Authors: Melissa Warner , University of Guelph- Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Rebecca Slan-Jerusalim , Korn/Ferry International
Karen Korabik , University of Guelph- Department of Psychology

Date: October 2009

Basic Concepts & Definitions

In this entry, we describe the impact of co-workers on the work-family (W-F) interface, including the positive and negative impacts that co-workers have on their fellow workers. Specifically, the purpose of this entry is to describe what is known about co-worker support for W-F issues and backlash against the use of W-F policies and practices.

A great deal of research has been dedicated to exploring the effects of W-F conflict on organizations and individuals (see Korabik, Lero, & Whitehead, 2008).  However, the primary focus in this literature has been on the support provided by organizations and supervisors to help employees alleviate W-F conflict.  Until recently, relatively little attention was given to the important role that co-workers play.  Moreover, when the effect of co-workers has been examined, the emphasis has been on the general support they provide rather than support specifically for W-F issues and W-F policy use.  In addition, most of the literature on the role of co-workers has been concentrated on W-F conflict instead of W-F enrichment and facilitation.  Finally, only lately has any consideration been given to understanding co-worker backlash, how co-workers influence decisions about W-F policy use, or how such policy use impacts co-workers.

Co-worker support. Research has shown that, like organizational and supervisor support, co-worker support can be emotional, instrumental, or informational in nature (Antani & Ayman, 2004; Korabik, McElwain, Warner, & Lero, 2007).  Emotional co-worker support refers to the affective component of support (e.g., listening and empathy), while instrumental co-worker support refers to tangible assistance intended to help solve problems.  Informational co-worker support refers to support related to receiving information from others.  Research shows that instrumental and emotional support are differentially related to outcomes (Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981). For example, Ducharme and Martin (2000) found that affective and instrumental co-worker support exerted significant and direct, yet independent, effects on job satisfaction. 

Co-worker support has also been conceptualized as being either perceived or received. Perceived co-worker support refers to the perception that support would be available from co-workers should an individual wish to access it.  In contrast, received co-worker support refers to the support reported to have been received from one’s colleagues. The general social support literature indicates that perceived support is a better predictor than received support of coping effectiveness, adjustment outcomes, and psychological and physical well-being (Cohen & Syme, 1985; Hobfoll, Nadler, & Leiberman, 1986). 

Co-worker support can also be seen as pertaining to issues in either the work or the family domain (Ayman & Antani, 2008).  Thus, co-workers can provide work-related support by working longer hours so that a colleague can take care of family matters or family-related support by giving advice about problems with child rearing. Co-worker support for W-F issues, therefore, can be defined as the degree to which individuals perceive or receive emotional, instrumental, and/or informational support in the work or family domains for W-F issues from their co-workers.

Clearly, however, not all social relationships are characterized by supportiveness. Co-workers may choose to neither offer nor accept support for a number of reasons. As Ayman and Antani (2008) point out, the relationship between co-workers is an involuntary one and is not necessarily egalitarian. In a business context, individuals may fear that asking for help will make them appear incompetent or that receiving help may require them to reciprocate, thereby increasing, rather than reducing, their sense of burden. 

Co-worker backlash. In addition to failing to receive support, workers might actually experience a backlash from their co-workers. Co-worker backlash can be defined as the opposition, resentment, animosity, or annoyance workers perceive or receive from their co-workers regarding their use of W-F policies or their efforts to balance their work and family lives (Korabik & Warner, 2009).  Most studies in this area have concentrated on the backlash reactions and behaviors reported by co-workers as a result of workers’ use of W-F policies and practices.  Behaviorally, co-worker backlash can take a variety of forms.  Some co-workers may refuse to help those who use W-F policies. “In extreme cases, nonusers may ... exclude them from informal gatherings, withhold work-related information or blame them for problems that occur in their absence” (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 318). Backlash may also lead co-workers to reduce their organizational citizenship behaviors or lower their contributions to the organization (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008).

