Download pdf - Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms

http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206311435103 2013 39: 792 originally published online 22 February 2012Journal of Management

Samuel Aryee, Chris W. L. Chu, Tae-Yeol Kim and Seongmin RyuInvestigation of Mediating Mechanisms

Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 22, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 25, 2013Version of Record >>

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/


http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792



http://southernmanagement.org

http://southernmanagement.org

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792.full.pdf

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792.full.pdf

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/17/0149206311435103.full.pdf

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/17/0149206311435103.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Journal of ManagementVol. 39 No. 3, March 2013 792-813

DOI: 10.1177/0149206311435103© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An Investigation

of Mediating Mechanisms

Samuel AryeeAston University

Chris W. L. ChuUniversity of Surrey

Tae-Yeol KimChina Europe International Business School

Seongmin Ryu Kyonggi University

This study examined psychological mechanisms that underpin the relationships between perceived organizational family support (POFS) and a family-supportive supervisor (FSS) on employee work behaviors. Based on data from employed parents and their supervisors (N = 230) in 12 South Korean organizations, structural equation modeling results revealed three salient findings: (1) POFS and FSS are indirectly related to contextual performance through control over work time, (2) FSS is indirectly related to both contextual performance and work with-drawal through organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), and (3) control over work time is indi-rectly related to the two work outcomes through OBSE. The authors interpret these findings as indicating support for the focus on informal workplace family support and the need for research to examine the psychological resources they engender if we are to understand why these forms of support have their demonstrated outcomes.

Keywords: family-supportive work environment; control over work time; organization-based self-esteem; contextual performance; work withdrawal

792

Acknowledgment: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer.

Corresponding Author: Samuel Aryee, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, England, B4 7ET, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from



Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 793

Recognition of employees as a source of competitive advantage has provided a renewed impetus to the perennial efforts of organizational scholars to understand the motivational basis of employee work-related attitudes and behaviors. However, the changing context of the labor market, particularly in terms of demographic shifts such as growth in the number of employees with significant work and family responsibilities, contemporaneous with the prevalence of a long-hours work culture and job insecurity have collectively created a situation in which a significant number of employees have difficulties integrating their work and family responsibilities (Cappelli, 1999; Moen & Roehling, 2005; Watanabe, Takahashi, & Minami, 1997). Research evidence suggests that the resulting work–family conflict or the interference of work demands with family demands has deleterious consequences not only for the performance of employees but also for their well-being (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Carr, Boyar, & Gregory, 2008; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Consequently, a major focus in human resource management in the past two decades or so has been the adoption of family-friendly policies to assist employees to better manage their work and family responsibilities (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Glass & Finley, 2002; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Kossek & Nichol, 1992; Lambert, 2000; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). The literature distinguishes between formal and informal family-supportive practices, with the former focusing on actual practices (Neal, Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton, & Emlen, 1993) such as policies (e.g., flexible working arrangements), services (e.g., resource and referral information about dependent care options), and benefits (e.g., child care subsidies), while the latter describes a family-supportive work environment defined by a family-supportive organizational culture and a family-supportive supervisor (Allen, 2001; Jahn, Thompson, & Kopelman, 2003; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).

While research has shown formal family-supportive practices to be instrumental in ameliorating the negative consequences of work–family conflict, there is recognition that many of these practices, such as provision of child care, are expensive to implement and that employees tend to be reluctant to use them because of concerns about the career penalties associated with their use (Allen, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Thompson et al., 1999). Consequently, research focus has now shifted from formal to informal practices (Allen, 2001; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011; Thompson et al., 1999). Although this research stream has enhanced our understanding of informal family supports on employee work outcomes, there are still a number of unanswered questions. First, while research has shown supportive aspects of the work environment to reduce deviant behaviors and promote contextual performance (Baran, Shanock, & Miller, 2011; Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009), it is not yet clear whether informal family-specific supports impact these two forms of discretionary behavior. Second, although much of this research has been grounded in organizational support theory, it has not examined socioemotional needs, such as affiliation and esteem needs, as mechanisms through which informal family-specific supports influence employee work behaviors. Consequently, our study seeks to contribute to this stream of research by proposing and testing a model of the mechanisms underlying the influence of family-supportive environment on employee work-related behaviors. Specifically, we examined control over work time and organization-based




794 Journal of Management / March 2013

self-esteem (OBSE) as mediators of the influence of a family-supportive supervisor (FSS) and perceived organizational family support (POFS) on the work behaviors of contextual performance and work withdrawal. Additionally, we posit control over work time as indirectly influencing these work behaviors through OBSE.

Our study contributes to the literature in three significant ways. First, by examining socioemotional needs as mechanisms that underpin the influence of a family-supportive environment on its documented outcomes, we provide a more complete test of organizational support theory by tapping into the socioemotional content of workplace social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Furthermore, we extend previous research by proposing the demonstrated influence of control over work time on employee work outcomes (Lapierre & Allen, 2010; Thompson & Prottas, 2005) to be indirect through OBSE, and more generally, we extend the antecedents of OBSE to include workplace informal family supports (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). The criticality of self-esteem to psychological functioning was underscored by Locke, McClear, and Knight:

Self-esteem is a requirement of a healthy consciousness in the same way that food and water are requirements of a healthy body. . . . Many people live for a long time with some self-doubt but none can long tolerate a conviction of total worthlessness. (1996: 1)

Understanding why informal workplace family supports influence employee outcomes will provide actionable knowledge to create an environment that will foster employee behaviors that are critical to the recognition of employees as a source of competitive advantage. Second, although a family-supportive work environment has been defined in terms of FSS and POFS, research has focused primarily on either FSS or POFS. By simultaneously examining the influence of both forms of informal support on these two work-related behaviors, our study provides an insight into potential differences in the mechanisms through which these forms of informal workplace family supports influence employee outcomes. This knowledge will be beneficial in helping organizations decide how to foster family-supportive work environments. Lastly, by examining two work-related discretionary behaviors (Bagger & Li, 2011; Lambert, 2000; Muse, Harris, Giles, & Field, 2008), we extend previous research that has focused predominantly on employee well-being indicators. Although we acknowledge the importance of employee well-being, the business case for implementing work–family initiatives can be strengthened by research that examines work-related behaviors (Jahn et al., 2003). Our focus on contextual performance and withdrawal behaviors provides a more complete conceptualization of the discretionary behaviors that underpin the definition of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Organizational support theory draws its conceptual heritage from March and Simon’s (1958) conceptualization of the employment relationship as one of exchange whereby employees exchange their contributions for inducements offered by the organization.





Underpinning these contributions and their interpretation is the tendency of employees to anthropomorphize the organization by assigning to it humanlike traits that enable them to infer the extent to which the organization and its representatives care about them and are concerned about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002). To the extent that organizational support meets the needs of employees and enhances their psychological functioning, it is akin to workplace social support, which House (1981) describes as an interpersonal transaction that may include instrumental assistance, emotional expression of concern, or information. Increasingly, workplace social support has been conceptualized in terms of general support and work–family-specific support (Hammer et al., 2009; Kossek et al., 2011). In the context of this study, we focus on work–family-specific support, or the “degree to which employees perceive supervisors or employers care about their ability to experience positive work–family relationships and demonstrate this care by providing helpful social interaction and resources” (Kossek et al., 2011: 292). Underpinning workplace support is the idea that it constitutes a resource for enhancing individual psychological functioning (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Voydanoff, 2004). As work–family-specific forms of support and given their resource implications, POFS and FSS should enhance employees’ control over work time and OBSE, leading to contextual performance and work withdrawal behaviors. As a psychological resource, control over work time may enable employees to experience self-determination at work, which should have implications for their self-concept, leading to enhanced levels of OBSE. In addition to its predicted direct influence on work outcomes, we predicted that control over work time would indirectly influence these work outcomes through OBSE. These relationships are depicted in Figure 1.

Family-Supportive Work Environment and OBSE

As previously noted, we conceptualized family-supportive work environment in terms of POFS and FSS, which describe informal rather than formal family-supportive practices. We followed Kossek and colleagues and defined POFS in terms of an employee’s perception that the organization “(a) cares about an employee’s ability to jointly effectively perform work and family and (b) facilitates a helpful social environment by providing direct and indirect work–family resources” (2011: 293). POFS conveys a message regarding the organization’s interest in helping employees integrate their work and family roles. The perception of the organization as care centered reflects a deep underlying value system geared toward fulfilling employee desires to balance their work and family roles and can be growth enhancing, thereby implicating POFS in the formation of the self-concept of employees.

FSS describes supervisors who “empathize with the employee’s desire to seek balance between work and family responsibilities” (Thomas & Ganster, 1995: 7). Examples of FSS behaviors include accommodating an employee’s flexible schedule, being understanding when an employee occasionally leaves early to pick up a child from child care, and allowing personal calls from home after a child returns from school. While organizations may adopt family-friendly policies, it is the immediate supervisor who is responsible for the actual





enactment of these policies; therefore, the supervisor has a critical role in the effectiveness of these policies. A supervisor’s role in promoting an informal family-supportive work environment is even more critical when an organization does not have these formal policies (Bagger & Li, 2011). As an instrumental and emotional resource, FSS should enable employees to integrate their work and family roles. Because integration of work and family roles will lead to an improvement in an employee’s psychological functioning, FSS should improve his or her self-concept.

We conceived of self-concept in terms of OBSE and defined it as “the self-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organizational members acting within an organizational context” (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989: 625). Thus, OBSE describes an individual’s perception of himself or herself as important, competent, and capable within his or her employing organization: High-OBSE employees have come to believe “I count around here” (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Although the influence of a family-supportive work environment on OBSE has not been examined, there is a strong theoretical rationale for expecting them to be related. From a social support or resource perspective, both POFS and FSS should contribute to making an employee “feel valued as a whole person, providing self-esteem as well as family-related resources including time, flexibility, and advice” (Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007: 462). Pierce and colleagues (1989) suggest that OBSE stems from a history of organizational, interpersonal, and systemic experiences. We contend that POFS and FSS constitute such experiences and by meeting the socioemotional needs of employees express “an employee-need-centred focus [that] provides the integrated experiential base upon which employee beliefs about self-worth, including organization-based self-esteem, develop” (McAllister & Bigley, 2002: 896). In support of our arguments, researchers have reported conceptually related constructs such as organizational care (McAllister & Bigley, 2002), perceived organizational support (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005), and leader–member exchange (Pierce & Gardner, 2004) to be related to OBSE. Thus, we predict:

Figure 1The Hypothesized Model

Organization-BasedSelf-Esteem

Work Withdrawal

ContextualPerformance

Family-SupportiveSupervisor

Perceived OrganizationalFamily Support

Control Over WorkTime





Hypothesis 1a: POFS will positively relate to OBSE.Hypothesis 1b: FSS will positively relate to OBSE.

Family-Supportive Work Environment and Control Over Work Time

Central to an employee’s experience of strain and time-based work–family conflict is the lack of control over work time. Consequently, a common denominator in organizational efforts to assist employees in integrating their work and family roles is a flexible work arrangement such as telework or flexitime (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Despite the importance of control over work time in mitigating the effects of stress and enhancing individual functioning, there is a paucity of research that has examined its antecedents (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Pottras, 2005). Ganster and Fusilier (1989) define control as the belief that one can exert some influence over the environment, either directly or indirectly, so that the environment becomes more rewarding or less threatening. Control over work time entails having a choice in how much to work, when to schedule work, being able to interrupt work when needed to respond to family demands, and, sometimes, where the work is done (Kelly et al., 2008; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Valcour, 2007). As Kelly and colleagues (2008) observed, control over work time draws on job control in the job demands–resources theories, in which it refers to control over how work is done (Karasek, 1979).

POFS describes a work environment in which the culture allows employees to feel that integrating work and family roles is an acceptable part of the work experience and in which the ideal employee is not one who devotes his or her entire waking hours to the work role. Such a family-supportive environment can increase employees’ perceptions of control not only over their work hours but also over their work roles. As POFS entails an organization putting money and effort into showing its support of employees and their families, as well as being understanding when an employee has a conflict between work and family roles (Jahn et al., 2003), it should contribute to enhancing an employee’s perception of control over his or her work time. From a social support perspective, POFS constitutes an important resource that can enhance employees’ integration of their work and family roles by enhancing their control over work time. Although research has not examined the influence of POFS on control over work time, POFS has been shown to negatively influence the experience of work–family conflict, one of the indicators of lack of control over work time (Allen, 2001; Grandey et al., 2007; Kossek et al., 2011).

We also posit FSS to relate to control over work time. Much research has shown that the enactment of family-supportive policies such as hours worked, flexitime, and work scheduling depends on the discretion of supervisors. This is because since supervisors determine employee workload, they play a critical role in employees’ experience of work-related stress. The criticality of supervisor discretion in the enactment of flexible work arrangements suggests that they are an important source of workplace social support or resource in giving employees latitude over when they work, how many hours they work, and where they work. Denying an employee’s request to leave work early to pick up a child from day care or for time off to attend to a family emergency will minimize his or her perceptions of control over work time, while granting such requests will increase perceptions of control. There is research





evidence suggesting that FSS positively relates to control over work time (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and negatively relates to indicators of lack of control over work time such as work–family conflict or work distress (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 2a: POFS will positively relate to control over work time.Hypothesis 2b: FSS will positively relate to control over work time.

Accounting for Outcomes of Family-Supportive Work Environment

Much research has shown POFS and FSS to relate to myriad organizational and individual outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors, task performance, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, absenteeism, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, work–family conflict, and physical health (Allen, 2001; Bagger & Li, 2011; Cook, 2009; Grandey et al., 2007; Hammer et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2008; Kossek et al., 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). While these findings underscore the utility of informal workplace family supports, much of the research has focused on direct effects. Consequently, we have only a limited understanding of the mechanisms that underpin these relationships. In the succeeding paragraphs, we examine OBSE and control over work time as mediators of the influence of POFS and FSS on the work outcomes of contextual performance and work withdrawal.

Borman and Motowidlo (1993) defined contextual performance as a form of discretionary behavior that constitutes a set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the social and motivational context in which organizational work is accomplished. The construct has since been noted (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) to comprise the dimensions of interpersonal facilitation (cooperation, consideration, and helpful acts that assist coworker performance) and job dedication (self-disciplined, motivated acts such as working hard and taking initiative). In contrast, work withdrawal describes behaviors that are designed to undermine organizational goal attainment efforts and therefore are counterproductive acts (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Examples of such behaviors include absence from work without a tangible reason, taking longer breaks, calling in sick when one is not actually sick, and making excuses to get out of work. Specifically, Hanisch and Hulin (1990) note that work withdrawal describes behaviors employees use to minimize the time spent on specific work tasks while maintaining organizational membership. By examining contextual performance and work withdrawal as indicators of work outcomes, we provide a more complete conceptualization of the behaviors that underpin the definition of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).

Mediating Influence of OBSE

Drawing on Korman’s (1970) cognitive consistency theory, we posit that OBSE will be related to contextual performance and work withdrawal. Korman argued that “all other things being equal, individuals will engage in and find satisfying those behavioral roles which





minimize their sense of cognitive balance or consistency” (1970: 32). Reflective of high-OBSE individuals’ image of themselves as competent and contributing members of the organization, they will demonstrate behaviors that promote the goal attainment efforts of the organization, resulting in high levels of contextual performance and lower levels of work withdrawal. The satisfaction of employee self-esteem needs that stems from informal family workplace supports such as POFS and FSS will foster a sense of belonging that will motivate high-OBSE employees to engage in organizationally beneficial behaviors. In support of our argument, research has reported OBSE to be positively related to organizational citizenship behavior (Chen et al., 2005; Pierce & Gardner, 2004) but negatively related to organizational deviance (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009). We previously posited POFS and FSS to relate to enhanced levels of OBSE, which in turn mobilizes employees to take action reflected in high levels of performance and low levels of work withdrawal. Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 3a: OBSE will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance.Hypothesis 3b: OBSE will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on work withdrawal.

Mediating Influence of Control Over Work Time

As previously noted, control over work time is critical to the ability of employees to participate in multiple roles and constitutes an underlying objective of formal and informal workplace family supports. Although control has been shown to be a critical resource in the stress literature (Karasek, 1979), its influence in explicating why these forms of workplace family supports relate to their demonstrated outcomes has not been widely examined (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). As a psychological resource, control over work time should enable employees to function effectively in the context of work by enhancing their ability to focus attention on their work roles or demonstrate a high degree of work engagement. It is our submission that this ability to focus attention on the work role consequent upon the experience of control enables employees to improve their work role performance, leading to enhanced levels of contextual performance and reduced levels of work withdrawal. Employees with limited control over their work time may experience stress and strain, which will lead to work withdrawal behaviors as a coping mechanism. Further, in their stressor–emotion model of counterproductive work, Spector and Fox (2002) posited control as a major determinant of this form of work behavior. This is because controllable situations are less likely to be perceived as stressors and therefore less likely to precipitate the negative emotions that lead to work withdrawal or counterproductive work behavior in general (Spector & Fox, 2002: 162). As control over work time mitigates the experience of work–family conflict, it constitutes a critical resource in enhancing psychological functioning, thereby leading to reduced levels of work withdrawal. In support of our arguments, Thompson and Prottas (2005) reported the conceptually similar construct of perceived control to mediate the influence of informal workplace family supports on turnover intentions, a form of work withdrawal behavior. As POFS and FSS relate to control over work time, which in turn, leads to contextual performance and work withdrawal, POFS and FSS will indirectly relate to these work behaviors through control over work time. Thus, we predict:





Hypothesis 4a: Control over work time will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance.

Hypothesis 4b: Control over work time will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on work withdrawal.

In addition to directly influencing contextual performance and work withdrawal, as shown in Figure 1, we posit control over work time to indirectly influence these work outcomes through OBSE. As a psychological resource, control over work time enhances an individual’s psychological functioning in multiple roles. An improved functioning in the work role will lead to a positive view of the self, a view of oneself as a competent and contributing member of the organization, leading to enhanced OBSE. This dovetails with Pierce and Gardner’s (2004) suggestion that self-esteem stems from direct and personal experiences in that individuals who feel efficacious and competent as a result of personal experiences come to develop a positive self-image or high OBSE. Thus, we expect control over work time to influence the two work outcomes indirectly through OBSE.

Hypothesis 5: Control over work time will influence contextual performance and work withdrawal indirectly through OBSE.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Data were collected from employees and their supervisors in 12 organizations in South Korea. We obtained the participation of the organizations with the support of the Korea Labor Institute, which is the research institution of the South Korean government. The organizations consist of 4 manufacturing firms, 2 financial service firms, 4 public firms, and 2 other service firms. To initiate the investigation, human resource managers at each organization compiled a list of employees who have a child (or children) as well as the immediate supervisors of these employees. We invited a total of 300 employee–supervisor pairs to participate in the study. Enclosed in each subordinate questionnaire package was a stamped self-addressed envelope for returning completed questionnaires to one of the authors. Supervisor-completed questionnaires were returned directly to a survey coordinator in the human resource department of the participating organization. To ensure the matching of subordinate and supervisor responses, code numbers were written at the top right-hand corner of the first page of the questionnaire, as well as the name of the subordinate in the case of the supervisor questionnaire. Attached to each questionnaire was a cover letter that explained the purpose of the survey, informed respondents of the volitional nature of participation in the survey, and assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. The objective of the survey was explained as being concerned with examining employed parents’ experiences of the focal organizations’ human resource practices. With the exception of data on contextual performance that were obtained from supervisors, data on the other study variables were obtained from subordinates.





Of the 300 questionnaires distributed, a total of 240 matched employee–supervisor questionnaires were returned, but 10 respondents were excluded because they reported not having a child who is under 18 years. This resulted in an effective sample size of 230. Seventy-seven percent (177) of respondents were men; they reported a mean age of 37.9 years (SD = 5.89) and organizational tenure of 10.6 years (SD = 6.74). All respondents were married and worked an average of 47.83 hours (SD = 8.22) a week. The modal educational attainment was an undergraduate degree. Eighty-nine percent (204) of supervisors were men; they reported an average age of 43.96 years (SD = 6.58), organizational tenure of 16.48 years (SD = 7.67), and an average supervisor–subordinate tenure of 3.04 years (SD = 3.12).

Measures

In order to use prevalidated measures, surveys were initially written in English and translated into Korean using the back translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1986). Two bilingual translators who were blind to the study’s hypotheses independently translated the survey from English to Korean, while a third translator, a bilingual academic, back translated the Korean-language version into English. We then pilot tested the Korean version on a sample of 30 employees who were not included in the final sample. Feedback obtained from the pilot test was used to reword a few items to ensure clarity.

FSS. We used a nine-item scale by Thomas and Ganster (1995) to measure FSS. Respondents indicated the frequency with which their supervisors engaged in each of these behaviors, with response options ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Sample items include “Was understanding or sympathetic of my efforts to integrate my work and family responsibilities,” “Juggled tasks or duties to accommodate my family responsibilities,” “Shared ideas or advice about handling work and family responsibilities,” and “Showed resentment of my needs as an employed parent.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .79.

POFS. We used an eight-item version of a scale by Jahn and colleagues (2003) to measure POFS. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items that represent the three dimensions of instrumental, informational, and emotional support are “My organization puts money and effort into showing its support of employees and families,” “My organization makes an active effort to help employees when there is a conflict between work and family life,” and “My organization helps employees with families find the information they need to balance work and family.” The scale’s alpha reliability is .95.

Control over work time. We used a 10-item scale adapted from Thomas and Ganster (1995) to measure control over work time. Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much) the extent of control they had over aspects of work time. Sample items include “when you begin and end each workday or each work week,” “when you take vacations or days off,” “when you can take a few hours off,” “the number of hours you work each week,” and “the number of times you make or receive personal phone calls when you are at work.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .83.





OBSE. A 10-item scale developed by Pierce and colleagues (1989) was used to measure OBSE. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “I count around here in this organization,” “There is faith in me in this organization,” and “I am valuable in this organization.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .94.

Work withdrawal. We measured work withdrawal with a 12-item scale by Hanisch and Hulin (1990). Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 8 (more than once per week). Sample items include “Making excuses to go somewhere to get out of work,” “Ignoring those tasks that will not help your performance review or pay raise,” and “Taking frequent or long lunch breaks.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study is .72.

Contextual performance. Supervisors rated the likelihood of their focal subordinates engaging in each of the 15 items developed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) to measure contextual performance. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely). Sample items are “Praise co-workers when they are successful,” “Say things to make people feel good about themselves or the work group,” “Take the initiative to solve a work problem,” and “Exercise personal discipline and self-control.” Consistent with recent practice (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002), we combined scores on the two dimensions of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication to form a composite measure of contextual performance. The scale’s alpha reliability is .95.

Data Analysis

To minimize Type 1 error rates while enhancing statistical power, we followed MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets’s (2002) suggestion and used structural equation modeling (SEM) to simultaneously test the hypothesized relationships depicted in Figure 1. We adopted Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-stage procedure and, first, conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the distinctiveness of our study variables using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). We compared our hypothesized six-factor model to a series of nested theoretically plausible alternative models. Second, and as previously noted, we tested our structural model using SEM. Following Kelloway (1998), we compared our hypothesized model to a series of theoretically nested models by adding or deleting paths from the antecedents to OBSE or from control over work time to the two outcomes. Lastly, we compared the best-fitting model with a series of nonnested models using the Akaike information criterion (AIC). We chose the best-fitting model by comparing the goodness of the fit of the models using the chi-square difference test. Because supervisors rated the contextual performance of a single subordinate, we did not have to ascertain the nonindependence of supervisor ratings. We assessed overall fit of the models using the chi-square goodness-of-fit to degrees-of-freedom ratio, chi-square difference test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). Indices of model fit suggest RMSEA values no higher than .08, SRMR values no higher than .10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and values above .90 for CFI and NNFI (Hu & Bentler, 1998).





Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among our study variables. As can be seen from Table 1, both POFS (r = .60, p < .01) and FSS (r = .53, p < .01) related to control over work time. Similarly, POFS (r = .61, p < .01) and FSS (r = .52, p < .01) related to OBSE. Control over work time related to OBSE (r = .52, p < .01), contextual performance (r = .28, p < .01), and work withdrawal (r = –.18, p < .01). OBSE was related to both contextual performance (r = .33, p < .01) and work withdrawal (r = –.32, p < .01).

The results of the CFA are presented in Table 2. The overall CFA indicated that our hypothesized six-factor model showed acceptable fit with the data, c2(230, 1,937) = 4,315.70, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .074, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. As shown in Table 2, we compared the fit of our hypothesized model to four alternative models, none of which fit the data as well as our hypothesized model, indicating support for the distinctiveness of the constructs in our study.

Table 3 presents the results of the test of our structural model. We used a series of nested models to examine the fit of our structural model. This is because James, Mulaik, and Brett (2006) noted that the conditions for demonstrating mediation as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) may be inappropriate when using SEM to test for mediation. We compared our hypothesized model to six alternative partially mediated models and an additive, or nonmediated, model. Our hypothesized model, in which control over work time partially mediated the influence of FSS and POFS on OBSE and OBSE partially mediated the influence of control over work time on work withdrawal and contextual performance, fit the data well, c2(230, 1,942) = 4,318.14, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .077, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. We then compared our hypothesized model with the nested models based on the chi-square test to decide the best-fitting model. Models 2 to 7 are the partially mediated models in which we added or deleted a path or paths from control over work time to the two work outcomes (Models 2-4) or deleted a path from FSS or POFS, or both, to OBSE (Models 5-7). As shown in Table 3, comparing Models 2 to 4, the change in chi-square test showed that Model 4 was significantly better than Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3. Model 4 was therefore retained as the best-fitting model and was then used to compare with the other nested models (Models 5-7). When deleting a path or paths to the other nested models (Models 5-7), Model 7 fit the data as well as Model 4. However, based on the rule of parsimony, Model 7 was retained as the best-fitting model, c2(230, 1,944) = 4,316.43, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .080, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. Finally, we compared Model 7 with a series of nonnested models using the AIC. First, we deleted the path from FSS to control over work time; second, we deleted the path from POFS to control over work time but added the path from POS to OBSE; and lastly, we compared Model 7 with a model in which we had paths from FSS, POFS, and control over work time to OBSE. The results revealed that Model 7 has the smallest AIC compared with the nonnested models, which indicated that these nonnested models are worse than our best-fitting Model 7.

Figure 2 presents the standardized path estimates for the best-fitting model (Model 7). As the best-fitting model estimates only an indirect effect from POFS to OBSE, Hypothesis 1a, which states that POFS relates to OBSE, did not receive support. However, Hypothesis 1b, which states that FSS (b = .36, p < .01) relates to OBSE, received support. Hypothesis 2a, which




804

Tab

le 1

Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

and

Zer

o-O

rder

Cor

rela

tion

s

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1. S

ubor

dina

te’s

sex

a1.

23 (

1.11

)0.

42 (

0.32

)–

2. S

ubor

dina

te’s

age

37.9

(43

.96)

5.89

(6.

58)

–.24

** (

–.48

**)

–3.

Sub

ordi

nate

’s e

duca

tion

2.57

(2.

80)

0.90

(0.

76)

–.28

** (

–.29

**)

–.11

(.2

5**)

–4.

Sub

ordi

nate

’s te

nure

10.6

(16

.48)

6.74

(7.

67)

–.12

(–.

22**

).7

0**

(.68

**)

–.03

(.2

5**)

–5.

Sup

ervi

sor–

subo

rdin

ate

tenu

re3.

043.

12–.

10.1

6*–.

16*

.19*

*–

6. S

ubor

dina

te’s

num

ber

of

chil

dren

und

er 1

81.

590.

60–.

11.3

2**

–.00

.30*

*.0

2–

7. F

amil

y-su

ppor

tive

su

perv

isor

3.36

0.54

–.03

.14*

.25*

*.1

2–.

11.1

0–

8. P

erce

ived

org

aniz

atio

nal

fam

ily

supp

ort

3.18

0.83

.02

.18*

*.1

0.2

1**

–.08

.01

.53*

*–

9. C

ontr

ol o

ver

wor

k ti

me

2.58

0.68

–.17

**.1

8**

.10

.13*

–.06

.18*

*.5

3**

.60*

*–

10. O

rgan

izat

ion-

base

d

self

-est

eem

3.56

0.60

–.09

.18*

*.1

8**

.17*

–.06

.14*

.52*

*.6

1**

.52*

*–

11. W

ork

wit

hdra

wal

2.04

0.77

–.08

–.14

*.0

8–.

20**

.03

–.16

*–.

22**

–.21

**–.

18**

–.32

**–

12. C

onte

xtua

l per

form

ance

3.86

0.67

–.02

.06

.06

.07

.01

.11

.36*

*.3

8**

.28*

*.3

3**

–.16

*–

Not

e: N

= 2

30. F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sup

ervi

sor’

s de

mog

raph

ic in

form

atio

n.a.

Cod

ed 1

= m

ale

and

2 =

fem

ale.

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.




805

Tab

le 2

Res

ult

s of

Con

firm

ator

y F

acto

r A

nal

ysis

Mod

elc2 (

df)

Dc2

Ddf

RM

SE

AS

RM

RN

NF

IC

FI

Hyp

othe

size

d si

x-fa

ctor

mod

el4,

315.

70 (

1,93

7)–

–.0

73.0

74.9

5.9

5F

ive-

fact

or m

odel

(co

mbi

ning

FS

S a

nd P

OF

S)

6,28

2.26

(1,

942)

1,96

6.56

***

5.0

99.0

82.9

3.9

3F

our-

fact

or m

odel

(co

mbi

ning

CO

W, F

SS

, and

PO

FS

)6,

619.

42 (

1,94

6)2,

303.

72**

*9

.10

.082

.92

.93

Two-

fact

or m

odel

(co

mbi

ning

sel

f-re

port

s)8,

616.

39 (

1,95

1)4,

300.

69**

*14

.12

.088

.90

.90

One

-fac

tor

mod

el

15,1

28.6

7 (1

,952

)10

,812

.97*

**15

.17

.13

.85

.85

Not

e: N

= 2

30. R

MS

EA

= r

oot

mea

n sq

uare

err

or o

f ap

prox

imat

ion;

SR

MR

= s

tand

ardi

zed

root

mea

n sq

uare

res

idua

l;

NN

FI

= n

onno

rmed

fit

ind

ex;

CF

I =

com

-pa

rati

ve f

it in

dex;

FS

S =

fam

ily-

supp

orti

ve s

uper

viso

r; P

OF

S =

per

ceiv

ed o

rgan

izat

iona

l fam

ily

supp

ort;

CO

W =

con

trol

ove

r w

ork

tim

e.*p

< .0

5. *

*p <

.01.

***

p <

.001

.





Table 3Results of the Comparison of Hypothesized Model With Nested Models

in Structural Equation Modeling

Model c2(df) Dc2 Ddf RMSEA SRMR NNFI CFI Comparison

Model 1: Hypothesized mediated model

4,318.14 (1,942) – – .073 .077 .95 .95

Model 2: Delete paths from COW to CP and WW

4,323.62 (1,944) 5.48 2 .073 .082 .95 .95 Model 2 to Model 1

Model 3: Add a path from COW to WW

4,320.70 (1,943) 0.03 1 .073 .082 .95 .95 Model 3 to Model 2

Model 4: Add a path from COW to CP

4,318.27 (1,943) 5.35* 1 .073 .077 .95 .95 Model 4 to Model 2

Model 5: Delete paths from FSS and POFS to OBSE

4,359.60 (1,945) 41.33*** 2 .074 .083 .95 .95 Model 5 to Model 4

Model 6: Delete a path from FSS to OBSE

4,357.42 (1,944) 39.15*** 1 .074 .080 .95 .95 Model 6 to Model 4

Model 7: Delete a path from POFS to OBSE

4,316.43 (1,944) 1.84 1 .073 .080 .95 .95 Model 7 to Model 4

Addictive models: Model 8: FSS, POFS, COW, and OBSE have direct paths to two outcomes (i.e., WW and CP)

4,313.24 (1,938) 3.19 6 .073 .075 .95 .95 Model 8 to Model 7

Note: The paths in the best-fitting model (Model 7) are all significant. When change of chi-square is significant, the model with less degrees of freedom is chosen; when change of chi-square is insignificant, the model with more degrees of freedom is chosen. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; COW = control over work time; CP = contextual performance; WW = work withdrawal; FSS = family-supportive supervisor; POFS = perceived orga-nizational family support; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Note: Path estimates are standardized coefficients.*p < .05. **p < .01.

.20*

-.32*

.24*

.42**

.51**

.33**

.36**

Organization-BasedSelf-Esteem

Work Withdrawal

ContextualPerformance

Family-SupportiveSupervisor

Perceived OrganizationalFamily Support

Control Over WorkTime

Figure 2The Best-Fitting Model (Model 7)





states that POFS (b = .51, p < .01) relates to control over work time, and Hypothesis 2b, which states that FSS (b = .33, p < .01) relates to control over work time, both received support. The best-fitting model also revealed that only OBSE mediated the influence of FSS on the two work outcomes, so Hypotheses 3a and 3b received partial support. Furthermore, control over work time mediated the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance but not on work withdrawal, providing support for Hypothesis 4a but not for Hypothesis 4b. Lastly, OBSE mediated the influence of control over work time on the two work outcomes, providing support for Hypothesis 5.

We further probed the mediated relationships by using the SEM test of the significance of indirect effect, as opposed to the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982), because the SEM test controls for measurement error. The LISREL program reports the indirect effects of the best-fitting model based on the standard Sobel test. The results revealed that the indirect effect of FSS on OBSE (b = .09, p < .01) and of FSS on contextual performance (b = .14, p < .01) and work withdrawal (b = –.06, p < .05) were all significant. The indirect effect of POFS on OBSE (b = .14, p < .01) and on contextual performance (b = .12, p < .01) were both significant, but not on work withdrawal (b = –.02, p = ns). Lastly, the results also indicated that the indirect effect of control over work time on contextual performance (b = .06, p < .05) and work withdrawal (b = –.05, p < .05) were both significant.

Discussion

Underpinned by organizational (social) support theory, this study proposed and examined a model of the underlying mechanisms through which FSS and POFS influence the work outcomes of contextual performance and work withdrawal in a sample of South Korean employed parents. Based on our best-fitting model, the SEM analysis revealed four salient findings: (1) FSS related to both OBSE and control over work time, while POFS related only to control over work time; (2) control over work time directly related to contextual performance but also indirectly through OBSE to both contextual performance and work withdrawal; (3) OBSE mediated the influence of FSS on contextual performance and work withdrawal; and (4) control over work time mediated the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance. We discuss the implications of these findings in the succeeding paragraphs.

Theoretical Implications

As forms of informal workplace family supports, both FSS and POFS related to control over work time, which serves to underscore their utility in helping employees integrate their work and family roles. By documenting the influence of POFS on control over work time, our finding extends that of Thomas and Ganster (1995), who reported FSS to relate to control over work time. While organizational efforts to assist employees in integrating their work and family roles have focused on formal workplace family supports or practices, our finding reinforces the recent focus on the criticality of informal workplace family support in facilitating the resources employees may need to enhance their psychological functioning. As





previous research examined outcomes of control over work time (Valcour, 2007), our finding contributes to the limited research on its antecedents (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005).

Our findings also indicated that FSS and not POFS related to OBSE. Although self-concept, particularly OBSE, is increasingly recognized as a major motivational force (Pierce & Gardner, 2004), research has focused on general workplace antecedents of OBSE. The influence of FSS that we document in this study potentially highlights the differential influence of the two forms of informal workplace family support on the workplace psychological resource of OBSE. Given that forms of organizational support such as POS (Chen et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2009) and organizational care (McAllister & Bigley, 2002) have been reported to relate to OBSE, it is unclear why POFS was unrelated to OBSE in our best-fitting model, especially as the bivariate correlations showed them to be highly correlated. As research has posited and shown FSS to influence employee outcomes through POFS (Kossek et al., 2011), we encourage future research to further probe the role of the two forms of informal family supports in enhancing OBSE.

The finding that both POFS and FSS relate to contextual performance through control over work time adds to the literature. Although research has theoretically (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Kelly et al., 2008) and empirically (Lambert, 2000) shown workplace family support to influence employee discretionary behaviors, we are unaware of research that has empirically explained this relationship in terms of control over work time. Indeed, with the exception of Beauregard and Henry (2009), who theoretically accounted for this relationship through increased control, the relationship has mainly been explained in terms of work–family conflict (Kelly et al., 2008). Given that the underlying objective of flexible work arrangements is to enhance employee control over work time, it is important that research effort is invested in understanding not only its antecedents but also the processes linking control over work time and its demonstrated outcomes. The finding that control over work time influenced both contextual performance and work withdrawal indirectly through OBSE suggests a potential explanation for the demonstrated outcomes of control over work time (Thompson & Prottas, 2005; Valcour, 2007) beyond work–family conflict (Kelly et al., 2008; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Previous research explained the influence of workplace family supports in terms of social exchange, particularly the norm of reciprocity (Lambert, 2000; Muse et al., 2008). While acknowledging this research stream, our findings underscore the importance of recent efforts at broadening this framework to focus on social support theory and the resulting resources that support engenders (Kossek et al., 2011). As shown in this study, these resources in the form of control over work time and OBSE underpin the reported influence of informal workplace family support on the work outcomes we examined. Given that control over work time both directly and indirectly influences these work outcomes through OBSE, our findings highlight the importance of OBSE (or an organization’s ability to satisfy an employee’s socioemotional needs) as a critical resource in enhancing individual psychological functioning in the context of work and the motivational implications of the self-concept (Shamir, 1991). This therefore suggests a need to integrate the self-concept (or socioemotional needs) into explanations of the performance implications of informal workplace family supports and potentially formal workplace supports.





Practical Implications

The reluctance of employed parents to use formal family-supportive practices has been attributed to the absence of a family-supportive work environment (Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). Critical to such a work environment is supervisor work–family support because of the role of supervisors in enacting organizational family-supportive policies and the anecdotal evidence attesting to the tendency of supervisors to frustrate employed parents’ use of these policies. Our finding that FSS influenced the work behaviors we examined, albeit indirectly, underscores the importance of the repeated calls in the literature for organizations (and the generalizability of these calls to non-Western contexts) to implement supervisory development programs that focus on training supervisors to show empathy and sensitivity to the needs of employees with significant family responsibilities (Bagger & Li, 2011; Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). A further implication of our findings is the importance of the self-concept as a motivational force in our understanding of employee discretionary behaviors. The demonstrated influence of these discretionary behaviors on organizational performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011), coupled with our finding that OBSE influenced both contextual performance and work withdrawal behaviors, suggests a need for organizations to have employees with enhanced OBSE. Our findings suggest that this can be accomplished by providing informal workplace supports that not only give employees control over their work time but also meet their needs for affiliation and esteem (Ferris et al., 2009).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The findings of our study and their implications must be interpreted against a background of its limitations. First, our cross-sectional research design precludes inferences about the causal status of the relationships we reported. Although our findings are consistent with the predictions of organizational (social) support theory, research that adopts a longitudinal methodology is necessary to ascertain the causal status of the relationships we reported. A second limitation is that with the exception of data on contextual performance, which were supervisor rated, data on the study variables were obtained from self-reports. In view of the inherent problem of common method bias in self-reported data, our findings can potentially be attributed to method variance. However, the results of the CFA suggest that our constructs are distinct. Additionally, we reduced concerns about method bias by using the procedural remedies (distinct questionnaire section and instructions, ordering of questions, and assurances of confidentiality) recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). Future research should, however, obtain data on some of the variables, such as POFS, from coworkers.

A third limitation is our focus on informal rather than formal family-supportive policies. Although research has shown these informal practices to influence employee outcomes in the presence of formal policies, future research should at the very least include them as controls. However, in a country where formal family practices are not prevalent, such as South Korea (Magoshi & Chang, 2009), an audit of informal practices could be used to gauge the organization’s readiness to adopt formal family-supportive practices. A fourth limitation is





our predominantly male sample, which constrains the extent to which our findings can be generalized to women. Management of the work–family interface is usually considered a woman’s problem, and therefore family-supportive policies are seen as helping women integrate their work and family demands. However, our findings suggest that both men and women in South Korea may equally desire to integrate their work and family roles. Future research that uses a gender-balanced sample and includes a measure of gender role attitudes as a boundary condition of the relationships we examined will help ascertain the soundness of our speculations. A final limitation is our failure to control or directly include and test for work–family conflict or facilitation in our model (Kossek et al., 2011). Future research should examine the extent to which the resources these informal workplace family supports engender impact the experience of the work–family interface and, ultimately, employee work outcomes.

Conclusion

The findings of this study underscore the relevance of informal workplace family support in assisting employees to integrate their work and family roles. Specifically, the findings revealed POFS and FSS to relate indirectly to contextual performance through control over work time and FSS to relate to contextual performance and work withdrawal indirectly through OBSE. Additionally, control over work time indirectly relates to the two work outcomes through OBSE. In general, the findings suggest that investment in creating a family-supportive work environment as an integral part of an organization’s strategic management of its human resources pays. Consequently, future research should continue to investigate the resources that these informal workplace family supports engender and the boundary conditions of their documented work outcomes.

References

Allen, T. D. 2001. Family-supportive work environment: The role of organization perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 414-435.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family con-flict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 278-308.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. 2002. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work–family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28: 787-810.

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

Bagger, J., & Li, A. 2011. How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206311413922

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. 1999. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 496-513.

Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. 2011. Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.





Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. 2003. Human resource practices as predictors of work–family outcomes and turnover. Industrial Relations, 42: 189-220.

Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. 2009. Making the link between work–life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19: 9-22.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance and their common correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 409-423.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual perfor-mance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137-164. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models: 136-162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cappelli, P. 1999. The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Carr, J. C., Boyar, S. L., & Gregory, B. T. 2008. The moderating effect of work–family centrality on work–family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 34: 244-262.

Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. 2005. Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 457-470.

Cook, A. 2009. Connecting work–family policies to supportive work environments. Group and Organization Management, 34: 206-240.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.

Eaton, S. 2003. If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42: 145-167.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124-197.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

Ferris, L. D., Brown, D., & Heller, D. 2009. Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 279-286.

Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. 1989. Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & I. I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4): 235-280. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Glass, J. L., & Finley, A. 2002. Coverage and effectiveness of family responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 313-337.

Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H. 2007. Work–family supportiveness organizational perceptions: Important for the well-being of male blue-collar workers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71: 460-478.

Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 350-370.

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

Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. 1997. Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 185-203.

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. 2011. Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 134-150.

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N., Bodner, T., & Hansen, G. 2009. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35: 837-856.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1990. Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37: 60-78.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513-524.





House, R. S. 1981. Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized

model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3: 424-453.Jahn, E. W., Thompson, C. A., & Kopelman, R. E. 2003. Rational and construct validity evidence for a measure of

perceived organizational family support (POFS). Community, Work and Family, 6: 123-140.James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. 2006. A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9: 233-

244.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 2006. LISREL 8.8 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Karasek, R. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 24: 285-306.Kelloway, E. K. 1998. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L. A., & Kaskubar, D.

2008. Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 305-349.

Korman, A. K. 1970. Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 31-41.Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. 1992. The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes and performance.

Personnel Psychology, 45: 485-509.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.

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.

Lambert, S. J. 2000. Added benefits: The link between work–life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 801-815.

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.

Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. 2010. Control at work, control at home, and planning behavior: Implications for work–family conflict. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206310385868

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behav-ior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 52-65.

Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. 1996. Self-esteem and work. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 11): 1-32. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2011. Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behav-iors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organiza-tion’s bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64: 559-592.

MacKinnon, D. P, Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104.

Magoshi, E., & Chang, E. 2009. Diversity management and the effects on employees’ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of World Business, 44: 31-40.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. 2002. Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences

organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 894-904.Moen, P., & Roehling, P. 2005. The career mystique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Muse, L., Harris, S. G., Giles, W. F., & Field, H. S. 2008. Work–life benefits and positive organizational behavior:

Is there a connection? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 171-192.Neal, M. B., Chapman, N. J., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Emlen, A. C. 1993. Balancing work and caregiving for chil-

dren, adults, and elders. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. 2008. Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of

support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group and Organization Management, 33: 243-268.Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the

organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30: 591-622.





Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. 2002. Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attrac-tion. Personnel Psychology, 55: 111-136.

Rhodes, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555-572.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive perfor-mance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 66-80.

Shamir, B. 1991. Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12: 405-424.Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.),

Sociological methodology: 290-312. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. The stressor–emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P.

E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigation of actors and targets: 151-174. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

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: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 392-415.

Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. 2005. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, per-ceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 100-118.

Valcour, M. 2007. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work–family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1512-1523.

Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of con-textual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525-531.

Voydanoff, P. 2004. The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76: 822-836.

Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. 2007. Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60: 397-427.

Watanabe, S., Takahashi, K., & Minami, T. 1997. The emerging role of diversity and work–family values in a global context. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychol-ogy: 276-332. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.


