The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation

Journal of Vocational Behavior 71 (2007) 265–281

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The relationship between core self-evaluationsand work and family satisfaction: The mediating

role of work–family conflict and facilitation q

Scott L. Boyar a,*, Donald C. Mosley Jr. b

a Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Williams College of Business, Xavier University,

3800 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45207, USAb Department of Management, Mitchell College of Business, 307 North University Boulevard,

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, USA

Received 26 June 2007

Available online 10 July 2007

Abstract

This study examines the impact of work–family conflict and work–family facilitation on work andfamily outcomes and explores the influence of core self-evaluations (CSE) among these relationships.CSE is comprised of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and general self-efficacy. CSE wasfound to be negatively related to work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering withwork (FIW) conflicts, but not to work-to-family facilitation (WfiFF) or family-to-work facilitation(FfiWF). WIF and FIW negatively predicted work and family satisfaction, respectively. Addition-ally, WfiFF was significantly related to job satisfaction in the hypothesized direction, and FfiWFpositively predicted family satisfaction. Job satisfaction negatively predicted intentions to quit. Theresearch and practical implications, as well as limitations of this study are discussed.� 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Core self-evaluations; Work–family conflict; Work–family facilitation; Intentions to quit; Jobsatisfaction

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.001

q We wish to thank Dawn Carson and Teresa Wagner for their helpful suggestions on an earlier version of thisarticle.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 513 745 4383.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.L. Boyar), [email protected] (D.C. Mosley Jr.).

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

266 S.L. Boyar, D.C. Mosley Jr. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 71 (2007) 265–281

1. Introduction

Work and family are important domains for most people (Whitely & England, 1977),and organizational researchers have considered the social roles for each (Greenhaus &Beutell, 1985; Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974), the interface between them (Frone, 2003),and the causes and consequences of these two domains interacting for both employeesand organizations (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000;Frone, 2003). Changing demographics in the U.S. and increased competition for low costlabor are altering both work and family roles. Employees are working longer hours, and insome cases have more duties to perform, which increases work demand. Women are enter-ing the workforce at an increasing rate (Fullerton, 1999), many have children or depen-dents, and some are single parents (Paulin & Lee, 2002). Further, in many householdsboth partners work, creating dual demands in work and family for both individuals.

Researchers have focused on the interface between work and family (Edwards & Roth-bard, 2000) by emphasizing the negative spillover between work and family domains(Frone, 2003). That is, when demands in one domain (i.e., work or family) limit one’s abil-ity to complete required duties in the other (Crouter, 1984; Lambert, 1990). The assump-tion is that individuals have multiple roles within a domain, and as pressure increases tocomplete demands within that domain, there are less resources to meet the multiple rolesand subsequent demands in other domains (Goode, 1960; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985;Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). This results in work–family conflict(WFC), which is defined as ‘‘a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures fromthe work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect’’ (Greenhaus &Beutell, 1985, p. 77), and often results in negative consequences for both the individual(Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) and the organization(Frone, Yardel, & Markel, 1997; Kossek, Colquitt, & Noe, 2001).

The emphasis on scarcity theory (Goode, 1960) in which negative consequences of mul-tiple roles (i.e., conflict) create high demands in one domain limit an individual’s ability toaccomplish demands in another domain has been extensively used in explaining the work–family interface. However, such a focus has neglected work–family facilitation (WFF), thepositive interface between work and family (Barnett, Marshall, & Sayer, 1992; Frone,2003; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Voydanoff, 2004a); this construct has also beenreferred to as work–family enrichment, positive spillover, and enhancement (Carlson,Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell,2006). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) recently reviewed and clarified these concepts suggest-ing that many researchers have used them interchangeably; there may be differencesdepending on the measure employed. WFF is defined as ‘‘the extent to which participationat work (or home) is made easier by virtue of the experience, skills, and opportunitiesgained or developed at home (or work)’’ (Frone, 2003, p. 145). It has been suggested thatmultiple roles in a domain may enhance one’s ability to succeed in another domain (Bar-nett & Hyde, 2001; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Sieber, 1974), and benefits the individualand organization (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Frone, 2003; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

WFC and WFF are distinct phenomenon (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and do not fall ona continuum (Voydanoff, 2004a). Voydanoff (2004a) suggests that an individual’s percep-tion of WFC or WFF is based on his/her evaluation of available resources and demandlevels. Recently, researchers have included both WFC and WFF in theoretical modelswhen examining antecedents and consequences of each. However, they focused on objec-

Job Satisfaction

General Self-efficacy

Locus of Control

66

Self-esteem

Neuroticism

CSE

WIF

FIW

W FF

F WF

Family Satisfaction

Intentions to Quit

Fig. 1. Fully mediated model of WFC and WFF.