Relationship between co-worker support and co-worker backlash. The concept of psychological engagement can be useful when trying to understand the nature of support and backlash.  Psychological engagement occurs when people cognitively connect with others (Tyler & Blader, 2000).  Some research indicates that support and backlash are types of psychological engagement, and they are often discussed as diametrically opposed attitudes (e.g., Smith & Pope, 1990). An alternative perspective, in which co-workers would be considered a source of both workplace support and backlash comes from applying Voydanoff’s (2008) ecological W-F model. Voydanoff postulates that within-domain resources and within-domain demands can operate simultaneously on individuals, influencing their level of W-F conflict or facilitation. Within-domain resources (like co-worker support) are seen as facilitating processes that can improve role quality and well-being when they are applied across domains (to help ease family-based strain).  In contrast, within-domain demands (like co-worker backlash or resentment) are viewed as processes that can lead to increased stress across domains (i.e., in the family). Our research (Korabik et al., 2007; Korabik & Warner, 2009; Warner & Korabik, 2007; Warner, 2009) supports the view that co-worker support and co-worker backlash are separate constructs that can co-exist.

Importance of Topic to W-F Studies 

A better understanding of co-worker support and backlash as reactions to W-F issues and the use of W-F policies and practices is important for improving worker well-being and organizational effectiveness.  Helping to find strategies that increase co-worker support and/or decrease co-worker backlash should reduce the W-F conflict and/or increase the W-F facilitation and enrichment that workers experience. Finding ways to decrease co-worker backlash against their colleagues who use W-F policies should benefit both parties.  If their co-workers are less resentful, the workers who have a need for such policies should feel less anxious about utilizing them. This should in turn enhance the ability of the policies to reduce their W-F conflict, which should help to make workers more satisfied and productive and reduce turnover. Those workers who do not have similar W-F issues will also benefit because they should feel less taken advantage of, and the quality of their relationships with their co-workers should improve. At the organizational level, greater co-worker support and less co-worker backlash should help establish a family-friendly work culture.

State of the Body of Knowledge

Predictors and Consequences of Co-Worker Support

General co-worker support. Although still limited in comparison to the research on organizational and supervisor support, some studies have examined the role of general co-worker support (i.e., not support specifically for W-F issues or W-F policy use) in the reduction of job stressors. This literature has identified several benefits of co-worker support.  For example, co-worker support has been shown to have a direct positive impact on organizational and individual outcomes such as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Greenglass, Burke, & Konarski, 1997; Kruger, Botman, & Goodenow, 1991; Thompson & Cavallaro, 2007).  Co-worker support has also been associated with reduced work stress and strain and increased organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; Brotheridge, 2001; Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Greenberger, Goldberg, Hamill, O’Neil, & Payne, 1989).  Furthermore, co-worker support has been related to increased family cohesion as well as decreased role strain, work interference with family, negative W-F spillover, and difficulty managing work and home demands (MacDermid, Williams, Marks, & Heilbrun, 1994; Thompson & Cavallaro, 2007).  

There are mixed findings regarding the saliency of co-worker support versus supervisor support.  Some researchers (e.g., LaRocco & Jones, 1980) have found that supervisor support is a stronger moderator of the relationship between job stress and strain than is co-worker support. However, it has also been found that support from co-workers plays a larger role in the reduction of stress than supervisor support (e.g., Greenberger et al., 1989; House & Wells, 1978, as cited in Ducharme & Martin, 2000) and that supervisor and co-worker support contribute the same amount of variance to the reduction of stress (e.g., Karasek, Triantis, & Chaudhry, 1982).
   
Co-worker support for W-F issues and W-F policy use. There have been very few studies that have examined co-worker support specifically for W-F issues and the W-F interface. Two studies have examined received co-worker support and have found it to be associated with increased W-F conflict. More specifically, Antani and Ayman (2004) found that support received from co-workers for work-domain issues was associated with significantly increased levels of family-to-work conflict.  Supporting their findings, Mesmer-Magus, Murase, DeChurch, and Jimenez (2008) found that the extent to which co-workers supported their colleagues by providing informal work accommodations was positively associated with both work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, although more so for the latter.  Given the concurrent nature of these data, the results of these studies might indicate that when individuals are experiencing higher levels of W-F conflict, they are more likely to be offered, and to utilize, more support from their co-workers.
   
Other studies have examined perceived co-worker support. Of these, Thompson, Kirk, and Brown (2005) found no significant direct effect of co-worker support on W-F conflict. By contrast, Major, Fletcher, Davis, and Germano (2005) found greater co-worker support to be associated with significantly decreased W-F conflict. Korabik and Warner (2009) found that the more workers perceived support from their co-workers, the less they reported their work interfered with their family. Greater co-worker support was also related to greater work-to-family enrichment and increased W-F policy use.  
    
