The Effects of Work Demands and Resources on Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation Author(s): Patricia Voydanoff Reviewed work(s):

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, No. 2 (May, 2004), pp. 398-412 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3599845 . Accessed: 01/03/2013 03:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PATRICIA VOYDANOFF University of Dayton

Demands andResources on TheEffectsof Work Conflict andFacilitation Work-to-Family

1989). The linkages and pro(Bronfenbrenner, cessesoccurring between two ormoremicrosystems comprise a mesosystem. When the boundaries between the work and family microsystemsare sufficiently permeable and flexible, processes occur through which characteristicsassociated with the work and family domains influence each other.Work-family conflict and facilitation are linking mechanismsin the processesthrough which workand family characteristics arerelated to individual, work, and family outcomes (Voydanoff,2002). Work-familyconflict and facilitation consist of cognitive appraisals of the effects of the work domain on the family (work) domain. (family) to and Folkman(1984), cogLazarus According nitive appraisal is "theprocessof categorizing an encounter,and its variousfacets, with respectto its significancefor well-being"(p. 31). Encounters can be categorizedas positive, stressful,or withregard irrelevant to well-being.The outcome of the appraisal processdependson the relationship between an individual'sresourcesand the It has become evident in recent years that paid demands of the environment.For example, a work organizedon the assumption thatwork and stressfulappraisal occurs when the "relationship family are separatedomainsis no longercompa- between the person and environment... .is tible with reality. From the perspectiveof ecoappraisedby the person as taxing or exceeding work and are logical systems theory, family his or her resourcesand endangering his or her of activities, microsystemsconsistingof patterns the well-being" (p. 19). Thus, perception of roles, and interpersonalrelationships expericonflict or facilitationderives from work-family enced in networksof face-to-face relationships assessing the extent to which demandshinderor resourcesenhancethe performance of work and roles. Demands are structural or psychofamily in Community, RaymondL. Fitz,S. M., Centerfor Leadership claims with associated role of OH logical 45469-1445 requirements, (Patricia. University Dayton, Dayton, Voydanoff@ notes.udayton.edu). expectations, and norms to which individuals must respond or adapt by exerting physical or Key Words: work demands, work-family conflict, workmentaleffort.Resourcesare structural or psychowork resources. family facilitation, work-family policies, 398 Journalof Marriageand Family 66 (May 2004): 398-412 Thisarticleusesa differential salience-comparable salience approachto examinethe effectsof work condemandsand resources on work-to-family flict and facilitation. The analysis is based on data from 1,938 employedadults living with a family member who were interviewedfor the 1997 NationalStudyof the ChangingWorkforce. The results support the differential salience approach by indicating that time- and strainbased workdemandsshow relativelystrongpositive relationships to work-to-familyconflict, whereas enabling resources and psychological rewardsshow relativelystrongpositive relationfacilitation. The availships to work-to-family time-based family supportpolicies and ability of work-family organizational supportis negatively relatedto conflictandpositivelyrelatedtofacilitation, thereby supportingthe comparablesalience approach.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation logical assets that may be used to facilitateperformance, reduce demands, or generate additional resources. Work-familyconflict is a form of interrole conflictin whichthe demandsof workandfamily roles are incompatiblein some respect so that in one role is moredifficultbecause participation in the other role (Greenhaus& of participation Beutell, 1985). Work-familyfacilitation is less established as a concept than is work-family conflict, going by variouslabels and definitions (see Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2003, for a review). Work-familyfacilitationis defined here as a form of synergy in which resources associated with one role enhance or in the otherrole. Both make easier participation conflict andfacilitationcan take two forms:from work to family and from family to work. Workfamily conflict and work-familyfacilitationare only slightly correlatedwith each other. Some studies have found that work-to-familyconflict and facilitation are not correlated and form separate factors in factor analyses (Bakker & Geurts,2003; Grzywacz& Marks,2000; Sumer & Knight,2001), whereasothersreportcorrelations ranging between -.15 and -.20 (Colton, Hammer, & Neal, 2002; Tiedje etal., 1990). Comparablecorrelationsare reported between family-to-work conflict and family-to-work facilitation (Grzywacz & Marks; Sumer & Knight). Thus, work-familyconflict and workfamily facilitationcan be viewed as independent constructsratherthan opposite ends of a single continuum. Previousresearchhas focused on work-family conflict as the cognitive linking mechanism and outbetweenworkandfamily characteristics has been facilitation comes, whereaswork-family & Greenhaus, relativelyneglected (Parasuraman 2002). This imbalance providesa one-sidednegative view of the work-family interface, which of morecomprehenmay hinderthe development sive theoriesof work-family linkagesandprovide that a limited view of the policies and programs could reduce work-familyconflict and enhance the effects facilitation. Documenting work-family of demands and resources on both conflict and facilitation has implications for the work and family outcomes that work-familypolicies and programsare designed to address.Work-to family conflict is associated with family absences, poor family role performance,and family dissatisfaction and distress, whereas conflict is relatedto absenteeism, family-to-work

399 andjob dissatistardiness, poorjob performance, faction.The consequencesof work-familyfacilitation have yet to be explored(see Frone, 2003, for a review). This article presents a differential saliencecomparable salience model in which withindomain demandsand resourcesare expected to have differentialsalience for work-familyconflict and facilitation,whereasboundary-spanning resources are expected to show comparable relationshipsto conflict and facilitation.It uses data from the 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) to explore the effects of several categories of work-based demandsand resourceson work-to-familyconflict and facilitation.It moves beyond previous research the relativesalienceof a by investigating rangeof workdemandsand resourcesin relation to both work-to-familyconflict and facilitation for a largerepresentative sampleof U.S. workers that reflects the diversity of the U.S. labor force.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The differential salience-comparablesalience model, which is presentedin Figure 1, includes within-domain work demandsand resourcesand resourcesas sourcesof workboundary-spanning to-familyconflict and facilitation.A comparable model is appropriate for within-domainfamily demandsand resourcesin relationto family-towork conflict and facilitation.However,because the measures areunavailable to test such a model, this paperfocuses on work-to-family conflict and facilitation(see Voydanoff,2003, for a test of the differential salience of family demands and resourcesfor family-to-work conflict and facilitationusing anotherdata set). DifferentialSalience of Within-Domain Demandsand Resources The model indicatesthat within-domain demands aredifferentially salientin relation andresources to conflict and facilitation.This difwork-to-family ferentialsalience approach proposesthat withindomain work (family) demands are positively related to work-to-family conflict, (family-to-work) whereas work (family) resourcesare positively associatedwith work-to-family (family-to-work) arerelatively Within-domain demands facilitation. salient for work-familyconflict because they are associated with processes that limit the ability

