When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between multiplesources of support and work–family balance

Jeffrey H. Greenhaus a,⁎, Jonathan C. Ziegert a, Tammy D. Allen b

a Department of Management, Drexel University, USAb Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 20 October 2011Available online 6 November 2011

This study examines the mechanisms by which family-supportive supervision is related to em-ployee work–family balance. Based on a sample of 170 business professionals, we found thatthe positive relation between family-supportive supervision and balance was fully mediatedby work interference with family (WIF) and partially mediated by family interference withwork (FIW) such that having a supportive supervisor was associated with low WIF and FIWwhich, in turn, were related to high balance. Consistent with an enhancement perspective,the relation between family-supportive supervision and balance was stronger for employeesin family-supportive organizational environments than unsupportive environments and wasstronger for employees with supportive spouses than unsupportive spouses. We discuss thetheoretical implications of the findings and suggest areas for additional research.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Family-supportive supervisionSpousal supportWork interference with familyFamily interference with workWork–family balance

An increasing participation of dual-earner partners in the workforce, a blurring of gender roles, and a heightened concernamong employees for greater balance in life have produced a rapidly growing body of research on the work–family interfaceover the past several decades (Greenhaus & Foley, 2007). Central to this line of research is the recognition that a supportive work-place can play a significant role in reducing employees' work–family stress and promoting high levels of work–family balance(Andreassi & Thompson, 2008; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Although formal organizational work–family policies are important resources that enable employees to manage their workand family responsibilities (Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer, 2010), informal organizational support has also been shown to promotepositive outcomes (Allen, 2001; Ayman & Antani, 2008; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009; Lapierre & Allen,2006). One type of informal support, family-supportive supervision, refers to the empathy and actions provided by supervisorsto help their subordinates achieve greater balance between their work and family responsibilities (Thomas & Ganster, 1995).Family-supportive supervision is not only associated with employees' use of formal work–family policies (Allen, 2001) but alsorelates to low work–family conflict, reduced turnover intentions, and positive work attitudes (Allen, 2001; Hammer et al.,2009; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).

This study makes several contributions by addressing two important issues in the literature on family-supportive supervision.First, surprisingly little evidence exists illustrating that family-supportive supervision is associated with employees' work–familybalance. Instead, family-supportive supervision has frequently been studied in relation to work–family conflict undoubtedly be-cause many researchers equate high work–family balance with low work–family conflict (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). Neverthe-less, because work–family balance and work–family conflict are distinct constructs (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009;Greenhaus & Allen, 2011), it is important to determine whether the proposed relation between family-supportive supervision

Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Fax: +1 215 895 2891.E-mail address: greenhaus@drexel.edu (J.H. Greenhaus).

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.008

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jvb

and employees' work–family balance exists and, if so, to identify the mechanisms that explain this relationship. Addressing thisissue was the first aim of the present study.

Second, although family-supportive supervision does not occur in a vacuum, prior theory and research devote little attentionto the context in which the support is provided. In particular, virtually no research has examined contextual contingency factorsthat determine whether the effectiveness of family-supportive supervision depends on the family supportiveness of thebroader work environment (Allen, 2001; Kossek et al., 2011) or on the support provided by individuals outside the employee'swork domain such as a spouse (Ayman & Antani, 2008). These questions raise important issues regarding the interactiveeffects of multiple sources of support, which has been generally neglected in the work–family literature despite calls forgreater attention to the role of context in organizational behavior (Johns, 2006). Therefore, the second aim of the studywas to determine whether the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance is moderated bythe family supportiveness of the work environment and by the amount of support received from a spouse. Taken together,addressing these issues helps to further our understanding of how and when family-supportive supervision is related toemployee work–family balance.

1. Theory and hypotheses

Despite frequent attention in the scholarly literature, the meaning of work–family balance is elusive because the concept isoften not formally defined and different scholars conceptualize balance in different ways. After reviewing a variety of perspectiveson work–family balance (e.g., low work–family conflict, equal involvement in the work and family domains), Greenhaus andAllen (2011) concluded that employees experience feelings of work–family balance when they are effective and satisfied inthose parts of their lives that are salient to them. As a result, factors that promote effectiveness and satisfaction in the workand family domains enhance feelings of balance whereas factors that inhibit effectiveness and satisfaction in the work and familydomains weaken feelings of work–family balance. Therefore, Greenhaus and Allen (2011) viewed work–family conflict as anantecedent to work–family balance. When conflict occurs due to work interfering with family life (WIF) performance and satis-faction in the family role is compromised, and when conflict occurs due to family interfering with work life (FIW) performanceand satisfaction in the work role is weakened (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Because WIF and FIWdampen performance and satisfaction in the work and/or family domain, both directions of conflict should be negatively relatedto feelings of work–family balance.

1.1. Family-supportive supervision and work–family balance

Family-supportive supervisors engage in a variety of behaviors (emotional support, instrumental support, role modeling, and“creative”work–family actions; Hammer et al., 2009) that should reduce employees' WIF and FIW thereby increasing their work–family balance such that conflict mediates the relation between family-supportive supervision and balance. A negative relationbetween family-supportive supervision and WIF is well-established in the literature (Kossek et al., 2011), in part becausefamily-supportive supervisors encourage their subordinates to participate in formal work–family policies (Poelmans & Beham,2008) and in part because they informally provide greater work schedule flexibility, enhance employee control, reduce workstressors, model effective work–family management strategies, and provide information and advice, which can reduce the extentto which work interferes with family responsibilities (Hammer et al., 2009; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Family-supportive supervision is also likely to reduce employees' FIW. The informal adjustments in workplace demandsand scheduling and the advice on coping strategies provided by family-supportive supervisors should enable employees tomeet their family responsibilities without unduly restricting their opportunity to meet their work requirements. Consistentwith this notion, several meta-analyses have revealed negative relations between support in the work domain (includingfamily-supportive supervision) and FIW (Byron, 2005; Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011).

For these reasons, we expect that family-supportive supervision is negatively related to WIF and FIW. Moreover, as discussedpreviously, WIF and FIW are negatively associated with work–family balance because limited interference between work andfamily roles (low WIF and FIW) should enhance performance and satisfaction in these roles, which promote strong feelings ofbalance (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 1. The positive relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance is mediated by WIF(Hypothesis 1A) and FIW (Hypothesis 1B).

1.2. Contextual moderators of the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance

The predicted positive relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance does not preclude the possi-bility that a supportive supervisor has a greater impact on subordinates' work–family balance in some situations than in othersituations. We propose that two contextual or situational boundary conditions moderate the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance: the family supportiveness of the organizational environment and the amountof support an employee receives from his or her spouse.

Allen (2001, p. 416) has defined family-supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP) as “global perceptions that employeesform regarding the extent the organization is family-supportive.” Similar to the concept of a supportive work–family culture

267J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

(Thompson et al., 1999), the target of FSOP is the organization as a whole rather than a particular supervisor or a specific policy.Family-supportive organizations do not expect employees to consistently prioritize work over family in decisions regardingwork hours and do not exact career penalties on employees who participate in work–family programs or who devote time totheir family responsibilities (Thompson et al., 1999). Given this impact of FSOP, we examine whether the relation betweenfamily-supportive supervision and work–family balance is stronger in family-supportive organizations or in unsupportiveorganizations.

Although this issue has not been previously examined in the work–family literature, several scholars have presented alterna-tive perspectives regarding the consequences of multiple resources or sources of support. For example, Adler and Kwon (2002)suggested that social capital can either substitute for or complement other (e.g., economic) resources. A substitution or compen-satory (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2008; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000) perspective assumes that the availability of a particularresource is especially important when an individual does not possess other resources; one resource compensates for the absenceof another resource. In the context of the present study, a compensatory perspective would predict that the relation betweenfamily-supportive supervision and work–family balance is stronger for employees who work in unsupportive organizationsthan for thosewhowork in supportive organizations. That is, a family-supportive supervisor has a greater impact in less supportiveorganizations because the supervisor's supportive behaviors compensate for the absence of support provided by the broader orga-nization. Some evidence for the compensatory approach exists in the work-family literature in that Bagger and Li (in press) foundthat supervisory family support wasmore strongly related to social exchange relationships, performance, and citizenship behaviorwhen the level of family-friendly benefits provided by the organization was lower rather than higher.

In contrast, a complementary (Adler & Kwon, 2002) or enhancement (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000) perspective assumesthat the availability of a resource has a greater impact for individuals who have access to other resources because of the comple-mentary and synergistic effects of multiple resources. Therefore, an enhancement perspective applied to the present study wouldpredict that the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance is stronger for employees who work insupportive organizations than for those who work in unsupportive organizations.

Although the limited research onmultiple sources of social support has produced mixed findings (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000),we propose that family-supportive supervisors are more likely to influence employees in a supportive organizational environmentbecause the supportive behavior of a supervisor is aligned with and reinforces the values and beliefs of the broader organizationalculture (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Schein, 2004). This increased alignment makes it more likely that employees perceivea clear and consistent message regarding the value the organization places on employees' family lives. Moreover, the consistencybetween the supervisor and the organizational environment should reinforce the perception of support and facilitate the utilizationof the flexibility, information, and assistance provided by a supportive supervisor such that employees experience less conflictbetween work and family roles and ultimately experience a higher level of work–family balance.

Conversely, an unsupportive work environment may discourage employees from taking advantage of a supervisor's supportivebehavior because of the misalignment of the values expressed by the supervisor and the broader organization. For example,employees may be reluctant to accept a supervisor's offer to work at home 1 day a week or to leave work early to attend a child'sparent–teacher conference if they believe that the organization takes a dim view of these actions and stigmatizes such employeesas uncommitted to their careers. This lack of consistency results in mixed signals and confusion to the employee about the extentto which balance is truly valued. Therefore, in an unsupportive work environment, employees do not capitalize on a supervisor'ssupportiveness and experience relatively high work–family conflict (and low work–family balance) regardless of the supportive-ness of the supervisor. Consistent with an enhancement perspective, we predict:

Hypothesis 2. The positive relation between family-supportive supervision andwork–family balance is stronger for employeeswhoperceive their organization to be more family supportive than for those who perceive their organization to be less family supportive.

Hypothesis 3. The interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions onwork–familybalance is mediated by WIF (Hypothesis 3A) and FIW (Hypothesis 3B).

Support from the family domain is another important contextual factor that can help employees to manage their work andfamily responsibilities. For example, spouses can provide emotional support to their partners and display an appreciation ofthe challenges their partners face in meeting their work responsibilities. Spouses can also offer their partners helpful advice onmeeting work and family responsibilities. As a result, extensive support from family members, such as a spouse, has been asso-ciated with lower levels of FIW and WIF (Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011).

We examine the combined effects of support from a supervisor and a spouse on employees' work–family balance. A compen-satory perspective suggests that family-supportive supervision is more likely to help employees reduceWIF and FIW (and thereforeexperience high levels of work–family balance) when employees do not receive substantial support from their spouse, whereas anenhancement perspective suggests that family-supportive supervision is more strongly related to employees' WIF and FIW (andconsequently work–family balance) when employees receive extensive support from their spouse.

Consistent with an enhancement perspective, we propose that support from a supervisor is most useful when it is coordinatedwith strong support from a spouse because there is a greater alignment of values and consistency of messages (Hofmann et al.,2003; Schein, 2004) provided by role senders in both domains. For example, the flexibility and guidance provided by family-supportive supervisors may be more useful in reducing work–family conflict (and enhancing balance) for employees whosespouse is sufficiently encouraging and emotionally available to recognize the value of the suggestions and accommodations

268 J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

provided by supportive supervisors. As Hobfoll (2002) has suggested, access to one resource (e.g., a supportive spouse) canfacilitate the use of another resource (e.g., a supportive supervisor). Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 4. The positive relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance is stronger for employeeswho receive high support from their spouse than for employees who receive low support from their spouse.

Hypothesis 5. The interaction of family-supportive supervision and spousal support on work–family balance is mediated by WIF(Hypothesis 5A) and FIW (Hypothesis 5B).

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedure

Using a survey-based methodology, we tested the hypotheses with a sample of business college alumni from a private univer-sity in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Surveys examining a variety of work and family issues were mailed to alumniand 287 of these individuals returned usable data. As we focused on organizational factors and spousal support for the currentresearch, we included only individuals who were both employed in organizations and married resulting in a final sample of170 individuals.

The sample was 65% male and predominately White (95%). Respondents held a variety of jobs in a wide range of managerialor professional functions (e.g., president, program manager, resource analyst, computer specialist, financial advisor, governmentofficer, engineer, nurse, auditor) in a variety of industries (the most prominent of which were banking, consulting, education,medicine, pharmaceutical, and other manufacturing). Respondents ranged in age from 25 to 54 years (M=40 years) and hadbeen with their current organization for an average of 8 years. As this was an alumni sample, all respondents had a bachelor'sdegree and 37% held an advanced degree.

The response rate for our mail survey was 13.5%, which is relatively low, even for mailed surveys. However, meta-analyticresearch suggests that effect sizes in self-report survey research are not significantly associated with a study's response rate(Schlam & Kelloway, 2001). Indeed, research has shown that response rates do not impact relationships among variables(Goldberg, 2003). Further research has shown that pursuing a higher response rate through a large number of repeated remindersmay actually increase bias (Ray & Still, 1987).

Thus, the primary importance of low response rates is the potential for non-response bias (Newman, 2009; Rogelberg &Stanton, 2007). As such, we conducted additional analyses to estimate whether there were any substantial differences betweenour sample of respondents and the non-respondents. First, we compared the proportion of women in the sample (34.7%) tothe proportion of women among the college alumni (40.8%) and found no difference in gender composition between the re-spondents and non-respondents (t=.14, ns). We also examined the correlations between the variables in the present sampleand the number of days it took respondents to reply to the survey based on the assumption that late survey returners maybe similar to non-respondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Results indicated that late returners were no different thanearly returners in all the study variables, suggesting that severe non-response bias is unlikely to be an undue concern in thepresent research.

2.2. Measures

All measures were assessed on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. All measuresdemonstrated acceptable Cronbach alpha reliabilities above .80, which are reported along the diagonal of Table 1.

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Work–family balance 3.56 .98 (.92)2. WIF 2.69 .82 − .66⁎⁎ (.85)3. FIW 2.09 .62 − .28⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ (.81)4. Family-supportive supervision 3.89 .85 .30⁎⁎ − .31⁎⁎ − .15 (.85)5. Family-supportive organizational perceptions 3.44 .88 .42⁎⁎ − .39⁎⁎ − .20⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎ (.90)6. Spousal support 4.37 .66 .18⁎ − .18⁎ − .25⁎⁎ .18⁎ .10 (.89)7. Gender (1 = male) .65 .48 .01 .10 .02 .18⁎ .14 .08 (na)8. Age 40.71 6.74 .15⁎ .00 − .07 .01 .08 − .13 .13 (na)9. Presence of children (1 = children) .84 .37 .09 − .12 .02 .00 .08 − .06 − .01 .29⁎⁎ (na)

Note: WIF = work interference with family; FIW = family interference with work; N ranges from 159 to 170 depending on missing values. Values along thediagonal are Cronbach's alpha reliabilities.⁎ Denotes pb .05.⁎⁎ Denotes pb .01.

269J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

2.2.1. Family-supportive supervisionWe measured family-supportive supervision with five items from the scale developed by Bond, Galinsky, and Swanberg

(1998) and subsequently used by Behson (2005). A sample item is “Mymanager really cares about the effects that work demandshave on my personal and family life.”

2.2.2. Family-supportive organizational perceptionsWe measured family-supportive organizational perceptions with nine items from the scale developed by Allen (2001). A

sample item is “The way to advance is to keep nonworkmatters out of the workplace” (reverse coded). Participants are instructedto respond to the items based on what they believe is the perspective of the organization versus their own viewpoint.

2.2.3. Spousal supportWe measured spousal support with five items developed by Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) to assess emotional support

from a spouse. A sample item is “My spouse listens to me talk about my personal or family problems.”

2.2.4. Work interference with family (WIF)We measured WIF with nine items from the scale developed by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000). These items represented

time-, strain-, and behavior-basedwork interferencewith family. Sample items include “Mywork keepsme frommy family activitiesmore than I would like,” “When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities,” and“Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work is counter-productive at home.”

2.2.5. Family interference with work (FIW)We measured FIW with nine items from the scale developed by Carlson et al. (2000). These items represented time-, strain-,

and behavior-based family interference with work. Sample items include “The time I spend on family responsibilities ofteninterferes with my work responsibilities,” “Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work,” and“The problem solving behavior that works for me at home does not seem to be as useful at work.”

2.2.6. Work–family balanceWe measured work–family balance with five items, each of which asked respondents to reflect on the overall degree of

balance they experience between their work and family lives. Some of the items had been used in prior research (Hill,Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001) and others were developed expressly for this study. Asample item is “I am able to balance the demands of my work and the demands of my family.”

2.2.7. ControlsIn all analyses, we controlled for gender (0= female and 1=male), age, andwhether the respondent had any children (0=no

children and 1 = had children).

2.3. Analyses

We tested our hypotheses with hierarchical regression and utilized Edwards and Lambert's (2007) approach for examiningmediated-moderation. This approach integrates moderated regression procedures with path analysis (MacKinnon, Lockwood,Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Because the examination of indirect effects involves estimating productterms that are not normally distributed (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we utilized bootstrapping and constructed bias-correctedconfidence intervals from 1000 bootstrapped samples (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

Given the potential overlap among our outcomes of WIF, FIW, and work–family balance, we conducted a confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) to examine the factor structure of these three constructs. We compared the expected three-factor solution to aone-factor solution that combines the constructs. As indicated by a change in chi-square test, the three-factor model of WIF,FIW, and work–family balance fits significantly better than the one-factor combined model (Δχ2(3)=465.69, pb .001).

3. Results

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables. In all analyses, gender, age, and thepresence of children were controlled in the regression equations. All continuous measures were mean centered prior to analyses(Aiken & West, 1991).

As indicated in Table 2, family-supportive supervision was positively related to work–family balance (Model 3; b=.36;pb .01). To explore this association in more detail, Hypothesis 1 predicted that WIF (H1A) and FIW (H1B) would mediate therelation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance. Family-supportive supervision was negatively relatedto the mediators of WIF (Model 1; b=− .34; pb .01) and FIW (Model 2; b=− .11; pb .05 for one tail directional test). Whenincluding these mediators in the models, bothWIF (Model 4; b=− .77; pb .01) and FIW (Model 5; b=− .35; pb .01) were relatedto work–family balance. Further, family-supportive supervision was no longer significantly related to work–family balance withthe inclusion of WIF (Model 4; b=.10; ns) and remained significant but decreased in magnitude with the inclusion of FIW (Model

270 J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

5; b=.32; pb .01). Taken together, the results illustrate that WIF fully mediated and FIW partially mediated the relation betweenfamily-supportive supervision and work–family balance providing support for H1A and partial support for H1B.

Hypothesis 2 predicted an interaction between family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational percep-tions such that the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance would be stronger in morefamily-supportive organizations than in less family-supportive organizations. The results supported this hypothesis as illustratedin Table 3. The interaction between family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions was signif-icantly related to work–family balance (Model 5; b=.20; pb .01). We graphed this interaction at one standard deviation aboveand below the mean for family-supportive organizational perceptions and tested the simple slopes. As depicted in Fig. 1, therelation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance was indeed more strongly positive in high family-supportive organizations (b=.38; pb .01) than in low family-supportive organizations (b=.03; ns).

Hypothesis 3 built from this interaction to examine mediated-moderation and predicted that both WIF (H3A) and FIW (H3B)would respectively mediate the interactive effect of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational percep-tions on work–family balance. Looking first at WIF, Table 3 shows that the interaction of family-supportive supervision andfamily-supportive organizational perceptions was related to WIF (Model 1; b=− .13; pb .05 for a one-tail directional test). Thesimple effects for this first stage moderation for WIF, depicted in the first column of Table 4, indicate that family-supportivesupervision was more strongly negatively related to WIF for high levels of family-supportive organizational perceptions(b=− .30; pb .05) than for low levels (b=− .08; ns). When adding WIF to the model in Table 3, the interaction between family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions on work–family balance was no longer significant

Table 3Hierarchical regression analyses predicting mediated moderation of the relation between family-supportive supervision and work–family balance.

WIF FIW Work–family balance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ControlsGender .30⁎ .32⁎ .05 .11 − .13 − .18 .08 − .09 .06 − .15Age .00 .00 − .01 − .01 .02 .02 .02⁎ .02 .02⁎ .02Presence of children − .18 − .25 .11 .08 .05 .19 − .08 .07 .00 .21

Main EffectsFamily-supportive supervision − .19⁎ − .31⁎⁎ − .09 − .09 .21⁎ .33⁎⁎ .07 .19 ⁎,a .10 .31⁎⁎

Family-supportive org percept − .37⁎⁎ − .15⁎ .44⁎ .31⁎⁎ .18⁎ .41⁎⁎

Spousal support − .21⁎ − .22⁎⁎ .16 ⁎,a .25⁎

InteractionsFamily-supportive supervision X − .13 ⁎,a − .16⁎ .20⁎ .11 .17⁎

Family-supportive org perceptFamily-supportive supervision X − .11 − .05 .39⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎

Spousal support

MediationWIF − .70⁎⁎ − .74⁎⁎

FIW − .23 ⁎,a − .29⁎

Model R2 .26⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .10⁎ .08 ⁎,a .24⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎

Note: N=156. Entries represent unstandardized coefficients.a Denotes a one-tail directional test.⁎ Denotes pb .05.⁎⁎ Denotes pb .01.

Table 2Hierarchical regression analyses predicting mediated effects of family-supportive supervision on work–family balance.

WIF FIW Work–family balance

1 2 3 4 5

Gender .30⁎ .09 − .14 .09 − .11Age .00 − .01 .02 .01⁎ .02Presence of children − .23 .08 .12 − .06 .15Family-supportive supervision − .34⁎⁎ − .11 ⁎,a .36⁎⁎ .10 .32⁎⁎

WIF − .77⁎⁎

FIW − .35⁎⁎

Model R2 .14⁎⁎ .03 ⁎,a .09⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎

Note: N=156. Entries represent unstandardized coefficients.a Denotes a one-tail directional test of the hypothesis.⁎ Denotes pb .05.⁎⁎ Denotes pb .01.

271J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

(Model 7; b=.11; ns), and WIF had a significant negative relation with balance (b=− .70; pb .01), providing support for H3A indi-cating thatWIF fully mediated the interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions onwork–family balance.

Turning to the mediating effect of FIW, Table 3 shows that the interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions was related to FIW (Model 3; b=− .16; pb .01). The simple effects for the first stagemoderation for FIW, depicted in the first column of Table 5, indicates that family-supportive supervision was more stronglynegatively related to FIW for high levels of family-supportive organizational perceptions (b=− .24; pb .05) than for low levels(b=.04; ns). When adding FIW to the model in Table 3, the interaction was still significant but decreased in magnitude(Model 8; b=.17; pb .05) and FIW had a significant negative relation with work–family balance (b=− .23; pb .05 for a one-tail directional test), providing partial support for H3B indicating that FIW partially mediated the interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions on work–family balance.

The results of the bootstrapped analyses and simple effects lend further support to Hypothesis 3. As illustrated in Table 4,the indirect effect of family-supportive supervision on work–family balance throughWIF was stronger with high (at one standarddeviation above the mean) family-supportive organizational perceptions (P=.21, pb .01) than low (at one standard deviationbelow the mean) perceptions (P=.06, ns), and the difference between these two effects was significant (P=.15, pb .05 for aone-tail directional test). As the direct effect of the interaction on balance was not significant, this finding suggests that WIFfully mediated the interaction of family-supportive supervision and family supportive organizational perceptions on work–familybalance providing support for H3A. Table 5 illustrates a consistent pattern of indirect effects through FIW; family-supportivesupervision was more strongly negatively related to work–family balance with high levels of family-supportive organizationalperceptions (P=.05, pb .05 for a one-tail directional test) than low perceptions (P=− .01, ns), and the difference betweenthese two effects was significant (P=.06, pb .05 for a one-tail directional test). As the direct effect of the interaction on balancewas also significant, the results suggest that FIW partially mediated the interactive effect providing partial support for H3B.Taken together, the results suggest that interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizationalperceptions on work–family balance is fully mediated by WIF and partially mediated by FIW (Edwards & Lambert, 2007).

Fig. 1. Interaction of family-supportive supervision and family-supportive organizational perceptions on work–family balance.

Table 4Simple effect analysis of family-supportive supervision on work–family balance through WIF.

First stage moderation Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

PMX PYX PYM PMX (PYX+PYMPMX)

High family-supportive − .30⁎ .17 .21⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎

organizational perceptionsLow family-supportive − .08 − .03 .06 .03organizational perceptionsDifferences − .22 ⁎,a .20 .15 ⁎,a .35⁎

High spousal support − .39⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎

Low spousal support − .24⁎ − .11 .18⁎ .07Differences − .15 .41⁎⁎ .11 .52⁎⁎

Note: PMX = path from family-supportive supervision to WIF; PYX = path from family-supportive supervision to work-family balance; PYM = path from WIF towork–family balance.

a Denotes a one-tail directional test of the hypothesis.⁎ Denotes pb .05.⁎⁎ Denotes pb .01.

272 J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

Hypothesis 4 predicted an interaction between family-supportive supervision and spousal support such that the relationbetween family-supportive supervision and work–family balance would be stronger with high spousal support than withlow spousal support. The results supported this hypothesis as illustrated in Table 3. The interaction between family-supportivesupervision and spousal support was related to work–family balance (Model 6; b=.39; pb .01). As can be seen in Fig. 2,family-supportive supervision was more strongly positively related to work–family balance under conditions of high spousalsupport (b=.59; pb .01) than low spousal support (b=.07; ns) providing support for H4.

To further examine this interaction, Hypothesis 5 proposed mediated-moderation in terms of both WIF (H5A) and FIW (H5B)mediating the interactive effects of family-supportive supervision and spousal support on work–family balance. However, asillustrated in Table 3, this interaction was not related to either WIF (Model 2; b=− .11; ns) or to FIW (Model 4; b=− .05; ns).Indeed, the simple effects of this first stage of moderation suggest that there was no difference between high and low levels ofspousal support onWIF (Table 4) or FIW (Table 5). As the interaction between family-supportive supervision and spousal supportwas not related to the proposed mediators, Hypotheses 5A and 5B were not supported. The results of the bootstrapped analysesutilizing Edwards and Lambert's (2007) approach reinforced this finding. Whereas the direct effects of the interaction of family-supportive supervision and spousal support on balance were significant, the indirect effects were not, suggesting nomediated effect.

4. Discussion

This study contributes to the growing literature on family-supportive supervision in several important respects. It showsthat family-supportive supervision does indeed relate positively to employees' feelings of work–family balance and illustratesthe mediating process that explains this relation. In addition, it demonstrates that the effect of family-supportive supervisionon work–family balance is dependent upon the context in which the support is provided: the supportiveness of the broaderorganizational environment and the supportiveness of the employee's spouse.

Table 5Simple effect analysis of family-supportive supervision on work–family balance through FIW.

First stage moderation Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

PMX PYX PYM PMX (PYX+PYMPMX)

High family-supportive − .24⁎ .33⁎ .05 ⁎,a .38⁎

organizational perceptionsLow family-supportive .04 .04 − .01 .03organizational perceptionsDifferences − .28⁎ .29⁎ .06 ⁎,a .35⁎

High spousal support − .12 .56⁎⁎ .03 .59⁎⁎

Low spousal support − .06 .06 .01 .07Differences − .06 .50⁎⁎ .02 .52⁎⁎

Note: PMX = path from family-supportive supervision to FIW; PYX = path from family-supportive supervision to work–family balance; PYM = path from FIW towork–family balance.

a Denotes a one-tail directional test of the hypothesis.⁎ Denotes pb .05.⁎⁎ Denotes pb .01.

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

4.25

Low Family-Supportive Supervision High Family-Supportive Supervision

Wor

k-F

amily

Bal

ance

Family-Supportive Supervision X Spousal Support on Work-Family Balance

Low Spousal Support

High Spousal Support

Fig. 2. Interaction of family-supportive supervision and spousal support on work–family balance.

273J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

The results of the mediation analyses explain how family-supportive supervision is associated with employee feelings ofwork–family balance. Employees who report to family-supportive supervisors experience high levels of balance because theyexperience relatively little work–family conflict. Importantly, WIF was a stronger mediator of the relationship than FIW as WIFfully mediated the relationship whereas FIW only provided partial mediation. WIF was not only more strongly related to thesupportiveness of the supervisor than was FIW but was also more strongly related to feelings of balance than was FIW. Therefore,the flexibility, advice, and role modeling provided by family-supportive supervisors (Hammer et al., 2009) promote balanceprimarily by helping employees to reduce work's intrusion into – and interference with – their family responsibilities.

Our results also explain when family-supportive supervision is associated with work–family balance. In particular, the indirecteffect of family-supportive supervision on balance through WIF was substantially stronger for employees in family-supportiveorganizational environments than for those in less supportive environments. In other words, the combination of a family-supportive supervisor in a family-supportive organizational environment was most likely to reduce employees' WIF and subse-quently heighten their feelings of balance. Consistent with an enhancement perspective (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), thisfinding suggests that an alignment of values and beliefs between a supervisor and the broader organizational environment(Hofmann et al., 2003) enables employees to capitalize on the support provided by their supervisor. The alignment presents aconsistent message to employees about what the organization values (Schein, 2004) that magnifies and reinforces the effect ofa supportive supervisor on employee well-being. The interaction between family-supportive supervision and spousal supporton work–family balance further illustrates that an enhancement effect can cut across two different life domains, work andhome (Ayman & Antani, 2008).

Although our findings are consistent with an enhancement perspective, additional research is needed to understand the partic-ular synergies that explain enhancement. For example, it would be useful to determine whether the alignment in values betweenthe supervisor and the broader organizational environment makes it more likely that employees are influenced to use the supportprovided by a supervisor who embodies the values of the organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenbergheor, Sucharski, &Rhoades, 2002) or whether the use of the support is simplymore likely to reduceWIF in family-supportive organizational environ-ments (Allen, 2001).

Furthermore, because neither WIF nor FIW mediated the interaction between family-supportive supervision and spousalsupport on work–family balance, other mechanisms that explain this cross-domain synergy should be explored. For example,Greenhaus and Allen (2011) propose that high levels of satisfaction in the work and family domains promote feelings of balance.Because support at work is associated with high job satisfaction and support within the family is associated with high familysatisfaction (Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009), it is possible that positive feelings toward work and home,rather than reduced conflict or interference, explain why high levels of support from both domains are associated with feelingsof balance.

The results of our study suggest several additional avenues for research. More fine-grained analyses on the different dimen-sions of family-supportive supervision (Hammer et al., 2009) may provide further insight into when supportive supervisors aremost effective in assisting their subordinates. For example, is emotional support from a supervisor more or less helpful in reduc-ing employees' WIF than tangible actions such as providing more flexibility in the scheduling of work? In addition, future researchshould examine the interplay between family-supportive supervision and support from coworkers. Because some coworkers mayresent employees who use flexibility options or take time off to tend to family matters, it is plausible that the supportiveness ofthe coworkers may affect the likelihood that employees will use or benefit from the support provided by a supervisor.

Additional research is also necessary to enhance the internal and external validity of the present findings. Longitudinal designscan help rule out alternative causal explanations imposed by our cross-sectional design. In addition, the use of multiple sourcesof data on variables such as family-supportive supervision (e.g., supervisors) and work–family conflict (e.g., spouses) wouldhelp allay concerns regarding common method variance, although the interactions we observed are not the result of a commonmethod (Evans, 1985) and utilizing the same source in examining the interactive effects should actually deflate the results(Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Finally, research on a more occupationally and geographically heterogeneous sample is neededto determine the extent that the current results generalize to other populations.

In conclusion, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that supportive supervisors play a key role in how individualsexperience the workplace (Hammer et al., 2009). The present study extends this research by identifying the mechanism by whichfamily-supportive supervision promotes employee work–family balance and by demonstrating that other sources of support fromthe work and family domains strengthen the effect of family-supportive supervision on balance. Continued research along theselines is needed to fully understand the conditions that facilitate employee work-family balance.

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2008). Work-family culture: Current research and future directions. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook

of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 331–351). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, S. O. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.Ayman, R., & Antani, A. (2008). Social support and work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration:

Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 287–304). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Bagger, J., & Li, A. (in press). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of

Management.

274 J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275

Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 487–500.Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workplace. New York: Families and Work Institute.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 1459–1486.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 56, 249–276.Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2008). Coping with work-family conflict: Integrating individual and organizational perspectives. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L.

Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.

Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 178–199.Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenbergheor, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational

support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford

University Press.Goldberg, C. (2003). Who responds to surveys? Assessing the effects of non-response in cross-sectional dyadic research. Assessment, 10, 41–48.Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: A review and extension of the literature. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational

health psychology (pp. 165–183). (2nd edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.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., & Foley, S. (2007). The intersection of work and family lives. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 131–152). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive

supervisory behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837–856.Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life

balance. Family Relations, 50, 49–58.Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship:

Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178.Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2010). Work-life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the

mainstream. Human Relations, 63, 3–129.Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general

and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–313.Lapierre, 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.MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation adn other intervening variable

effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 32, 689–725.Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of

work–family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 199–218.Newman, D. A. (2009). Missing data techniques and low response rates: The role of systematic nonresponse parameters. In C. E. Lance & R.J. Vandenberg (Eds.),

Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 7–36). New York: Routledge.Poelmans, S. A. Y., & Beham, B. (2008). The moment of truth: Conceptualizing managerial work–life policy allowance decisions. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 81, 393–410.Ray, J. J., & Still, L. V. (1987). Maximizing the response rate in surveys may be a mistake. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 571–573.Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10,

195–209.Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government

employees. Public Administration Review, 61, 452–467.Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (third edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schlam, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between response rate and effect size in occupational health research. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 6, 160–163.Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7,

422–445.Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research

Methods, 13, 456–476.Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 6–15.Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.

275J.H. Greenhaus et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 266–275