Taken together, these results appear to indicate that when workers are experiencing more W-F conflict, they are likely to receive more support from their co-workers.  In turn, when workers perceive their co-workers as more supportive, they are likely to report more W-F policy use, less W-F conflict, and more W-F enrichment. Because these findings are based on a very small number of studies, replication is necessary. This is particularly true because there are many methodological differences among the studies (e.g., the inconsistent separating of co-worker support from other support constructs, combining different forms of support, using different types of samples, and measuring support and W-F conflict differently) that might offer alternative explanations for the differences in their results.

Predictors and Consequences of Co-Worker Backlash

Past W-F research has demonstrated that few workers are actually using the W-F policies offered by their organizations (Korabik et al., 2008). According to Kossek and Van Dyne (2008), this can be explained in terms of equity theory because unequal access to and use of family-friendly benefits can create co-worker backlash, which inhibits workers from taking advantage of the policies that are available to them.

Distributive justice principles. One factor that can contribute to feelings of co-worker backlash is the distributive justice principle upon which W-F policies are based.  Often, W-F policies are formally available to everyone (equality principle), but, in reality, only those who “qualify” as having a need are able to use them (need principle; Grandey, 2001; Kirby & Krone, 2002).  The need principle of distributive justice suggests that people will perceive fairness when resources are allocated to those with the greatest need.  However, the need principle can be problematic for several reasons. First, the fact that those with the greatest needs are treated more favorably runs counter to the individualistic orientation of North American capitalism (Kirby & Krone, 2002).  Thus, the need principle is likely to be viewed negatively in organizations that usually operate according to the norms of equity and/or equality. As well, the need principle is contrary to a merit-based reward system.  Thus, some workers (policy users) perform less work (i.e., lower input) and yet receive the same rewards (i.e., same output) as their colleagues who do not utilize W-F benefits.  Furthermore, when a justification of the need is required, the organization or the supervisor (as the organization’s representative) is responsible for valuing one individual’s need over another’s.  The decision as to whose need requires use of W-F policies is highly subjective.  Perceptions of inequity (in comparison to others or to oneself in the past) may subsequently produce a backlash against the organization or the policy user.  
   
Grandey and Cordeiro (2002) suggest that the evidence for a strong backlash against organizations for having need-based W-F policies is limited. This may be because employees are directing their resentment towards their individual co-workers as opposed to the entire organization.  However, it may also be that individuals are more likely to hold need-based values when it comes to W-F issues (Rothausen, Gonzalez, Clarke, & O’Dell, 1998).
   
Self-interest. Co-worker backlash may also be related to self-interest.  Some research (e.g., Flynn, 1996) shows that when W-F policies can only be used by some employees, those who are not able to access them may feel excluded and resentful. Yet other findings have been mixed.  Most research has found that employees who stand to benefit from a policy and those who have personally used the policy consider the policy to be fairer than those who cannot take advantage of the policy (Grover, 1991; Parker & Allen, 2001).  Korabik et al. (2007) found that workers without children reported feelings of backlash against those with families. However, Hegtvedt, Clay-Warner, and Ferrigno (2002) found that parents and non-parents did not differ in their level of resentment toward policy users.  Rothausen et al. (1998) conducted a study that compared the proximal and distal reactions of several employee groups to onsite child-care centers. They found that those with less self-interest (non-users) had more negative proximal reactions (specific attitudes) than those with greater self-interest (current, past, and anticipated future users). They found no evidence of backlash, however, when it came to distal reactions (e.g., global satisfaction with benefits, job satisfaction, or turnover intentions).
   
Face time. Another predictor of co-worker backlash is face time at work, meaning the capacity to be physically co-present with co-workers. Kossek and Van Dyne (2008) believe that equity issues surface when workers reduce their face time by taking advantage of policies that allow them time, timing, or place flexibility. They propose that “[i]f co-workers feel that use is inequitable, the cross level motivational effect on overall group performance will be negative.  In contrast, if co-workers feel that use is equitable, this cross level motivational effect will be positive and will enhance group performance” (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 311).
   
Reduced face time at work decreases opportunities for interaction with co-workers.  Fewer opportunities for interaction make it less likely that W-F policy users can provide support to their co-workers because they may not realize that help is needed and/or they will not be there to provide assistance.  Communication, problem solving, cooperation, and coordination also become more difficult as face time is reduced (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008).  All of these issues were brought up as reasons for co-worker backlash by participants in Korabik et al.’s (2007) qualitative research.    
   
Kossek and Van Dyne (2008) propose that both the form and the intensity of policy use matter. They feel that place flexibility (the location of work) has a more dramatic effect on co-worker backlash than either time or timing flexibility.  However, they also note that there are differences in the intensity of policy use and that light-intensity users will provoke less severe reactions than heavy-intensity users. This thinking is supported by a recent meta-analysis demonstrating that when employees telecommuted more than 2.5 days/week (heavy intensity), they were able to decrease the W-F conflict they experienced, but at the expense of worsened relationships with their co-workers (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).   
   
Increased workload. Single childless workers report that they are expected to do more work (e.g., stay late, work on weekends, take off-peak holidays, and go on more business trips) to accommodate the needs of their co-workers with families (Casper, Hearst, & Swanburg, 2003, as cited in Casper, Weltman, & Kwesiga, 2007; Kirby & Krone, 2002). As a result, single childless workers report feeling W-F backlash (Young, 1996, 1999, as cited in Casper et al., 2007). Increased workloads and W-F backlash have also been reported by other groups of co-workers (Flynn, 1996; Korabik et al., 2007; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Lee, MacDermid, Williams, Buck, & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 2002; Warner & Korabik, 2007).   

Type of exchange relationship.  Another possible predictor of co-worker backlash is the type of social exchange relationship that co-workers prefer to have with one another. Clark and Mills (1979) have discussed two types of relationships: exchange and communal. Acquaintances and business partners are examples of those who typically have exchange relationships, whereas friends and family members typically have communal relationships. In work settings, benefits are commonly exchanged. For example, an individual might cover for a colleague who has to leave work early.  In exchange relationships, there is recognition that the receipt of a benefit incurs a debt that must be repaid.  This debt must be of comparable value to the benefit that has been received, and repayment must occur within a specified time frame. On the other hand, in communal relationships, the receipt of a benefit does not incur a debt.

If both individuals in a relationship follow the norms of the same type of relationship (either exchange or communal), then each person’s behavior is considered fair by the other person (Mills & Clark, 1994).  However, problems occur when there is a mismatch between the two parties’ perceptions of the type of relationship they are in (i.e., communal or exchange) and the type of transaction (e.g., communal or exchange) that occurs. This discrepancy can create feelings of resentment, betrayal (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), or exploitation (e.g., Clark & Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982).  For example, if a co-worker believes that she is in an exchange relationship with a colleague and takes on extra work to cover for her colleague, she will expect to be repaid.  However, it may be that her colleague never repays her with comparable benefits (perhaps because the colleague believes that they are in a communal relationship and there is no need to reciprocate).  Under these circumstances, the person who provided the assistance may feel resentful of the colleague who does not reciprocate.
   
Task interdependence. As team-based structures have become more popular, work has become increasingly interdependent, and workers have become more responsible for assisting their co-workers when necessary.  These circumstances often involve making informal accommodations that help co-workers to juggle their work and family roles.  Examples of accommodations can include covering or trading off job duties or shifts and providing missed materials or information (Mesmer-Magus et al., 2008).  Although these accommodations benefit those employees with family responsibilities in that they have a pool of co-workers to call upon when they need help (Mesmer-Magus et al., 2008), the possibility of negative consequences increases for the co-workers with whom they share tasks (Grandey & Cordeiro, 2002; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Parker & Allen, 2001).  These consequences may occur because conditions of high task interdependence can result in: (1) more intensive social comparison (Colquitt, 2004) in which inequity is more apparent; (2) higher expectations of reciprocity (Settoon & Mossholders, 2002), which might not be forthcoming; and (3) a greater possibility for exploitation (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2003).   
   
Co-working couples. A backlash against couples who work for the same organization (i.e., co-working couples) may also occur due to perceived nepotism or the potential for ethical conflicts or interpersonal problems (Sweet & Moen, 2004). Sweet and Moen (2004) offer several anecdotes concerning co-worker backlash against members of co-working academic couples. Moen and Sweet (2002) found that having a greater number of co-workers was somewhat positively related to job prestige and control over work schedules for co-working husbands, but associated with more negative work-to-family spillover for both husbands and wives who worked together. In terms of effects on the couples themselves, there was a tendency for childless co-working couples in an early career development stage to have more spillover than co-working couples with greater family demands or those at later career stages (Moen & Sweet, 2002; Sweet & Moen, 2004).  On the whole, however, there appeared to be few negative effects as a result of co-working with one’s spouse (Sweet & Moen, 2004).

Co-worker backlash and the use of W-F policies.  Co-worker backlash may play a role in pressuring employees into not using W-F policies (Korabik et al., 2007; Korabik & Warner, 2009; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). For example, Kirby and Krone (2002) found that workers who heard their co-workers complaining about the additional responsibilities they had when people used W-F policies took this negative discourse into account and sometimes chose to refrain from using the policies that were available to them.  Research has shown that workers often fear that using W-F policies will result in negative consequences, hampering their career advancement opportunities and upsetting their co-workers (Kirby & Krone, 2002; Perlow, 1995, as cited in Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).

There can also be a discrepancy between supervisory support and co-worker support for W-F policy use.  For example, a supervisor may encourage a subordinate to use a W-F policy, but that individual’s co-workers may make that person feel guilty for doing so.  Reus and Liu (2004) found that co-worker resentment of workers who used W-F policies could create a negative work environment and cause group members to conform to majority influences (and, hence, not use W-F policies).  This effect can have severe consequences. For example, both Haar and Spell (2006) and Korabik and Warner (2009) found that when their co-workers expressed opposition towards workers’ use of W-F policies, the workers reported higher turnover intentions. 

Strategies to reduce co-worker backlash. The participants in Korabik et al.’s (2007) qualitative study had a clear understanding of the negative consequences (e.g., extra difficulties in work coordination) that they caused their co-workers. They discussed a variety of strategies that they used to reduce co-worker backlash and restore equity. These included: trying not to take unfair advantage, showing their appreciation for the support they had been given, being supportive of others’ needs, and helping others whenever they could. In addition, Kossek and Van Dyne (2008) have suggested several organization-level interventions that might be useful for reducing co-worker backlash and the resulting negative outcomes for W-F policy users. These include: providing incentives for cooperation among co-workers, enhancing trusting co-worker relationships, and setting clear policies, norms, and expectations. 


Implications for Research and Practice
   
The examination of co-worker support and backlash as reactions to W-F issues and the use of W-F policies and practices is a relatively new area of research.  Despite this, the findings from the studies that have been conducted thus far draw attention to the important crossover effects that occur from co-worker to co-worker in the workplace, both within and across domains. Furthermore, the findings from this research highlight the fact that managers need to incorporate the saliency of co-workers into their management strategy.

There is still much work that needs to be done in this area. Starting with the theoretical groundwork (i.e., definition and identification of nomological network), further research into the constructs of co-worker support and backlash is needed.  For example, exploration into the work group contextual factors that either encourage or inhibit co-worker support and examination of individual factors that may influence one’s degree of supportiveness versus backlash toward W-F policy use is needed.  Increased exploration into the concepts of co-worker support and backlash as reactions to W-F policy use will allow further empirical research in this area, including the examination of how these constructs relate to each other, to other work and family variables, and to outcomes such as job and family satisfaction.  This research is needed as the occurrence of W-F conflict is rising, and very little is known about the role of co-worker support or backlash in reducing or exacerbating this conflict (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Similarly, there is a need for more research into the impact of co-workers on W-F facilitation and enrichment.

In terms of workplace policies, research that helps organizations to better understand how to implement W-F policies so as to maximize co-worker support and minimize backlash is vital, Research directed at examining whether certain types of policies result in less backlash than others is also important. For example, there is some research indicating that inclusive policies  (e.g., cafeteria-style benefits) produce less backlash than those that cannot be used by all employees (e.g., child-care centers) (Casper et al., 2007). It is also essential to examine the impact of social policies. Countries with more extensive W-F public policies (e.g., Scandinavia) may have workers who display more support for and less backlash against their co-workers who use W-F policies.  Other government initiatives, like Britain’s “right to request” W-F accommodations, may have similar impacts by enhancing workers’ feelings of entitlement.  Research on such topics should enlighten our understanding of how to best reduce W-F conflict and enhance W-F enrichment and facilitation, as well as allow individuals and organizations to gain better insight into how to manage W-F balance.  

Research in this area has been hampered by the fact that presently there are very few measures specifically designed to assess positive and negative co-worker reactions to work-family issues, and those that do exist are very recent.  One of these is a measure of received W-F support developed by Antani and Ayman (2004).  It assesses both the instrumental and the emotional support received in both the work and the family domains from a number of non-work and work-related (including co-workers) sources.  Another is the Co-Worker Informal Work Accommodations to Family (C-IWAF) scale (Mesmer-Magus et al., 2008).  It assesses the tangible actions that co-workers perform to help employees manage their work and family responsibilities.  It consists of six factors; namely: (1) offering child-care assistance, (2) engaging in deviating behavior (e.g., concealing a co-worker’s family-related absence), (3) facilitating telework, (4) offering a continuing work modification (e.g., permanently swapping shifts with a co-worker), (5) offering a short-term work modification (e.g., temporarily covering for a co-worker), and (6) engaging in helping behavior.  The authors have provided evidence of the measure’s reliability and discriminant validity.  Finally, Warner (2009) has developed and validated a measure of perceived co-worker support and backlash as reactions to work-family issues that has four distinct factors: (1) co-worker emotional support, (2) co-worker instrumental support, (3) co-worker informational support, and (4) co-worker opposition. 

In conclusion, research in the area of co-worker support and backlash as reactions to W-F issues has practical implications in that an increased understanding of this topic may lead to interventions that are more effective in reducing W-F conflict and increasing W-F enrichment and facilitation among employees.  Specifically, when implementing organizational-level W-F policies, organizations need to ensure that there is a network among co-workers that will support, rather than thwart, the new W-F initiative.  Moreover, with increased awareness of support for W-F balance among co-workers, employees themselves may find valuable resources among co-workers to buffer potentially unsupportive organizations.

In addition, it is well established that organizational and supervisor supportiveness for W-F balance significantly influences employees’ use of W-F policies and decreases their level of W-F conflict (Allen, 2001; Behson, 2002).  However, we know relatively little about the role of co-workers in this process.  It has long been recognized that groups within organizations influence their members’ behaviors and beliefs and that these influences can mediate the impact of organizational-level initiatives (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002).  We need to begin to examine the impact of work groups on the use of W-F policies at the individual level in order to better understand the processes that are preventing workers from taking advantage of these potentially functional interventions.    

References:

Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.

Antani, A., & Ayman, R. (2004, April). The relationship of ethnicity with social support and work-family conflict. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Ayman, R., & Antani, A. (2008). Social support and work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory and best practices (pp. 287-304). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and co-worker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405.

Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates: The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53-72.

Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002).  Employees’ use of work-family policies and the workplace social context.  Social Forces, 80, 813-845.

Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). A comparison of alternative models of coping: Identifying relationships among co-worker support, workload, and emotional exhaustion in the workplace. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 1-14.

Casper, W. J., Weltman, D., & Kwesiga, E. (2007). Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70,  478-501.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979).  Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.

Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (1985). Social support and health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Colquitt, J. A. (2004).  Does the justice of one interact with the justice of the many?  Reactions to procedural justice in teams.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633-646.

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

De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003).  Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 1-11.

Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, co-worker support, and job satisfaction: A test of the buffering hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27, 223-243.

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

Flynn, G. (1996).  No spouse, no kids, no respect: Why single employees are angry.  Personnel Journal, 75, 58-69.

Gajendran, R. S. & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524-1541.

Grandey, A. A. (2001).  Family friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations.  In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 145-173).  Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grandey, A. A., & Cordeiro, B. L. (2002).  Family-friendly policies and organizational justice, a Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia entry.  Retrieved from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_template.php?id=231.

Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Hamill, S., O’Neil, R., & Payne, C. K. (1989).  Contributions of a supportive work environment to parents’ well-being and orientation to work.  American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 755-783.

Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Konarski, R. (1997). The impact of social support on the development of burnout in teachers: Examination of a model. Work & Stress, 11, 267-278.

Grover, S. L. (1991).  Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 247-255.

Haar, J., & Spell, C.  (2006, December). Negative attitudes towards work-family practice personal use and co-worker use negativity and perceived organizational support: Coping with the dark-side.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, Queensland, Australia.

Hegtvedt, K. A., Clay-Warner, J., & Ferrigno, E. D. (2002).  Reactions to injustice: Factors affecting workers’ resentment toward family-friendly policies.  Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 386-400.

Hobfoll, S. E., Nadler, A., & Leiberman, J. (1986). Satisfaction with social support during crisis: Intimacy and self-esteem as critical determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 296-304.

Karasek, R. A., Triantis, K. P., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1982). Co-worker and supervisor support as moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3, 181-200.

Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies.  Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50-77.

Korabik, K., Lero, D. S., & Whitehead, D. L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory and best practices. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Korabik, K., McElwain, A., Warner, M., & Lero, D. S. (2007, July).  The impact of co-worker support and resentment on work-family conflict. Paper presented at the 2nd IESE International Conference on Work and Family, Barcelona, Spain.

Korabik, K., & Warner, M. (2009, July). The impact of coworkers on work-to-family enrichment and organizational outcomes.  Paper presented at the 3rd IESE International Conference on Work and Family, Barcelona, Spain.

Kossek, E. E., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Face-time matters: A cross level model of how work-life flexibility influences work performance of individuals and groups. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 305-330). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Kruger, L. J., Botman, H. I., & Goodenow, C. (1991). An investigation of social support and burnout among residential counsellors. Child & Youth Care Forum, 20, 335-352.

La Rocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1980). Co-worker and leader support as moderators of stress-strain relationships in work situations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63, 629-634.

Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., Williams, M. L., Buck, M. L., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (2002).  Contextual factors in the success of reduced-load work arrangements among managers and professionals.  Human Resource Management, 41, 209-223.

MacDermid, S. M., Williams, M., Marks, S., & Heilbrun, G. (1994).  Is small beautiful? Work-family tension, work conditions, and organizational size.  Family Relations, 43, 159-167.

Major, D. A., Fletcher, T. D., Davis, D. D., & Germano, L. M., (2005, April). The influence of climate and workplace relationships on work-family conflict: A multilevel model of mediated effects. In D. A. Major & L. M. Germano (Chairs), Understanding organization support and its influence on work-family outcomes. Symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. 

Mesmer-Magnus, J., Murase, T., DeChurch, L. A., & Jimenez. M. (2008, April). Co-worker Informal Work Accommodations to Family: Scale Development and Validation.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982).  Exchange and communal relationships.  In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 121-144).  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies and research.  In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 29-42).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moen, P., & Sweet, S. (2002).  Two careers, one employer: Couples working for the same corporation.  Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 466-483.

Parker, L., & Allen, T. D. (2001).  Work/family benefits: Variables related to employees’ fairness perceptions.  Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 453-468.

Reus, T. H., & Liu, Y. (2004).  Rhyme and reason: Emotional capability and the performance of knowledge-intensive work groups.  Human Performance, 17, 245-266.

Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O’Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash -- "Fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers. Personnel Psychology, 51, 685-706

Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The health-related functions of social support. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 381-406.

Settoon, R. P. & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255-267.

Smith, T. W., & Pope, M. K. (1990).  Cynical hostility as a health risk: Current status and future directions.  Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 5, 77-88.

Sweet, S., & Moen, P. (2004).  Coworking as a career strategy: Implications for the work and family lives of university employees.  Innovative Higher Education, 28, 255-272.

Thompson, B. M., & Cavallaro, L. (2007). Gender, work-based support, and family outcomes. Stress and Health, 23, 73-8

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999).  When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict.  Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. F. (2005). Work based support, emotional exhaustion, and spillover of work stress to the family environment: A study of policewomen. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 21, 199-207.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000).  The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.

Voydanoff, P. (2008). A conceptual model of the work-family interface. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 37-56). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Warner, M. & Korabik, K. (2007, June). Understanding the role of co-worker reactions in work interference with family and work-to-family enrichment.  Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, ON.

Warner, M. (2009). Understanding the role of co-worker reactions in work interference with family and work-to-family enrichment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix...)

Note: The domain areas most closely related to the entry's topic are presented in full color. Other domains, represented in gray, are provided for context.