Artigo Sobre Espanha Relativamente Ao Work Life Balance

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Work-family conflict in a southern European country: The influence of job-related and

non-related factors
María Pilar de Luis Carnicer Angel Martínez Sánchez Manuela Pérez Pérez María José Vela Jiménez
Article information:
To cite this document:
María Pilar de Luis Carnicer Angel Martínez Sánchez Manuela Pérez Pérez María José Vela Jiménez,
(2004),"Work-family conflict in a southern European country", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss
5 pp. 466 - 489
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410543579
Downloaded by New York University At 02:26 16 June 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 16 June 2015, At: 02:26 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 82 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2358 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Scott L. Boyar, Carl P. Maertz, Donald C. Mosley, Jon C. Carr, (2008),"The impact of work/family
demand on work-family conflict", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 215-235 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810861356
Yu Ru Hsu, (2011),"Work-family conflict and job satisfaction in stressful working environments: The
moderating roles of perceived supervisor support and internal locus of control", International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp. 233-248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721111130224
Denise M. Rotondo, Dawn S. Carlson, Joel F. Kincaid, (2003),"Coping with multiple dimensions of work-
family conflict", Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 275-296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467606
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
19,5 Work-family conflict in a
southern European country
The influence of job-related and non-related
466 factors
Received April 2003 Marı́a Pilar de Luis Carnicer, Angel Martı́nez Sánchez and
Revised March 2004 Manuela Pérez Pérez
Accepted March 2004
Departamento de Economı́a y Dirección de Empresas,
Centro Politécnico Superior, Zaragoza, Spain, and
Marı́a José Vela Jiménez
Departamento de Economı́a y Dirección de Empresas,

Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales, Zaragoza, Spain
Keywords Employment, Family, Conflict, Gender, Role conflict, Spain

Abstract Shows the results of a survey about the antecedents of work-family conflict in a sample
of Spanish employees. Analyses and discusses the influence of job-related and non-related factors.
The results indicate that both groups of factors are antecedents of work-family conflict. Even
though gender is not a significant variable to explain work-family conflict, the empirical study
found differences at the time to explain the antecedents of men and women’s work-family conflict.
A few family-domain and work-domain perceptions had a strong influence on work-family conflict
such as the gender roles, importance of family, job flexibility and job mental and physical
requirements. Some of these perceptions suggest the influence of a culture where traditional gender
roles still prevail and family as an institution is very strong. Functional mobility and educational
level are also antecedents of work-family conflict. However, job category level, marital status, and
social benefits do not have any influence on work-family conflict in the multivariate analysis, but the
bivariate analysis showed that they have indeed an influence on the work-family conflict according
to the hypotheses developed in the research framework.
1. Introduction
The past two decades have brought a great increase in the number of individuals with
significant responsibilities both at work and with family: single parents, working
women, dual-career couples, and fathers heavily involved in parenting. These changes
have heightened interest in understanding the work-family interface. Family and work
domains create the interaction and relevancy with each other. Some people who have
work and family roles, experience no conflict between them, whereas others experience
a high degree of conflict. Since the pioneering work of Pleck (1977) there has been a
general consensus that work and family influence each other in both a positive and a
negative way: time, tasks, attitudes, stress, emotions and behaviour spill over between
Journal of Managerial Psychology work and family. Of particular interest to researchers has been the topic of work-family
Vol. 19 No. 5, 2004
pp. 466-489 conflict.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940410543579 The authors thank the insightful comments of an anonymous reviewer.
This area of work-family research is important in that work-family conflict has been Work-family
shown to have an unfavourable relation with a variety of variables associated with conflict
employee work life, home life, and general health and wellbeing: greater health risks
for working parents, lowered performance in the parental role, lowered productivity at
work, less life satisfaction, anxiety, and work stress (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985;
Kelly and Voydanoff, 1985; Small and Riley, 1990; Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and Ozeki,
1998). On the contrary, the positive spillover or mutually enriching effects that work 467
and family roles can have on one another have not been as widely or systematically
examined (Parasuraman and Greenhaus, 2002). This research focuses on the positive
effects that work-family balance has on workplace performance (Rapoport et al., 2002),
job satisfaction (Bruck et al., 2002), and quality of life (Greenhaus et al., 2003).
Poelmans (2001b) in a review of the literature on the antecedents and outcomes of
work-family conflict, indicates the lack of empirical studies on work-family conflict
from countries with cultures in which the family as an institution is very strong and
female labour participation is on the rise. Spain is one of these countries but there are
very few empirical studies carried out in Spain (Poelmans et al., 1999; Poelmans,
2001a), a country where there are several circumstances that, when combined, may
influence on work-family conflict.
First, Spain has one of the highest growth rates of female labour participation in
Europe (from 23 per cent in 1964 to 68 per cent in 1998 for women aged 25 to 44 years),
but this rate is still low in comparison with male labour participation. This trend
started quite recently which means that the transition from traditional to dual-earner
families has been quite radical in Spain. Second, working hours are typically from
“nine till eight”, with a long lunch break between two and four. These atypical working
hours, in comparison to the USA and other European countries, translate into long
working hours. This means that combining work and family is especially difficult for
Spanish families. Third, the family continues to be an important institution in Spanish
society, as in most southern European countries, which generates a particular pressure
to create and look after a family. Fourth, the use of family-friendly policies is very low
(and recent) among Spanish organisations in comparison to other Western countries
(Poelmans and Chinchilla, 2001; Chinchilla et al., 2003), and the Spanish adopter
companies are mostly subsidiaries of American multinationals. Besides Spain has the
lowest financial aid to families with children in the European Union. Spanish women
leave the labour market more and more frequently than men to raise children and other
family responsibilities (Meil, 1999) but they experience more difficulties to return to the
labour market after child rearing[1] (Garcı́a, 1999).
All these elements combined create a very different context than the ones which
appear in most studies on work-family conflict reported in American and British
academic journals. Some of the societal consequences of the difficulties to balance work
and family in Spain are:
.
Decrease of fertility rates (the lowest in Europe with 1.26 children): Spanish
women increasingly delay marriage and having children, in order to consolidate
their position in the labour market and avoid to exit when they decide to create a
family (Caparrós et al., 1999).
.
Obstacles to the promotion of married women in spite of having fewer children
(Molero, 2000). In a survey of Spanish female managers and professionals
JMP (Gómez, 2004), 47 per cent consider that motherhood has limited her career
19,5 advancement.
.
Frequent double shift for women at home and the workplace: Spanish women
devote daily three hours more than men to household and family chores (INE,
2003).
468 The major goal of this study is to continue and extend past efforts aimed at analysing
the antecedents of work-family conflict but in the context of a southern European
country such as Spain. The paper is organised in the following way. The second
section develops the research hypotheses. The third section explains the methodology
of the empirical study, followed by the results (section four) and discussion (section
five). Finally, the paper concludes with limitations and directions for future research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1. Work-family conflict: concept and antecedents