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

400

Journal of Marriage and Family

FIGURE1 AND FACILITATION DIFFERENTIAL SALIENCE-COMPARABLE SALIENCE MODELOF WORK-TO-FAMILY CONFLICT

work demands: Within-domain Time-baseddemands demands Strain-based

Work-to-family conflict

resources: Boundary-spanning Time-basedfamily support policies Work-familyorganizational support Work-to-family facilitation

Within-domain work resources: Enablingresources Psychological rewards

of individuals to meet obligations in another domain. The present study includes time-based demands.Time-baseddemands and strain-based are related to work-family conflict through a process of resourcedrain in which the time or involvement required for participationin one domainlimits the time or involvementavailable in anotherdomain(Tenbrunsel, for participation Brett, Maoz, Stroh, & Reilly, 1995). Strain-baseddemands are linked to worka processof psychological familyconflictthrough spillover in which the strain associated with in one domain is carried over to participating anotherdomainsuch that it creates strainin the second domain, thereby hinderingrole performance in that domain. Psychological spillover operates through transmission processes in which work (family) conditions are associated with psychological responses, which are then into attitudesand behaviorsat home transferred (work).Negative transmission processesinclude withnegative emotional arousal, interpersonal drawal, energydepletion,andstress(Piotrkowski, 1979; Rothbard, 2001). Within-domain resourcesare relativelysalient for work-familyfacilitationbecause they engender processes that improve performancewhen they are applied across domains.The resources examinedin this studyincludeenablingresources and psychological rewards. Enabling resources

from one domain may generate resources in another domainthatprovidethe meansfor enhanin the seconddomain.Enabling cing participation resourcesgenerallyare associatedwith the structureor contentof domainactivities,such as skills and abilitiesdevelopedthroughdomainactivity, behaviors associated with role activities, and the availability of social support from others involved in the domain. Enablingresources in one domaincontribute to work-family facilitation by increasingthe competenceand capacities of individuals to perform in other domains. For example, skills and abilities developed at work or at home, such as interpersonal communication communication skills, may facilitateconstructive with membersof the other domain.In addition, in domainactivitiesmay be positiveparticipation associated with energy creation that enhances in otherdomains(Marks,1977). participation In early work addressingfacilitation, Sieber (1974) proposedthat rewardsfrom one domain in anotherdomain. might facilitateparticipation These rewards includedprivileges,statussecurity and enhancement,and personalityenrichment. Rewards also include psychological resources that are associated with feeling esteemed and valued, and intrinsicrewardssuch as meaningful activities. These rewardsmay be accompanied by psychologicalbenefits, such as motivation,a sense of accomplishment, self-esteem, and ego

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation They may be relatedto work-family gratification. facilitation through processes similar to those demands-that discussed above for strain-based is, psychologicalspillover.Positive transmission processes include positive emotional arousal, interpersonalavailability, energy creation, and gratification (Piotrkowski, 1979; Rothbard, 2001). The differential salience approach expands on the dual-processmodel of work-homeinterference proposedby Bakkerand Geurts(2003). a model Bakkerand Geurts'sfindings supported in which job demands(workloadand emotional demands) operate throughexhaustionto create negative work-home interference (interaction), whereas job resources (autonomy, possibilities for development, and performance feedback) operate through flow to create positive workhome interference (or positive work-homeinteraction;Demerouti& Geurts,in press).This study a wider extends their approach by incorporating into the and demands resources of analysis range and by consideringprocessesotherthan exhaustion and flow. Salience of Comparable Resources Boundary-Spanning In addition to the differentialsalience of work conflict for work-to-family anddemands resources and facilitation,the conceptualmodel indicates resources have comthat boundary-spanning conflict and for salience work-to-family parable facilitation.They are expected to be negatively conflict and positively relatedto work-to-family associated with work-to-family facilitation. resources focus on aspects Boundary-spanning of work and family roles that directly address how work and family connect with each other, such as the flexibility of the temporalboundary betweenwork and family and the level of organizationalsupportfor employee efforts to coordinate work and family obligationsand activities. In a similarvein, Desrochersand Sargent(2003) referto commutingtime, hoursworkedat home, workcultureas boundaryanda family-unfriendly resources stressors. Boundary-spanning spanning increase and conflict reduce work-family may work-family facilitation through interrelated processesthatenhanceworkers'perceivedcontrol over managing the work-familyboundaryand policies. legitimize the use of work-family This study examines two types of boundaryof time-based the availability resources: spanning

401 family supportpolicies and work-familyorganizational support.The availabilityof time-based family supportpolicies may be relatedto workfamily conflict and facilitationthrougha process in which the availabilityof policies increasesthe perceived flexibility of temporal boundaries betweenwork and family life. Researchsuggests that the availability of family supportpolicies enhances employee perceived control and symbolizes corporateconcern regardlessof whether an employee uses the policies (Clark, 2002; & Crooker, Grover 1995).Thisperceived flexibility and control may reduce time-based demands, conflict. It also therebyreducingwork-to-family facilitationby genmay increasework-to-family eratingtime resourcesin the family domain. work-familysupportis linked Organizational becauseit conflictandfacilitation to work-family and andlegitimizesthe importance acknowledges value of coordinatingwork and family responsibilities. It counters a dominantview in work that suggests that work must autoorganizations matically take priority over family needs and activities.It legitimizesthe use of availablepoliof meetcies thatgive credenceto the importance This and work needs responsibilities. ing family with associated the strain reduce legitimacymay lack of supportfor needed work-familyadjustconflict. ments, therebyreducingwork-to-family Acceptance and recognition of the value of work-family policies also may contribute to work-to-family facilitation. Therefore, control and legitimatizationprocesses are expected to salienceto both work-to-family be of comparable conflict and facilitation.
THE PRESENT STUDY

This study tests hypotheses derived from the model presentedabove. The empiricaltesting of the model is limitedto the specific demandsand conresourcesand dimensionsof work-to-family for whichmeasuresareavailflict andfacilitation able in the data set used for secondaryanalysis. WorkDemandsand Work-to-Family Conflictand Facilitation Work demands are expected to contribute to conflict by impedingthe perforwork-to-family and dutiesor by mance of family responsibilities depleting the resourcesneeded for participation in family activities.The work demandsexpected conflict are to be associatedwith work-to-family

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

402

Journal of Marriage and Family

of two types: time based and strainbased. Long ship reported by Wayneet al. is not robust.Work limit work hours the amount of time an was paid pressure positivelyrelatedto work-to-family individual can spend with family members. facilitationfor men but not for women in one This lack of availabletime may make it difficult study (Grzywacz& Marks).Thus, the evidence for employees to perform family duties and suggests that relationships between demands maintainfamily relationships. Previous research and facilitationare weaker than those between has revealed consistent positive relationships demands and conflict. The differentialsalience between paid work hours and work-to-family approachand previousresearchsuggest the folconflict (Clark,2001; Frone,Yardley,& Markel, lowing hypothesis: 1997;Grzywacz& Marks,2000; Major,Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002; Thompson,Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). In addition,being requiredto work extra Hypothesis 1: Time-based and strain-based work hourswithoutnotice places time and scheduling demands are positively related to work-to-family constraintson workers'abilities to meet family conflict, whereas they show weak negative relaresponsibilities.The lack of notice reduces the tionships to work-to-family facilitation. extent to which workersare able to be dependable participants in family activities.No studies were located that examine the effects of extra Work Resourcesand Work-to-Family workwithoutnotice on work-to-family conflict. Conflictand Facilitation Job insecurity or concernover losing one's job is a strain-based demandthat threatensthe ecoworkdemands areexpectedto be related Although nomic well-being necessaryto the stability and more stronglyto work-to-family conflict than to work resourcesare expectedto show facilitation, qualityof family life. The stress associatedwith with facilitationthan conjob insecurityreduces interpersonal availability strongerrelationships and limits effective participation in family life. flict. Enablingresourcesare associatedwith job One study reportedthat job insecurityis posisuchas autonomy andlearndesigncharacteristics related to conflict for men refers to the extent tively work-to-family ing opportunities. Autonomy and women (Batt & Valcour, 2003), whereas to which employees are able to decide how to another found a relationship for women but do theirjobs. Learning enhancethe opportunities not for men (Kinnunen& Mauno, 1998). Time developmentof skills and encouragecreativity. Thesecharacteristics areassociated withresources pressure is a strain-baseddemand that can be to increase emosuch as time and expected employees' negative management problem-solving activelearning, andself-confidence. tions, stress, and fatigue. These reactions may skills,initiative, to a proactivestancethat is spill over into family life, which may increase They also contribute associatedwith energy creation.When they are work-to-familyconflict by limiting employees' abilitiesto performfamily duties. Previousstud- applied to family activities and relationships, ies show that time pressureis positively related they are expectedto contribute to work-to-family to work-to-familyconflict (Major et al., 2002; facilitation. Two studies have found that job Shaffer& Joplin,2001; Wallace, 1999). autonomy and learning opportunitiesare posiHowever,these demandsare likely to be less tively related to work-to-family facilitation salient for work-to-familyfacilitation because (Demerouti & Geurts, in press; Grzywacz & facilitationis expected to result from resources Butler, 2003). that mobilize or engage individuals in family Psychological rewards, such as respect and activitiesratherthan from a lack of demands.In meaningfulwork, are an aspect of personality enrichment that increasesself-esteemand gratifipreviousstudies,work demandshave not shown cation. These rewardsmay be transmitted into strong relationshipsto work-to-familyfacilitation. Work hours were unrelatedto work-to- familylife via the psychological of spillover posifamily facilitationin two studies (Colton etal., tive emotionsand energyexpansion, therebycon2002; Grzywacz& Marks,2000) but positively tributing to work-to-family facilitation. No known relatedto facilitationin a third(Wayne,Musica, studieshave examinedthe effects of respectand & Fleeson, 2004). The Wayne etal. study uses workon work-to-family facilitation. meaningful the same sample as the Grzywacz and Marks The extent to which enabling resources and study but with a differentset of predictors.The psychological rewardsinfluence work-to-family in findingssuggeststhatthe relation- conflict,however,is unclear.Althoughautonomy discrepancy

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation provides control on the job that reduces job stress, it may not carry over into family life such that it reduces work-to-family conflict. Learning opportunitiesare even less likely to reduce work-to-family conflict. Thus, these resources are expected to be more salient for work-to-family facilitation than for work-tofamily conflict. Three previous studies revealed that job autonomywas not related to work-tofamily conflict (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Clark, & Beutell, Purohit, Godshalk, 2001; Parasuraman, two found a whereas others 1996), negative relationship(Grzywacz& Marks,2000; Maume & Houston, 2001). These findings suggest that under some conditions, autonomy may reduce conflict. work-to-family Because psychologicalrewardsare transmitted throughspilloverprocessesthatcreatesimilarities & Rothbard, acrossdomains(Edwards 2000), it is not expected that psychologicalrewardswill be conflict.No studto work-to-family related strongly ies were locatedthatexaminedthese relationships Brennan, Raudenbush, directly.However,Barnett, thatposiPleck,andMarshall (1995)havereported tive changes in the averageof job rewardsand concernsare negatively associatedwith psychological distress.It is not clear whetherthis result was influencedmore by the job rewardsor job concerns component of the measure. Despite limited and inconsistent research,the differential salienceapproach suggeststhe following:

403

conflict andincreasefacilitation by limitingtimebased workdemandsand creatingtime resources within the family. Studies of the availabilityof time-based family supportpolicies are sparse. One study reportedthat the ability to take time off duringthe workdayis negatively related to conflict (Majoret al., 2002). No work-to-family known studies have examined relationships between the availability of parentalleave and work-to-familyconflict. No studies were found thatexaminedtime-basedfamily support policies in relationto work-to-family facilitation. Those studyingthe effects of work-family policies on workersand their families have discovered that these policies must be accompanied by a work-familycultureand supervisorswho support their use. A supportivework-familyculture countersa commonperceptionthat careerpenalties are associatedwith using work-familypolicies, thereby increasing the likelihood that workerswill use them.A supportive work-family cultureenhancesemployee flexibility in coordiby legitnating work and family responsibilities imizing employee efforts to meet family needs thatcareerpenalties and by creatinga perception are not associatedwith using availablepolicies. This legitimatization providesimplicitpermission to use work-family policies, thereby reducing strain and discomfort associated with work-tofamily conflict and increasing psychological rewards related to facilitation. Studies reveal that a supportivework-familyculture is negaconflict (Allen, tively relatedto work-to-family 2001; Behson, 2002; Colton et al., 2002; Maume Hypothesis2: Enablingresourcesand psycholo& Houston, 2001; Thompsonet al., 1999). The gical rewards are positively related to workone study that examined a supportive workweak and show facilitation negative to-family facilconflict. to work-to-family family culturein relationto work-to-family relationships itationfounda weakpositiverelationship (Colton et al.). mayprovidemoreexplisupervisors Supportive Resourcesand Work-toBoundary-Spanning cit support to employees. When supervisors Family Conflictand Facilitation respond positivelyto discussingandaccommodatthe interfocus on resources employeesare ing employees'familyobligations, Boundary-spanning face betweenthe workand familydomainsrather likely to feel comfortableusing availableworkof the job itself. Some than on characteristics family policies. Supervisorwork-familysupport conflict is negatively related to work-to-family employersprovide work-familypolicies that are Thomas & Batt & work in 2003; Valcour, assist workers (Allen, 2001; meetingtheir designedto Ganster,1995).No knownstudieshave examined and family obligations.Time-basedfamily supso thatit relationships between supervisor work-family port policies reducework requirements facilitation. and work-to-family However, is easier for employees to meet family responsi- support bilities. They includepolicies that allow workers two studies have reportedpositive relationships between job-oriented supervisor support and leaves or to take time off to take family-related facilitation (Colton et al., 2002; Demerouti & duringthe workdayto meet personalor family needs. These policies may reducework-to-family Geurts, in press). The comparable salience

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

404 and these findingslead to the following approach hypothesis:

Journal of Marriage and Family tial salience approachwould predictweak relationshipswith facilitation.
METHOD

3: Boundary-spanning resources are Hypothesis related to work-to-family conflict and negatively related to work-to-family facilitation. positively

Data The datafor the studyarefromthe 1997 National Workforce. Studyof the Changing Using randomdigit dialing, a telephone survey intervieweda nationallyrepresentative sample of 3,551 adults employedin the civilian U.S. labor force, which included95% of householdsdetermined to have an eligible respondent.Using an estimate of eligible households for telephone numbers where eligibility could not be determined,the overall responserate is 52.9% (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg,1998). The subsampleused in the analysesincludes2,012 wage and salaryworkers ages 18 to 64 who were living with a spouse, partner, child, or other relative. When those with missing values on any of the variables are omitted,the sampleis reducedto 1,938. The numberof missingcases is highestfor paid work hours (23) and extrawork withoutnotice (15).

DemographicCharacteristics are included in the Demographiccharacteristics analyses to accountfor the effects of additional variablesthatmay influencework-to-family conflict or facilitation.They includeeducation,gender, race/ethnicity,and the numberof children under 6 years old in the household.Grzywacz, Almeida,andMcDonald(2002) conducteda relatively comprehensiveanalysis of demographic in relationto both work-to-family characteristics conflict and facilitation.They reportedthat education is positively associated with work-tofamily conflict, whereasmen and Blacks report lower work-to-familyconflict than women and non-Blacks. Grzywacz etal. suggested that the findings for education and race/ethnicitymay reflect the social ratherthan socioeconomiccontexts with which they are associated. Gender differences in the expectations and behavior patternsassociated with work and family roles suggestthatwomenmay experiencehigherworkto-familyconflict than men. AlthoughGrzywacz et al. did not find a statistically significant positive betweenhaving a child under6 and relationship associated conflict,familydemands work-to-family with having young childrenin the home suggest thatit is important to includein the analyses. Grzywaczet al. (2002) also examinedrelationcharacterships betweenthese four demographic istics andwork-to-family facilitation. They found that women reported higherlevels of facilitation than men, whereasthe other three demographic characteristics did not show statisticallysignificant relationships with facilitation.It is not clear women why reporthigherlevels of both conflict and facilitationthan men. Perhapsthis finding results from tradeoffsassociatedwith work and family demandsand resources.Because so little is knownaboutfacilitation,it is difficultto interpretthe weak effects of education,race/ethnicity, and number of children under 6 years old on facilitation.If they were associatedmore closely with demandsthan with resources,the differen-

Measures Work-to-family conflictandfacilitation. Work-tofamily conflictis the meanresponseto five items (alpha=.86) asking respondents:"In the past threemonths,how often haveyou nothadenough time for yourselfbecauseof yourjob? How often have you not had enoughtime for yourfamily or other importantpeople in your life because of yourjob? How often have you not had the energy to do things with your family or other important people in your life because of your job? How often have you not been able to get everything done at home each day becauseof yourjob? How often have you notbeen in as good a moodas you would like to be at home because of your job? Would you say (5) very often, often, sometimes, rarely, or (1) never?" The measureof work-tofamily facilitation is the mean of the following two items (alpha=.53): "In the past three months,how often have you had more energyto do things with your family or other important people in your life because of your job?" and "How often have you been in a better mood at home because of your job?" (1= never to 5 ~very often).

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation demands. The measure of paid Within-domain workhours is the usual numberof hoursworked per week at the respondent'smain job. Extra work withoutnotice is assessed by responsesto the following: "How often are you requiredto work extra or overtime hours with little or no advancednotice?" (1 = never, 6 = every week or more often). The measure of job insecurity is based on responses to the following question: "How likely is it that duringthe next couple of years you will lose your presentjob and have to look for a job with anotheremployer-(4) very likely, somewhatlikely, not too likely, or (1) not at all likely?" The measure of time pressure reflects the responsesto the following question: "I never seem to have enoughtime to get everything done on my job" (1 = stronglydisagree to 4 = stronglyagree). Within-domain resources.Autonomyis assessed by averaging responses to the following three items (alpha= .68): "I have the freedomto decide what I do on my job; it is basically my own to decide how my job gets done; responsibility and I have a lot of say about what happenson my job" (1 -strongly disagree to 4= strongly is agree). The measureof learningopportunities the mean response to the following four items thatI keep learn(alpha = .66): "Myjob requires new that things;my job requires I be creative; ing my job lets me use my skills and abilities" (1 = stronglydisagreeto 4= stronglyagree); and "How satisfiedareyou with the opportunities that you have at work to learn new skills that could help you get a betterjob or find anotherequally good job if this one doesn't work out?" (1 - not satisfiedat all to 4 = verysatisfied).The measure of respect is the extent of agreementwith the following item: "At the companyor organization where I work, I am treated with respect" (1 = stronglydisagreeto 4 = stronglyagree). The of meaningful workis the extentof agreemeasure ment with the followingitem: "TheworkI do on my job is meaningfulto me" (1 = stronglydisagree to 4 = stronglyagree). resources. The measure of Boundary-spanning parental leave is a dummyvariablecoded 1 for thoseanswering yes to bothof the followingquestions: "Are women who work for your employer able to take time off work to recuperatefrom childbirth without endangering their jobs, or not?"and "Aremen who workfor youremployer able to take time off work when they become

405 fatherswithoutendangering theirjobs, or not?" Timeofffor family is a single-itemvariablebased on responses to the following question: "How hard is it for you to take time off duringyour work day to take care of personalor family mathard,not too hard, ters-(1) very hard,somewhat or (4) not at all hard?"The measure of a supportive work-family cultureis the meanof the following four items (alpha .74): "There is an unwrittenrule at my place of employmentthat you can't take care of family needs on company time;at my place of employment, employeeswho put theirfamily or personalneeds aheadof their jobs are not looked on favorably;if you have a problemmanagingyour work and family responsibilities,the attitudeat my place of employment is: 'You madeyourbed, now lie in it!'; andat my place of employment, employeeshave to choose betweenadvancing in theirjobs or devotingattention to theirfamily or personallives. Do you (1) strongly agree, somewhatagree, somewhatdisagree, or (4) strongly disagree?" Supervisor work-familysupport is assessed by averaging responses to the following five items is fair and doesn't (alpha= .84): "My supervisor show favoritism in responding to employees'personal or family needs; my supervisor accommodatesme when I have family or personal business to take care of; my supervisoris understanding when I talk aboutpersonalor family issues that affect my work; I feel comfortablebringingup personalor family issues with my supervisor; my supervisor reallycaresaboutthe effects thatwork demandshave on my personaland family life" (1 =strongly disagree to 4 =strongly agree). A factor analysis of the items used in the scales described above shows that each item has a loading of at least .50 on the appropriate scale and no loadings greaterthan .25 on other scales. Demographiccharacteristics.Gender is coded 1 male and 0= female. Age is coded in years and rangesbetween 18 and 64. Educationis categorized as follows: 1 -less than high school; 2 = high school graduateor GED; 3 = some college, no degree;4 = associate degree; 5 = 4-year college degree; and 6 = graduateor professional is a dummyvariablecoded degree.Race/ethnicity Whiteand 0 = all others.Num1 = non-Hispanic ber of childrenunder6 is the numberof children under6 yearsof age who live with the respondent for at least half the year, including biological, (coded0-3). adopted,foster,or stepchildren

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

406 Table 1 presents the means, standarddeviations, and correlationsfor the variables in the analysis. The correlations among independent variablesgenerallyare low. The highest correlations are for meaningful work and learning (r -.53) and respectand supervisor opportunities .50). (r support =
RESULTS

Journal of Marriage and Family resources are addedin Model4, only the relationfor meaningful work remains statistically ship Within-domain resources explain10% significant. of the variancein facilitation,comparedto 4% for work-to-family conflict. These findings supportHypothesis2. As predicted,time-basedfamily supportpolicies (parental leave and time off for family) and work-familyorganizationalsupport (supportive work-familycultureand supervisorwork-family support) show statistically significant negative associations with conflict (Table 2, Model 4) facilito work-to-family andpositiverelationships tation(Table 3, Model 4). These four boundaryspanningresourcesexplain6% of the variancein conflict, versus 2% for work-towork-to-family family facilitation.Thus, supportfor Hypothesis conflict thanfor 3 is strongerfor work-to-family facilitation. work-to-family
DIscusSION

The hypotheses are tested through ordinary least squaresregressionanalysis.Tables 2 and 3 presentthe findings for work-to-familyconflict and work-to-family facilitation, respectively. Model 1 includes demographiccharacteristics. areaddedin Model workdemands Within-domain work resourcesin within-domain followed 2, by resources in Model 3 and boundary-spanning Model 4. The results for demographiccharacteristics presentedin Model 1 in Table 2 indicate that conflict is higherfor women and work-to-family those with more educationand childrenunder6 yearsold in the household.Table 3 indicatesthat is lowerfor those with facilitation work-to-family Whites. more educationand for non-Hispanic As predicted,Model 2 in Table 2 shows that time-based(work hours and extra work without notice) and strain-based (job insecurityand time pressure)demandsare positively associatedwith conflict. All four within-domain work-to-family workdemandsshow statisticallysignificantpositive relationshipsto conflict. Also as expected, Table 3 reveals that the effects of these work demandson work-to-familyfacilitationare not strong.Three of the four demandsshow modest to facilitationin Model 2. negativerelationships However,whenresourcesare includedin Models 3 and 4, only time pressureshows a statistically significantnegative associationwith facilitation. Work demandsexplain 20% of the variancein conflict,whereas theyexplainonly work-to-family 1% of variance in work-to-familyfacilitation. Thus, the findingssupportHypothesis1. Table 3, Model 3 documents that enabling resources(autonomyand learningopportunities) andpsychologicalrewards(respectand meaningful work)are positivelyrelatedto work-to-family workresources All fourwithin-domain facilitation. show statistically positiverelationships significant to facilitation. Table 2 reveals that three of the four resourcesshow statisticallysignificant conflict with work-to-family negativerelationships in Model 3. However, when boundary-spanning

This article has presentedand examineda conceptual model that posits that within-domain work demands and resources are differentially salient for work-to-familyconflict and facilitaresourceshave tion, whereasboundary-spanning salience for conflict and facilitation. comparable work demandsand resourcesare Within-domain conflict and facilitation influence to proposed resource of drain, resource through processes generation, and negative and positive psychologicalspillover.Studyfindingsindicatethatwork demandsexplain20%of the variancein work-tofamily conflict, whereas resourcesexplain 4%. Work resourcesexplain 10% of the variancein facilitation,whereasdemandsexplain 1%.These salienceapproach. resultssupport the differential A similarpatternof findingsis found in the few other studies that examine both work-to-family conflict and facilitation(Bakker& Geurts,2003; Grzywacz& Marks,2000). thatcreate Considering relationships reciprocal loss and gain spiralsmay extend the differential further. One longitudinal salienceapproach study documentsreciprocalrelationshipsamong work pressure, exhaustion, and work-home interference that create a "loss spiral" (Demerouti, Bakker,& Bulters,2004). Additionalresearchis needed to understand the extent to which relademand-conflictand resource-facilitation time. over are tionships mutually reinforcing However, these relationships do not form a

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation

407

00

I N

0 ) C Cl

00

00

ON

Cl Z

r- I 77 -7

C-l

z
0) CO < 0) >. < 0 00Nr-Cm N 0C Itl

- qn CC
N
00

0,1t -.

,-

\o .,-I*-.
N 0 Cl

IN DI0 ICr

0 I
Z 0)

I
lCl I0tl Cl

? z
.<

CO~

Ho

OC

00 XC'l
N 00

V- rC

m'l 0 e ~tC'Cl0

M '-C IC IC r' C)
C

1 0 N

- ?t -N Cl

U
N
O

r4

I
000 00 I 0o

O I-? In
\0 o f

0 z
>l

IO \O I \I 0I
--O eO C

0 00

c ,n

,Cl

f l N

00 0

- Cl -

I lI
C O

I I
ON

~ I
I

v CO
0. 0

O.

I
CO u

0 v< 0 0:
NOmN . 0 H, Z z 00 CO CO1 CO
j CO;

-f"~

c00 - m0 ?OOOOOO-00nCi00V W'WC'N-.

~C

n~ ~

0)

0000000-? C i It ctCnN~l~l

~
t\ c 0) c)N\ 0 \CC

?~
C

0 l; O

c~
CU CO CO 0) 00

Oc

v 0~
C c 0?-

00 \C

C~

O~ ~0

z
0)

~OC
O

d~~~\ ~
ci 0 O\PCt

0\

"0) C~C3

~~O
00
C

~u
0) 0. tt 0) o CO

?~

00) 00
c? ? CcC c >' c

:~;

-COO'i~M 0 f 0C~- 0);

Cf

NO -

U o
o

e~f

h0

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

DEMANDS AND RESOURCES, A

(N= 1,938) Model 1 Variables Demographic Characteristics Gender(1 = male) Education Race/ethnicity(1 = non-Hispanic White) Numberof children < 6 Within-Domain Demands Paid work hours Extrawork without notice Job insecurity Time pressure Within-Domain Resources Autonomy Learningopportunities Respect Meaningfulwork Boundary-Spanning Resources Parentalleave Time off for family Supportivework-familyculture Supervisorwork-familysupport R Changein R2 F for change in R2 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests). .02 .02 11.02*** .22 .20 125.47*** B SEB beta B Model 2 SEB beta B Model 3 SEB

-.16 .06 .02 .14

.04 .02 .05 .04

-.08*** .09*** .01 .09***

-.27 .01 .05 .13 .01 .11 .21 .20

.04 .01 .05 .03 .002 .01 .02 .02

-.14*** .02 .02 .09*** .14*** .21*** .20*** .24***

-.26 .02 .05 .13 .01 .10 .16 .21 -.11 -.07 -.12 -.07

.04 .01 .05 .03 .002 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .03 .03

.26 .04 24.77***

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation

409

TABLE 3 REGRESSIONS OFWORK-TO-FAMILY FACILITATION ONDEMOGRAPHIC WITHIN-DOMAIN DEMANDS AND CHARACTERISTICS,

AND BOUNDARY-SPANNING RESOURCES RESOURCES, (N= 1,938)

Model I Variables B SEB beta B

Model 2 SEB beta B

Model 3 SEB beta B

Model 4 SEB beta

Demographic Characteristics Gender (1 = male) .07 .04 Education -.05 .01 -.16 .05 Race/ethnicity (1 = non-Hispanic White) Number of children < 6 Within-Domain Demands Paid work hours Extra work without notice Job insecurity Time pressure Within-Domain Resources Autonomy Learningopportunities Respect Meaningfulwork Boundary-Spanning Resources Parentalleave Time off for family Supportivework-family culture Supervisorwork-family support R2 Change in R2 F for change in R2 -.02 .03

.04 .08 -.09***-.05 -.08** -.17 -.01 -.02 .001 -.02 -.06 -.04

.04 .01 .05 .03

.04 .07 -.08**-.07 -.08**-.17 -.01 -.01

.04 .01 .05 .03 .002 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .03 .03

.04 .06 -.11***-.06 -.08***-.16 -.01 -.01

.04 .01 .05 .03 .002 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .03 .03 .04 .02 .03 .04 .14 .02 9.18***

.03 -.11*** -.08*** -.01 -.01 -.00 .03 -.08*** .05* .11*** .09** .12*** .06* .07** .06* .10***

.002 .02 -.001 .01 -.05* -.01 .02 -.06* .02 .02 -.06* -.07 .09 .19 .15 .13

-.02 -.001 -.02 -.002 .02 .03 -.09***-.07 .08** .13*** .12*** .12*** .06 .16 .10 .14 .10 .06 .07 .13

.01 .01 7.89***

.02 .01 4.74**

.12 .10 54.59***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

closed system. In the early models of Tables 2 and 3, some within-domain work demandshave limited negative effects on facilitation,whereas some workresourceshave modestnegativeassociationswith conflict.Some of these relationships arereduced in latermodels. introduced by variables time and However, pressure meaningful work remain statistically significant across models, which suggests that some demandsare able to limit facilitation, whereas some resources may reduceconflict.The complexityof these relationships may explain some of the mixed findings found in previousresearch,such as the positive between work hoursand facilitation relationship and the negative relationship between autonomy and conflict. The differentialsalience approach does not precludesuch limited crossovereffects

of resourceson conflict or demandson facilitation. Instead, it emphasizes that the dominant pattern of effects is from demands to conflict and fromresourcesto facilitation. Theconceptual modelalso asserts thatboundaryspanning resources have comparable salience for work-to-family conflict and facilitation.Perceived controland flexibilityregarding the time boundary between work and family and the legitimacyassociatedwith work-family organizational support are proposed to reduce workto-family conflict and increase work-to-family facilitation. The findingsindicatethat time-based family supportpolicies and work-familyorganizationalsupport arenegativelyrelatedto conflict and positively associatedwith facilitation.These resourcesexplain 6% of the variancein conflict,

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410 compared with 2% for facilitation. Thus, the effects of family support policies and workfamily organizational support are somewhat for conflictthanfor facilitation. stronger The findings support the work of Glass and Estes (1997) and Batt and Valcour (2003), who pointed out that work-familypolicies and organizational supportmay be necessarybut not sufficient to reduce work-familyconflict. The findings show that both within-domainwork demands and boundary-spanning resources are associated with conconsistently work-to-family flict. In addition, resourcesdo boundary-spanning not reduce the effects of demandson conflict. Thus, to lower work-to-familyconflict, it is essential to reduce the level of within-domain demands and provide family support policies and organizational This argument is supsupport. andhercolleagues by the workof Rapoport ported the importance of (2002), who have documented work design for work-family in three integration It is therefore to largeU.S. corporations. necessary of work-related employ a combination strategies to improve the abilityof employeesto successfully integratetheir work and family responsibilities andrelationships. The demographicvariablesshow mixed relaconflict and facilitionshipswith work-to-family tation. The findings for gender and numberof childrenless than 6 years old suggest that these characteristics are comparableto within-domain demands.Womenand those with childrenunder 6 years old in the householdreporthigherlevels of work-to-family conflict,whereasthese characteristics are not relatedto facilitation.However, the findingsfor race/ethnicity do not supportthis minorities Racial/ethnic approach. reporthigher levels of work-to-familyfacilitation than nonHispanicWhites.This suggeststhat social rather than socioeconomicresourcesand demandsmay be operatingin this situation (Grzywacz et al., also is supported for educa2002). This approach tion, which is positively associatedwith conflict and negativelyrelatedto facilitation. This study has taken a step toward better of the sources of work-to-family understanding conflict and facilitationby examininga rangeof work resourcesand demandsfor a large representativesampleof employees.However,despite its strengths,the study suffers important limitations. First,althoughthe completionrateis 95%, the estimatedoverallresponserateis low (52.9%) because the interviewerswere unable to determine whether a large number of households

Journal of Marriage and Family includedan eligible respondent. The implications of this problemfor the findingsare unclear. faciliSecond, the measureof work-to-family tation has limited reliabilityand range. An adequate measuremust include items that address both resource generation and positive psychological spillover. The National Study of the ChangingWorkforce(NSCW) measureconsists of two items regarding mood and energy, which focus on spillover and one aspect of resource items areneeded However,additional generation. that include other aspectsof resourcegeneration such as workbehaviors,attitudes, and skills. The NSCWis one of two knownnationalsamples that include a measure of work-to-family facilitation.The other is the NationalSurvey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS). The MIDUS survey has a somewhat higheroverallresponserate,60.8%.The measure of work-to-family facilitation includes three items (alpha=.73) that addressresourcegeneration but none that considers positive psychological spillover(Voydanoff,2003). In addition, the MIDUSsurveydoes not includemeasuresof boundary-spanningresources. Therefore, the NSCW was chosen for this study. Third, although the multiple-itempredictors generallyhave adequatereliability,several predictors consist of single items. Some of these single-item measures are relatively unproblematic, such as paid work hours, extra work withoutnotice,andtime off for family.However, other resourcesand demands,such as job insecurity, time pressure, respect, and meaningful measures.In work, beg for more comprehensive addition,the meaningof the measureof parental leave to respondents is ambiguous.The fact that only 65% of respondents employedin organizations with 50 or moreemployeesreportthatboth mothersand fatherscan takeparental leave without endangering theirjobs (comparedwith 60% of those employed in smaller companies) sughave a broaderdefinition gests that respondents of job endangerment than that articulated in the FamilyandMedicalLeave Act. These limitations reducethe generalizability of the findings. A more adequatetest of the conceptualmodel also wouldbenefitfrommeasuresof otherpotendemandsand resources,such as tially important emotionaldemands,work-role conflict and ambiguity, psychological involvement, performance feedback,and psychologicalrewardssuch as status enhancement and personality enrichment. Additionalconceptualwork regarding the nature

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Work-to-Family Conflict and Facilitation and operationof work demands and resources incoralso is needed. Some work characteristics porateboth resourcesand demands;for example, paid work hours reduce the time available for family activities while bringingneeded income into the home. In addition,some demandsand as rangingfrom resourcescan be conceptualized low to high (for example,low to high time pressure),whereasotherscan be conceivedas ranging between opposite poles (such as a supportiveto work-familyculture). unsupportive In conclusion, the conceptual model has received empiricalsupportwithin the limitations of the presentstudy.The studyshows thata range for of work resourcesand demandsis important conflict and enhancing reducing work-to-family work-to-familyfacilitation. This increases our of thecomponents neededforaninteunderstanding to assistemployeesin coordinating grated strategy theirworkandfamilyactivitiesmoresuccessfully. Additional work is needed to furtherdelineate the components of such a strategy and their relative importancein relation to work-family Thenegative conflictandfacilitation. consequences of work-familyconflict for both work organizations and families make this an importanttask. In addition, to the extent that work-to-family facilitation occurs, the quality and functioning of family life may improve. This improvement may in turn reduce family-to-work conflict, workproductivity, commitment, increasing thereby and satisfaction and reducing turnover and absenteeism.Futurework will reveal the extent to which and the processes throughwhich this occurs.

411
Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates?The relative importanceof work-familyorganizationalsupport andgeneralorganizational contexton employeeoutcomes. Journalof VocationalBehavior,61, 53-72. Bond, J. T., Galinsky,E., & Swanberg,J. E. (1998). The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York:Familiesand WorkInstitute. U. (1989). Ecological systemstheory. Bronfenbrenner, Annalsof ChildDevelopment, 6, 187-249. Clark, S. C. (2001). Work culturesand work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 348-365. Clark,S. C. (2002, August).Bordersbetweenworkand home, and work/familyconflict. Paperpresentedat the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Denver,CO. Colton, C. L., Hammer,L. B., & Neal, M. G. (2002, April). Informal organizationalsupport and work and family outcomes.Paperpresentedat the annual and Organizameetingsof the Society of Industrial tional Psychology,Toronto,Ontario. Demerouti, E., & Geurts, S. (in press). Towards a typology of work-home interaction. Community, Work& Family. Demerouti,E., Bakker,A. B., & Bulters,A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of work pressure, work-home interferenceand exhaustion.Journal of Vocational Behavior,64, 131-149. Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. D. (2003, March). Effects of boundary-spanning stressors,work stressors and coping resourceson dual earnercouples/ work performanceand career satisfaction. Paper presentedat the APA/NIOSHConferenceon OccupationalStressand Health,Toronto,Ontario. N. P. (2000). Mechanisms J. R., & Rothbard, Edwards, work and linking family. Academyof Management Review,25, 178-199. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-familybalance. In J. C. Quick& L. E. Tetrick(Eds.),Handbook of OccupationalHealthPsychology (pp. 143-162).Washington,

REFERENCES work environAllen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive ments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. Bakker,A. B., & Geurts,S. A. E. (2003). Towardsa dual-process model of work-home interference. Underreview. S. W., Brennan,R. T., Barnett,R. C., Raudenbush, Pleck, J. H., & Marshall,N. L. (1995). Change in job and maritalexperiencesand change in psychological distress. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology,69, 839-850. Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Humanresource practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189-220.

DC: American Association. Psychological

Frone,M. R., Yardley,J. K., & Markel,K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrativemodel of the interface. Journalof Vocational Behavwork-family 145-167. ior, 50, Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. G. (1997). The family responsive workplace.Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289-313. J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of Greenhaus, conflictbetweenworkandfamily roles.Academyof Journal,10, 76-88. Management Grover,S. L., & Crooker,K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies. PersonnelPsychology,48, 271-288.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412 Grzywacz,J. G., & Butler,A. (2003, April).Job characteristics,individualresources,and workto family facilitation.Paperpresentedat the annualmeetings of the Society for Industrialand Organizational FL. Psychology,Orlando, Grzywacz,J. G., & Marks,N. F. (2000). Reconceptuainterface. Journalof Occupalizing the work-family tional Health Psychology,5, 111-126. Grzywacz,J. G., Almeida,D. M., & McDonald,D. A. (2002). Work-familyspillover and daily reportsof work and family stress in the adult labor force. FamilyRelations,51, 28-36. Kinnunen,U., & Mauno,S. (1998). Antecedentsand outcomesof work-familyconflict among employed women and men in Finland.HumanRelations,51, 157-177. S. (1984). Stress,appraisal, R. S., & Folkman, Lazarus, and coping.New York:Springer. V. S., Klein,K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002).Work Major, time, work interferencewith family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427-436. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain. AmericanSociologicalReview,42, 921-936. Maume,D. J., & Houston,P. (2001). Job segregation and gender differences in work-family spillover among white-collar workers. Journal of Family and EconomicIssues, 22, 171-189. J. H. (2002). Toward Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, research. reducingsome criticalgaps in work-family Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299-312. Parasuraman, S., Purohit,Y. S., Godshalk,V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, career success, and psychological entrepreneurial well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275-300. Piotrkowski,C. (1979). Workand the family sy;stem. New York:Free Press. J. K., & Pruitt, B. H. R., Bailyn,L., Fletcher, Rapoport, balance.San Francisco: (2002). Beyondwork-family Jossey-Bass.

Journal of Marriage and Family Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamicsof engagementin work and family roles.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 46, 655-684. Shaffer,M. A., & Joplin,J. R. (2001, August).Workfamily conflict on international assignments.Paper presentedat the annualmeetingsof the Academyof DC. Management, Washington, Sieber,S. D. (1974). Towarda theoryof role accumulation.AmericanSociologicalReview,39, 567-578. Sumer,H. C., & Knight,P. A. (2001). How do people with differentattachment styles balance work and 86, 653-663. family?Journalof AppliedPsychology, A. E., Brett,J. M., Maoz, E., Stroh,L. K., Tenbrunsel, & Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamic and static workBehavior and family relationships.Organizational HumanDecision Processes, 63, 223-246. L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995).Impact of familyThomas, on work variables conflict and supportive work-family strain. Journal 80, 6-15. Psychology, of Applied Thompson,C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. benefitsare not enough. (1999). When work-family Journalof VocationalBehavior,54, 392-415. C. B., Downey,G., Emmons, C., Tiedje,L. B., Wortman, Biernat, M., & Lang, E. (1990). Women with multipleroles. Journalof Marriageand the Family, 52, 63-72. Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the workfamily interfaceand work, family, and individual outcomes.Journalof FamilyIssues, 23, 138-164. Voydanoff, P. (2003). The differential salience of family and communitydemandsand resourcesfor conflictandfacilitation. Under review. family-to-work E. J. Work-to-nonwork conflict Wallace, (1999). among marriedmale and female lawyers. Journal Behavior,20, 797-816. of Occupational J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, Wayne,J. H., Grzywacz, M. K. (2003). Work-family A theoretical facilitation: of the construct. elaboration Underreview. Wayne, J. H., Musica, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Consideringthe role of personalityin the workfamily experience.Journalof VocationalBehavior, 64, 108-130.

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:19:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions