|
|||||||||||
|
 |
Work-Family Linkages (2003)
Authors: Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Ph.D., Drexel University, and Romila Singh, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Date: 2/25/03 Basic Concepts & Definitions In the last three decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of research devoted to understanding the linkages between work and family life. A variety of linking mechanisms have been proposed that explain the nature of the relationship between work and family roles (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), the most prominent of which are conflict (or interference), accommodation, enrichment, compensation, and segmentation. Work-family conflict or interference refers to simultaneous pressures from the work and family domains that are mutually incompatible in some respect such that meeting the demands of one role makes it difficult to meet the demands of the other role. Sometimes referred to as negative spillover, work-family conflict can take different forms and can originate either in the work domain or the family domain. [For a more detailed description of work-family conflict, see the Encyclopedia entry on work-family conflict.] Work-family accommodation refers to the process by which individuals reduce their involvement in one role to accommodate the demands of the other role (Lambert, 1990). Work-family accommodation can be used as a strategy in response to actual or anticipated work-family conflict such that individuals reduce their involvement in a role that is less important to them. The reduction in involvement can take either of two forms: behavioral (e.g., curtailing the amount of time devoted to a role) or psychological (e.g., restricting the level of ego attachment to a particular role). Another linking mechanism, work-family compensation, represents efforts by individuals to offset dissatisfaction in one role by seeking satisfaction in another role (Lambert, 1990; Zedeck, 1992). These efforts can take the form of decreasing involvement in a dissatisfying role and increasing involvement in a more satisfying role. Alternately, individuals may respond to dissatisfaction in one role by pursuing rewarding or fulfilling experiences in the other role. The latter form of compensation can be either supplemental or reactive in nature (Zedeck, 1992). Supplemental compensation occurs when individuals shift their pursuits for rewarding experiences from the dissatisfying role to a potentially more satisfying one. For example, individuals with little autonomy at work seek more autonomy outside of their work role. On the other hand, reactive compensation represents individuals' efforts to redress negative experiences in one role by pursuing contrasting experiences in the other role such as engaging in leisure activities after a fatiguing day at work. Work-family segmentation originally referred to the notion that work and family roles are independent of one another such that individuals can participate in one role without any influence on the other role (Blood & Wolfe, 1960). More recently, segmentation has been viewed as an intentional separation of work and family roles such that the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of one role are actively suppressed from affecting the individual's performance in the other role (Lambert, 1990). Unlike conflict or interference, work-family enrichment refers to the process by which one role strengthens or enriches the quality of the other role. Work-family enrichment has also been referred to as work-family enhancement, work-family facilitation, and positive spillover. All of these terms describe the notion that a variety of resources from work and family roles have the capacity to provide positive experiences in the other role. Two mechanisms that are important to make note of, although they are not "linkages" in the sense of a causal relationship between work and family life, are work-family balance and work-family expansion. We define work-family balance as the extent to which individuals are equally involved in-and equally satisfied with-their work role and their family role (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, in press). Work-family expansion refers to the notion that simultaneously engaging in multiple work and family roles is beneficial for the physical, mental, and relationship health of individuals (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). The quality of the roles, rather than the number of roles occupied, or the amount of time spent in particular role, determine the degree to which individuals experience the positive effects of participating in multiple roles. Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies It is evident that our work lives can either enhance or detract from our family lives. In the same manner, our family lives can have positive or negative influences on our work attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. For example, extensive and inflexible work hours, over-involvement in work, and job stress may produce distress within the family domain, withdrawal from family responsibilities, and adversely affect one's overall quality of life. Similarly, extensive care-giving responsibilities and intensive involvement with family activities can limit individuals' career choices and aspirations and negatively affect their work involvement, job satisfaction, and intention to continue their employment. In contrast, there are several resources derived from one's work role, such as income, job autonomy, and social support from co-workers and/or supervisor, that can positively influence one's experiences and well-being in the family domain. Similarly, individuals' home and family lives can also strengthen or enrich the quality of their work lives by providing a variety of supportive resources to draw upon. Because work and family lives have a profound influence on one another, understanding the linkages between work and family roles has important implications not only for organizations and individuals, but also for educators and researchers interested in this area. With the growing representation of women in the workforce and a blurring of traditional gender-based roles, both men and women are confronted with the daily challenge of handling their work and family responsibilities in a way that meets the needs of their family as well as their employer. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms by which work and family life affect each other will help individuals and their employers determine the most effective ways to reduce work-family interference and increase work-family enrichment. For example, human resource professionals, training and development personnel, work-family and diversity consultants, and other decision makers can use these insights to design policies and programs aimed at promoting a higher quality of life for employees. Similarly, understanding different facets of the work-family interface can help working women and men not only achieve a better balance between their work and family roles, but also become more responsive to their subordinates' work-family concerns. Finally, this knowledge will be helpful for educators and researchers in management, organizational behavior, sociology, family studies, and other areas who are interested in gaining additional insight into the nature of work-family relationships. State of the Body of Knowledge The work-family literature has long been dominated by a conflict perspective that has emphasized the potential for role interference and stress among individuals who participate in work and family roles. As noted by Hammer and Thompson in their Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia entry on work-family conflict, work-family conflict can be time-based, strain-based, or behavior-based (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Each form of work-family conflict represents a type of interference between one role and the other role. Moreover, in some instances, work interferes with family (work-to-family conflict), whereas at other times, family interferes with work (family-to-work conflict). Extensive research has been conducted to determine the factors that produce work-family conflict. Most of the factors that have been examined are environmental pressures that reside within the work domain (e.g., work stressors, time pressures, unsupportive supervisor, organizational culture) or within the family domain (e.g., young children, eldercare responsibilities, unsupportive spouse). Recent research has determined that individual factors-such as personality characteristics (Carlson, 1999; Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002), interpersonal attachment styles (Sumer & Knight, 2001), and psychological involvement in work and family roles (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992)-also play a role in producing work-family conflict. The negative consequences of extensive work-family conflict include ineffectiveness at work and within the family, dissatisfaction with work and family roles, stress symptoms, life dissatisfaction, and alcohol abuse (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Frone, 2003; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Often, there is a connection between work-family conflict and work-family accommodation. Anticipating extensive conflict between work and family responsibilities, individuals may reduce involvement in the less important role to accommodate the role that is currently viewed as more important or more pressing. For example, parents may reduce their involvement in work to accommodate the needs of their children, in effect, "permitting" their family responsibilities to interfere with work. Accommodation may evoke the image of a tradeoff as individuals "trade" success in the less favored role for opportunities to succeed in the more highly favored role (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Whereas conflict, interference, and accommodation generally represent negative effects of one role on another role, work-family enrichment represents positive effects. Because work-family enrichment has not been studied as extensively as work-family conflict, we know less about enrichment than conflict. Nevertheless, based on the early work of Sieber (1974), research has recently been accumulating on the work-family enrichment process, attempting to measure the concept and identify its determinants and outcomes (Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b; Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Sumer & Knight, 2001). It appears that work-family enrichment occurs when individuals successfully apply a resource acquired in one role to a task in the other role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2002). For example, parents may develop interpersonal skills through interactions with their children that they subsequently apply to their work role, thereby enhancing their managerial effectiveness (Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Conversely, employees learn skills or develop perspectives at work that can enable them to be more effective as parents (Crouter, 1984). Just as conflict or interference can operate in two directions (work-to-family and family-to-work), so too can enrichment. Like enrichment, work-family compensation can produce positive effects of one role on another. For example, an individual who lacks the opportunity to make decisions in his or her job may compensate by pursuing leisure or recreational roles that provide extensive opportunities to make decisions (e.g., a little league coach). However, there is a substantial difference between compensation and enrichment. Compensation arises from a deficiency in a role whereas enrichment, as we have seen, arises from a strength or resource in the role. There has not been a great deal of empirical research on compensation, although Edwards and Rothbard (2000, Figure 2) present several mechanisms by which compensation may operate. Segmentation, the separation or independence of work and family roles, has gained recent attention in the literature. Segmentation is currently viewed as an active strategy to maintain a boundary between work and family roles (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Work-family role segmentation can also be viewed as a characteristic of the two roles rather than as a personal strategy. Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000) believe that two roles are segmented when their boundaries are inflexible and impermeable to one another and when they are very different from one another in terms of role requirements. Ashforth et al. (2000) suggest that segmented roles have both advantages (less blurring or confusion between work and family responsibilities) and disadvantages (difficulty in crossing the boundary from one role to the other). Similarly, work-family expansion is not a linking mechanism but rather reflects the benefits that accrue from engaging in multiple life roles (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). For example, men and women who engage in all three roles of spouse, parent, and employee report heightened levels of physical and mental health and overall well-being (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992; Repetti, Matthews, & Waldron, 1989). There are many processes that contribute to the beneficial effects of multiple roles such as additional income, social support from one's family and co-workers/supervisors, an expanded frame of reference, and additional opportunities to experience success and develop a sense of self-confidence. However, overload and distress may occur when the number of roles becomes too great or when the demands of one role become excessive. Implications for Practice and Research Future research should be directed toward understanding the full array of linkages between work and family life. For example, research should examine the process by which resources are transferred from one role to another to understand the conditions under which work enriches family and family enriches work. Work-family compensation also warrants considerable attention so we can understand the conditions under which compensation takes place, and the effects of compensation on individual well-being. Research should also examine whether a segmentation strategy reduces work-family conflict and/or produces difficulties in moving between work and family roles. Finally, research is required to measure work-family balance and determine whether individuals who live a balanced lifestyle are better off psychologically than those who do not. Work-family problems, if not managed effectively, not only affect individuals and their families, but also adversely affect their employers and ultimately society at large. Hence, the responsibility for developing and implementing effective ways for reducing work-family interference and increasing enrichment should be shared by organizations, individuals and their families, and policy-makers. Employers offer a wide variety of work-family benefits and programs such as on-site child care, support groups for working parents, referral services, flextime, telecommuting, and part-time work options. Employees who avail themselves of these programs report feeling more satisfied with their jobs, express greater loyalty toward their organizations, and miss fewer days of work (Lobel, 1999). Organizations, in turn, reap benefits in the form of improved employee productivity and morale and a progressive public image that they use to attract and recruit better talent. Many of these programs may not be able to eliminate work-family interference, but they are an important first step in providing employees with sufficient flexibility to achieve a more fulfilling balance between their work and family lives. However, companies need to move beyond offering a patchwork of solutions and programs and undergo a fundamental culture shift that recognizes the legitimacy of work-family issues (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). Changing the deeply held organizational beliefs, values, and assumptions regarding employees' need for balanced work-family lives is critical to the success of implementing various work-family benefits and policies (Allen, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). While corporations have largely been at the forefront of work-family initiatives, other institutions such as the government and the non-profit sector need to play a larger role in working toward cultural change and fostering family supportiveness (Googins, 1997). Balancing work and family lives is a matter of public policy and the government can play a key role in pushing work-family issues into the public spotlight and stimulating debate in the area. Indeed, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 has provided a critical first step toward mandating universal provision of leave along with assurance of job security. More recently, California was the first state in the nation to enact paid family leave mandating up to six weeks of Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI). In effect, the government can and should be instrumental in providing a forum for the institutions of work, family, and community to come together and develop a national consensus on how to enhance the quality of work and family life. However, before that can happen, we need to come to a national agreement on what the role of government should be in supporting working families (Rayman & Bookman, 1999). Regardless of corporate and government initiatives, individuals have an endless number of decisions to make to reduce the level of interference between work and family roles and to promote enrichment between these roles. As a first step, people can attempt to work for employers with progressive work-family cultures and supportive work-family policies and programs. They can also build supportive relationships with individuals in different roles such as work, family, and the community and draw on the tangible and intangible resources that these individuals provide. In addition, self-insight, the ability to prioritize life roles, and the willingness to periodically reexamine goals and strategies are critical in managing the relationship between work and family (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). References Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308. Allen, T. D. (2001). Family supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411-420. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-191. Barnett, R.C. & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781-796. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Men's multiple roles and their relationship to men's psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 358-367. Blood R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York: Macmillan. Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236-253. Crouter, A. C. (1984). Participative work as an influence on human development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 71-90. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178-199. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family•allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78. (a) Googins, B. K (1997). Shared responsibility for managing work and family relationships: A community perspective. In S. Parasuraman and J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.) Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 220-231). Westport, CT: Quorum. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (in press). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2002). Toward a theory of work-family enrichment. Manuscript in preparation. Greenhaus, J. H., & Singh, R. (in press). Work-family relationships. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 236-243. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. E. (2000). Family, work, work-family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 336-348. (a) Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126. (b) Hammer, L., & Thompson, C. Work-family role conflict. In Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/wfnetwork/rft/wfpedia/wfpWFRCent.html Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775-795. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231-249. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28, 531-552. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149. Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239-257. Lobel, S. A. (1999). Impacts of diversity and work-life initiatives in organizations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 453-474). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417-432. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for changing world. Westport, CT: Quorum. Rayman, P M., & Bookman, A. (1999). Creating a research and public policy agenda for work, family and the community. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 191-211. Repetti, R. L., Matthews, K. A., Waldron, I. (1989). Employment and women's health: Effects of paid employment on women's mental and physical health. American Psychologist, 44, 1394-1401. Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369-386. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578. Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1-16. Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 653-663. 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. Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Other Recommended Readings on this Topic: Barnett, R.C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781-796. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178-199. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family•allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Googins, B. K. (1997). Shared responsibility for managing work and family relationships: A community perspective. In S. Parasuraman and J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.) Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 220-231). Westport, CT: Quorum. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In Powell, G. N. (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391-412). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149. Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239-257. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for changing world. Westport, CT: Quorum.
To download the matrix, click here:
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