Work-family conflict is the term often used to characterise the conflict between the
work and family domains. Kahn et al. (1964) described work-family conflict as a type of
inter-role conflict in which demands from the work role conflict with the demands from
the family role. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-family conflict as “a form of
inter-role conflict in which the role pressure from the work and family domains are
mutually incompatible in some respect”. Consistent with this definition, three forms of
work-family conflict have been identified in the literature:
(1) time-based conflict;
(2) strain-based conflict; and
(3) behaviour-based conflict.
Time-based conflict may occur when time devoted to one role makes it difficult to
participate in another role; strain-based conflict suggests that strain experienced in one
role intrudes into and interferes with participation in another role; and behaviour-based
conflict occurs when specific behaviours required in one role are incompatible with
behavioural expectations in another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).
The findings indicate that in some instances work interferes with family life
(work-to-family conflict), and in other situations (family-to-work conflict), family
responsibilities interfere with life at work (Gutek et al., 1991; Frone et al., 1992a; Eagle
et al., 1997). Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict operate differently and
are clearly separable and relatively independent of each other. Generally speaking,
work pressures have been found to be the most powerful source of work-to-family
conflict, and family pressures are more strongly related to family-to-work conflict,
whereas work influences family more than vice versa (Frone et al., 1992a). There is also
evidence that work-to-family conflict is more strongly related to job satisfaction and
life satisfaction than is family-to-work conflict (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998).
Even though there is much theoretical and empirical research on work-family
linkages, Parasuraman and Greenhaus (2002) still highlight significant gaps in this
research. Poelmans (2001b), in a literature review of work-family conflict, states that
one of the characteristics of most studies on work-family conflict is that they are not
based on strong conceptual frameworks. However, there is not a comprehensive theory
that is able to deal with all the issues related to work-family conflict. The work-family
field has been dominated by role theory which predicts that multiple roles lead to role Work-family
stress, which in turn results in strain (Kahn et al., 1964) that is one of the causes of conflict
work-family conflict (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). However this theory has received
several critiques when it is applied to the work-family domain.
The most important is probably that several studies have found that multiple roles
are not detrimental but salutary. These studies support the expansion model and
undermine the scarcity model that underlies role theory. Theorists behind the 469
expansion model argue that the alternative resources provided by multiple roles
outweigh the possible stressful effects that double engagement has on wellbeing.
Research supporting this model shows that a strong engagement in both family life
and employment has a positive, rather than a negative, effect on health and wellbeing
(Walters et al., 1998; Nordenmark, 2002). The enrichment argument directly challenges
the notion that people have found resources and proposes, instead, that attention and
energy can expand (Marks, 1977). Rothbard (2001) found evidence from both processes
as well as gender differences in a survey of 790 employees. Specifically, men

experienced enrichment from work to family, while women experienced enrichment
from family to work (overall, more linkages were found between work and family for
women than for men).
Other theories have been applied to avoid the shortcomings of role theory to analyse
work-family conflict: social exchange theory, theory of interdependence, and social
identity theory. Social exchange theory puts more emphasis on the interaction between
people. According to this theory, social interactions depend on the rewards and costs
involved in the exchange. The theory of interdependence further developed social
exchange theory, emphasising the dynamics aspects of dyadic interaction and pointing
out the need to maximise the satisfaction of both participants to ensure the
maintenance of the interaction process. An example of how social exchange theory can
be applied to the broader context of work-family linkages can be found in Lambert
(2000). She links work-life benefits and organisational behaviour, conceptualising them
as intangible currencies in an employer-employee exchange. According to Lambert,
social exchange theory supports the possibility that, with work-family benefits,
workers may feel obligated to exert “extra” effort in return for “extra” benefits. On the
other hand, social identity theory proposes that people can invest in several roles and
achieved work-family balance by ensuring that conflicting identities (e.g. control and
power in manager role versus nurturance in parent role) are separated, or by applying
consistent personal values across identities (Lobel, 1991).
This paper will use several of these theories to develop a framework of hypotheses
related to the antecedents of work-family conflict. Doby and Caplan (1995) and Frone
et al. (1997) suggested the need to test different work- and family (individual)-related
stressors to analyse antecedents of work-family conflict. A first set of antecedents are
basic socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender, number of children, age of
children, having a (working) partner, and educational level (Sanik, 1993). Good
illustrations of studies linking socio-demographic characteristics with work-family
conflict are those by Eagle et al. (1998) and Kinnunen and Mauno (1998). For example,
Kinnunen and Mauno (1998) found that in Finland family-work conflict is best
explained by what they call family-domain variables (e.g. number of children living at
home) for both sexes. Work-family conflict, on the other hand, is best explained by
work domain variables for women (e.g. having a full-time job) and by personal (e.g.
JMP high education) and family-domain variables for men (e.g. high number of children
19,5 living at home).
Another antecedent that has been associated with work-family conflict is
involvement, more specifically, daily involvement in family roles (Williams and
Alliger, 1994) and job involvement (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Higgins et al., 1992;
Adams et al., 1996). Frone et al. (1992a) found that job involvement is significantly
470 related with job distress, whereas family involvement is significantly related with
work-family conflict and family distress. Similarly, work stress has been frequently
related to work-family conflict because repeated exposure to job stressors are generally
related to less satisfying family relations (Repetti, 1989; Higgins et al., 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1992). Other authors have found that social support from the
supervisor and the partner is of great importance in reducing work-family conflict due
to work stress and involvement (Bedeian et al., 1986; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Aryee
et al., 1999; Carlson and Perrewe, 1999).
Given the lack of studies that have analysed work-family conflict in Spain, the
major goal of this study is to carry out a preliminary analysis of antecedents of
work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict among Spanish employees. The
antecedents taken into account are job-related and job-non related factors. The next
subsection develops the research hypotheses.
2.2. Research hypotheses

The conceptual model that guided the present research is shown in Figure 1. A
distinction is made between the extent to which work interferes with family life
(work-to-family conflict) and the extent to which family life interferes with work
(family-to-work conflict). As noted in previous research on the two types of
work-family conflict clearly indicates that they are each associated with unique work-
and family-related antecedents.
Starting with the job non-related factors, gender is the socio-demographic
characteristic most often included in studies of work-family conflict. Given the
widespread assumption that work-family conflict is a woman’s problem, research on
the role of gender in influencing work-family linkages focused extensively on
examining the direct or main effects of gender on work-family conflict. Despite the
rapid movement of women into the paid labour force, the care of husband, children, and
living quarters is still a woman’s domain (Shelton and John, 1996), so women
experience a stronger relationship between work involvement and work-family than do
men (Greenhaus et al., 1989; Rothbard, 2001). For example, a meta-analysis suggested
that work-family conflict was more strongly related to job and life satisfaction for
Figure 1.
Research framework
women than for men (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). Female employees and managers Work-family
experience more conflict than men when trying to balance their dual roles of employees conflict
and family caretakers (Frone et al., 1992a; Kim and Ling, 2001), although they report
similar levels of job and family satisfaction as men and similar psychological
involvement in work (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997).
One explanation for why women experience relatively stronger relationships
between work and family is that men may segment (or mentally separate) these roles 471
more than women do. This explanation is based on the idea that men’s and women’s
mental models for integrating or segmenting work and family roles stem from
differences in gender role socialisation. Moreover, these different mental models may
be rational responses to a societal context in which women conduct much more family
labour than men do (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; Shelton and John, 1996).
Work-family stress has been identified as a major problem for working mothers (e.g.
Aryee et al., 1999; Ng et al., 2002). Duxbury et al. (1994) also found that individuals with
higher perceived control have lower levels of work-family conflict, and that women had
higher levels of overload and interference than men. Family-role expectations affect the
amount of physical strain experienced by working women (Cooke and Rousseau, 1984).
On the other hand, in the Spanish context Carrasquer et al. (1998) found that
Spanish women have primary responsibility in housekeeping and child-care, while
Garcı́a (1999) found that Spanish women were discriminated in their possibilities of
promotion. The reduction of Spanish women’s housekeeping responsibilities is more
facilitated by hiring part-time (women) housekeepers than by sharing household
chores between male and female partners. For that reason, Spanish women may
experience more work-family conflict. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. Women experience greater work-family conflict than men.
H1b. Women who believe in more traditional gender roles experience greater
work-family conflict.
Two other socio-demographic characteristics that call to mind when thinking of
work-family linkages are the individual’s number of children and marital status. Both
may influence on their roles of employees or vice versa. However the work-family
literature still treats the traditional nuclear family as the norm or point of reference for
examining work-family linkages, and the underrepresentation of other groups of
individuals represents a major gap in the work-family research (Parasuraman and
Greenhaus, 2002). Studies have typically focused on employed men and women who
are married or living with a partner or those with children. Omitted from much of the
research are single-earner mothers, single and childless employees with extensive
responsibility for elder care, blended families with children from both partners’ prior
marriages, and families with shared custody of children. This narrow view of what
constitutes a family has important implications for the study of social support from
family members. Nevertheless, some studies indicate that married people have
stronger conflict than unmarried ones (Herman and Gyllstrom, 1977). Although there is
some evidence of spousal support, the husband is listed as a major source of
work-family conflict among professional women in Hong Kong (Lo et al., 2003).
On the other hand, employees with younger children living at home reported greater
work-family conflict than those without children (Bohen and Viveros-Long, 1981;
Bedeian et al., 1988) since the child-raising responsibility is significantly related to
JMP work-family conflict. In the Spanish context, the fact that the labour strategy of
19,5 Spanish women is delaying marriage and having children in order first to consolidate
their position in the labour market, and that there is a very low level of government
support to Spanish families and little availability of family friendly policies in Spanish
organisations (Caparrós et al., 1999; Molero, 2000; Poelmans and Chinchilla, 2001) may
increase the difficulties to balance work and family for men and specially women with
472 child-rearing responsibilities. Another empirical study in Spain found that the presence
of small children at home decreases the participation of women in the labour market
(Martı́nez, 2002), and that most female managers and professionals consider that
motherhood delayed their career advancement (Gómez, 2004). Based on these findings
we propose that:
H2a. Married employees experience greater work-family conflict than single
employees.
H2b. Employees with children experience greater work-family conflict than

employees without children.
A third socio-demographic characteristic that may influence on work-family conflict is
the educational level (Sanik, 1993). The training and educational level of some
employees may reinforce their role as moving away from family and increasing their
commitment to the organisation. Highly-educated employees may have more
opportunities to get promoted or move geographically to another organisation’s site.
These benefits could have their implications when accepting more responsibilities that
increase job involvement and interferes with family life (Higgins et al., 1992; Adams
et al., 1996):
H3. Employees with higher educational levels experience greater work-family
conflict than employees with lower educational levels.
These socio-demographic characteristics define personal and family-domain variables
(e.g. high education or number of children living at home). They can be considered as
job non-related factors. The other group of factors are job related and explained by
work-domain variables. For example, researches have found that: long working hours
and work-family conflict are direct and positively related; the frequency of overtime,
irregular job rotation, working on vacations or weekends, and working over nine hours
all positively related to conflict; and that the level of work-family conflict would
fluctuate with position, seniority, and working condition (Pleck et al., 1980; Staines and
Pleck, 1984; Jones and Fletcher, 1993). Dual career situations, several dependent
children and adults (e.g. an elderly parent), and long working hours are commonly
believed to increase work-family conflict. For example, globalisation may require key
employees to travel or work abroad, straining family relationships and compelling
employees to withdraw or resign. As a consequence, we propose:
H4a. Employees with higher job category levels experience greater work-family
conflict than employees with lower job category levels.
H4b. Employees with greater job requirements experience greater work-family
conflict than employees with less job requirements.
All employees occasionally require day-to-day flexibility to manage demanding jobs Work-family
and home or family lives. Those with two-job families and caring responsibilities are conflict
specially likely to need such flexibility. Industrial relations researchers have shown
specifically how firms benefit from flexible high-performance workplaces (Eaton,
2003). Flexibility as a construct includes much more than starting and quitting times.
Many employees require flexibility to visit children’s schools, take elders to the doctor,
or take time off during a family emergency. Flexibility also may mean taking days off 473
in return for working at non standard time or being able to work part time temporarily
at certain points in life (Moen, 1996). Of the various family-friendly programs that are
offered, most research has been conducted on the effects of flexible scheduling on
various outcome measures. Research on flexitime has been generally positive and
found a reduction of work-family conflict associated with flexible scheduling
(Kopelman, 1992). Thomas and Ganster (1995) found that, for instance, having the
ability to choose starting and ending times at work, being able to co-ordinate vacation
times in order to meet family needs, and having the freedom to contact family members
by phone while working can serve to increase the amount of control employees feel
they have over managing their work and family demands and decrease the strain they
experience in integrating those demands. Researchers have found that such control is
negatively related to work-family conflict (Adams and Jex, 1999; Thomas and Ganster,
1995). Flexibility can enhance synergy between work and family roles, as well as ease
conflict (Eaton, 2003). Other studies also found that flexibility of the work itself was
associated with increased work satisfaction and increased family wellbeing (Clark,
2001):
H5. Employees with greater job flexibility experience less work-family conflict
than employees with less job flexibility.
Human resources management practices can influence the perceptions of work-family
conflict. Economic incentives and social benefits (e.g. child-care centres) can be used to
recruit, motivate and retain the most valued employees, increasing job satisfaction and
reducing the pressures to balance work and family. According to social exchange
theory, social interactions depend on the rewards and costs involved in the exchange
(Poelmans, 2001b). For example, Lambert (2000) used these theories to analyse that,
with work-family benefits, workers may feel obligated to accept extra effort in return
for extra benefits, which in turn influences on work-family conflict. Similarly, Batt and
Valcour (2003) found that combining work-family policies with other human resources
practices is an effective organisational response to work-family conflict and turnover.
In the Spanish context, the low availability of family-friendly policies (Poelmans and
Chinchilla, 2001; Chinchilla et al., 2003) may introduce a significant difference to avoid
the negative effects of long working hours on the work-family linkages. Thus, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H6. Employees who receive more job-related benefits experience less work-family
conflict than employees who receive fewer job-related benefits.
Job mobility may also have consequences for work-family conflict. The interference
of job mobility may be particularly apparent for female employees because, for
them, job mobility may be motivated by other than rent-seeking reasons, such as child
rearing or follow a male partner in pursuit of the household’s primary career.
JMP For example, Ladik et al. (2002) found that high-performing saleswomen have a lower
19,5 propensity to leave the firm than high-performing salesmen. Women may exhibit lower
mobility than they would have preferred if they have to forego opportunities offered
elsewhere because of a geographically immobile partner. In fact, several studies point
out that one reason to explain the gender wage differential is that women are less
mobile than is optimal in terms of career advancement because they are constrained in
474 some way (Gilbert et al., 2002). The Spanish context suggests a source of conflict due to
mobility. According to a survey by Price Waterhouse (2002), Spanish employers value
the mobility of their managers and professionals more than any other employer in
Europe. However, Spanish managers and professionals are the most reluctant in
Europe to move to another country. The statistics show that the Spanish geographic
mobility (0.1 per cent of the workforce in the year 2000) is the lowest among the
European countries[2]. In Europe, 1.2 per cent of the workforce moved to another
region that year, while in the USA this mobility rate was 5.9 per cent. On the other
hand, according to the last Spanish survey Quality Life in the Workplace (Ministerio de
Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 2002), 29 per cent of Spanish employees have never
changed jobs nor experienced any type of labour mobility, and they are very satisfied
in their workplaces. Thus, the differences between the actual labour mobility and the
demands for mobility from employers in Spain may be a source of conflict in the
work-family interface:
H7. Employees who have more job mobility experience greater work-family
conflict than employees with less job mobility.
In order to test these hypotheses, a survey was carried out among Spanish employees
of different economic sectors. The next section explains the methodology of the study
followed by its results and discussion.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and procedure
Data were collected using paper-and-pencil questionnaires distributed to a sample of
1,182 Spanish employees located in the region of Aragón. The surveyed employees
belonged to the following economic sectors: 1.3 per cent from the agricultural sector,
40.6 per cent from industry and 58.1 per cent from services. The survey included both
private companies and public sector (government agencies) in order to consider
different work environments that could impact on work-family conflict. The sample of
employees was stratified by economic sector, gender and occupation of the surveyed
employee. The distribution of the surveyed private companies by size (number of
employees) is: 21 companies (35 per cent) had more than 1,000 employees; 21
companies (35 per cent) had between 250 and 1,000 employees; and 18 companies (30
per cent) had less than 250 employees. The companies and government agencies were
visited and each human resource manager was interviewed in order to select the
employees who would fill out the questionnaire.
The human resource manager distributed the questionnaires to the employees. The
questionnaire had been previously pre-tested among university colleagues and
employees from two companies in order to clarify questions. A cover letter
accompanied each questionnaire which stated the purpose of the research, encouraged
voluntary participation by the employee, assured the employee of the anonymity of
their respondents, and thanked them for their cooperation. Written instructions were Work-family
attached to each questionnaire, and a telephone number was provided in which the conflict
potential respondent could call and ask any question or request another questionnaire
package if the previous one had been misplaced. Each employee answered the
questionnaire and returned it to his/her human resource manager. Then, the authors
eventually obtained the 800 questionnaires of private companies and the 382
questionnaires of the public sector from the human resource departments. 475
The average age of respondents was 41.3 years old (SD ¼ 8:8). A total of 30 per cent
are women, which is similar to the percentage of female employees in the regional
workforce. Of the subjects, 78 per cent were married or living as married. Most (87 per
cent) of the married or cohabitant respondents reported their spouse or partner was
also employed. Most (67.7 per cent) of the respondents had children, and 72 per cent of
those respondents had at least one child 18 years of age or younger. A broad spectrum
of occupational types and levels were represented. A total of 60 per cent are employed
in service activities and 66.1 per cent work in large organisations.
3.2. Measures
Some measures like work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, work-family
balance, gender roles and importance of family are constructs of different items
assessed with the perceptions of employees on seven-point Likert scales.
Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict were measured using the scales
from Adams et al. (1996). Both scales focus on time and strain dimensions of
work-family conflict. The use of a multidimensional approach to the measurement of
work-family conflict is strongly recommended (Carlson et al., 2000). Gender roles is a
construct of four items (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.7549) such as “The economic support in
the family is the responsibility of men”, and importance of family is a construct of three
items (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.8113) such as “My family is the main satisfaction of my
life”.
Regarding the employees’ perception about their jobs, a factor analysis with
varimax rotation was performed and a three-factor solution was found which appears
in Table I. The three factors have been named: job mental requirements, job flexibility,
and job physical requirements. These three factors explain 74.7 per cent of the total
variance, being job mental requirements the most important factor with a 34.8 per cent
of variance. The other two factors explain 39.8 per cent of the total variance. The first
of these three factors has been named “job mental requirements”, which indicates the
perception that employees have on the mental abilities required to perform their job.
The second factor, job flexibility, gives information about the space and time flexibility
allowed to the employees at their workplace. The third factor, job physical
requirements, indicates the employees’ perception about the job strain and hazards.
Then we created additive variables with the items grouped in each factor so that, to
make an easier interpretation, they were later transformed into continuous variables
with values between 0 and 1. A value close to 0 would indicate a disagreement with the
meaning of the variable, e.g. low job flexibility, whereas a value near 1 would indicate a
high agreement with their meaning: high job mental requirements, etc. Table I also
shows the mean, standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha of these variables. On the
other hand, Table II shows the descriptive statistics of the other variables used in the
JMP 1 2 3
19,5
Job mental requirements
My job requires a great responsibility 0.859 0.139 0.016
My job requires a great mental effort 0.847 0.138 2 0.127
Job flexibility
476 I can perform my job wherever I like without any restriction 0.074 0.874 0.051
My work schedule is very flexible 0.215 0.839 2 0.081
Job physical requirements
My job implies risk or danger situations 0.051 0.085 0.847
My job requires a great physical effort 20.167 20.116 0.823
Eigen value 2.090 1.392 1.002
Percentage of variance explained 34.84 23.19 16.70
Cumulative percentage of total variance explained 34.84 58.03 74.73
Dummy variable – mean value 0.750 0.410 0.381

Standard deviation 0.184 0.240 0.220
Cronbach’s alpha 0.672 0.663 0.577
Table I.
Factor analysis Note: Principal components analysis. Varimax with Kaiser
Variable Definition Mean SD
Numerical
Gender roles Employees’ perceptions about gender roles (four items) 0.441 0.213
Importance of family Employees’ perceptions about family (three items) 0.833 0.156
Functional mobility Number of job changes without changing categories 0.80 1.53
Work hours Actual number of working hours at the organisation 41.5 6.2
Salary Logarithm of salary in the present organisation 6.73 0.34
Per cent
Dummy (0-1) value 1
Gender Woman 29.3
Partner Live together with a permanent partner 78.5
Working partner The partner has an employment in the labour market 67.7
Level of education School 18.2
High-school 31.4
Bachelor 16.4
Master or PhD 34.1
Category in the organisation Worker 23.6
Clerk 17.9
Foreman, officer 49.0
Manager 9.4
Training in the organisation The organisation offers training to the employees 66.9
Social benefits The organisation offers social benefits like child-care 32.6
Type of contract Permanent contract in the present company 86.9
Table II. Organisation size Organisation with more than 250 employees 66.1
Descriptive statistics Sector Services 60.2
empirical study: personal and family background, social benefits, etc. The next section Work-family
shows the survey results followed by their discussion. conflict
4. Results
The research hypotheses have been tested with statistical bivariate and multivariate
analysis. First, it has been tested the bivariate relationships between the antecedents
and work-family conflict. Then a regression was been carried out to analyse the 477
statistically significant antecedents of work-family conflict.
Table III shows the ANOVA results of work-family issues. It can be seen that there
are no statistically significant differences of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work
conflict according to gender. Gender only introduces significant differences in the
construct of gender roles. Men exhibit stronger gender roles than women.
The presence of children significantly increases the perception of work-to-family
conflict. People married with children experience greater work-to-family conflict
(0.5866) than single people without children (0.4781) or married people without children
(0.5837). The work-to-family conflict is greater among married people whose partner is
employed than those with unemployed partners (see family structure 2 in Table III).
Regarding family-to-work conflict, there is no statistically significant influence of
family structure. However, the joint analysis of gender and family structure (see family
structure-gender in Table III) indicates that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work
conflict are greater among married women with children than among married men
with children.
The perception of work-family conflict is directly related to the employee’s
education level: employees with a Master or PhD experience greater work-to-family
conflict and family-to-work conflict than employees with school or high school
education. Similarly, there is a positive association between job category level and
work-family conflict. Managers experience greater work-to-family conflict and
family-to-work conflict than lower job category employees. On the other hand,
people in higher job categories perceive lower values of importance of family and
gender roles.
Employees with access to work benefits (training and social benefits) perceive
significantly more work-to-family conflict than employees without those benefits. The
analysis of family-to-work conflict does not indicate a significant variation according
to training or other work benefits. Regarding job mobility, geographic mobility
increases significantly the level of work-to-family conflict. Family-to-work conflict
does not vary significantly according to geographic mobility. On the other hand,
functional mobility also introduces significant variations in the work-to-family conflict
and the family-to-work conflict. Table III also indicates significant variances of
work-family conflict according to the type of organisation. Employees working at
service organisations experience more work-to-family and family-to-work conflict[3].
On the other hand, Table IV shows the results of the regression analyses that
explain the antecedents of work-family conflict. The analyses were performed
separately for men and women in order to show any difference that could be explained
by the societal context of the sample. We also did the analysis including gender as an
independent variable but it was not significant in any of the regressions: women did
not experience greater work-family conflict than men. However we wanted to analyse if
the antecedents of work-family conflict are different between women and men.
JMP Work-family Family/work Work-family Gender Importance
19,5 n conflict conflict balance roles of family
Gender
Men 814 0.5597 0.3198 0.4390 0.4790** 0.8362
Women 334 0.5312 0.3084 0.4186 0.3498 0.8280
478 Family structure 1
Married with children 771 0.5866** 0.3210 0.4442** 0.4727** 0.8718**
Married without children 128 0.5837 0.3127 0.4470 0.3703 0.7876
Single with children 29 0.5025 0.3300 0.4163 0.4680 0.8276
Single without children 223 0.4781 0.2979 0.3863 0.3687 0.7309
Family structure 2
Married with children –
employed 498 0.5823** 0.3283 0.4550** 0.4043** 0.8657**
unemployed 273 0.5436 0.3077 0.4246 0.5975 0.8828

Married without children –
employed 104 0.6126 0.3104 0.4615 0.3122 0.7821
unemployed 24 0.4583 0.3230 0.3839 0.6220 0.8115
Single with children 29 0.5025 0.3300 0.4163 0.4680 0.8276
Single without children 223 0.4781 0.2979 0.3863 0.3687 0.7309
Family structure – gender
men 606 0.5662** 0.3143** 0.4395** 0.5016** 0.8694**
women 165 0.5775 0.3455 0.4615 0.3665 0.8805
men 82 0.6115 0.3139 0.4608 0.4164 0.7787
women 45 0.5270 0.3143 0.4206 0.2916 0.8853
Single with children – men 11 0.5844 0.3766 0.4805 0.4805 0.7056
Single with children –
women 18 0.4524 0.3016 0.3770 0.4603 0.9021
Single without children –
men 116 0.4865 0.3473 0.4169 0.4052 0.7159
Single without children –
women 106 0.4694 0.2449 0.3538 0.3295 0.7471
Level of education
School 214 0.3863** 0.2784** 0.3314** 0.5976** 0.8687**
High school 368 0.4971 0.2923 0.3932 0.4509 0.8470
Bachelor degree 191 0.5677 0.3060 0.4361 0.4091 0.8539
Master degree or PhD 377 0.6881 0.3660 0.5271 0.3586 0.7901
Job category
Worker 277 0.3894** 0.2924** 0.3402** 0.5089** 0.8445*
Table III. Clerk 208 0.4547 0.2816 0.3674 0.4535 0.8542
ANOVA of work-family Foreman, officer 550 0.6270 0.3339 0.4793 0.4061 0.8259
issues according to Manager 111 0.7606 0.3501 0.5553 0.4270 0.8087
several variables (continued)
Work-family Family/work Work-family Gender Importance
Work-family
n conflict conflict balance roles of family conflict
Training in the
organisation
Yes 764 0.5795** 0.3215 0.4497** 0.4145** 0.8307
No 382 0.4946 0.3041 0.3983 0.4951 0.8412 479
Additional benefits
One or more 373 0.5922** 0.3161 0.4529* 0.4167** 0.8436
None 765 0.5301 0.3155 0.4220 0.4536 0.8306
Functional mobility
Yes 420 0.5118** 0.2878** 0.3985** 0.4292 0.8543**
No 706 0.5702 0.3289 0.4489 0.4494 0.8254
Geographic mobility
Yes 332 0.6295** 0.3275 0.4785** 0.4015** 0.8236

No 816 0.5191 0.3115 0.4141 0.4575 0.8380
Type of contract
Permanent 998 0.5461* 0.3105* 0.4258* 0.4479** 0.8385**
Temporary 148 0.6023 0.3475 0.4749 0.3953 0.7986
Sector
Services 627 0.6300** 0.3491** 0.4887** 0.3984** 0.8198**
Industry 483 0.4451 0.2689 0.3560 0.4993 0.8547
Type of organisation
Private organisations 800 0.4971** 0.2943** 0.3946** 0.4874** 0.8501**
Public organisations 352 0.6749 0.3657 0.5203 0.3355 0.7964
Note: * p , 0.05; ** p , 0.01 Table III.
The table includes six regressions: two for work-to-family conflict (WFC men and
women), two for family-to-work conflict (FWC men and women), and two for
work-family balance (WFB men and women).
Work-to-family conflict is explained at both men and women by the perception of
importance of family and job mental requirements, and the functional mobility. The
control variables of work hours and services are also significant. But there are some
other variables which are significant in explaining separately work-to-family conflict
for men and women. Men’s conflict is also explained by the perception of job flexibility,
and job physical requirements, while women’s conflict is explained by the perception of
gender roles.
On the other hand, family-to-work conflict of both men and women is explained by
the perception of gender roles, importance of family, and job flexibility, and services as
a control variable. Men’s conflict is besides explained by being married without
children (less conflict), having a Master’s or PhD (more conflict), the perception of job
mental requirements and job physical requirements (more conflict), and the
organisation size as a control variable (less conflict in large organisations). Women’s
conflict is also explained by the lower educational level (less conflict), and the work
hours and salary (more means less conflict).
Finally, the significant variables to explain work-family balance of both men and
women are: the perception of gender roles, importance of family, job flexibility and job
JMP WFC FWC WFB
19,5 Men Women Men Women Men Women
Married with children 2 0.005 2 0.368 2 0.018 2 0.379 2 0.021 2 0.452

(0.115) (0.775) (0.535) (0.829) (0.653) (0.994)
Married without children 2 0.021 2 0.298 2 0.063* 2 0.294 2 0.047 2 0.360
(0.679) (0.917) (1.760) (0.939) (1.498) (1.158)
480 Single with children 0.002 2 0.223 2 0.019 2 0.230 2 0.008 2 0.272
(0.081) (0.986) (0.543) (1.056) (0.252) (1.258)
Single without children 2 0.062 2 0.528 0.042 2 0.573 2 0.023 2 0.674
(1.849) (1.195) (1.072) (1.347) (0.679) (1.588)
Gender roles 2 0.008 0.105* 0.157*** 0.330*** 0.071** 0.243***
(0.245) (1.705) (3.936) (5.587) (2.020) (4.146)
Importance of family 2 0.075** 2 0.104* 2 0.137*** 2 0.183*** 2 0.117*** 2 0.168***
(2.220) (1.698) (3.484) (2.991) (3.385) (2.765)
School 2 0.064 2 0.091 2 0.012 2 0.149** 2 0.049 2 0.144**
(0.103) (1.306) (0.271) (2.200) (1.219) (2.145)
Bachelor degree 0.024 2 0.103 0.047 2 0.017 0.042 2 0.080

(0.509) (1.373) (1.091) (0.238) (1.103) (1.118)
Master degree/PhD 0.028 0.134 0.144*** 0.054 0.096** 0.129
(0.593) (1.347) (2.650) (0.564) (2.009) (1.358)
Worker 2 0.071 0.013 0.489 0.008 0.191 0.019
(0.199) (0.126) (1.174) (0.075) (0.520) (0.184)
Clerk 2 0.024 2 0.028 0.417 2 0.101 0.190 2 0.071
(0.080) (0.328) (1.202) (1.232) (0.623) (0.873)
Officer 0.134 0.014 0.532 0.015 0.354 0.014
(0.334) (0.128) (1.138) (0.238) (0.857) (0.252)
Manager 0.139 2 0.034 0.342 2 0.017 0.266 2 0.035
(0.548) (0.583) (1.156) (0.298) (1.023) (0.620)
Job flexibility 0.089** 0.020 0.165*** 0.163*** 0.136*** 0.094*
(2.504) (0.342) (3.977) (2.879) (3.708) (1.672)
Job mental requirements 0.109*** 0.129* 0.103** 0.083 0.124*** 0.144**
(2.901) (1.911) (2.343) (1.249) (3.195) (2.201)
Job physical requirements 0.073** 0.020 0.119*** 2 0.051 0.110*** 2 0.015
(2.195) (0.327) (3.083) (0.871) (3.215) (0.257)
Training in the organisation 0.026 0.103 0.065 0.079 0.054 0.115*
(0.724) (1.476) (1.547) (1.173) (1.445) (1.716)
Social benefits in the organisation 2 0.041 0.081 2 0.038 0.057 2 0.044 0.090
(1.217) (1.342) (0.953) (0.974) (0.204) (1.556)
Geographic mobility 0.007 2 0.064 2 0.037 2 0.048 2 0.009 2 0.068
(0.209) (1.073) (0.933) (0.837) (0.249) (1.191)
Functional mobility 2 0.100*** 2 0.122** 2 0.015 2 0.083 2 0.078 2 0.131**
(3.196) (1.997) (0.414) (1.412) (2.444) (2.249)
Work hours 0.236*** 0.155** 0.037 2 0.199*** 0.186*** 0.019
(6.743) (2.453) (0.905) (3.248) (5.175) (0.308)
Salary 2 0.005 2 0.011 2 0.057 2 0.279*** 2 0.035 2 0.144*
(0.116) (0.121) (1.079) (3.255) (0.743) (1.696)
Organisation size 2 0.029 2 0.059 2 0.082** 0.015 2 0.064* 2 0.040
(0.873) (0.908) (2.109) (0.239) (1.879) (0.641)
Services 0.201*** 0.237*** 0.192*** 0.038 0.236*** 0.188***
(5.833) (3.610) (4.760) (0.607) (6.644) (2.989)
Model statistics
R2 0.395 0.242 0.177 0.297 0.358 0.303
AdR 2 0.375 0.176 0.150 0.236 0.337 0.243
F 19.915 3.649 6.546 4.833 17.075 4.998
P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table IV. Notes: WFC ¼ work-to-family conflit; WFB ¼ work-family-balance; significance: * p , 0.1; ** p , 0.05;
Regression analyses *** p , 0.01; Beta standardised coefficients for each variable, and t-student in parentheses
mental requirements, and the control variable of services. In addition, men’s balance is Work-family
explained by their higher educational level, work hours, the perception of job physical conflict
requirements, and the organisation size. Regarding women, their work-family balance
is also explained by their lower educational level (less balance), training in the
organisation, functional mobility and salary.
These results support some of the paper’s hypotheses. H1a (gender) is not
supported by any analysis, but hypothesis H1b (gender roles) is supported. H2a and 481
H2b (marital status and children) are partially supported for men’s family-to-work
conflict. H3 (educational level) is supported for the family-to-work conflict, but not for
the work-to-family conflict. H4a (job category level) is not supported by the results, but
H4b (job requirement) is supported. H5 (job flexibility) is supported except for the
women’s work-to-family conflict. By contrast, the sixth hypothesis (job benefits) is not
supported by the results; only training significantly explains the women’s work-family
balance. Finally, H7 (job mobility) is supported for the work-to-family conflict, but not
for the family-to-work conflict; this result is only valid for functional mobility because
geographic mobility does not explain the work-family conflict.
5. Discussion
The results obtained in this study are the first evidence of antecedents to explain
work-family conflict in Spain, a southern European country where female participation
in the labour force is increasing. The analysis differentiates by gender. There are very
few studies to date that have empirically tested gender differences of work-family
conflict’s antecedents (Frone et al., 1992b; Williams and Alliger, 1994; Eagle et al.,
1997). Their results were inconsistent with Pleck’s (1977) contention that women would
have greater interferences from family to work than men and that men would have
greater interferences from work to family than women. Similarly, gender was not
found a significant antecedent of work-family conflict in our study: women do not
experience more greater work-family conflict than men. This result adds some
evidence to the notions that work-family conflict is of dual-gender relevance and that
changes in social conceptions of gender, parenthood and work identity may be the
cause (Eagle et al., 1997). For example, it is not unusual for both wife and husband, in
dual-career couples, to bring work home with them and to allow employment stresses
to affect their family domain. On the other hand, Spanish men are adapting to
increased family role expectations when both husband and wife are employed, and as a
consequence they are also increasingly experiencing the pressures of dual allegiance
that women have endured for some time.
However, we have found that the antecedents of work-family conflict may be
different for men and women, which supports other empirical studies (Kinnunen and
Mauno, 1998; Rothbard, 2001). For example, Kinnunen and Mauno (1998) found that
work-family conflict is best explained by work-domain variables for women and by
personal and family-domain variables for men. Similarly, there are a few gender
differences in our study regarding the antecedents of work-family conflict. For
example, married men without children perceive less family-to-work conflict, but this
result does not hold for women. Actually, this is the only significant variable regarding
the marital and family (children) status of employees. This result suggests that the
marital status is an antecedent of work-family conflict that may be moderated or
influenced by other factors.
JMP One of these factors may be the employee’s perception of gender roles. We have
19,5 found that Spanish women who believe more in the traditional gender roles experience
greater work-to-family conflict. However, men do not exhibit such linkage. Men who
believe and behave as traditional breadwinners would not experience significantly
work-to-family conflict, while women who believe to assume household and child
rearing responsibilities would experience indeed the work-to-family conflict. However,
482 both men and women with stronger gender roles, experience greater work-family
balance. This result suggests that traditional gender roles separate men and women’s
responsibilities, which would facilitate the work-family balance. People who do not
follow this cultural rule may experience more difficulties to balance work and family:
men with increasing family responsibilities who try to perform as other men who care
less or do not have such family responsibilities; and women who want to develop their
professional career. This result may be moderated by the cultural values of a more
traditional society like the Spanish society where women are still behind other
European countries regarding labour participation, and the family as an institution is

very strong.
So it is not surprising that the employee’s perception of importance of family is a
significant antecedent of work-family conflict for both men and women. The more the
importance of family for Spanish men and women, the less work-family conflict they
had. This means that work does not interfere with family (or vice versa) because family
has always more priority due to the strong tradition of family as an institution in
Spain. However, this makes it more difficult to balance work and family. The results
indicate that the more importance the employees give to their families, the less
work-family balance they experience. This result indicates that employees focus on
either family or work, due to their perceptions of the gender roles and the importance of
family, and they do not focus on work-family balance instead.
Regarding the educational level, the results indicate that highly-educated men
experience greater family-to-work conflict and low-educated women experience less
family-to-work conflict. There is not any influence of education level on work-to-family
conflict. The fact that family interferes negatively with work in this way, suggests that
family responsibilities for highly-educated men (which have access to higher category
levels) may difficult them give priority to job involvement. However, lower-educated
women would have less difficulties maybe because they can only have access to
part-time jobs where is easier to balance work needs and family responsibilities. We
have not found any statistically significant relationship between job category level and
work-family conflict. We think that our results may be moderated by job category
level. Thus, a future line of research would be to further develop our data to analyse the
moderator role of job category level on the relationship between antecedents of
work-family conflict and outcomes.
We have found a strong relationship of work-domain variables (job flexibility,
job mental requirements, and job physical requirements) on work-family conflict
which supports other studies that relate job stressors to work-family conflict
(Repetti, 1989; Higgins et al., 1992; Adams et al., 1996). First, job flexibility
increases the men’s work-to-family conflict, but there is not significance regarding
women. This result suggests that men with more job flexibility (time and space
flexibility to perform their work) may have the opportunity to assume more family
responsibilities, which cause conflict the more they believe in traditional gender
roles. The chance to be more time around the house may increase (in couples) the Work-family
possibilities to argue about sharing housework responsibilities. Some studies have conflict
found that men and women look for different ways of work flexibility to balance
work and family (O’Brien and Shemilt, 2002; Reeves, 2002). Second, having a
physically and mentally demanding job increases the work-family conflict, even
though more significantly among men than women. This result is easy to explain
(more demanding and tiring jobs put more strain on the family side), but we also 483
found that these perceptions improve the work-family balance. An interpretation of
this result is that more demanding jobs also require the balance of family in order
to compensate for the extra effort and mental energy invested daily into the job.
More demanding jobs would require the beneficial balance of family to restore
mental energies and keep going ahead.
Functional mobility influences positively on work-to-family conflict. We did not
find any influence of geographic mobility on work-family conflict. Employees (both
men and women) who have moved to another job with different functions (but the
same category) experience less work-to-family conflict. This result suggests that
employees may use some type of job mobility to improve their work-family
context at the company, and contributes to the literature of work-family conflict
because it implies that job mobility (functional mobility) may be taken as another
human resource practice that decreases strains at work and the interference on
family life.
We have found that social benefits were not antecedent of work-family conflict and
work-family balance. Contrary to social exchange theory, our result supports other
studies which suggest that the availability of work-family benefits, in and of itself, may
have a relatively small effect on job attitudes and experiences (Allen, 2001; Eaton,
2003). It is not the availability of social or work-family benefits but the perception of a
family supportive organisation (top management, supervisors and colleagues) which
contributes to the use of family-friendly practices. However, Spanish companies are
very little family-friendly and only very recently the Spanish Government has adopted
measures to improve work-family balance. Besides, according to the results of Gómez
(2004) Spanish female managers and professionals are reluctant to use family-friendly
policies because they would limit their career development.
Government initiatives and cultural change could operate in the direction
followed by other countries with more experience in the management of
work-family interface where there is a positive relationship between the use of
family-friendly practices and the company’s competitiveness and employees’
satisfaction. For example, Thompson et al. (1999) and Allen (2001) found that
employees who perceived their organisation as more family supportive made
greater use of available work-family benefits, and experienced less work-family
conflict. They also experienced greater job satisfaction, greater organisational
commitment, and less turnover intentions than did employees who perceived the
organisation as less family supportive, even after controlling for work-family
benefit availability, managerial support, and demographic variables. Other studies
(Behson, 2002) also found that work-family context is important in explaining
variance in work-family specific outcomes such as work-to-family conflict,
although they fail to explain unique variance in job satisfaction and commitment
when studied alongside other indicants of general organisation context (perceived
JMP organisational support, perceived fair interpersonal treatment, and trust). Thus,
19,5 improving the company’s culture towards a more family-friendly context may be a
prerequisite to use the benefits of family-friendly policies, since their mere
availability do not seem to be related to the level of work-family conflict.
6. Conclusion
484 This paper has analysed the antecedents of work-family conflict in a sample of Spanish
employees. Even though gender is not a significant variable to explain work-family
conflict, the empirical study found differences at the time to explain the antecedents of
men and women’s work-family conflict. A few family-domain and work-domain
perceptions had a strong influence on work-family conflict such as the gender roles,
importance of family, job flexibility and job mental and physical requirements. Some of
these perceptions suggest the influence of a culture where traditional gender roles still
prevail and family as an institution is very strong. Functional mobility and educational
level are also antecedents of work-family conflict. However, job category level, marital
status, and social benefits do not have any influence on work-family conflict in the
multivariate analysis but the bivariate analysis showed that they have indeed an
influence on the work-family conflict according to the hypotheses developed in the
research framework.
There are two main limitations of the empirical study: it is a cross-sectional study
and it uses individuals as unit of analysis. Although our model was conceptualised in
terms of causes, it is recognised that cross-sectional data do not allow us to draw causal
inferences concerning the various hypothesised relations. Second, our study as much of
the empirical research on work-family conflict has examined within-person effects at
the intersection of work and family roles of each partner separately. But recent
research provides evidence that dual-earner women’s psychological involvement in
work and the time commitment to their work role are constrained both by their
parental responsibilities and their partners’ career involvement and career priority
(Parasuraman and Greenhaus, 2002). It would be useful to understand how dual-earner
couples make decisions about the relative priority of each partner’s career and family,
and their relative satisfaction with these outcomes. Further research should address
both shortcomings by focusing on couples and using a longitudinal approach at how
work-family conflict originates in the described antecedents.
Notes
1. There are several labour market data that show the differences between men and women in
Spain. For example, the activity rate of Spanish men between 25 and 54 years old was 91.6
per cent in the year 2001, and the unemployment rate was 6.3 per cent (the average rates in
the European Union were 91.8 per cent and 5.5 per cent). However, the Spanish women had
an activity rate of 61.2 per cent and an unemployment rate of 13.7 per cent (71.6 per cent and
7.9 per cent respectively in the European Union). The activity rate of women between 55 and
64 years old in Spain was 21.8 per cent, below the European average (29.1 per cent), and
countries like the UK (43.1 per cent) or Sweden (64.1 per cent). Besides, 17 per cent of Spanish
female employees have part-time contracts versus only 3 per cent of male employees, and the
percentage of women that have temporary contracts in Spain (34 per cent) is also higher than
men’s (29 per cent) (www.oecd.fr).
2. A consequence of low job mobility is that house ownership rates in Spain is the highest in
Europe, which is facilitated because people move very scarcely between regions.
3. The employees who experienced the most work-family conflict were working at educational Work-family
and hospitality organisations.
conflict
References
Adams, G. and Jex, S. (1999), “Relationships between time management, control, work-family
conflict and strain”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 72-7. 485
Adams, G., King, L. and King, D. (1996), “Relationships between job and family involvement,
family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 411-20.
Allen, T. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 414-35.
Allen, T., Herst, D., Bruck, C. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with work to
family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational Health
and Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 278-308.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors, inter-role conflict, and wellbeing:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 259-78.
Batt, R. and Valcour, P. (2003), “Human resources practices as predictors of work-family
outcomes and employee turnover”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 189-220.
Bedeian, A., Burke, B. and Moffett, R. (1988), “Outcomes of work-family conflict among married
male and female professionals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 475-91.
Bedeian, A., Mossholder, K. and Touliatos, J. (1986), “Individual propensities for emotional
supportiveness within dual-career context: work and non-work reactions”, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 7-12.
Behson, S. (2002), “Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational
support and general organizational context on employee outcomes”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y. and Hebert, C. (1997), “Interrole conflict as a stage of life stage,
gender and gender-related personality attributes”, Sex Roles, Vol. 37 No. 3/4, pp. 155-74.
Bohen, H. and Viveros-Long, V. (1981), Balancing Jobs and Family Life: Do Flexible Work
Schedules Help?, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Bruck, C., Allen, T. and Spector, P. (2002), “The relation between work-family conflict and job
satisfaction: a finer-grained analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 336-53.
Caparrós, A., Garcı́a, D. and Navarro, L. (1999), “Movilidad voluntaria: alguna evidencia empı́rica
para el mercado de trabajo español”, Ekonomiaz, No. 43, pp. 118-35.
Carlson, D. and Perrewe, P. (1999), “The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship:
an examination of work-family conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 513-40.
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. and Williams, L. (2000), “Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 56, pp. 249-76.
Carrasquer, P., Torns, T., Tejero, E. and Romero, A. (1998), “El trabajo reproductivo”, Papers,
No. 55, pp. 95-114.
Chinchilla, N., Poelmans, S. and León, C. (2003), Polı́ticas de Conciliación Trabajo-Familia en 150
Empresas Españolas, Research Paper No. 498, IESE, Barcelona.
JMP Clark, S. (2001), “Work culture and work-family balance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58,
pp. 348-65.
19,5
Cooke, R. and Rousseau, D. (1984), “Stress and strain from family roles and work-role
expectations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 252-60.
Doby, V. and Caplan, R. (1995), “Organizational stress as a threat to reputation: effects on anxiety
at work and at home”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1105-23.
486 Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (1991), “Gender differences in work-family conflict”, Journal of
Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. and Lee, C. (1994), “Work-family conflict: a comparison by gender,
family type, and perceived control”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 449-66.
Eagle, B., Maes, J. and Miles, E. (1998), “The importance of employee demographic profiles for
understanding experiences of work-family conflict”, The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 138 No. 6, pp. 690-709.
Eagle, B., Miles, E. and Icenogle, M. (1997), “Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and
family domains: are there gender differences?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50
April, pp. 168-84.
Eaton, S. (2003), “If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and
perceived performance”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 145-67.
Frone, M., Russell, M. and Cooper, M. (1992a), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Frone, M., Russell, M. and Cooper, M. (1992b), “Prevalence of work-family conflict: are work and
family boundaries asymmetrically permeable?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 13, pp. 723-9.
Frone, M., Yardley, J. and Markel, K. (1997), “Developing and testing an integrative model of the
work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 145-67.
Garcı́a, D. (1999), Promotions in the Spanish Labour Market: Differences by Gender, Working
Paper TSER/STT, No. 11-99, LEO-CRESEP, Orleans.
Gilbert, A., King, A. and Cregan, C. (2002), “Gender and wages: a cohort study of primary school
teachers”, Applied Economics, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 363-75.
Gómez, S. (2004), La Incorporación de la Mujer al Mercado Laboral: Impacto Social y Medidas
Estructurales, Research Paper, IESE, Barcelona.
Greenhaus, J. and Beutell, N. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J., Collins, K. and Shaw, J. (2003), “The relation between work-family balance and
quality of life”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 510-31.
Greenhaus, J., Parasuman, S., Granrose, C., Rabinowitz, S. and Beutell, N. (1989), “Sources of
work-family conflict among two-career couples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 34,
pp. 133-53.
Gutek, B., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations for
work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 560-8.
Herman, J. and Gyllstrom, K. (1977), “Working men and women: inter- and intraroleconflict”,
Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 319-33.
Higgins, C., Duxbury, L. and Irving, R. (1992), “Work-family conflict in the dual career family”,
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 51-75.
Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica (INE) (2003), Encuesta de Empleo del Tiempo 2002-2003, INE, Work-family
Madrid.
conflict
Jones, F. and Fletcher, B. (1993), “An empirical study of occupational stress transmission in
working couples”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 881-901.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. and Rosenthal, R. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in
Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Kelly, R. and Voydanoff, P. (1985), “Work-family role strain among employed parents”, Family 487
Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 367-74.
Kim, J. and Ling, C. (2001), “Work-family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore”, Women
in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 204-21.
Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 157-77.
Kopelman, R. (1992), “Alternative work schedules”, in Hodson, W. (Ed.), Maynard’s Industrial
Engineering Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 10105-21.
Kossek, E. and 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, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-49.
Ladik, D., Marshall, G., Lassk, F. and Moncrief, W. (2002), “Reexamining gender issues in
salesperson propensity to leave”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 597-607.
Lambert, S. (2000), “Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational
citizenship behavior”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 801-15.
Lo, S., Stone, R. and Ng, C. (2003), “Work-family conflict and coping strategies adopted by female
married professionals in Hong Kong”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 182-90.
Lobel, S. (1991), “Allocation of investment in work and family roles: alternative theories and
implications for research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 507-21.
Marks, S. (1977), “Multiple role and role strain: some notes on human energy, time, and
commitment”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 921-36.
Martı́nez, M. (2002), “Oferta de trabajo femenina en España: un modelo empı́rico aplicado a
mujeres casadas”, Cuadernos Económicos de ICE, No. 66, pp. 129-52.
Meil, G. (1999), “Cambio familiar y polı́tica de conciliación de vida familiar y vida laboral en
España”, Revista del Ministerio de Trabajos y Asuntos Sociales, Special Issue on
Work-Family Balance, Vol. 17.
Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (2002), Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo
2001, Madrid.
Moen, P. (1996), “A life course perspective on retirement, gender, and wellbeing”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 131-44.
Molero, C. (2000), “La vida profesional y familiar en España y su conciliación”, ICADE, No. 51,
pp. 13-78.
Ng, C., Fosh, P. and Naylor, D. (2002), “Work-family conflict for employees in an East Asian
airline: impact on career and relationships to gender”, Economic and Industrial Democracy,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 67-105.
Nordenmark, M. (2002), “Multiple social roles – a resource or a burden? Is it possible for men and
women to combine paid work with family life in a satisfactory way?”, Gender, Work and
Organization, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-45.
JMP O’Brien, M. and Shemilt, I. (2002), Dads on Dads: Needs and Expectations at Home and at Work,
EOC, London.
19,5
Parasuraman, S. and Greenhaus, J. (2002), “Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family
research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 299-312.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. and Granrose, C. (1992), “Role stressors, social support, and
wellbeing among two-career couples”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 4,
488 pp. 339-56.
Pleck, J. (1977), “The work-family role system”, Social Problems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 417-27.
Pleck, J., Staines, G. and Lang, L. (1980), “Conflicts between work and family life”, Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 29-32.
Poelmans, S. (2001a), A Qualitative Study of Work-Family Conflict in Managerial Couples,
Research Paper No. 444, IESE, Barcelona.
Poelmans, S. (2001b), Individual and Organizational Issues in Work-Family Conflict, Research
Paper No. 445, IESE, Barcelona.
Poelmans, S. and Chinchilla, N. (2001), The Adoption of Family-friendly HRM Policies. Competing
for Scarce Resources in the Labor Market, Research Paper No. 438, IESE, Barcelona.
Poelmans, S., Chinchilla, N. and Cardona, P. (1999), Un Estudio Exploratorio del Estrés en
Directivos Españoles, Research Paper No. 399, IESE, Barcelona.
Price Waterhouse (2002), Managing Mobility Matters – A European Perspective, Price
Waterhouse, New York, NY.
Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. and Pruitt, B. (2002), Beyond Work-Family Balance in
Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Reeves, R. (2002), Dad’s Army – The Case for Father-friendly Workplaces, The Work Foundation,
London.
Repetti, R. (1989), “Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction:
the roles of social withdrawal and spouse support”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 651-9.
Rothbard, N. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, December, pp. 655-84.
Sanik, M. (1993), “The effects of time allocation on parental stress”, Social Indicators Research,
Vol. 30, pp. 175-84.
Shelton, B. and John, D. (1996), “The division of household labour”, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 22, pp. 299-322.
Small, S. and Riley, D. (1990), “Towards a multidimensional assessment of work conflict into
family life”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52, February, pp. 56-61.
Staines, G. and Pleck, J. (1984), “Non-standard work schedules and family life”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 515-23.
Thomas, L. and Ganster, D. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1,
pp. 6-15.
Thompson, C., Beauvais, L. and Lyness, K. (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, Vol. 54, pp. 392-415.
Walters, V., Eyles, J., Lenton, R., French, S. and Beardwood, B. (1998), “Work and health: a study
of the occupational and domestic roles of women registered nurses and registered practical
nurses in Ontario, Canada”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 230-44.
Williams, K. and Alliger, G. (1994), “Role stressors, mood spill-over, and perceptions of Work-family
work-family conflict in employed parents”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,
pp. 837-68. conflict
Further reading
Carlson, D. (1999), “Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family
conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 236-53. 489
Judge, T., Bondreau, J. and Bretz, R. (1994), “Job and life attitudes of male executives”, Journal of
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y., Godshalk, V. and Beutell, N. (1996), “Work and family variables,
entrepreneurial career success, and psychological wellbeing”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 275-300.

Artigo Sobre Espanha Relativamente Ao Work Life Balance

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Artigo Sobre Espanha Relativamente Ao Work Life Balance

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Work-family conflict in a southern European country: The influence of job-related and

Downloaded on: 16 June 2015, At: 02:26 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Departamento de Economı́a y Dirección de Empresas,

Keywords Employment, Family, Conflict, Gender, Role conflict, Spain

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1. Work-family conflict: concept and antecedents

as well as gender differences in a survey of 790 employees. Specifically, men

2.2. Research hypotheses

H2b. Employees with children experience greater work-family conflict than

in service activities and 66.1 per cent work in large organisations.

Dummy variable – mean value 0.750 0.410 0.381

Variable Definition Mean SD

unemployed 273 0.5436 0.3077 0.4246 0.5975 0.8828

Yes 332 0.6295 0.3275 0.4785 0.4015** 0.8236

Married with children 2 0.005 2 0.368 2 0.018 2 0.379 2 0.021 2 0.452

Bachelor degree 0.024 2 0.103 0.047 2 0.017 0.042 2 0.080

European countries regarding labour participation, and the family as an institution is

and Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 278-308.

Você também pode gostar