further explore its potential contribution to public relations theory building.

Employees’ immediate supervisors’ supportive leadership behaviors may be one type of organizational responsivenessssociated with work–life issues (Allen, 2001). Public relations scholars have suggested that leaders in effective organizationserform transformational leadership styles (Jin, 2010). Moreover, scholars have called for research examining the variableselated to “managers’ behaviors” that could potentially mitigate work–life conflict (Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998,

∗ Tel.: +1 410 704 3195; fax: +1 410 704 3656.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.11.007

Page 2: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

232 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

p. 119). “Any organizational attempts to improve [work–life] issues will be neutralized if employees’ supervisors are notsupportive of them” (Judge & Colquitt, 2004, p. 397). Thus, it is important to investigate supportive transformational lead-ership behaviors of employees’ direct supervisors as a possible non-content based and intangible structural solution in theworkplace.

Employees rely on their perceptions of organizational justice to infer the extent to which they should hold their organi-zations responsible for the outcomes they receive (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), for instance, their experiences of high levelsof work–life conflict. Organizations with unfair procedures and policies probably contribute to the interference of work withnonwork life (Tepper, 2000). In addition, considerable research has documented the deleterious effects of unfairness onjob satisfaction, organizational commitment, cooperativeness, citizenship behaviors, job performance, turnover, and stress(Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000).

Family-supportive workplace initiatives have been examined as an important type of content based and tangible organiza-tional responsiveness geared toward mitigating the negative consequences of high work–life conflict (Aycan & Eskin, 2005;Frone, 2003). One of the most widely esteemed magazines, Working Mother Magazine has consistently used childcare (e.g.,company sponsored full-time centers on/near site), flexibility (e.g., access to work at home/telecommuting), and personalleave (e.g., job-guaranteed weeks off for childbirth) as the top three criteria in its yearly ranking of 100 best companies towork for.

To address the aforementioned gaps and issues in public relations research, this study elaborates a model ofemployee–organization relationships (EORs) by introducing time-based and strain-based work–life conflict as variablesleading to EOR outcomes, and by investigating the possible effects of transformational leadership, organizational proceduraljustice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives upon employees’ perceived work–life conflict and relationships withtheir employers.

2. Conceptualization

2.1. Quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs)

EORs is regarded as one type of organization–public relationships (OPRs). In an EOR, the behaviors of one party resultin consequences upon the other in different states of the relationship (e.g., Hon & Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001). Distinctfrom its antecedents and consequences, an EOR is dynamic and can be measured using perceptions of either or both partiesregarding four “indicators representing the quality of [Employee–Organization] relationships” or “relationship outcomes1”,i.e., satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 42) at specific points of time.

2.2. Work–life conflict

Many employees find that the requirements from their work and the obligations from their personal life are very oftenincompatible and thus cause some degree of work–life conflict (Reynolds, 2005). Work–life conflict can be classified as time-based and strain-based. Time-based work–life conflict refers to the situation that time committed to duties in work makes itphysically difficult for an individual to perform activities required by his or her nonwork roles (Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980).For instance, a scheduled business meeting may interfere with a child’s school event (Grant-Vallonea & Ensherb, 2001). Asstrain-based work–life conflict entails, employees, when being psychologically preoccupied with work, are unable to fullycomply with those commitments in their non-work roles (Netenmeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). An example is when asocial worker fails to rescue an abused woman from her dangerous marriage, he or she might go back home stressed outand become preoccupied with the frustration (Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse-Tolar, Jennings, & Baker, 2006).

2.3. Transformational leadership

Compatible with the essence of two-way symmetrical communication, transformational leadership emphasizes partic-ipative management, individual empowerment, negotiation, sharing of information and power in the workplace (Aldoory,

1998), and therefore can help organizations cultivate relationships with their employees. Transformational leadership ismade up of the following four components/dimensions: (1) idealized influence (charisma), (2) inspirational motivation,(3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration2 (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Chemers, 1997).

1 According to Hon and Grunig (1999), satisfaction is how favorably one party feels toward the other when its expectations have been lived up to in therelationship. Trust refers to the degree of confidence that one party in an employee–organization relationship has in the other party and one’s willingnessto be open to the other. Commitment reflects the degree to which each party realizes that the particular employee–organization relationship is worthspending energies to cultivate. Finally, control mutuality denotes the extent to which the parties in an employee–organization relationship agree on whois authorized to exercise control over others.

2 According to Chemers (1997), idealized influence (charisma) indicates that followers perceive their leaders as trustworthy, capable of establishing avision, and able to motivate them to accomplish the vision. With inspirational motivation, leaders can transcend self-interests and goals of individuals andachieve their high commitment toward a highly inspiring common vision. Being intellectually stimulating, transformational leaders not only encourage

Page 3: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

2

cfP

2

ta&p

2

tpoi22i

wcpu

wnn

h(hcu

ti

tteor

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 233

.4. Procedural justice

Public relations scholars have suggested that procedural justice is based on the principle of two-way symmetry too andlosely relevant to employee–organization relationships (Grunig & White, 1992). Procedural justice refers to the perceivedairness of the procedures through which outcomes are decided (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,orter, & Ng, 2001; Luo, 2007).

.5. Family-supportive workplace initiatives

Scholars have classified three main categories of family-supportive workplace initiatives, including (1) policies (e.g., flex-ime, telecommuting, job-sharing, and personal level), (2) services (e.g., organization-sponsored full-time childcare centersnd referral information about childcare), and (3) benefits (e.g., childcare subsidies) (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Wadsworth

Owens, 2007). Therefore, this study focuses on three workplace supportive initiatives: childcare, job flexibilities, andersonal day.3

.6. The model’s theoretical framework, hypotheses, and research questions

Since relationship management is so critical for organizational effectiveness, it is pivotal to examine the nature and func-ion of relationship antecedents and other predictors that have caused specific relationships between an organization and itsublics to develop (Ferguson, 1984; Grunig & Huang, 2000). Another theoretical void in relationship literature is the modelsf employee–organization relationships (EORs) (Kim, 2007). It is important for organizations to cultivate long-term, trust-ng relationships with their employees, which is an integral part of an organization’s strategic management (Holtzhausen,002). Employees’ intentions, perceptions, and expectations in relationship development cannot be overlooked (Wilson,000). Given the significance of investigating new antecedents and predictors for EOR outcomes, the fundamental theoret-

cal rationale underlying this study is as follows:Qual ity of EOR s

as the Focal Const ruct of Paramount Importance to Organizatio nal Effec tiveness

New Varia bles (Antece dents and Pre dic tors)�� Qual ity of EORsFirst, two new variables integrated into the model are time-based work–life conflict and strain-based work–life conflict,

hich have been found to be predictive of lowered job satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) and reduced organizationalommitment (Boles, Johnson, & Hair, 1997). According to the social exchange theory (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007), undesirableersonal consequences caused by high work–life conflict may elicit attribution of responsibilities toward organizations andltimately lead to reduced quality of EORs.

Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory (Karatepe & Kilica, 2007) suggests that a great amount ofork–nonwork interface results in loss of resources, i.e., time and energy needed for success and survival in work and/oronwork arenas; subsequently, the distress could lead to inadequate job performance, job dissatisfaction, and many otheregative organizational outcomes (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) including negative EOR outcomes.

Researchers have reported that work–life conflict decreased job satisfaction among employees in the U.S. tourism andospitality industry (Namasivayam & Mount, 2004), retail managers (Boles, Howard, & Donofrio, 2001), and police officersBurke, 1994). Scholarship exploring the relationship between work–life conflict and organizational affective commitmentas concluded negative relationships as well (Lyness & Thompson, 1997). The limited empirical research on the way work–lifeonflict relates to the level of trust and the amount of control that employees possess toward their organizations has actuallynderscored the need for more studies in this regard.

New Varia bles�� Qual ity of EORs

Time-Based Work-Life Conflict and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflict� Qual ity of EORs–

Therefore, I propose the following hypotheses:

heir followers to challenge the customary ways of solving problems but also motivate them to think independently about potential alternatives. Valuingndividualized consideration, transformational leaders respect their followers as individuals with unique characteristics and needs.

3 Supports including childcare facilities, referral information, and subsidies constituted an important component of family-supportive workplace initia-ives that organizations provided. With such policies as flextime, telecommuting, and job sharing, employees have the freedom and flexibilities to schedulehe time when, the location where, and the means in which they can best get their work done. Personal leave is a period of time a company grants to itsmployees to leave their jobs temporarily for reasons including but not limited to family issues, personal needs, illness and injuries. As one specific typef personal leave policies, personal day means organizations allowing their employees to take days off with or without pay other than federally legislatedeasons (e.g., maternity/paternity leave, sick leave, or vacations) (Eaton, 2003; Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Siegel et al., 2005; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007).

Page 4: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

234 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Hypothesis 1 (H1). The higher the level of employees’ perceived time-based work–life conflict, the lower the quality ofemployee–organization relationships.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). The higher the level of employees’ perceived strain-based work–life conflict, the lower the quality ofemployee–organization relationships.

Scholars have drawn upon the conservation of resources (COR) theory in positing a negative relationship between sup-portive transformational leadership behaviors and work–life conflict (Brough & O’Driscoll, 2005). Employees who havemore resources, such as social support from their immediate supervisors tend to perceive reduced levels of work–life con-flict (Lapierre & Allen, 2006). Moreover, transformational leadership has been found to be closely related to job satisfaction,trust, and organizational commitment (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007), and therefore, may predict EOR outcomes.

Not much empirical research has tested the links between transformational leadership and time-based and strain-based work–life conflict. As a critical ingredient of transformational leadership, individualized consideration resemblesthe construct of “idiosyncratic deals” (“i-deals”) that Hornung, Rousseau, and Glaser (2008) proposed. I-deals refer to specialemployment conditions that meet employees’ personal needs and preferences which are not otherwise obtainable throughthe [organization]’s standard practices, such as flexible scheduling of working hours (Hornung et al., 2008, pp. 655–656).Hornung et al. conducted a survey of 887 employees in a German government agency and concluded that the idiosyncraticdeals (“i-deals”) that employees negotiated with their immediate supervisors were negatively related to levels of work–lifeconflict (p. 655).

Prior empirical studies have provided much support for the linkage between transformational leadership and quality ofemployee–organization relationships (EORs). For example, Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) revealed strong effects oftransformational leadership dimensions upon job satisfaction and organizational commitment of Tanzanian primary schoolteachers. Previous research has also identified the connection between transformational leadership and employees’ trust(Barfoot, 2008; Williamson, 2008). As for control mutuality, Blase and Anderson (1995) suggested that transformationalleaders emphasize empowerment and allow employees to possess adequate control over the relationship with their super-visors as well as with their employer organizations.

Time-Based Work-Life Conflict and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflict �� Qual ity of EORs

Transformatio nal Leader ship Behaviors o f Direc t Super visors

Time-Based and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflic t Qual ity of EORs

– +

Based on the above theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, this study addresses the following research questionsand hypotheses:

Research Question 1 (R1): Is there a significant negative relationship between the extent to which employees’ immediatesupervisors are transformational and the amount of time-based work–life conflict that employees perceive?Research Question 2 (R2): Is there a significant negative relationship between the extent to which employees’ immediatesupervisors are transformational and the amount of strain-based work–life conflict that employees perceive?Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more transformational employees’ immediate supervisors are, the more apt are employees toperceive high quality of employee–organization relationships.Research Question 3 (R3): Does time-based work–life conflict partially mediate the link between transformational lead-ership and quality of employee–organization relationships?Research Question 4 (R4): Does strain-based work–life conflict partially mediate the association between transformationalleadership and quality of employee–organization relationships?

Previous literature identified a negative association between procedural justice and time-based and strain-basedwork–life conflict (Grandey, 2001; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). According to Karasek’s (1979) job demand-control (JDC) model,when high job demands coincide with low job control, employees tend to perceive high levels of work–life conflict(Heponiemi, Elovainio, Pekkarinen, Sinervo, & Kouvonen, 2008, p. 388). Organizations with fair decision-making proceduresare more likely to assign reasonable job demands to employees and delegate to them adequate job control (Grandey, 2001).Consequently, fair decision-making procedures lead to low levels of work–life conflict (Tepper, 2000). Leventhal’s (1980)model of justice judgment also provides theoretical support for the relationship between procedural justice and work–life

conflict. Fair decision making consists of selecting decision-making agents properly, setting generalizable procedural rules,gathering necessary information, setting routines for appeals, and creating change mechanisms (Judge & Colquitt, 2004, p.397). As a result, organizations that care about the opinions and concerns of their employees are more likely to be responsiveto work–life issues.
Page 5: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

epbcVma

Hl

Hl

Hh

Hq

Hq

srlt2

Hb

Ht

F

3

3

we

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 235

Moreover, previous studies have generated evidence supporting a direct link between procedural justice andmployee–organization relationship (EOR) outcomes. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) identified fair decision-makingrocedures as an essential element for maintaining employees’ satisfaction with their employers. A strong relationshipetween trust and procedural justice exists as well (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). Scholarship supported the signifi-ant positive relationship between procedural fairness and organizational commitment too (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003;iswesvaren & Ones, 2002). Perceptions of justice could influence control mutuality such that employees would perceiveore control over a particular EOR when decision-making procedures are fair (Kim, 2007). Hence, procedural justice is added

s another antecedent and predictor variable in the model:

Time-Based Work-Life Conflict and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflict�� Qual ity of EORs

Procedu ral Justice

Time-Based and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflic t Qual ity of EORs

+–

Thus, I suggest the following hypotheses:

ypothesis 4 (H4). The more just employees perceive their organizations’ formal decision-making procedures to be, theower the level of their perceived time-based work–life conflict.

ypothesis 5 (H5). The more just employees perceive their organizations’ formal decision-making procedures to be, theower the level of their perceived strain-based work–life conflict.

ypothesis 6 (H6). The more just employees perceive their organizations’ formal decision-making procedures to be, theigher the quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs) they perceive.

ypothesis 7 (H7). Time-based work–life conflict partially mediates the relationship between procedural justice anduality of EORs.

ypothesis 8 (H8). Strain-based work–life conflict partially mediates the relationship between procedural justice anduality of EORs.

Lastly, this study analyzes one more antecedent variable in organizational settings. Helpful organizational family-upportive initiatives increase the autonomy that employees possess to exert control over their work life, which wouldesult in reduced work–life conflict (Allard, Haas, & Hwang, 2007). Employees with access to flextime generally experiencedower work–life conflict than those who do not have such access (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Employees who were ableo control where, when, and how they accomplished their jobs reported low work–life conflict (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly,002). Therefore,

Time-Based Work-Life Conflict and Strain-Based Work-Life Conflict�� Qual ity of EORs

Helpful Family-Supp ortive Workp lace I nitiatives�Time-Based and Strain-Based Work-

Life Co nflict�Qual ity of EORs

The last two hypotheses this study addresses include:

ypothesis 9 (H9). The more helpful employees perceive their organizations’ family-supportive workplace initiatives toe, the lower the level of their perceived time-based work–life conflict.

ypothesis 10 (H10). The more helpful employees perceive their organizations’ family-supportive workplace initiativeso be, the lower the level of their perceived strain-based work–life conflict.

In summary, this study builds and tests a new model of employee–organization relationships (EORs), as presented inig. 1.

. Method

.1. Participants

The sample selection criteria include: (1) Potential participants were full-time employed; and (2) they have hadorked for their current employers for at least one year and hence had some experience communicating with their

mployer organizations and interacting with their direct supervisors. Data collection took place between June 2009 and

Page 6: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

236 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Level of Work/Life Conflict

-Level of Time-Based Work-LifeConflict -Level of Strain-Based Work-Life Conflict

Quality of Employee-Organization Relationships

-Level of Satisfaction -Level of Trust -Level of Commitment -Level of Control Mutuality

Level of Transformational Leadership of Employees’ Immediate Supervisors

Level of Organizational Procedural Justice

Level of Helpfulness of Family-Supportive Workplace Initiatives

-Childcare -Job Flexibilities -Personal Day

H3

H1 & H2

H6

H4 & H5

H9 & H10

R1 & R2

R3 & R4

H7 & H8

Fig. 1. The initial conceptual model.

October 2009. In total, 396 usable complete surveys4 collected from 44 organizations5 were analyzed in this study. Thesample characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Instrumentation

All items used an 11-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (0) to “strongly agree” (10), except forthose measuring family-supportive workplace initiatives that used a scale ranging from “not helpful at all” (0) to “extremelyhelpful” (10).

3.2.1. EORsTo assess employees’ perception of relationships with their organizations, I adopted Hon and Grunig’s (1999)18-item

scale. An example item is: “I am happy with my organization.”

3.2.2. Time-based and strain-based work–life conflictI modified Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams’s (2000) six items that measure time- and strain-based work interference with

family (work–family conflict) to assess participants’ perceptions of time- and strain-based work–life conflict. An exampleitem is: “I have to miss my personal non-work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities.”

3.2.3. Transformational leadershipTo measure employees’ perceptions of their direct supervisors’ transformational leadership behaviors, this study adopted

16 items from the rater form of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5× short (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Anexample item is: “[My direct supervisor] considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.”

3.2.4. Procedural justiceTo assess employees’ perceptions of procedural justice, this study employed the measurement items of procedural justice

that Leventhal (1980) proposed and Colquitt (2001) tested. An example item for procedural justice is: “The procedures used

4 In the complete surveys, participants did not skip any question and completed all the survey items.5 It includes seven educational and research institutions (7), six advanced technology companies (6), four engineering companies (4), three federal

government agencies (3), three real estate and home loan mortgage companies (3), three electronics companies (3), three international organizations (3),three accounting and consulting firms (3), three professional sports, event planning, and social clubs (3), two religious organizations (2), one pharmaceuticalcompany (1), one sales company (1), one insurance company (1), one Airlines (1), one hotel (1), one automobile company (1), and one fabrics company (1).

Page 7: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 237

Table 1Characteristics of participants for the study (N = 396).

Sample characteristics Valid % of sample

GenderMale 48.5Female 51.5

Employee age (range = 18–66; M = 38.07; SD = 10.96)Marital statusMarried 65.2Divorced 5.3Widowed 1.3Separated 1.3Never been married 22.2A member of an unmarried couple 4.3Employment

40 h 48.5More than 40 h 51.5

Years on the job (range = 1.25–37.17; M = 7.382; SD = 6.4229)Ethnicity

Caucasian 52.2African American 10.1Latin American 5.0Native American 1.6Pacific Islanders .8Asians 28.5Middle Eastern 1.1Other .3

Education backgroundHigh school graduate 14.4Bachelor 41.7Master’s 27.8

tdp“

3

P“plp

3

th

4

4

gfot

Doctorate 9.6Other 6.3

o make decisions have been applied consistently in my organization.” Based on the connection between the fairness ofecision-making procedures and organizational responsiveness to work–life concerns that Colquitt proposed, I also includedrocedural justice items that specifically reference work–life policies, decisions, and procedures. An example item includesMy organization’s family friendly policies have been applied consistently.”

.2.5. Family-supportive workplace initiativesThis study focuses on three categories of workplace supportive initiatives: childcare, job flexibilities, and personal day.

articipants were first asked to indicate whether their organizations had each of the three types of initiatives by clickingYes”, “No”, or “Not Sure/Unknown.” If their answer was “Yes”, they were invited to report how much they thought thoseolicies (i.e., childcare, job flexibilities, or personal day) helped them in balancing between their work and their personal

ife. If the policies were not present or participants were unsure, they were asked to rate how much they imagined thoseolicies would have helped them in balancing their work and their personal life.

.3. Data analysis methods

The major methods that this study used to analyze data consist of preliminary analyses (e.g., ANOVA and its alternativeests and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses) and primary analyses (e.g., HLM tests and mediation tests for testingypotheses and examining research questions).

. Results

.1. Results of one-way random-effect ANOVA and its alternative tests

The results of one-way random-effect ANOVA and Welch’s and Brown–Forsythe tests identified statistically significantroup differences in all the exogenous and endogenous variables in the study (p < .01). Therefore, multilevel confirmatory

actor analyses (CFAs) were performed to address the influence of organizational membership when examining the reliabilityf measurement and the factor structures of the latent constructs. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) tests were conductedo treat this study as a multilevel analysis.
Page 8: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

238 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Table 2Coefficient H, Cronbach’s alpha for the sum of measurement items, and average squared standardized loadings for one-dimensional factors measured bymultiple items in the study.

Factor Valid N Coefficient H (>.90) Cronbach’s ̨ (>.80) Average squaredstandardized loading (>.50)

Quality ofemployee–organizationrelationships

396 .985 .986 .768

Time-based work–life conflict 396 .972 .963 .884Strain-based work–life conflict 396 .949 .952 .855Idealized influence (behavior) 396 .934 .922 .756Inspirational motivation 396 .944 .940 .801Intellectual stimulation 396 .956 .949 .832Individualized consideration 396 .904 .892 .755Procedural justice in general 396 .936 .933 .707Procedural justice referencing

work–life policies, decisions,and procedures

396 .956 .949 .782

Table 3Results of null model tests.

Dependent variable �00 �2 ICCbetween ICCwithin

Time-based work–life conflict .179** .831 .215 .785

Strain-based work–life conflict .160** .850 .189 .811Quality of employee–organization relationships .216** .773 .280 .720

** p < .01.

4.2. Reliability and validity of measurement: results of multilevel CFAs

The findings of the multilevel CFAs6 supported the one-dimensional structures of the following latent factors: (1) quality ofEORs (�2 (238, N = 396) = 1227.897, p < .01, �2/df = 5.159, RMSEA = .102, SRMRwithin = .039, CFI = .901), (2) time-based work–lifeconflict (�2 (16, N = 396) = 87.869, p < .01, �2/df = 5.492, RMSEA = .107, SRMRwithin = .026, CFI = .958), (3) strain-based work–lifeconflict (�2 (16, N = 396) = 87.869, p < .01, �2/df = 5.492, RMSEA = .107, SRMRwithin = .026, CFI = .958), (4) idealized influence(behavior) (�2 (189, N = 396) = 522.471, p < .01, �2/df = 2.764, RMSEA = .067, SRMRwithin = .051, CFI = .928), (5) inspirationalmotivation (�2 (189, N = 396) = 522.471, p < .01, �2/df = 2.764, RMSEA = .067, SRMRwithin = .051, CFI = .928), (6) intellectualstimulation (�2 (189, N = 396) = 522.471, p < .01, �2/df = 2.764, RMSEA = .067, SRMRwithin = .051, CFI = .928), (7) individualizedconsideration (�2 (189, N = 396) = 522.471, p < .01, �2/df = 2.764, RMSEA = .067, SRMRwithin = .051, CFI = .928), (8) Procedu-ral Justice in General (�2 (68, N = 396) = 217.347, p < .01, �2/df = 3.196, RMSEA = .074, SRMRwithin = .042, CFI = .952), and (9)Procedural Justice Referencing work–life Conflict Policies, Decisions, and Procedures (�2 (68, N = 396) = 217.347, p < .01,�2/df = 3.196, RMSEA = .074, SRMRwithin = .042, CFI = .952).

The values of coefficient H7 (>.90), Cronbach’s alpha (>.80), and average squared standardized loadings8 (>.50) for theabove one-dimensional factors evidenced high construct reliability and validity (see Table 2). Based on the results of multi-level CFAs, the finalized theoretical model for this study was graphed in Fig. 2.

4.3. Results of testing hypotheses and examining research questions

4.3.1. Results of null model testingAs shown in Table 3, all between-group variances (�00’s) were statistically significant at the .01 level. Moreover, the ICCs

were sufficiently large and supported the use of HLM analyses for this study.

4.3.2. Results of random-coefficient regression modelsThe results of random-coefficient models as the second step for testing hypotheses and examining research questions

were summarized in Tables 4–10. In particular, mediation tests9 were conducted to examine R3, R4, and the mediating

6 I draw upon the follow criteria used for assessment of data-model fit: 1. Small value of �2/df, preferable < 3; 2. CFI ≥ 0.95; 3. RMSEA ≤ 0.05; 4. SRMR ≤ 0.05(Dyer, Hanges, & Hall, 2005; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

7 To examine the construct reliability coefficient H (Hancock & Mueller, 2001), I used the following formula: H =∑k

i=1a2

i/(1 − a2

i)/1 +

∑k

i=1a2

i/(1 − a2

i)

in which k represented the number of indicators for a construct and ai indicated the standardized factor loading of each indicator.8 I assessed construct validity of each one-dimensional factor by computing the amount of extracted variance, i.e., the average squared standardized

factor loading by the indicators of a given latent factor:∑nv

i=1l2/nv where li was the loading of the ith indicator with nv as the number of indicators for the

given factor (Yang, 2007).9 The causal steps strategy is the most widely used method for testing mediation effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The causal steps strategy (Kenny,

Kashy, & Bolger, 1998) proposed that the mediating variable (M) mediated the association between the antecedent (X) and the outcome (Y) if the following

Page 9: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 239

Help1

Help2

Help3

Time

Strain Quality of EORs

II IM IS IC PJ WLPJK

Fig. 2. The finalized theoretical model for the study. Time: time-based work–life conflict; strain: strain-based work–life conflict; II: idealized influence(behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IS: intellectual stimulation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: procedural justice in general; WLPJ: proceduraljustice referencing work–life conflict policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives; Help2: helpfulness of job flexibilitiesinitiatives; Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives.

Table 4Random-coefficient regression model for hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Outcome variable(endogenousvariable)

�10 (time) �20 (strain) �30 (II) �40 (IM) �50 (IC) �60 (PJ) �70 (WLPJ) U0j R2

Quality of EORS −.122** .009 −.034 .055 .264** .398** .179** .278** .634

Note: R2 for level-1 model = (�2null model − �2

random regression)/�2null model.

Time: time-based work–life conflict; strain: strain-based work–life conflict; II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: indi-vidualized consideration; PJ: procedural justice in general; WLPJ: procedural justice referencing work–life conflict policies, decisions, and procedures.*p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 5Random-coefficient regression model for research question 1 and Hypotheses 4 and 9.

Outcome variable (endogenous variable) �10 (II) �20 (IM) �30 (IC) �40 (PJ) �50 (WLPJ) �60 (Help1) �70 (Help2) �80 (Help3) U0j R2

Time .135 −.034 −.017 −.034 −.257** −.062 .011 .070 .184** .042

Note: R2 for level-1 model = (�2null model − �2

random regression)/�2null model.

Time: time-based work–life conflict; II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: procedural justicein general; WLPJ: procedural justice referencing work–life conflict policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives; Help2:helpfulness of job flexibilities initiatives; Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives. *p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 6Random-coefficient regression model for research question 2 and Hypotheses 5 and 10.

Outcome variable(endogenous Variable)

�10 (II) �20 (IM) �30 (IC) �40 (PJ) �50 (WLPJ) �60 (Help1) �70 (Help2) �80 (Help3) U0j R2

Strain .180 −.093 −.116 −.164* −.150* −.028 .028 .023 .169** .071

Note: R2 for level-1 model = (�2null model − �2

random regression)/�2null model.

Strain: strain-based work–life conflict; II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: proceduraljustice in general; WLPJ: procedural justice referencing work–life conflict policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives;H

cYbtsb

elp2: helpfulness of job flexibilities initiatives; Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

riteria were satisfied: (1) X significantly predicted variability in Y; (2) X significantly predicted variability in M; (3) M significantly predicted variability in when controlling for X. It was insufficient only to establish a significant link between M and Y. The mediator and the outcome variable might be relatedecause both were caused by the antecedent variable X. Therefore, X must be controlled for in establishing the significant effect of M on Y; (4) To establishhat M completely mediated the relationship between X and Y, the effect of X on Y when M was controlled for is expected to be zero. Partial mediation wasuccessfully set up when the effect of X on Y decreased substantially with M and X simultaneously predicting Y. (5) The effects in step (3) and step (4) coulde examined in the same model.

Page 10: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

240 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Table 7Step 1 of testing mediation: the relationships between antecedent variables (Xs) and outcome variable(Y).

Outcome variable Antecedent variables

II (�10) IM (�20) IC (�30) PJ (�40) WLPJ (�50) Help1 (�60) Help2 (�70) Help3 (�80)

Quality of EORs −.049 .058 .265** .400** .209** .048 .037 .046

Note: II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: procedural justice in general; WLPJ: proceduraljustice referencing work–life policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives; Help2: helpfulness of job flexibilities initiatives;Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives; quality of EORs: quality of employee–organization relationships.*p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 8Step 2 of testing mediation: the relationships between antecedent variables (Xs) and mediators (Ms).

Mediators Antecedent variables

II (�10) IM (�20) IC (�30) PJ (�40) WLPJ (�50) Help1 (�60) Help 2 (�70) Help3 (�80)

Time .135 −.034 −.017 −.034 −.257** −.062 .011 .070Strain .180 −.093 −.116 −.164* −.150* −.028 .028 .023

Note: II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: procedural justice in general; WLPJ: proceduraljustice referencing work–life policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives; Help2: helpfulness of job flexibilities initiatives;Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives; time: time-based work–life conflict; strain: strain-based work–life conflict.

* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 9Step 3 of testing mediation: the relationships between mediators (Ms) and outcome variable (Y).

Outcome variable Mediators

Time (�10) Strain (�20)

Quality of EORs −.122** .009

Note: Time: time-based work–life conflict; strain: strain-based work–life conflict; quality of EORs: quality of employee–organization relationships.*p < .05.

** p < .01.

roles of time-based and strain-based work–life conflict for the links between helpfulness of family-supportive workplaceinitiatives and quality of EORs.

4.3.2.1. H1 and H2. Time-based work–life conflict (Time (�10) = −.122, p < .01) was negatively related to quality of EORs signif-icantly. Nevertheless, strain-based work–life conflict (Strain (�20) = .009, p > .05) did not predict EOR outcomes significantly.H1 was supported but H2 was not.

4.3.2.2. R1 and R2. Incompatible with theoretically hypothesized relationships, II, IM, and IC were actually not associ-ated with time- (II(�10) = .135, p > .05; IM(�20) = −.034, p > .05; IC(�30) = −.017, p > .05) and strain-based work–life conflict(II(�10) = .180, p > .05; IM(�20) = −.093, p > .05; IC(�30) = −.116, p > .05) significantly.

4.3.2.3. H3. Individualized consideration was found significantly associated with quality of EORs. H3 was only partiallysupported (II(� ) = −.034, p > .05; IM(� ) = .055, p > .05; IC(� ) = .264, p < .01).

10 20 30

4.3.2.4. H4 and H5. General procedural justice was significantly associated with strain-based work–life conflict. The fair-ness of the policies and procedures that organizations used to make decisions concerning work–life issues was a significant

Table 10Step 4 of testing mediation: the relationships between antecedent variables (Xs) and outcome variable (Y) with mediators (Ms) controlled for.

Outcome variable Antecedent variables

II (�10) IM (�20) IC (�30) PJ (�40) WLPJ (�50) Help1 (�60) Help2 (�70) Help3 (�80)

Quality of EORs −.034 .055 .264** .398** .179** .041 .038 .055

Note: II: idealized influence (behavior); IM: inspirational motivation; IC: individualized consideration; PJ: procedural justice in general; WLPJ: proceduraljustice referencing work–life policies, decisions, and procedures; Help1: helpfulness of childcare initiatives; Help2: helpfulness of job flexibilities initiatives;Help3: helpfulness of personal day initiatives. Quality of EORs: quality of employee–organization relationships.*p < .05.

** p < .01.

Page 11: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

pt(

4s

4tbp

4pr

5

5

webrgnmbo

5

fndtntn

5

oBait

5

tc

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 241

redictor for the amount of time-based and strain-based work–life conflict that employees perceived. Thus, H4 was par-ially supported (PJ (�40) = −.034, p > .05; WLPJ (�50) = −.257, p < .01). H5 was fully supported (PJ (�40) = −.164, p < .01; WLPJ�50) = −.150, p < .05).

.3.2.5. H6. Procedural justice (PJ (�40) = .398, p < .01; WLPJ (�50) = .179, p < .01) was positively linked to quality of EORstatistically significantly. H6 was supported.

.3.2.6. H9 and H10. Perceived helpfulness of family-supportive workplace initiatives was not significantly associated withhe amount of time-based (Help1 (�60) = −.062, p > .05; Help2 (�70) = .011, p > .05; Help3 (�80) = .070, p > .05) and strain-ased work–life conflict (Help1 (�60) = −.028, p > .05; Help2 (�70) = .028, p > .05; Help3 (�80) = .023, p > .05) that employeeserceived. H9 and H10 were not supported.

.3.2.7. R3, R4, H7, H8 and mediation tests. Time-based work–life conflict (Time) partially mediated the relationship betweenrocedural justice referencing work–life policies, decisions, and procedures (WLPJ) and quality of employee–organizationelationships (quality of EORs):

Step 1: WLPJ (�50) = .209, p < .01;Step 2: WLPJ (�50) = −.257, p < .01;Step 3: Time (�10) = −.122, p < .01;Step 4: WLPJ (�50) = .209, p < .01 (without mediators) vs. WLPJ (�50) = .179, p < .01 (with mediators controlled for).

. Discussion

.1. work–life conflict and employees’ relationships with their employers

The significant negative association between time-based work–life conflict and quality of EORs is consistent with whatas hypothesized theoretically. It is worthwhile to speculate about why strain-based work–life conflict had a much weaker

ffect upon quality of EORs. Attribution theory (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996) suggests that employees may view theirehaviors as either internally driven or externally motivated. When employees perceive their jobs challenging but ultimatelyewarding, they may devote great effort to their jobs and therefore can easily feel stressed out when the amount of work isreat and the job requirements are demanding. Nevertheless, facing such a great strain-based interference between work andonwork, employees might hold themselves rather than their organizations responsible, especially when they are internallyotivated to work hard and achieve a lot at work (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Another possible interpretation is that time-

ased work–life conflict is a relatively more tangible measure in terms of whether an organization has taken too much outf its employees’ personal life.

.2. Do supportive transformational supervisors help?

Scholars argued that when employees report their frustration in integrating work and nonwork commitments, it is likelyor transformational supervisors to help their employees accommodate those competing responsibilities from different are-as (Allen, 2001; Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Once employees take the initiative to negotiate “idiosyncraticeals” (“i-deals”) (Hornung et al., 2008), their transformational leaders may grant to them special employment conditionshat otherwise may not be accessible through the organization’s standard practices or policies. However, if employees doot initiate such a negotiation or the communication does not work well, transformational supervisors may not contributeo attenuating serious work–life issues that their subordinates confront. This may be one possible interpretation for theonsignificant links between work–life conflict and transformational leadership.

.3. Transformational leadership behaviors of direct supervisors and employees’ perception of quality EORs

The relative interpretability of the different transformational leadership dimensions explains the differential predictionsf idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration for quality of EORs (see Van denos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997). Compared to interpreting the ability of their supervisors to motivate them to accomplish

common vision and get them committed to it, it may be easier and more direct for employees to perceive how much theirmmediate supervisors care about their individual needs and attend to their unique potentials and aspirations. Therefore,his study identified a statistically significant positive relationship between individualized consideration and quality of EORs.

.4. Fair decision making within organizations and work–life conflict: does such fairness help?

In terms of the amount of work–life conflict that employees perceived, the fairness of general decision-making proceduresurned out to be a weaker predictor than the fairness of the policies and procedures that organizations used to make decisionsoncerning work–life issues. One possible explanation is that even if organizations make fair decisions and employees receive

Page 12: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

242 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

a fair allocation of task demands and control over how jobs can be done, they could still experience a high or moderate amountof work–life conflict when organizations put an equal but large amount of job responsibilities over everybody’s shoulder. Itis whether organizations are fair in helping employees deal with the interference of work with their personal live that reallymatters.

5.5. Fair decision making within organizations and quality of EORs

Consistent with the theoretical hypothesis, the more just organizations’ general decision-making procedures and theprocedures and policies used to make decisions related to employees’ work–life conflict issues were, the more likely was itfor employees to perceive high levels of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality (e.g., Kim, 2007; Viswesvaren& Ones, 2002). The finding is significant for organizations to cultivate long-term trusting relationships with its internalpublic–employees. Fair organizational decision making is really one of the strategies that organizations ought to employ.

5.6. Family-supportive workplace initiatives: a panacea?

A variety of employee background variables such as gender, managerial positions, availability of familial care arrange-ments, household employment configuration, and care profiles of employees’ dependents may explain the precariousness ofthe relationship between helpful family-supportive workplace initiatives and levels of time-based and strain-based work–lifeconflict (Dalton & Mesch, 1990; Konrad & Mangel, 2000). According to Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, and Garden (2005),even if workplace initiatives are helpful in terms of helping employees integrate their work and nonwork responsibilities,there are many other non-content based and intangible contextual variables in organizational settings that may make a hugedifference for employees’ work–life experiences.

5.7. Implications of the study

Public relations scholars and professionals have long recognized the importance of relationship management for demon-strating the value of public relations to organizational effectiveness. As Rhee (2004) argued, the relationships betweenorganizations and their strategic employee publics are the critical building blocks of strategic management of communi-cation between organizations and their external publics. Positive attitudes of employees in good relationships with theiremployers can assist the development of desirable relationships with external publics. I believe this study sheds light onthe issue of how to cultivate quality relationships with employees as an integral part of the strategic planning of organiza-tions. Scholars have suggested that when employees have good relationships with their organizations, it will be more likelyfor them to support and less likely for them to interfere with the accomplishment of organizational goals. Good manage-ment of employee relationships will also potentially benefit an organization’s issues management and crisis management(Holtzhausen, 2002; Hon & Grunig, 1999).

The existing work–life research in public relations has drawn upon organizational communication theories to criticallyanalyze the way public relations professionals reconciled work–life conflicts and integrated their professional and life goals(Aldoory et al., 2008; Grunig, 2006). This study extends the body of knowledge by introducing work–life conflict issues intorelationship theory and by quantitatively examining how time-based and strain-based work–life conflict can be related toemployee–organization relationships. It also contributes to public relations studies from a practical perspective. Throughrevealing work–life conflict as a critical issue for the well-being of employees in real organizational settings, this studysuggests employees’ work–life experiences deserve more attention from the senior management and constructive supportiveinitiatives should be incorporated as a constitutional ingredient of organizational strategic planning.

Few studies have addressed leadership-related topics in public relations scholarship, but transformational leadership hasbeen found worth further studying as it is an important concept closely associated with communication and relationshipbuilding with both internal and external publics (Aldoory, 1998; Aldoory & Toth, 2004). This study adds into the body ofknowledge on leadership and public relations by exploring how transformational leadership behaviors of employees’ directsupervisors are linked to work–life conflict that employees experience as well as to organizations’ relationship-buildingendeavors with their employees. Its practical implication lies in the fact that direct supervisors do play a critical role inorganizations’ effort to enhance the well-being of employees in organizational life and cultivate quality internal relationships.Public relations practitioners and senior management should start building quality employee–organization relationships byencouraging transformational leadership behaviors of supervisors at different hierarchical levels within organizations.

Justice research in public relations scholarship is embryotic, but prior studies have identified the compatibility betweentwo-way symmetry and procedural justice and called for more research in this direction (Grunig & White, 1992; Kim, 2007).This study draws upon previous research on organizational justice and public relations and has advanced knowledge aboutthe link between procedural justice and employee–organization relationships and that between procedural justice andwork–life conflict.

Lastly, this study promotes methodological advancements in public relations research through conducting a multilevelanalysis. Organizations are inherently hierarchical (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). More specifically, employeeswork in different project groups and teams within organizations (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, no theoretical constructcan be “level free” in organizational studies (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994, p. 198). Industrial psychology and organization

Page 13: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

cmrd

5

bstob(o

6

ttsoiu

trptfcacot

R

AA

A

A

AA

A

A

B

BBB

B

B

B

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 243

ommunication scholars have well acknowledged the significance of multilevel frameworks for both theoretical develop-ent and methodological progress (McPhee & Poole, 2001). Nevertheless, multilevel analyses have not blossomed in public

elations yet (Kim, 2007). This study fills the gap by adding into the extant body of knowledge a multilevel study in whichata collected for the variables at the same level are nested across diverse organizations.

.8. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research

This study yields findings that contribute to public relations research and practice, but it has a few limitations that shoulde addressed in future research. First, I adopted a set of rigid criteria in selecting 396 participants out of my recruitedample. It would be meaningful to see how the results would be different if more data were collected and analyzed. Second,he model of relationships this study tested is one of the most comprehensive models that investigate two categories ofrganizational contextual variables as antecedents and predictors for work–life conflict and quality of EORs: (1) non-contentased and intangible (transformational leadership and organizational procedural justice); and (2) content-based and tangiblefamily-supportive workplace initiatives). Nevertheless, in future research more antecedent and predictor variables in realrganizational settings can be examined in relation to employee relationship model building and testing.

. Conclusion

In summary, this study built and tested a new model of employee–organization relationships (EORs) by incorporatingime-based and strain-based work–life conflict as two predictor variables leading to EOR outcomes, and by investigatinghe possible effects of three antecedents, i.e., transformational leadership, organizational procedural justice, and family-upportive workplace initiatives upon employees’ perceived work–life conflict and relationships with their employingrganizations. All the theoretical constructs were conceptualized at the individual level, but data were collected by conduct-ng a survey of 396 employees working in 44 U.S. organizations. The multilevel structure of gathered data was addressed bysing hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) as the major analytical approach.

Results of the random-coefficient regression models in HLM suggested that the amount of time-based work–life conflicthat employees perceive significantly predicts their perceived quality of EORs. When employees’ immediate supervisorsespect their subordinates as individuals with unique characters and needs and treat them differently but fairly, employeeserceive high levels of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Moreover, employees when perceiving thathey are treated fairly by their organizations develop quality relationships with their employers. This study also identifiesair formal procedures and policies used to make work–life decisions as a significant antecedent leading to high trust,ommitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality that employees perceive. In addition, organizations’ fair formal proceduresnd policies used to make work–life decisions greatly affect employees’ perceptions of time-based and strain-based work–lifeonflict. Finally, this study concludes that time-based work–life conflict partially mediates the association between qualityf EORs and fair formal procedures and policies used to make work–life decisions. These findings contribute significantly toheory, methodology, and practice in public relations today.

eferences

ldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 73–101.ldoory, L., Jiang, H., Toth, E. L., & Sha, B.-L. (2008). Is it still just a women’s issue? A study of work–life balance among men and women in public relations.

Public Relations Journal, 2(4), 1–20.ldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 157–183.llard, K., Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2007). Exploring the paradox: Experiences of flexible working arrangements and work–family conflict among managerial

fathers in Sweden. Community, Work and Family, 10, 475–493.llen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.nderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work–family conflict and

job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.ryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social

exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–286.ycan, Z., & Eskin, M. (2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work–family conflict for men and

women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53, 453–471.arfoot, D. S. (2008). Antecedents of leader–follower trust in a Christian church organization. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and

Social Sciences, 68(11-A), 4763.ass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.lase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.oles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of work–family conflict, family–work conflict and work

satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 376–390.oles, J. S., Johnson, M. W., & Hair, J. F. (1997). Role stress, work–family conflict and emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on work-related

consequences. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, 17–28.

rockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.room, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concepts and theory of organization–public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public

relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 159–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Page 14: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

244 H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245

Brough, P., & O’Driscoll, M. (2005). Work–family conflict and stress. In A. Antoniou, & C. Cooper (Eds.), A research companion to organizational health psychology(pp. 346–365). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Burke, R. J. (1994). Stressful events, work–family conflict, coping, psychological burnout, and well-being among police officers. Psychological Reports, 75,787–800.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.

Chemers, M. M. (1997). Transformational leadership. In An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., pp. 78–93.Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,

278–321.Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational

justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of

science (pp. 165–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370–387.Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,

16, 149–167.Eaton, S. (2003, April). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations: A Journal of

Economy and Society, 42(2), 145–167.Ellin, A. (2003, August 17). Addicted to work? Sure, isn’t everyone? New York Times.Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Freitag, A. R., & Picherit-Duthler, G. (2004). Employee benefits communication: Proposing a PR-HR cooperative approach. Public Relation Review, 30,

475–482.Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998, November–December). Work & life: The end of the zero-sum game. Harvard Business Review,

119–129.Frone, M. R. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family–friendly policies, supervisor support, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a

conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197–220.Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Grandey, A. A. (2001). Family friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:

From theory to practice (pp. 145–173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,

350–370.Grant-Vallonea, E. J., & Ensherb, E. A. (2001). An examination of work and personal life conflict, organizational support, and employee health among

international expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 261–278.Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies,

and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study andpractice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations andcommunication management (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A. (2006). Feminist phase analysis in public relations: Where have we been? Where do we need to be? Journal of Public Relations Research, 18,115–140.

Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. M. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structuralequation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Heponiemi, T., Elovainio, M., Pekkarinen, L., Sinervo, T., & Kouvonen, A. (2008). The effects of job demands and low job control on work–family conflict: Therole of fairness in decision making and management. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 387–398.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.Holtzhausen, D. (2002). The effects of a divisionalized and decentralized organizational structure on a formal internal communication function in a South

African organization. Journal of Communication Management, 6, 323–339.Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institution for Public Relations.Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,

655–664.House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L.

L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Huang, Y.-H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13,

61–90.Jin, Y. (2010). Emotional leadership as a key dimension of public relations leadership: A national survey of public relations leaders. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 22, 159–181.Judge, T. J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404.Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.Karatepe, O. M., & Kilica, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work–family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline

employees. Tourism Management, 28, 238–252.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology

(4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Kim, H.-S. (2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee–organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 167–197.Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–204.Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling ((2nd ed.)). New York: Guilford Press.Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work–life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1225–1237.Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational

behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.

J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Page 15: A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives

L

L

LL

L

L

MM

N

N

N

PP

RR

S

S

TV

V

W

W

W

W

Y

H. Jiang / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 231– 245 245

ambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The impact of work–family conflict on social work and human service workerjob satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Administration in Social Work, 30(3), 55–74.

apierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping:Implications for work–family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169–181.

edingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181–198.eventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S.

Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.uo, Y. (2007). The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Academy of Management

Journal, 50, 644–664.yness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 359–375.cCown, N. (2007). The role of public relations with internal activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 47–68.cPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational

communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 503–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.amasivayam, K., & Mount, D. J. (2004). The relationship of work–family conflicts and family–work conflict to job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research, 28, 242–250.etenmeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 400–410.guni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145–177.leck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29–32.reacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.eynolds, J. (2005). In the face of conflict: Work–life conflict and desired work hour adjustments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1313–1331.hee, Y. (2004). The employee–public–organization chain in relationship management: A case study of a government organization. Gainesville, FL: The Institute

for Public Relations.chminke, M., Ambrose, A. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 294–304.iegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work–life

conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 13–24.epper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 176–190.an den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology

of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.iswesvaren, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193–203.adsworth, L. L., & Owens, B. P. (2007, January/February). The effects of social support on work–family enhancement and work–family conflict in the public

sector. Public Administration Review, 75–87.ang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family–friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational

leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397–427.illiamson, H. (2008). The link between transformational leadership and intent to leave: The mediating role of trust. Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68(8-B), 5624.ilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through volunteerism: A case study. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. Bruning (Eds.), Public

relations as relationship management (pp. 137–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.ang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization–public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 19, 91–121.