S.L. Boyar, D.C. Mosley Jr. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 71 (2007) 265–281 267

tive and perceptual measures of work and family domains and have not thoroughly exam-ined individual differences associated with personality. While research has explored nega-tive affectivity (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Burke, 1988; Carlson, 1999; Stoeva, Chiu, &Greenhaus, 2002), the big five (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Maki-kangas, 2003), and type A personality (Carlson, 1999) in relations to WFC, few have con-sidered the effect of personality with WFF (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002) (e.g.,Grzywacz & Butler, 2005; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson,2004), which may be useful in better understanding the work–family interface. There havebeen no studies to date that have considered core self-evaluations (CSE) (Judge, Locke, &Durham, 1997) in relation to either WFC or WFF. CSE is a new conceptualization of dis-positional traits that have been shown to be associated with important work attitudes andbehaviors. CSE may provide insight into WFF and WFC variables that other dispositionalvariables have yet to consistently demonstrate.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to better understand the influence of CSE forboth WFC and WFF as well as important outcome variables, such as intent to quit,job satisfaction, and family satisfaction (see Fig. 1). We incorporate both WFF withWFC in modeling the work–family interface, because WFF has been relatively untestedin the work–family area. Additionally, we examine the impact of satisfaction levels forWFF and WFC. In modeling CSE, competing models are compared to clarify CSE’s rolein the work–family interface.

2. Background and hypotheses

2.1. Personality and work–family interface

For some time, researchers have been studying personality and its ability to explainimportant variance in an individual’s attitudes and behaviors (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Tho-resen, 2002). There are many theories and measures of personality. The big five personality


dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 1991) are a popular personality assessment; it is based onthe lexicon approach and is theorized to explain an individual’s behavior using five traits.The big five has been studied extensively and researchers have shown significant relation-ships with important attitudinal and behavioral variables (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa& McCrae, 1995). However, research findings have not been consistent across all fivetraits. CSE, which we will discuss later, is another dispositional variable that has been pop-ular and seems to be a potentially important measure in management research. Unfortu-nately, there has been limited research assessing the influence of personality on conflict orfacilitation (Frone, 2003; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002).

Work–family conflict is the aggregate view of an individual’s perceptions of the inter-ference between work and family domains. It is generally attributed to domain specificdemand levels, which are often described as work (or family) overload (Voydanoff,1988); these high levels of demand, which are usually categorized as negative (Yang, Chen,Choi, & Zou, 2000), limit an individual’s ability to accomplish duties in another domainbecause of limited resources (i.e., resource scarcity perspective) (Edwards & Rothbard,2000). Alternatively, it can be described as negative spillover where high demand levelsin one domain directly impact an individual’s ability to successfully complete duties inanother domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). In both the scarcity and negative spilloverconceptualization, one domain interferes with the other by limiting, preventing, or alteringone’s ability to perform role duties and responsibilities effectively, resulting in conflict(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).

There are two distinct constructs, work interfering with family and causing conflict(WIF) and family interfering with work and causing conflict (FIW) (e.g., Frone, 2003;Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005; Netemeyeret al., 1996); each construct captures an individual’s perception of his/her level of interroleconflict. It is believed that work domain variables strongly impact WIF and family domainvariables strongly impact FIW (Frone, 2003). Specifically, work characteristics (e.g., hoursworked, schedule, and perceived work-role conflict and ambiguity) and ameliorating vari-ables (e.g., work social support and company family-friendly policies) have been importantantecedents for WIF (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Parasuraman, Purohit, & Godshalk, 1996).Family characteristics (e.g., number of children, and perceived family-role conflict andambiguity) and ameliorating variables (e.g., family social support and age of children) havebeen important antecedents for FIW (Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996).

Although WFC focuses on the negative consequences of the work–family interface,work–family facilitation (WFF) considers the benefits. WFF has received less attentionthan WFC (Frone, 2003; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Voydanoff, 2004a), but interesthas been increasing (e.g., Grzywacz & Butler, 2005; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al.,2004). WFF occurs when participation in one role (e.g., work) enhances or energizesinvolvement in another (e.g., family) (Voydanoff, 2004a). As resources are developed(e.g., skills) or utilized (e.g., social support) in one domain, they work to enhance role com-pletion in another domain (Voydanoff, 2004a). Barnett and Hyde (2001) suggest that par-ticipating in both work and family roles is not mutually exclusive and can be beneficialbecause strong commitments in both domains may exist and having multiple roles mayincrease available social support. WFF can produce a synergistic effect (Voydanoff,2005). One domain (work or family) positively spills over into the other respective domain.As with WFC, there are two distinct constructs, work-to-family facilitation (WfiFF) andfamily-to-work facilitation (FfiWF). WfiFF is defined as ‘‘occurring when one’s involve-


ment in work provides skills, behaviors, or positive mood which positively influences thefamily’’ (Wayne et al., 2004, p. 111). FfiWF is defined as ‘‘occurring when one’s involve-ment in family results in positive mood, support, or a sense of accomplishment that helpshim or her cope better, work harder, feel more confident, or reenergized for one’s role atwork’’ (Wayne et al., 2004, p. 111). Similar to WFC, studies have focused on domain spe-cific objectives and perceptual environmental factors, such as authority, task variety (Grzy-wacz & Butler, 2005), social support (Hill, 2005), hours worked (Hill, 2005), and number ofchildren (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000); also, individual characteristics, such as gender (Grzy-wacz & Marks, 2000; Hill, 2005) have been assessed. Researchers have suggested thatunique antecedents may exist for both types of WFF such that work domain variables affectWfiFF and family domain variables affect FfiWF (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005).

Most of the work–family research has focused on environmental or other individualcharacteristics; several studies have explored the big-five personality dimensions (e.g.,Bruck & Allen, 2003; Kinnunen et al., 2003), negative affectivity (NA) (Frone, Russell,& Cooper, 1993; Wayne et al., 2004), and type A behavior (e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003)for both types of WFC; however, the results have not been consistent. Kinnunen et al.(2003) examined the moderating affect of the big five on WFC and well-being variables;finding significant interactions for emotional stability on WIF and both job exhaustionand depression, and for agreeableness on FIW and marital satisfaction. Bruck and Allen(2003) found that negative affectivity (NA) was related to both WIF and FIW but type Abehavior was not related to either. For the big five, conscientiousness was significantlyrelated to FIW; this was the only significant beta for the general measure of WIF andFIW. Stoeva et al. (2002) also examined NA and showed it influenced WIF and FIW whenmediated by job and family stress, respectively, but found no direct effects.

Recently, researchers have been examining the influence of personality on WFF. Spe-cifically, Grzywacz and Butler (2005) showed that extraversion was related to WfiFFand Wayne et al. (2004) demonstrated its significance to both directions of facilitation.Wayne et al. (2004) also found significant paths for WfiFF with agreeableness and neu-roticism and for FfiWF with conscientiousness and openness to experience. Wayne et al.(2004) showed that neuroticism was related to conflict to a greater extent than to facilita-tion. They argue that individuals high on neuroticism would be prone to negative stimuliand have ‘‘less efficient time use, greater preoccupation with role demands, and increasedperception of or experience stress. . .’’ (2004, p. 112). Grzywacz and Butler (2005) foundsimilar results for neuroticism and extraversion in their study, which only examinedWIF and WfiFF. Grzywacz and Marks (2000) found that neuroticism was positivelyand significantly related to WIF and FIW for both men and women and negatively relatedto WfiFF for women. Although significant relationships have been demonstrated withvarious personality measures and WFC and WFF, no identifiable patterns have emergedother than the relationship between neuroticism and WFC. It may be that a broader morecomprehensive measure of personality, such as the core self-evaluations construct, willprovide insight into why individuals experience greater levels of conflict or facilitation.

2.2. Core self-evaluations

Judge et al. (1997) introduced the concept of core self-evaluations (CSE) in an attemptto explain employee attitudes and behaviors; they theorized that a broad personality traitwould help explain global perceptions of important work-related attitudes and behaviors.


They conducted numerous studies developing (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003) andmodeling its relationship to job and life satisfaction (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005)and performance (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). CSE is defined as ‘‘the fun-damental assessments that people make about their worthiness, competence, and capabil-ities’’ (Judge et al., 2005, p. 257). CSE is a composite of four personality dimensions: self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and general self-efficacy. Although it was initiallytheorized to be a second-order construct (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham,& Kluger, 1998; Judge et al., 2003), it is now thought to be a higher order latent constructwith four indicators (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge et al., 2005). The four traits areconceptually similar (Judge et al., 2003) and although they may have some unique vari-ance, there is ‘‘considerable redundancy’’ (Judge et al., 2003, p. 304). Therefore, it is the-orized that the four traits, self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and general self-efficacy, are indicators of the higher order factor, CSE.

Individuals’ CSEs influence their perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actionsin their work and family domains. Those with positive CSEs are predisposed to perceiveaspects of work and family domains in a positive manner. They may view life events morepositively and seek situations that enhance positive role fulfillment (Judge et al., 2000), andmay work to minimize negative situations (Judge et al., 2005). Judge et al. (2005) arguethat CSE predicts positive outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction) and negative outcomes (e.g.,strain) (Judge et al., 2002). Strain is an important component of WFC (Greenhaus & Beu-tell, 1985), in situations where multiple role demands may increase strain, which causestension, anxiety, and fatigue. Individuals with high CSE should be able to successfullymanage high demand levels in work and family domains. Therefore, individuals with highCSE should experience less conflict in both work and family domains. Thus,

H1a: Core self-evaluations negatively predicts WIF conflictH1b: Core self-evaluations negatively predicts FIW conflict

Individuals with high levels of CSE may be prone to developing coping skills to mini-mize the occurrence of WFC and possibly increase the likelihood of WFF by effectivelyutilizing resources in one domain to aid their success in another domain. Individuals withhigh CSE might see work (high demand) as a challenge, which might act as an underlyingmotivational factor positively affecting their behavior to maximize available resources incompleting work and family duties. As a result of working harder and smarter, individualswill have higher levels of work–family facilitation. That is, individuals with high levels ofCSE will utilize resources in either (or both) domains to assist them in successfully accom-plishing their various work and family role responsibilities. Therefore,

H2a: Core self-evaluations positively predicts WfiFFH2b: Core self-evaluations positively predicts FfiWF

2.3. Work–family interface

Work–family models are beginning to integrate WFF with WFC. For WFC, research-ers have generally agreed that work and family demand variables that create excessivedemand levels or overload may increase stress levels and the likelihood of WFC (Barnett& Hyde, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004a; Voydanoff, 2004b). More specifically, having too many


roles and responsibilities may reduce resources and result in high levels of demand (workor family) that negatively affect one’s ability to succeed in another domain and causeWFC. However, researchers have also suggested that having multiple roles can be benefi-cial and enhance one’s ability to perform in a given domain because of the satisfactiongained from a challenging work environment and additional resources available (Hack-man & Oldham, 1980; Marks & MacDermid, 1996; Sieber, 1974). Individuals with multi-ple roles may have support from multiple constituents. At work, individuals may receivesupport from top-management, supervisors, coworkers, colleagues, and clients. At home,individuals may receive support from spouse, parents, older children, siblings, friends, andcommunity. Support can be either emotional or instrumental (Adams, King, & King,1996; King, Mattimore, King, & Adams, 1995). Researchers are beginning to explorequestions of at what point multiple roles move from being resources to overload (see Ham-mer, Cullen, & Neal, 2005; Voydanoff, 2004a), but more testing is needed. The demandvariables (e.g., hours worked and number of children) seem to be related to WFC, andresources (e.g., job autonomy and support) seem to be related to WFF (Grzywacz &Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2004a; Voydanoff, 2004b).

In considering the dynamic between these two important domains, work and family,researchers have focused on the negative consequences that often result rather than thepositive benefits that might occur (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Clearly, when workand family domains collide and result in conflict, negative work and family consequencesare expected and often found. Researchers have demonstrated the negative consequencesof WFC, which include low job performance (Frone et al., 1997; Kossek et al., 2001),occupational turnover (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 2001), nonattendance behav-ior (Boyar, Maertz, & Pearson, 2005), depression (Frone et al., 1996), burnout (Kossek &Ozeki, 1998), intentions to quit (Boyar, Maertz, Pearson, & Keough, 2003), and low sat-isfaction levels with the job, family, and organization (Netemeyer et al., 1996). Although ithas been argued that antecedents for WIF and FIW originate in each respective domain(e.g., work domain variables influence WIF), some have suggested and found that out-come variables are affected across domains (e.g., WIF affects family satisfaction) (Froneet al., 1997; Wayne et al., 2004). However, it has generally been shown that domain specificrelationships are more prevalent and should be expected (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;Netemeyer et al., 1996). Therefore,

H3a: WIF negatively predicts job satisfactionH3b: FIW negatively predicts family satisfaction

Individuals who experience WFF (both WfiFF and FfiWF) benefit from the work–family interface and may be better able to maximize multiple roles and demandingwork/family environments. Successfully maintaining such environments should result inhigher satisfaction levels. To date, there have only been a few studies examining conse-quences of WfiFF or FfiWF (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004), andmore research is needed to better understand the impact of facilitation on important workand family variables. Therefore, individuals who perceive high levels of WfiFF andFfiWF should experience positive outcomes. Thus,

H4a: WfiFF positively predicts job satisfactionH4b: FfiWF positively predicts family satisfaction


2.4. Turnover

In modeling the work–family interface with CSE, the influence of intent to quit has yetto be explored. Researchers have clearly shown that levels of job satisfaction impactemployee’s thoughts of quitting (Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussua, & Griffeth, 1992;Scott et al., 1999). Therefore, as with other studies, job satisfaction levels will likely predictturnover. The relationship between turnover and CSE has been shown in numerous stud-ies (e.g., Judge et al., 2005); however, its impact in the work–family interface while mod-eling CSE remains unclear. Therefore, we anticipate a positive relationship between CSEand turnover and between job satisfaction and turnover.

H5a: CSE positively predicts turnoverH5b: Job satisfaction positively predicts turnover

2.5. Mediating effect of work–family conflict and work–family facilitation

Researchers have not incorporated CSE into the work–family interface, the question ofwhether CSE leads to job and family satisfaction levels directly or indirectly throughWFC/WFF remains unanswered. Researchers have demonstrated that CSE are directlyrelated to satisfaction, but have not incorporated conflict and facilitation. Additionally,work and family variables are important to most individuals and should account for somevariance in explaining satisfaction levels. We propose WFC/WFF partially mediate therelationship between CSE and both job and family satisfaction.

H6: The relationship between CSE and job and family satisfaction will be partiallymediated by WFC and WFF

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and procedure

The data were collected from 124 employees at a retirement facility/nursing home in thesouthern U.S. providing a 95% response rate (N = 130). Most of the sample were women(79%) and 65.3% were married. The average age was 44 and the average tenure was 6.5years. Thirty-seven percent (37.1%) were African–American, 56% were Caucasian, 5.6%were Native-American, 1 was Asian–American (.8%), and 14 did not respond (11.3%).Participants voluntarily filled out questionnaires on-site, were given the chance to winone of four retail gift cards, and were assured that their individual responses would remainconfidential. Items, other than demographics, were captured using a five point Likert typescale with responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.2. Measures

Core self-evaluations is considered a higher order factor (Judge et al., 2005) representedby self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and general self-efficacy. Four established


scales were included to assess CSE. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965)10-item scale. A sample item is ‘‘I am able to do things as well as most other people.’’ Neu-roticism was measured using the 12-item NEO-FFI Personality Inventory (Costa & McC-rae, 1992). A sample item is ‘‘I am not a worrier.’’ Locus of control was assessed usingLevenson’s (1974) scale; only the external locus of control items were included to minimizesampling error. A sample item is ‘‘I have often found that what is going to happen willhappen.’’ Items were recoded where 5 represents high internal locus of control. Generalself-efficacy was measured using Chen, Casper, and Cortina’s (2001) 8-item scale. A sam-ple item is ‘‘I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.’’

Work-interfering with family (WIF) and family-interfering with work (FIW) items wereculled from established scales (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000) with 3-items each.A sample item for WIF is ‘‘My work often interferes with my family responsibilities.’’ Asample item for FIW is ‘‘My family responsibilities prevent me from effectively performingmy job.’’

Facilitation items for both work-to-family (WfiFF) and family-to-work (FfiWF)items were based on established scales with 4-items each from the National Survey of Mid-life Development in the United States (MIDUS) (see Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayneet al., 2004). A sample item for WfiFF is ‘‘The skills I use on my job are useful for thingsI have to do at home.’’ A sample item for FfiWF is ‘‘Talking with someone at home helpsme deal with problems at work.’’

Job satisfaction, intentions to quit, and family satisfaction were each measured with 3-items. Sample items for each respective scale are as follows: Job satisfaction: I like theactivities I do at work, intentions to quit: I want to leave this organization very much,and family satisfaction: Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my family (Kopel-man, Rovenpor, & Millsap, 1992).

3.3. Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) wasused to evaluate direct effects and conduct nested model comparisons. The covariancematrix was used as the input for analysis. Various fit measures were considered in assessingthe proposed model (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Manifest indicator variableshad their respective loadings (i.e., lambda X and lambda Y) fixed to one (Hayduk, 1987),which allows for analysis of both unstandardized and standardized path coefficients. Theerror terms for theta–delta and theta–epsilon values were assigned using the followingcalculation: one minus the reliability multiplied by the item’s variance. As with previousresearch (i.e., Judge et al., 2000; Judge et al., 2005), the higher order construct of CSE wasthe average of the four scale scores for self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalself-efficacy and treated as manifest indicators. Following Baron and Kenny (1986), we com-pared three models, a direct, indirect, and saturated model with each other to determinewhether WFC and WFF fully or partially mediated the CSE-outcome relationship.

4. Results

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates are presented inTable 1. Fig. 2 provides a summary of standardized path coefficients and significancelevels.

Table 1Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability coefficients

Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Intentions to quit 2.08 .89 124 (.87)2 Job satisfaction 4.06 .67 123 �.22* (.76) .3 Family satisfaction 4.52 .63 124 �.23** .12 (.88) .4 WIF 2.27 1.04 123 .28** �.16 �.09 (.96)5 FIW 1.94 .87 123 .35** �.08 �.26** .38** (.91)6 WfiFF 3.32 .78 123 �.23* .35** .14 .08 .11 (.72)7 FfiWF 3.82 .68 124 �.12 .10 .37** �.11 �.15 .29* (.67)8 Core self evaluations 3.64 .39 124 �.33** .15 .34** �.32** �.45** �.08 �.05 (.71)9 Self-esteem 4.18 .53 124 �.37** .14 .38** �.32** �.44** �.02 .13 .80** (.90)10 Neuroticism 2.45 .56 123 .20* �.08 �.27** .14 .25** .05 .05 �.77** �.48** (.79)11 Locus of control 1.41 .62 124 .28** �.03 �.18 .34** .45** .25* .25** �.78** �.47** .51** (.79)12 General self-efficacy 4.22 .43 124 �.10 .24** .20** �.12 �.17 .17 .12 .56** .47** �.22* �.16 (.88)

Note. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

274S

.L.

Bo

ya

r,D

.C.

Mo

sleyJ

r./

Jo

urn

al

of

Vo

catio

na

lB

eha

vior

71

(2

00

7)

26

5–

28

1

*

*

.36*

.14

-.22

-.78*

Family Satisfaction

-.06

-.07

.47*

CSE

WIF

FIW

W FF

F WF

Job Satisfaction

Intentions to Quit

-.09

-.33*

-.47*

-.22*

.49*

Fig. 2. Standardized path loading for partially mediated model *p < .01.


Consistent with past research, WIF and FIW were significantly correlated (r = .38,p < .05) and WfiFF and FfiWF were significantly correlated (r = .29, p < .05). Usingstructural equation modeling (SEM), the work–family model proposed produced a v2

(13) = 17.49, p = .18, a GFI of .97, an AGFI of .90, a CFI of .97, and an RMSEA of.05. The fit indices met minimum requirements (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom,1996; Steiger, 1990) providing a model that fit the data. In the proposed model, we positedthat CSE significantly predicts WIF (H1a) and FIW (H1b) conflicts and both WfiFF(H2a) and FfiWF (H2b). That is, CSE negatively relates to WIF and FIW and positivelyrelates to WfiFF and FfiWF. Thus, significant paths were found for CSE and both typesof WFC and none for WFF. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported but hypothesis 2 wasnot. It was further posited that WIF would impact work outcomes (H3a) (job satisfaction)and FIW would lead to lower levels of family satisfaction (H3b). Specifically, WIF nega-tively predicted job satisfaction and FIW negatively predicted family satisfaction. Wefound significant paths for WIF, but not FIW providing partial support for hypothesisthree. Additionally, significant paths were found for WfiFF and job satisfaction andfor FfiWF and family satisfaction. Specifically, WfiFF significantly related to job satis-faction in the hypothesized direction. FfiWF positively predicted family satisfaction. Wefurther posited that CSE (H4a) and job satisfaction (H4b) would predict turnover; therelationship between CSE and turnover was not significant, but job satisfaction–turnoverrelationship was significant.

The nested models (H5) were compared using SEM. First, the direct model was com-pared to the saturated model to determine if mediation exists. The chi-square differenceof 75 (92.49–17.49) with 9 (22–13) degree of freedom was significant at the p = .00 level.


Therefore, there is a significant difference, suggesting mediation exists. Second, the indirectmodel was compared to the saturated model to determine if WFC/WFF fully mediated(i.e., indirect model) or partially mediated (i.e., saturated model) relationship betweenexogenous variables and CSE. The chi-square difference of 27.23 (44.72–17.49) with 3(16–13) degrees of freedom was significant at the p = .00 level. Therefore, the partiallymediated model fit the data better than a fully mediated model; thus, hypothesis 5 wassupported.

In effort to better understand why CSE was related to WFC and not WFF, we con-ducted post hoc analysis with each of the underlying four traits of CSE and WIF, FIW,WfiFF, and FfiWF. In assessing expected paths for each, we ran individual modelsfor each trait and found the following results. General self-efficacy had no significant pathsat p < .05. Neuroticism had a significant positive path with FIW only (b = .26, p < .05).Locus of control had significant negative paths with WfiFF and FfiWF, but interestinglyall Pearson product-moment correlations were significant. Self-esteem had significant neg-ative paths with WIF (b = �.32, p < .05) and FIW (b = �.47, p < .05). Therefore, thelocus of control-WFF and self-esteem-WFC may be important antecedents in explainingunique variance. Specifically, locus of control may provide insight into facilitation to agreater extent than WFC, and self-esteem may be more relevant for WFC than to WFF.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to integrate core self-evaluations into the work–familyarea and present a model that incorporated both WFC and WFF variables along withjob satisfaction and family satisfaction. For family, we included family satisfaction asthe outcome variable. As posited, CSE predicted both WIF and FIW. However, it didnot predict WfiFF or FfiWF. While it was not expected that CSE would be significantlyrelated to WFC and not WFF, Wayne et al. (2004) found a similar pattern with neurot-icism. It may be that individuals’ desires to minimize or avoid negative situations toenhance their self-evaluations is powerful; thus, this may explain the significant relation-ship with WFC and not WFF.

Alternatively, this finding may provide insight into the underlying mechanism or pro-cess causing conflict or facilitation. Voydanoff (2004a) suggested expanding thedemand-resource model when assessing the work–family interface. The scope of CSE(Judge et al., 1997) may not predict proximal variables such as WFF that rely on an indi-vidual’s perception of skills and abilities that enhance role completion; facilitation may bemore attributable to environmental factors such as demand and resources. Interestingly,Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, and Linney (2005) recently found skill level and job control wereeach related to WFF. Conflict, which is more generalized to the domain of interest, may bemore sensitive to personality dimensions such as mood. Individuals with high CSE may beable to balance work–family demands such that reactions to demand may moderate theCSE-WFC and the CSE-WFF relationships.

Another explanation is that unique antecedents may exist for each type of conflict andfacilitation. Previous research has demonstrated that WFC and WFF are not on a contin-uum, but are two distinct constructs that may be impacted by different personality traits(Frone, 2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). In our post hoc analysis, self-esteem and locus ofcontrol were found to have significant relationships with WFC and WFF variables, respec-tively. Judge et al. (2002) argued redundancy exists with the four traits, and they add little


incremental validity beyond CSE (Judge et al., 2005); however, this may not be the case forWFC and WFF. The unique components of each trait may be important for explainingvariance in WfiFF and FfiWF. Individuals with high self-esteem may seek positive workenvironments where they receive recognition and rewards to build or maintain their self-esteem and provide additional resources to aid the work–family interface. It is also possi-ble they may simply exhibit positive affective responses to demand in either domain, thusreporting less WFC. Individuals with internal locus of control believe they can influenceoutcomes. Therefore, they would be more likely to work harder and smarter in successfullycompleting work and family duties, which could result in better utilization of resources inboth domains. When dissatisfaction does arise, they are likely to apply coping strategies toeffect change, which enhances involvement across domains and may result in higher levelsof WFF. Future research can consider the impact of these and other personality traitswhen modeling the work–family interface. Specifically, research should examine whetherdifferent personality traits consistently predict WFC or WFF variables, the differentialimpact of personality traits versus situational variables in influencing WFC or WFF,and possible interactions.

Judge et al. (2000) argued that individuals with high CSE may seek challenging work/family environments with multiple role demands. Although multiple roles may be benefi-cial, there is a point where too many roles and too much demand can result in overload(Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Psychological measures exist to assess role conditions and somebuffering variables have been assessed (e.g., social support) (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999);however, research has not clearly delineated individual characteristics that influence ormitigate the influence of multiple roles and demands. Therefore, individuals with highCSE and high work/family demand levels may identify high levels of WFF. While Voyda-noff (2004a) found some evidence that demand was more strongly related to WFC andwork resources related to WfiFF, cross-over effects were found. WFC research often con-ceptualizes demand as negative and excessive, but demand involves a wide range of reac-tions that might include negative, neutral, or positive affective responses. Future researchcan address the impact of demand-resources along with both WFC and WFF, but maywant to use broad measures of perceived work and family demand that capture a widerrange of possible responses (e.g., Boyar, Carr, Mosley, & Carson, 2007).

The consequences of WFC and WFF were as posited. Individuals with high levels ofWIF conflict have less job satisfaction levels. Likewise, individuals with high WfiFF havegreater job satisfaction levels. Organizations would benefit from reducing levels of WIFand increasing WfiFF. As predicted, FfiWF leads to greater levels of family satisfaction,which have important implications for the employee and his/her family relations.

There are important research implications that could aid future efforts in understandingthe work–family interface. WFC and WFF appear to have different antecedents, and CSEseems to predict WFC rather than WFF. WFC and WFF predict several important out-come variables, which have practical implications for the individual and organization.Finally, work–family models should include both WFC and WFF when consideringimportant causes and consequences. WFF appears to be an important construct that couldhave important implications for managers wanting to enhance the productivity of a com-plex demographic workplace.

There are, however, a few limitations with the present study that limit generalizabilityof these findings. Conducting a study with a cross-sectional design is problematic whenexamining relationships that occur over time. Cross-sectional data does not allow for cau-


sal inferences; a longitudinal design would address this concern. Further, we captured allscales with a single survey, which could cause common method bias and result in inflatingthe predictive relationships somewhat. Additionally, the internal consistency coefficient forFfiWF was below the .70 level desired for scale reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).While initial studies indicated high reliability, both types could benefit from additionalconstruct validity studies (Wayne et al., 2004). Future research might also consider includ-ing alternative measures.

Despite these limitations, the study provides an important contribution to the work–family literature. First, WFC and WFF are distinct constructs; both should be includedwhen modeling the work–family interface. Second, identifying antecedents and outcomesof each will help clarify the nomological net for the work–family interface, which could aidboth practitioners and researchers interested in reducing WFC and increasing WFF. Thisresearch showed significant relationships between CSE and both WIF and FIW. It alsodemonstrated significant relationships with important outcome variables.

References

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family socialsupport, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Sayer, A. (1992). Positive-spillover effects from job to home: A closer look.

Women & Health, 19(2–3), 13–41.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator–moderator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 1173–1182.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Boyar, S. L., Carr, J. C., Mosley, D. C., Jr., & Carson, C. M. (2007). The development and validation of scores on

perceived work and family demand scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 100–115.Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., & Pearson, A. (2005). The effects of work–family conflict and family–work

conflict on non-attendance behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 58, 919–925.Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003). Work–family conflict: A model of linkages

between work and family domain variables and turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15,175–190.

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, typeA behavior, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457–472.

Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 3, 287–302.Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A

daily diary study of job characteristics, work–family conflict and work–family facilitation. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 155–169.Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work–family conflict. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236–253.Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a

difference?. Journal of Management 26, 1031–1054.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-

family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 68, 131–164.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a

multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.


Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: Anexamination of work–family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.

Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The role of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationshipsamong cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination.Human Performance, 14, 209–230.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factory inventory. Odessa,FL: Psychological Assessment Services.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revisedNEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.

Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of work–family interface. Human

Relations, 37, 425–442.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship

between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 178–199.Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal-setting, motivation, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of occupational health psychology

(pp. 143–162). Washington: American Psychological Association.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work–family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes:

A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 57–69.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a

model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1993). Relationship of work–family conflict, gender, and alcohol

expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 545–558.Frone, M. R., Yardel, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–

family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.Fullerton, H. N. (1999). Labor force projections to (2008). Steady growth and changing composition, Monthly

Labor Review, November, 19–32.Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of

Management Review, 10, 76–88.Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as

moderators of relationships between work–family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of

Occupational Health and Psychology, 6, 91–100.Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment.

Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing

a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 97–109.Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective

on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 5, 111–126.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New

York: McMillan Publishing Company.Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., & Neal, M. B. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and positive

spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10,138–154.

Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Hill, E. J. (2005). Work–family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work–family stressors andsupport. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793–819.

Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussua, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structuralequations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890–909.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventionalcriteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s guide. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala.


Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits–self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: Therole of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of jobcharacteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus ofcontrol, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 693–710.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a

measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core

evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life

satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York:

Wiley.King, L. A., Mattimore, L. K., King, D. W., & Adams, G. A. (1995). Family support inventory for workers: A

new measure of perceived social support from family members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,235–258.

Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work–family conflict and its relations towell-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,1669–1683.

Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). Rationale and construct validity evidence for the jobsearch behavior index: Because intentions (and New Year’s resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 40, 269–287.Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The

effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work–family climates. Academy of

Management Journal, 44, 29–44.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.Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes of linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human

Relations, 43, 239–257.Levenson, H. M. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinction within the concept of internal-external

control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377–383.Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.

American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of

Marriage & the Family, 58, 417–432.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). The NEO personality inventory: Using the five-factor model in counseling.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 367–372.Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-

to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.Netemeyer, 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.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research.

Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312.Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., & Godshalk, V. M. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career

success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.Paulin, G. D., & Lee, Y. G. (2002). Expenditures of single parents: How does gender figure in? Monthly Labor

Review, July, 16–37.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B., Shaw, S. P., &Morgan, D. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications of intent to leave.Management Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 400–435.

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work–family conflict.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 50, 749–761.Voydanoff, P. (2004a). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412.Voydanoff, P. (2004b). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict

and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 275–285.Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conflict

and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 491–503.Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family

experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 64, 108–130.Whitely, W., & England, G. W. (1977). Managerial values as a reflection of culture and the process of

industrialization. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 439–453.Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work–family conflict: A sino-u.s. comparison of the

effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 113–123.

Documents

The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation