- Email: [email protected]
Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research
Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299 – 312 www.HRmanagementreview.com
Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research Saroj Parasuraman*, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus Department of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
1. Introduction Social science researchers have devoted considerable attention to examining the interrelationships between work and family. The growing diversity of family structures represented in the workforce—including dual-earner couples, single parents, blended families, and employees with responsibility for elder care—has heightened the relevance of balancing work and family roles for a substantial segment of employed men and women (Googins, 1997; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986, 1994; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). These developments have greatly increased the complexities of the interface between work and family. Against the backdrop of these changes and the projected growth in the diversity of the work force in the new millennium (Johnston & Packer, 1987), it is appropriate to assess the gaps in our knowledge of work–family relationships. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) recently observed that although the literature provides abundant evidence that work and family are interconnected in many ways, the links between the two arenas are more complex than was envisaged initially. In her presentation to the Conference Board on the status of work–family research, MacDermid (1998) concluded that there are many more unanswered questions than those for which we have ‘‘firm footholds.’’ According to Barling & Sorensen (1997), changes in the nature of jobs and organizations, as well as social changes in family structure, have rendered much of the research-based knowledge of the interdependence of work and family outdated. In our view, the empirical research to date has been useful in explaining many of the relationships between work and family domains. The different perspectives from which
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-215-895-1796; fax: +1-215-895-2891. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Parasuraman). 1053-4822/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 5 3 - 4 8 2 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 1
300
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
work–family issues have been studied by researchers in different disciplines have enriched the field, and provided valuable insights into some facets of interdomain work–family relationships. However, variations in the conceptualization, measurement, and treatment of variables across studies have contributed to the discrepant results reported and the incomplete knowledge of work–family connections (Kline & Cowan, 1989; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997; Zedeck, 1992). The uneven research focus on different topics has resulted in overemphasis on certain areas of inquiry, and the neglect or limited attention devoted to others. Consequently, there are critical gaps in the mapping of the multiple linkages among work and family role experiences and outcomes. Our aim in this article is to highlight significant gaps in the research on work–family linkages and draw attention to the major factors that explain the lag in the research, thereby limiting our understanding of the relationships between work and family. Based on a selective and focused review of the relevant literature, we assess the adequacy of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the research and identify key topic areas that have been overlooked or underresearched. We give several examples of the resulting gaps in our knowledge and how they have contributed to the incomplete understanding of potentially important relationships of interest. In this article, we discuss the following gaps: 1. Limited research on role enhancement or the positive connections between work and family, and overemphasis on work–family conflict and its negative consequences. 2. Disproportionate emphasis on environmental and situational factors as the dominant sources of work–family conflict, and relative neglect of individual differences and psychological characteristics as antecedents of conflict and stress. 3. Narrow scope of research on gender differences in work–family experiences and outcomes based on gender-role stereotypes. 4. Narrow research focus on intact nuclear families, and scant attention devoted to the work– family concerns of single parents, blended families, and individuals with significant responsibility for elder care. 5. Overemphasis on the individual level of analysis, and the limited examination of coupleor family-level work–family relationships as well as crossover effects from one partner to the other. We examine each of these research gaps in greater detail in the sections that follow. Based on our analysis of these issues, we call for the development of new, more inclusive theoretical models of work and family that reflect the changing landscape of the workplace and families in the 21st century.
2. Dominance of a conflict perspective and an inadequate examination of work–family integration A conflict perspective has dominated the research on work–family dynamics for the past 25 years (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). According to
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
301
this perspective, the responsibilities and role demands of work and family are assumed to be mutually incompatible. That is to say, the pressures arising from one role interfere with participation in the other role or detract from the quality of life experienced in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). The dominance of the conflict/stress perspective in work–family research stems from a scarcity hypothesis, which assumes that time and energy are fixed, and that individuals who participate in multiple roles inevitably experience conflict between the roles (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). This theoretical explanation has been reinforced by frequent observations of individuals who are struggling to balance their work and family responsibilities, and of firms and professions that suffer high turnover as a consequence of their employees’ work–family stress (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1992). Despite this negative emphasis, the vast body of research on work and family has produced valuable insights into the work–family interface. Much of the research has focused on the determinants of work–family conflict, such as time-related pressures, stressors in the work or family domains, and high levels of psychological involvement in work or family life (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Aryee, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996). The consequences of work–family conflict have also been investigated widely. High levels of conflict have been found to produce dissatisfaction and distress within the work and family domains (Frone et al., 1997; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Parasuraman et al., 1996), limit one’s overall quality of life (Higgins et al., 1992; Rice, Frone, & McFarlin, 1992), and also to be associated with dysfunctional social behaviors (Frone, Russsell, & Barnes, 1996; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1993; MacEwen & Barling, 1994; Stewart & Barling, 1996). Recent work–family research shows increased methodological sophistication, and a move toward providing more precise conceptual definitions of constructs. Growing attention has been devoted to examining the dimensionality of work–family conflict, and the development of precise measures to delineate the direction of the interference between work and family roles. The findings indicate that in some instances work interferes with family life (work-tofamily conflict), and in other situations (family-to-work conflict), family responsibilities interfere with life at work (Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992b; Frone et al., 1997; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglotco, 1995; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Generally speaking, work pressures have been found to be the most powerful source of work-to-family conflict, while family pressures are more strongly related to family-to-work conflict (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a; Frone et al., 1997; Judge et al., 1994). 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 & Ozeki, 1988). However, there is scant support for the notion that women are more likely to experience greater family-to-work conflict than men. While the research provides extensive evidence of the negative impact of work–family conflict on individuals’ well being, the positive spillover or mutually enriching effects that
302
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
work and family roles can have on one another have not been as widely or systematically examined (Gould & Werbel, 1983). Marks (1977), Sieber (1974), and others (Piotrkowski, Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987) proposed that participation in multiple roles can be stimulating, and enhance the well being of individuals. Despite the recognition of the possibility of positive spillover between work and family, there is limited empirical research on the role enhancing aspects of multiple roles. Sieber (1974) identified four mechanisms by which multiple role participation can enhance the quality of life. Role privileges involve rights or benefits derived from one role that improve life in another role. Status security refers to the support, comfort, or gratification experienced in a role that promote coping with the challenges of another role. Status enhancement encompasses resources provided by a role that enhance experiences in another role, and personality enrichment involves the development of skills, knowledge, and perspectives in one role that can be applied effectively to another role. These mechanisms reflect positive spillover from one role to another, and have been discussed by various scholars under different names (Crouter, 1984; Kanter, 1977; Piotrkowski et al., 1987; Repetti, 1987). Based on Sieber’s (1974) concepts, Kirchmeyer developed measures to assess positive spillover (enhancement) and negative spillover (conflict) from family to work. In a series of studies across different samples, Kirchmeyer (1992a, 1992b, 1993) found that positive spillover from family to work was more prevalent than negative spillover. She also found that conflict and enhancement were independent dimensions of the work–family interface. These findings indicate the need to examine the positive linkages between work and family lives in theoretically grounded research programs, and lay the foundation to pursue this line of inquiry more extensively. In another stream of research, Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) identified three critical dimensions of role membership that determine whether work and family are allies (representing enrichment) or enemies (representing conflict): (1) the specific experiences encountered in a role, (2) the level of involvement invested in a role, and (3) the attitudinal reactions to participation in a role. Based on their study of over 800 business school alumni, Friedman and Greenhaus conclude that experiences, involvement, and attitudes in one role produce opportunities, competence, involvement, and attitudes in another role, and thereby determine whether work and family are allies or enemies. These findings suggest the possibility that work and family roles may conflict in certain respects, and enrich each other in other respects. It follows from this that if the extent of enrichment exceeds the level of work–family conflict experienced, the overall level of well being of the focal individual would be enhanced. Despite these promising beginnings, there are a number of gaps in our knowledge of the positive connections between work and family that raise important questions awaiting future research. For example, it would be instructive to know whether enhancement or integration and conflict have common or unique antecedents. It would also be useful to assess the outcomes of integration compared to the indicators of stress. Is there a greater tendency for work to strengthen family or for family to strengthen work, or does it depend on situational factors? Answers to these questions call for the need to develop and test well-grounded theoretical models of work–family integration.
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
303
3. Limited research on individual differences in reactions to work–family pressures Based on Kahn et al.’s (1964) influential model of the role-sending, role-receiving, and the role enactment process, much of the work–family research has focused on environmental and situational variables and role pressures from multiple role senders in generating work– family conflict. Although models of work–family dynamics have recognized the role of individual differences in appraisal of the environment and reactions to conflicting role pressures, empirical research on the demographic and personality correlates of work–family conflict is limited to a handful of studies (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Parasuraman et al., 1996). According to Watanabe, Takahashi, and Minami (1998), individuals, guided by their personal characteristics, not only interpret and react to a situation, but also proactively shape the situation. Recent studies demonstrate the relevance of dispositional factors in explaining subtle nuances in the experience of work –family conflict. Dispositional traits are stable and consistent ways of thinking, feeling, or acting that determine how individuals appraise their environments (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Negative affectivity (Watson, 1988) or NA is among the most frequently studied dispositional traits in stress research (Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1991). NA represents a general tendency to view the world negatively. High NA individuals find themselves in stressful situations or create situations that become stressful (George, 1992; Motowildo, Packard, & Manning, 1986; Spector, Fox, & Katwyk, 1999; Spector, Jex, & Chen, 1995). They also tend to experience high levels of distress, depression, nervousness, anxiety, anger, and fear (Watson, 1988). Carlson (1999) found that NA and Type A personality explained significant additional variance in work–family conflict beyond situational variables. In a recent study of senior civil servants in Hong Kong, Stoeva, Chiu, and Greenhaus (2002) found that NA influenced work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict indirectly through its effects on job stress and family stress. The results showed that highNA individuals experienced substantial conflict between work and family roles because they experienced extensive stress in the work and family domains. Moreover, the impact of family stress on family-to-work conflict was stronger for high-NA employees than low-NA employees. Thus, dispositional factors can influence work–family conflict experienced by individuals through the high levels of stress engendered and by exacerbating the impact of such stress on work–family conflict. Personal characteristics can also influence work–family conflict through the manner in which individuals decide whether to comply with the demands of a particular role. When faced with simultaneous pressures to participate in a work activity and a family activity, some individuals select the work activity and others choose the family activity. Are these behavioral differences a function of characteristics of the situation or characteristics of the person? The decision to choose among competing work and family activities lays the groundwork for subsequent work–family conflict. Unfortunately, work–family research has rarely examined the conflict produced by this decision because measures of work–family conflict typically assess chronic conflict that is experienced due to the repeated exposure to conflicting role demands across many different situations.
304
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Greenhaus and Powell (2002) recently used a vignette approach to examine the factors that influence as individual’s decision to participate in either a work or family activity when it is impossible to participate in both activities. Consistent with social identity theory (Lobel, 1991; Thoits, 1991), they found that the relative salience of work and family roles (personal factors) had a strong impact on the decision. However, the effect of role salience on the participation decision depended on the external pressure received from managers and spouses (environmental factors) as well as their own level of self-esteem (another personal factor). It would also be useful to identify relevant personality variables that strengthen the positive effects of multiple roles. The findings from the stress literature suggest that locus of control and self-efficacy may contribute to role enhancement both independently as well as interactively with work and family characteristics. Models of work–family dynamics need to incorporate relevant environmental and personality variables that facilitate the examination of conflicts, complementarities, and role enhancement concurrently within a single study.
4. Narrow focus of research on gender differences in work–family relationships 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. However, the results are inconclusive and do not provide consistent evidence of gender differences in work– family experiences and outcomes. Some studies have found that women experience more conflict than men (Frone et al., 1992b; Hammer et al., 1997; Wiersma, 1990; Williams & Alliger, 1994), but surprisingly they report similar levels of job and family satisfaction as men. A number of studies have reported no differences in the psychological involvement of men and women in work (Bedeian, Burke, & Moffet, 1988; Blanchard-Fields, Chen, & Hebert, 1997; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone & Rice, 1987; Loerch, Russell, & Rush, 1989; Voydanoff, 1980). Despite espoused egalitarian values by a growing number of dual-earner men, the genderbased division of labor in the home persists due to societal expectations of gender-appropriate role behavior within the family as well as in the workplace. A number of studies have reported statistically significant relationships of gender with job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, flexibility), work experience, and family involvement. This suggests that it may be more useful to examine not only whether there are gender differences in role pressures, but also attempt to determine how gender in conjunction with other variables influences individuals’ work and family outcomes. A promising line of inquiry pursued by some researchers focuses on the indirect or mediational effects of gender through its effects on work and family experiences. For example, Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinnowitz, Bedeian, and Mossholder (1989) found that the negative effect of wife’s employment on husband’s well being was mediated by the reduced time commitment to work of the husband (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone et al., 1992a).
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
305
Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) found that family responsibilities (e.g., parenthood, the presence of a preschool child) had a stronger negative impact on the career success of women than that of men. The greater family responsibilities shouldered by women tended to detract from career involvement, which in turn curtailed their career success. Given the gendered nature of work organizations and the persistence of gender-based role expectations, it is important to examine the mediational effects of gender (through decreased career involvement) as well as moderator effects to better understand the role of gender in work– family dynamics. A similar approach could be used to determine whether—and why—there are gender differences in role enhancement. Are women more likely to used work-related resources to strengthen the quality of their family lives, and are men more inclined to use family-related resources to enrich their work life? In order to test hypotheses about gender differences and similarities in role enhancement, well-articulated theories of role enhancement need to be integrated with recent research on gender dynamics. Equally important is the need to develop models that recognize and incorporate the variations in women’s career processes and career paths compared to the linear model of men’s careers. This type of research on conflict and enhancement could discover that although there are substantial gender differences in work–family relationships, there are also considerable within-gender variations as well. For example, Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) found that men and women in their sample did not differ in the number of hours worked per week. However, when parental status entered the picture, there were clear variations in work hours for women; mothers worked fewer hours than other groups of women (and substantially fewer hours than fathers). Thus, it is not gender per se that influenced time involvement in work, but rather gender in combination with parental responsibilities.
5. Overemphasis on intact nuclear families and exclusion of nontraditional families The dramatic and far reaching changes in family structure and the demographic composition of the workforce during the past 25 years are frequently mentioned as key factors in the rationale for the growing research interest in the work–family interface. The continuing influx of women into the workforce (especially married women with children), and the growing proportion of dual-earner couples have reduced the traditional family to minority status (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). Less than 15% of households in the United States fit the profile of the traditional family consisting of a married single-earner male with a nonemployed wife and children. Yet the work–family literature still treats the traditional nuclear family as the norm or point of reference for examining work–family linkages. 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. The segments of the contemporary workforce may be subject to unique work –family pressures, while having possibly fewer sources of support. The underrepresentation of these
306
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
groups of individuals with potentially different types of work–family pressures represents a major gap in work–family research and in our knowledge. This narrow view of what constitutes a family has important implications for the study of social support from family members. The supportiveness of family members has long been considered a valuable interpersonal resource that can augment individuals’ personal resources in managing the conflicting demands and responsibilities of work and family roles (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986, 1994, 1999). In light of the conceptualization of family as consisting of only the nuclear family of creation, most of the research on social support in relation to work–family conflict has focused on the support available or received from the spouse or partner. Data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that relatives other than parents care for nearly 20% of the children under age 6 whose mothers are employed. However, members of the extended family (including the family of origin, such as parent or siblings) have rarely been included in studies on the role of social support in mitigating the adverse effects of work–family conflict. Thus, it is very likely that the amount of support that is available or received from all family sources is understated in the previous research. This may partly explain the widespread failure to confirm the hypothesized positive buffering effects of social support (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992). It is possible that it is the adequacy of the total amount of support from all sources rather than that provided by single source that makes the difference in realizing the expected benefits of support. Future research, therefore, should be based on samples that either include individuals from a wide variety of family structures or that focus exclusively on one subgroup (e.g., divorced mothers) that is underrepresented in the work–family literature. The concept of family should be defined broadly to include families of origin and families of creation, and a variety of potential support providers should be studied. This approach would not only enable us to understand the factors that produce conflict and integration for socially important (and growing) segments of society, but will also provide an opportunity to examine a broader network of social support than is currently examined in much of the research.
6. Focus on the individual level of analysis and limited research examining work–family relationships at the couple level Dual–earner relationships have been described as social systems in which both partners’ work and family roles are interrelated. Theoretical models of stress and work–family role dynamics (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986; Gupta & Jenkins, 1985) have proposed that the potential for conflict, stress, and strain is heightened among dual–earner couples because the number of interface between work and family is greatly increased. Each partner’s work and family experiences and outcomes are influenced by his or her own work and family variables, as well as those of the partner (Parasuraman, Singh, & Greenhaus, 1997; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Yet much of the empirical research on cross-domain work–family relationships has generally examined within-person effects at the intersection of work and family roles of each partner separately. Even in studies in which parallel information is available for both partners,
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
307
data are typically analyzed at the individual level, focusing on the work and family experiences and outcomes of each partner separately. This is reflected in the individual-level criteria used in most studies to assess career characteristics and role success (e.g., pay, job level, and rate of advancement) and personal success (marital satisfaction). The focus on individual attainments and well being in the work and family domains implies that dual-earner partners make decisions concerning their role in the work and family arenas independently with a view toward maximizing their own personal outcomes. Negligible attention has been directed toward assessing the well-being of the couple or the family as a unit. Two studies show that differences in family structure, i.e., spouse or partner employment and parental status, are associated with differential investment of psychological energy and time commitment to work, which in turn significantly influence individual’s income, salary progression and career advancement (Schneer & Reitman, 1993, 1995). Related research (Parasuraman et al., 1997; Singh, Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 1998) 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. It would be useful to understand how dualearner couples make decisions about the relative priority of each partner’s career and family, and the consequences of these decisions on their career opportunities, and attainments of dual-earner partners, and their relative satisfaction with these outcomes. We can develop a more complete understanding of dual-earner relationships by conducting research that assesses most or all of the variables at the family level of analysis. For example, a researcher interested in the relationship between role priority and career success could classify the families in one of the four following role priority categories: (1) both partners are family oriented; (2) partner A is family oriented and partner B is work oriented; (3) partner A work is oriented and partner B is family oriented; (4) both partners are work oriented. A similar classification of the dependent variable into four career success categories (both partners successful, neither partner successful, one partner successful) could provide a clearer picture of the relationship between different patterns of role involvement and career success.
7. Conclusions and some directions for future research Our analysis of the work–family literature shows that despite the proliferation of research on the work–family interface, important gaps remain in our knowledge and understanding of the pattern of linkages between work and family roles. Guided largely by a conflict/stress perspective of multiple role occupancy based on the assumption of scarcity of time and energy, the scope of inquiry has been narrow, focusing disproportionately on the negative effects of work–family conflict. The research to date has provided consistent evidence of the prevalence of work–family conflict, the antecedents of such conflict, and the adverse effects of chronic conflict on the psychological health and well-being of individuals. The limited research on the potentially positive effects of multiple role occupancy lends some support for the energy expansion–role
308
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
enrichment hypothesis. Although researchers have examined and found positive relationships between work and family variables, we know very little about the factors that contribute to role enhancement and promote favorable attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. We recommend that future research proceed on multiple fronts, focusing on both underresearched and neglected topics in order to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the multifaceted nature of the connections between work and family. The emergence of new concerns and problems accompanying the ongoing changes in jobs, careers, and families (Barling & Sorensen, 1997; Lewis & Cooper, 1988) reinforces the importance of examining the issues from a variety of perspectives. A careful analysis of the issues discussed in the preceding sections leads us to the conclusion that work–family research has proceeded in an atheoretical way. The ambiguities, inconsistencies, and gaps noted in the literature reflect the narrow perspectives that underlie existing research and limit its capacity to adequately explain the connections between work and family. The underlying assumptions have shaped the research questions asked, and influenced the direction and scope of the study. We conclude that the almost exclusive focus on work – family conflict, and the lack of an overarching and integrating theoretical framework represent critical barriers to progress in work–family research. Therefore, we emphasize the need to adopt a systems perspective and view the work–family interface as a joint function of context, process, and person, encompassing environmental factors, situational variables, and individual characteristics. Thus, it is necessary to include a wide range of environmental and situational factors from work, family, and community, and personal characteristics as antecedents of both positive and negative spillover from work to family and from family to work. First and foremost, we need to expand our conceptualization of work to include not only those who are employed full time, but also self-employed persons, contingent workers and those who work part-time. In a similar vein, it is time that we defined the family more broadly to include not only the traditional nuclear family, but also the full range of new family forms prevalent including couples with the same sex partners. While certain work – family experiences and pressures may be common to all workers, others may be specific to particular occupations or types of work arrangements. Comparative studies of such diverse groups of individuals could greatly expand and enrich our understanding of the range of work–family experiences and outcomes. We also need to develop a rich conceptual definition of role enhancement or work–family integration, and determine whether integration is merely the absence of conflict, or is a separate dimension of the work–family interface that is unrelated to conflict, as Kirchmeyer’s (1992a) findings suggest. This is a crucial issue because it will determine the type of measures used to assess work–family integration and the selection of variables thought to be related to integration. Concomitantly, we need to develop and validate additional measures of work–family integration. Although the scale developed by Kirchmeyer was an important first step, it was based exclusively on Sieber’s (1974) approach to the benefits of role accumulation. We urge researchers to develop scales that are based on explicit and comprehensive conceptual definitions of enhancement or integration. Ideally, the scales should assess positive spillover
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
309
in both directions (from work to family and from family to work), and should reflect the underlying dimensionality of the concept. A more systematic examination of psychological individual difference variables may help us understand their contributions to role enhancement as well as work–family conflict. We recommend further examination of the role of personality characteristics such as positive affectivity, extraversion, and self-esteem in empowering individuals to apply the resources derived from one role to enrich life in another role. It is necessary to explore whether personal characteristics enable an individual to aggressively seek support or willingly accept support from one domain to improve his or her quality of life in the other domain. We also need to understand how an individual’s national or subgroup culture influences his or her reaction to work and family role pressures. Future research also needs to examine from whom an individual seeks support in the face of simultaneous work and family pressures. Stoeva et al.’s (submitted for publication) findings raise a number of interesting questions that can be pursued in future research. For example, do high-NA individuals have difficulty finding other people who are willing to provide them with support? Do dispositional traits other than NA affect work–family conflict? Are individual differences in dispositional factors related to the choice or effectiveness of behaviors used to cope with work–family stressors? Finally, more research is necessary to understand the process by which individuals prioritize work and family activities. Do individuals react different to pressures from different role senders within a given domain (manager, peer, customer)? Are women’s decisions about investment of time and energy in the work role more likely to be contingent upon their partners’ involvement and time commitment to work? We hope that fellow researchers interested in gaining a more in-depth understanding of the work–family nexus will find our ideas useful and respond to our call for new research that forges ahead in a number of new directions. We look forward to seeing the results of these explorations. References 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. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1992). How the accounting profession is addressing upward mobility of women and family issues in the workplace. (Brochure). New York: Author. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work – family conflicts among married professional women: evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813 – 837. Barling, J., & Sorensen, D. (1997). Work and family: in search of a relevant research agenda. In C. L. Cooper, & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations ( pp. 157 – 169). New York: Wiley. Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffet, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work – family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475 – 491. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Hebert, C. E. (1997). Interrole conflict as a stage of life stage, gender and gender related personality attributes. Sex Roles, 37, 155 – 174. 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). Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work – family conflict. Human Relations, 37, 425 – 442.
310
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work – family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60 – 74. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168 – 184. 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., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work – family conflict: the effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 45 – 53. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work – family conflicts, gender, and health-related outcomes: a study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 57 – 69. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Antecedents and outcomes of work – family conflict: testing a model of the work – family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65 – 78. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Prevalence of work – family conflict: are boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723 – 729. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1993). Relationships of work – family conflict, gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 545 – 558. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Development and testing an integrative model of the work – family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 249 – 270. George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185 – 213. Googins, B. K. (1997). Shared responsibility for managing work and family relationships: a community perspective. In S. Parasuraman, & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: challenges and choices for a changing world ( pp. 220 – 231). Westport, CT: Quorum. Gould, S., & Werbel, J. D. (1983). Work involvement: a comparison of dual wage earner and single wage earner families. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 313 – 319. 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. (1986). A work – nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequence. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 37 – 60. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1994). Work – family conflict, social support, and well-being. In M. J. Davidson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management: current research issues ( pp. 213 – 229). London: Paul Chapman. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work ( pp. 391 – 412). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2002). When work and family collide: deciding between competing role demands. Organizational behaviour and the Human decision processes (in press). Gupta, N., & Jenkins, D. (1985). Dual career couples. In T. A. Beehr, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations ( pp. 141 – 175). New York: Wiley. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work – family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560 – 568. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work – family conflict in dual earner couples: withinindividual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185 – 203. Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work and family conflicts in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 51 – 75. Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Work force 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indiannapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767 – 782. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151 – 188.
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
311
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek,J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York: Wiley. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Non-work participation and work attitudes: a test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775 – 795. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptions of work-to-work spillover: challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231 – 249. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Work-to-work spillover: a more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28, 531 – 552. Kline, M., & Cowan, P. A. (1989). Re-thinking the connections among ‘‘work’’ and ‘‘family’’ and well being: a model for investigating work and family contexts. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: theory, research, and applications ( pp. 61 – 90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1988). Work – family conflict, policies and the job – life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior – human resource research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139 – 149. Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Stress in dual-career families. In B. A. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work: an annual review ( pp. 139 – 168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: alternative theories and implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 16, 507 – 521. Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationship among family domain variables and work – family conflict for men and women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 283 – 308. MacDermid, S. M. (1998). Research on work and family: firm footholds and new terrain. Presented at the March 1998 Conference on Work and Family, New York. MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 132 – 140. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921 – 936. Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglotco, M. (1995). Work – family conflict and the stress buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178 – 192. Motowidlo, S., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618 – 629. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work family conflict and work – family conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400 – 410. O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272 – 279. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). The changing world of work and family. In S. Parasuraman, & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: challenges and choices for a changing world ( pp. 3 – 13). Westport, CT: Quorum. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339 – 356. Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275 – 300. Parasuraman, S., Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). The influence of self and partner family variables on career development opportunities of professional women and men. In P. Tharenou (Ed.), Best Paper and Abstract Proceedings of the Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, 125 – 129. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabionowitz, S., Bedeion, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives’ employment and husbands’ well being. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 185 – 201. Piotrkowski, C. S., Rapoport, R. N., & Rapoport, R. (1987). Families and work. In M. B. Sussman, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family ( pp. 251 – 283). New York: Plenum.
312
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Repetti, R. L. (1987). Linkages between work and family roles. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and problems: social psychological aspects ( pp. 98 – 127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work – nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155 – 168. Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). Associations among stress-related individual differences. In C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: individual differences in the stress process ( pp. 33 – 66). Chichester, England: Wiley. Schneer, J. A., & Reitman, F. (1993). The impact of gender as managerial careers unfold. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 290 – 315. Schneer, J. S., & Reitman, F. (1995). Effects of alternative family structures on managerial career paths. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 830 – 843. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567 – 578. Singh, R., Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (1998). The influence of family responsibilities, gender, and social support on the career involvement of professionals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Springfield, MA. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions to job characteristics: bias effect or substantive effect? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205 – 214. Spector, P. E., Jex, S. M., & Chen, P. Y. (1995). Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traits with incumbent and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 59 – 65. Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers’ work experience effects children’s behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 221 – 232. Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work – family conflict. Journal of vocational behavior , 60, 1 – 16. Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101 – 112. Voydanoff, P. (1980). Work and family: a review and expanded conceptualization. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: theory, research, and application ( pp. 1 – 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watanabe, S., Takahashi, K., & Minami, T. (1998). The emerging role of diversity and work – family values in a global context. In P. C. Earley, & M. Earley (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology ( pp. 319 – 332). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Watson, D. (1988). When the woman is the boss: the dilemmas of taking charge. Group and Organizational Studies, 13, 168 – 181. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169 – 181. Wiersma, U. J. (1990). Gender differences in job attitude preferences: work – home role conflict and job level as mediating variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 231 – 243. Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work – family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837 – 868. Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organizations ( pp. 1 – 32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research Saroj Parasuraman*, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus Department of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
1. Introduction Social science researchers have devoted considerable attention to examining the interrelationships between work and family. The growing diversity of family structures represented in the workforce—including dual-earner couples, single parents, blended families, and employees with responsibility for elder care—has heightened the relevance of balancing work and family roles for a substantial segment of employed men and women (Googins, 1997; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986, 1994; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). These developments have greatly increased the complexities of the interface between work and family. Against the backdrop of these changes and the projected growth in the diversity of the work force in the new millennium (Johnston & Packer, 1987), it is appropriate to assess the gaps in our knowledge of work–family relationships. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) recently observed that although the literature provides abundant evidence that work and family are interconnected in many ways, the links between the two arenas are more complex than was envisaged initially. In her presentation to the Conference Board on the status of work–family research, MacDermid (1998) concluded that there are many more unanswered questions than those for which we have ‘‘firm footholds.’’ According to Barling & Sorensen (1997), changes in the nature of jobs and organizations, as well as social changes in family structure, have rendered much of the research-based knowledge of the interdependence of work and family outdated. In our view, the empirical research to date has been useful in explaining many of the relationships between work and family domains. The different perspectives from which
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-215-895-1796; fax: +1-215-895-2891. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Parasuraman). 1053-4822/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 5 3 - 4 8 2 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 1
300
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
work–family issues have been studied by researchers in different disciplines have enriched the field, and provided valuable insights into some facets of interdomain work–family relationships. However, variations in the conceptualization, measurement, and treatment of variables across studies have contributed to the discrepant results reported and the incomplete knowledge of work–family connections (Kline & Cowan, 1989; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997; Zedeck, 1992). The uneven research focus on different topics has resulted in overemphasis on certain areas of inquiry, and the neglect or limited attention devoted to others. Consequently, there are critical gaps in the mapping of the multiple linkages among work and family role experiences and outcomes. Our aim in this article is to highlight significant gaps in the research on work–family linkages and draw attention to the major factors that explain the lag in the research, thereby limiting our understanding of the relationships between work and family. Based on a selective and focused review of the relevant literature, we assess the adequacy of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the research and identify key topic areas that have been overlooked or underresearched. We give several examples of the resulting gaps in our knowledge and how they have contributed to the incomplete understanding of potentially important relationships of interest. In this article, we discuss the following gaps: 1. Limited research on role enhancement or the positive connections between work and family, and overemphasis on work–family conflict and its negative consequences. 2. Disproportionate emphasis on environmental and situational factors as the dominant sources of work–family conflict, and relative neglect of individual differences and psychological characteristics as antecedents of conflict and stress. 3. Narrow scope of research on gender differences in work–family experiences and outcomes based on gender-role stereotypes. 4. Narrow research focus on intact nuclear families, and scant attention devoted to the work– family concerns of single parents, blended families, and individuals with significant responsibility for elder care. 5. Overemphasis on the individual level of analysis, and the limited examination of coupleor family-level work–family relationships as well as crossover effects from one partner to the other. We examine each of these research gaps in greater detail in the sections that follow. Based on our analysis of these issues, we call for the development of new, more inclusive theoretical models of work and family that reflect the changing landscape of the workplace and families in the 21st century.
2. Dominance of a conflict perspective and an inadequate examination of work–family integration A conflict perspective has dominated the research on work–family dynamics for the past 25 years (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). According to
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
301
this perspective, the responsibilities and role demands of work and family are assumed to be mutually incompatible. That is to say, the pressures arising from one role interfere with participation in the other role or detract from the quality of life experienced in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). The dominance of the conflict/stress perspective in work–family research stems from a scarcity hypothesis, which assumes that time and energy are fixed, and that individuals who participate in multiple roles inevitably experience conflict between the roles (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). This theoretical explanation has been reinforced by frequent observations of individuals who are struggling to balance their work and family responsibilities, and of firms and professions that suffer high turnover as a consequence of their employees’ work–family stress (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1992). Despite this negative emphasis, the vast body of research on work and family has produced valuable insights into the work–family interface. Much of the research has focused on the determinants of work–family conflict, such as time-related pressures, stressors in the work or family domains, and high levels of psychological involvement in work or family life (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Aryee, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996). The consequences of work–family conflict have also been investigated widely. High levels of conflict have been found to produce dissatisfaction and distress within the work and family domains (Frone et al., 1997; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Parasuraman et al., 1996), limit one’s overall quality of life (Higgins et al., 1992; Rice, Frone, & McFarlin, 1992), and also to be associated with dysfunctional social behaviors (Frone, Russsell, & Barnes, 1996; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1993; MacEwen & Barling, 1994; Stewart & Barling, 1996). Recent work–family research shows increased methodological sophistication, and a move toward providing more precise conceptual definitions of constructs. Growing attention has been devoted to examining the dimensionality of work–family conflict, and the development of precise measures to delineate the direction of the interference between work and family roles. The findings indicate that in some instances work interferes with family life (work-tofamily conflict), and in other situations (family-to-work conflict), family responsibilities interfere with life at work (Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992b; Frone et al., 1997; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglotco, 1995; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Generally speaking, work pressures have been found to be the most powerful source of work-to-family conflict, while family pressures are more strongly related to family-to-work conflict (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a; Frone et al., 1997; Judge et al., 1994). 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 & Ozeki, 1988). However, there is scant support for the notion that women are more likely to experience greater family-to-work conflict than men. While the research provides extensive evidence of the negative impact of work–family conflict on individuals’ well being, the positive spillover or mutually enriching effects that
302
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
work and family roles can have on one another have not been as widely or systematically examined (Gould & Werbel, 1983). Marks (1977), Sieber (1974), and others (Piotrkowski, Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987) proposed that participation in multiple roles can be stimulating, and enhance the well being of individuals. Despite the recognition of the possibility of positive spillover between work and family, there is limited empirical research on the role enhancing aspects of multiple roles. Sieber (1974) identified four mechanisms by which multiple role participation can enhance the quality of life. Role privileges involve rights or benefits derived from one role that improve life in another role. Status security refers to the support, comfort, or gratification experienced in a role that promote coping with the challenges of another role. Status enhancement encompasses resources provided by a role that enhance experiences in another role, and personality enrichment involves the development of skills, knowledge, and perspectives in one role that can be applied effectively to another role. These mechanisms reflect positive spillover from one role to another, and have been discussed by various scholars under different names (Crouter, 1984; Kanter, 1977; Piotrkowski et al., 1987; Repetti, 1987). Based on Sieber’s (1974) concepts, Kirchmeyer developed measures to assess positive spillover (enhancement) and negative spillover (conflict) from family to work. In a series of studies across different samples, Kirchmeyer (1992a, 1992b, 1993) found that positive spillover from family to work was more prevalent than negative spillover. She also found that conflict and enhancement were independent dimensions of the work–family interface. These findings indicate the need to examine the positive linkages between work and family lives in theoretically grounded research programs, and lay the foundation to pursue this line of inquiry more extensively. In another stream of research, Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) identified three critical dimensions of role membership that determine whether work and family are allies (representing enrichment) or enemies (representing conflict): (1) the specific experiences encountered in a role, (2) the level of involvement invested in a role, and (3) the attitudinal reactions to participation in a role. Based on their study of over 800 business school alumni, Friedman and Greenhaus conclude that experiences, involvement, and attitudes in one role produce opportunities, competence, involvement, and attitudes in another role, and thereby determine whether work and family are allies or enemies. These findings suggest the possibility that work and family roles may conflict in certain respects, and enrich each other in other respects. It follows from this that if the extent of enrichment exceeds the level of work–family conflict experienced, the overall level of well being of the focal individual would be enhanced. Despite these promising beginnings, there are a number of gaps in our knowledge of the positive connections between work and family that raise important questions awaiting future research. For example, it would be instructive to know whether enhancement or integration and conflict have common or unique antecedents. It would also be useful to assess the outcomes of integration compared to the indicators of stress. Is there a greater tendency for work to strengthen family or for family to strengthen work, or does it depend on situational factors? Answers to these questions call for the need to develop and test well-grounded theoretical models of work–family integration.
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
303
3. Limited research on individual differences in reactions to work–family pressures Based on Kahn et al.’s (1964) influential model of the role-sending, role-receiving, and the role enactment process, much of the work–family research has focused on environmental and situational variables and role pressures from multiple role senders in generating work– family conflict. Although models of work–family dynamics have recognized the role of individual differences in appraisal of the environment and reactions to conflicting role pressures, empirical research on the demographic and personality correlates of work–family conflict is limited to a handful of studies (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Parasuraman et al., 1996). According to Watanabe, Takahashi, and Minami (1998), individuals, guided by their personal characteristics, not only interpret and react to a situation, but also proactively shape the situation. Recent studies demonstrate the relevance of dispositional factors in explaining subtle nuances in the experience of work –family conflict. Dispositional traits are stable and consistent ways of thinking, feeling, or acting that determine how individuals appraise their environments (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Negative affectivity (Watson, 1988) or NA is among the most frequently studied dispositional traits in stress research (Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1991). NA represents a general tendency to view the world negatively. High NA individuals find themselves in stressful situations or create situations that become stressful (George, 1992; Motowildo, Packard, & Manning, 1986; Spector, Fox, & Katwyk, 1999; Spector, Jex, & Chen, 1995). They also tend to experience high levels of distress, depression, nervousness, anxiety, anger, and fear (Watson, 1988). Carlson (1999) found that NA and Type A personality explained significant additional variance in work–family conflict beyond situational variables. In a recent study of senior civil servants in Hong Kong, Stoeva, Chiu, and Greenhaus (2002) found that NA influenced work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict indirectly through its effects on job stress and family stress. The results showed that highNA individuals experienced substantial conflict between work and family roles because they experienced extensive stress in the work and family domains. Moreover, the impact of family stress on family-to-work conflict was stronger for high-NA employees than low-NA employees. Thus, dispositional factors can influence work–family conflict experienced by individuals through the high levels of stress engendered and by exacerbating the impact of such stress on work–family conflict. Personal characteristics can also influence work–family conflict through the manner in which individuals decide whether to comply with the demands of a particular role. When faced with simultaneous pressures to participate in a work activity and a family activity, some individuals select the work activity and others choose the family activity. Are these behavioral differences a function of characteristics of the situation or characteristics of the person? The decision to choose among competing work and family activities lays the groundwork for subsequent work–family conflict. Unfortunately, work–family research has rarely examined the conflict produced by this decision because measures of work–family conflict typically assess chronic conflict that is experienced due to the repeated exposure to conflicting role demands across many different situations.
304
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Greenhaus and Powell (2002) recently used a vignette approach to examine the factors that influence as individual’s decision to participate in either a work or family activity when it is impossible to participate in both activities. Consistent with social identity theory (Lobel, 1991; Thoits, 1991), they found that the relative salience of work and family roles (personal factors) had a strong impact on the decision. However, the effect of role salience on the participation decision depended on the external pressure received from managers and spouses (environmental factors) as well as their own level of self-esteem (another personal factor). It would also be useful to identify relevant personality variables that strengthen the positive effects of multiple roles. The findings from the stress literature suggest that locus of control and self-efficacy may contribute to role enhancement both independently as well as interactively with work and family characteristics. Models of work–family dynamics need to incorporate relevant environmental and personality variables that facilitate the examination of conflicts, complementarities, and role enhancement concurrently within a single study.
4. Narrow focus of research on gender differences in work–family relationships 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. However, the results are inconclusive and do not provide consistent evidence of gender differences in work– family experiences and outcomes. Some studies have found that women experience more conflict than men (Frone et al., 1992b; Hammer et al., 1997; Wiersma, 1990; Williams & Alliger, 1994), but surprisingly they report similar levels of job and family satisfaction as men. A number of studies have reported no differences in the psychological involvement of men and women in work (Bedeian, Burke, & Moffet, 1988; Blanchard-Fields, Chen, & Hebert, 1997; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone & Rice, 1987; Loerch, Russell, & Rush, 1989; Voydanoff, 1980). Despite espoused egalitarian values by a growing number of dual-earner men, the genderbased division of labor in the home persists due to societal expectations of gender-appropriate role behavior within the family as well as in the workplace. A number of studies have reported statistically significant relationships of gender with job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, flexibility), work experience, and family involvement. This suggests that it may be more useful to examine not only whether there are gender differences in role pressures, but also attempt to determine how gender in conjunction with other variables influences individuals’ work and family outcomes. A promising line of inquiry pursued by some researchers focuses on the indirect or mediational effects of gender through its effects on work and family experiences. For example, Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinnowitz, Bedeian, and Mossholder (1989) found that the negative effect of wife’s employment on husband’s well being was mediated by the reduced time commitment to work of the husband (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Frone et al., 1992a).
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
305
Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) found that family responsibilities (e.g., parenthood, the presence of a preschool child) had a stronger negative impact on the career success of women than that of men. The greater family responsibilities shouldered by women tended to detract from career involvement, which in turn curtailed their career success. Given the gendered nature of work organizations and the persistence of gender-based role expectations, it is important to examine the mediational effects of gender (through decreased career involvement) as well as moderator effects to better understand the role of gender in work– family dynamics. A similar approach could be used to determine whether—and why—there are gender differences in role enhancement. Are women more likely to used work-related resources to strengthen the quality of their family lives, and are men more inclined to use family-related resources to enrich their work life? In order to test hypotheses about gender differences and similarities in role enhancement, well-articulated theories of role enhancement need to be integrated with recent research on gender dynamics. Equally important is the need to develop models that recognize and incorporate the variations in women’s career processes and career paths compared to the linear model of men’s careers. This type of research on conflict and enhancement could discover that although there are substantial gender differences in work–family relationships, there are also considerable within-gender variations as well. For example, Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) found that men and women in their sample did not differ in the number of hours worked per week. However, when parental status entered the picture, there were clear variations in work hours for women; mothers worked fewer hours than other groups of women (and substantially fewer hours than fathers). Thus, it is not gender per se that influenced time involvement in work, but rather gender in combination with parental responsibilities.
5. Overemphasis on intact nuclear families and exclusion of nontraditional families The dramatic and far reaching changes in family structure and the demographic composition of the workforce during the past 25 years are frequently mentioned as key factors in the rationale for the growing research interest in the work–family interface. The continuing influx of women into the workforce (especially married women with children), and the growing proportion of dual-earner couples have reduced the traditional family to minority status (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). Less than 15% of households in the United States fit the profile of the traditional family consisting of a married single-earner male with a nonemployed wife and children. Yet the work–family literature still treats the traditional nuclear family as the norm or point of reference for examining work–family linkages. 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. The segments of the contemporary workforce may be subject to unique work –family pressures, while having possibly fewer sources of support. The underrepresentation of these
306
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
groups of individuals with potentially different types of work–family pressures represents a major gap in work–family research and in our knowledge. This narrow view of what constitutes a family has important implications for the study of social support from family members. The supportiveness of family members has long been considered a valuable interpersonal resource that can augment individuals’ personal resources in managing the conflicting demands and responsibilities of work and family roles (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986, 1994, 1999). In light of the conceptualization of family as consisting of only the nuclear family of creation, most of the research on social support in relation to work–family conflict has focused on the support available or received from the spouse or partner. Data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that relatives other than parents care for nearly 20% of the children under age 6 whose mothers are employed. However, members of the extended family (including the family of origin, such as parent or siblings) have rarely been included in studies on the role of social support in mitigating the adverse effects of work–family conflict. Thus, it is very likely that the amount of support that is available or received from all family sources is understated in the previous research. This may partly explain the widespread failure to confirm the hypothesized positive buffering effects of social support (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992). It is possible that it is the adequacy of the total amount of support from all sources rather than that provided by single source that makes the difference in realizing the expected benefits of support. Future research, therefore, should be based on samples that either include individuals from a wide variety of family structures or that focus exclusively on one subgroup (e.g., divorced mothers) that is underrepresented in the work–family literature. The concept of family should be defined broadly to include families of origin and families of creation, and a variety of potential support providers should be studied. This approach would not only enable us to understand the factors that produce conflict and integration for socially important (and growing) segments of society, but will also provide an opportunity to examine a broader network of social support than is currently examined in much of the research.
6. Focus on the individual level of analysis and limited research examining work–family relationships at the couple level Dual–earner relationships have been described as social systems in which both partners’ work and family roles are interrelated. Theoretical models of stress and work–family role dynamics (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986; Gupta & Jenkins, 1985) have proposed that the potential for conflict, stress, and strain is heightened among dual–earner couples because the number of interface between work and family is greatly increased. Each partner’s work and family experiences and outcomes are influenced by his or her own work and family variables, as well as those of the partner (Parasuraman, Singh, & Greenhaus, 1997; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Yet much of the empirical research on cross-domain work–family relationships has generally examined within-person effects at the intersection of work and family roles of each partner separately. Even in studies in which parallel information is available for both partners,
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
307
data are typically analyzed at the individual level, focusing on the work and family experiences and outcomes of each partner separately. This is reflected in the individual-level criteria used in most studies to assess career characteristics and role success (e.g., pay, job level, and rate of advancement) and personal success (marital satisfaction). The focus on individual attainments and well being in the work and family domains implies that dual-earner partners make decisions concerning their role in the work and family arenas independently with a view toward maximizing their own personal outcomes. Negligible attention has been directed toward assessing the well-being of the couple or the family as a unit. Two studies show that differences in family structure, i.e., spouse or partner employment and parental status, are associated with differential investment of psychological energy and time commitment to work, which in turn significantly influence individual’s income, salary progression and career advancement (Schneer & Reitman, 1993, 1995). Related research (Parasuraman et al., 1997; Singh, Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 1998) 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. It would be useful to understand how dualearner couples make decisions about the relative priority of each partner’s career and family, and the consequences of these decisions on their career opportunities, and attainments of dual-earner partners, and their relative satisfaction with these outcomes. We can develop a more complete understanding of dual-earner relationships by conducting research that assesses most or all of the variables at the family level of analysis. For example, a researcher interested in the relationship between role priority and career success could classify the families in one of the four following role priority categories: (1) both partners are family oriented; (2) partner A is family oriented and partner B is work oriented; (3) partner A work is oriented and partner B is family oriented; (4) both partners are work oriented. A similar classification of the dependent variable into four career success categories (both partners successful, neither partner successful, one partner successful) could provide a clearer picture of the relationship between different patterns of role involvement and career success.
7. Conclusions and some directions for future research Our analysis of the work–family literature shows that despite the proliferation of research on the work–family interface, important gaps remain in our knowledge and understanding of the pattern of linkages between work and family roles. Guided largely by a conflict/stress perspective of multiple role occupancy based on the assumption of scarcity of time and energy, the scope of inquiry has been narrow, focusing disproportionately on the negative effects of work–family conflict. The research to date has provided consistent evidence of the prevalence of work–family conflict, the antecedents of such conflict, and the adverse effects of chronic conflict on the psychological health and well-being of individuals. The limited research on the potentially positive effects of multiple role occupancy lends some support for the energy expansion–role
308
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
enrichment hypothesis. Although researchers have examined and found positive relationships between work and family variables, we know very little about the factors that contribute to role enhancement and promote favorable attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. We recommend that future research proceed on multiple fronts, focusing on both underresearched and neglected topics in order to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the multifaceted nature of the connections between work and family. The emergence of new concerns and problems accompanying the ongoing changes in jobs, careers, and families (Barling & Sorensen, 1997; Lewis & Cooper, 1988) reinforces the importance of examining the issues from a variety of perspectives. A careful analysis of the issues discussed in the preceding sections leads us to the conclusion that work–family research has proceeded in an atheoretical way. The ambiguities, inconsistencies, and gaps noted in the literature reflect the narrow perspectives that underlie existing research and limit its capacity to adequately explain the connections between work and family. The underlying assumptions have shaped the research questions asked, and influenced the direction and scope of the study. We conclude that the almost exclusive focus on work – family conflict, and the lack of an overarching and integrating theoretical framework represent critical barriers to progress in work–family research. Therefore, we emphasize the need to adopt a systems perspective and view the work–family interface as a joint function of context, process, and person, encompassing environmental factors, situational variables, and individual characteristics. Thus, it is necessary to include a wide range of environmental and situational factors from work, family, and community, and personal characteristics as antecedents of both positive and negative spillover from work to family and from family to work. First and foremost, we need to expand our conceptualization of work to include not only those who are employed full time, but also self-employed persons, contingent workers and those who work part-time. In a similar vein, it is time that we defined the family more broadly to include not only the traditional nuclear family, but also the full range of new family forms prevalent including couples with the same sex partners. While certain work – family experiences and pressures may be common to all workers, others may be specific to particular occupations or types of work arrangements. Comparative studies of such diverse groups of individuals could greatly expand and enrich our understanding of the range of work–family experiences and outcomes. We also need to develop a rich conceptual definition of role enhancement or work–family integration, and determine whether integration is merely the absence of conflict, or is a separate dimension of the work–family interface that is unrelated to conflict, as Kirchmeyer’s (1992a) findings suggest. This is a crucial issue because it will determine the type of measures used to assess work–family integration and the selection of variables thought to be related to integration. Concomitantly, we need to develop and validate additional measures of work–family integration. Although the scale developed by Kirchmeyer was an important first step, it was based exclusively on Sieber’s (1974) approach to the benefits of role accumulation. We urge researchers to develop scales that are based on explicit and comprehensive conceptual definitions of enhancement or integration. Ideally, the scales should assess positive spillover
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
309
in both directions (from work to family and from family to work), and should reflect the underlying dimensionality of the concept. A more systematic examination of psychological individual difference variables may help us understand their contributions to role enhancement as well as work–family conflict. We recommend further examination of the role of personality characteristics such as positive affectivity, extraversion, and self-esteem in empowering individuals to apply the resources derived from one role to enrich life in another role. It is necessary to explore whether personal characteristics enable an individual to aggressively seek support or willingly accept support from one domain to improve his or her quality of life in the other domain. We also need to understand how an individual’s national or subgroup culture influences his or her reaction to work and family role pressures. Future research also needs to examine from whom an individual seeks support in the face of simultaneous work and family pressures. Stoeva et al.’s (submitted for publication) findings raise a number of interesting questions that can be pursued in future research. For example, do high-NA individuals have difficulty finding other people who are willing to provide them with support? Do dispositional traits other than NA affect work–family conflict? Are individual differences in dispositional factors related to the choice or effectiveness of behaviors used to cope with work–family stressors? Finally, more research is necessary to understand the process by which individuals prioritize work and family activities. Do individuals react different to pressures from different role senders within a given domain (manager, peer, customer)? Are women’s decisions about investment of time and energy in the work role more likely to be contingent upon their partners’ involvement and time commitment to work? We hope that fellow researchers interested in gaining a more in-depth understanding of the work–family nexus will find our ideas useful and respond to our call for new research that forges ahead in a number of new directions. We look forward to seeing the results of these explorations. References 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. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1992). How the accounting profession is addressing upward mobility of women and family issues in the workplace. (Brochure). New York: Author. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work – family conflicts among married professional women: evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813 – 837. Barling, J., & Sorensen, D. (1997). Work and family: in search of a relevant research agenda. In C. L. Cooper, & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations ( pp. 157 – 169). New York: Wiley. Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffet, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work – family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475 – 491. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Hebert, C. E. (1997). Interrole conflict as a stage of life stage, gender and gender related personality attributes. Sex Roles, 37, 155 – 174. 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). Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work – family conflict. Human Relations, 37, 425 – 442.
310
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work – family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60 – 74. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168 – 184. 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., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work – family conflict: the effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 45 – 53. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work – family conflicts, gender, and health-related outcomes: a study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 57 – 69. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Antecedents and outcomes of work – family conflict: testing a model of the work – family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65 – 78. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Prevalence of work – family conflict: are boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723 – 729. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1993). Relationships of work – family conflict, gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 545 – 558. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Development and testing an integrative model of the work – family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 249 – 270. George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185 – 213. Googins, B. K. (1997). Shared responsibility for managing work and family relationships: a community perspective. In S. Parasuraman, & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: challenges and choices for a changing world ( pp. 220 – 231). Westport, CT: Quorum. Gould, S., & Werbel, J. D. (1983). Work involvement: a comparison of dual wage earner and single wage earner families. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 313 – 319. 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. (1986). A work – nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequence. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 37 – 60. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1994). Work – family conflict, social support, and well-being. In M. J. Davidson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management: current research issues ( pp. 213 – 229). London: Paul Chapman. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work ( pp. 391 – 412). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2002). When work and family collide: deciding between competing role demands. Organizational behaviour and the Human decision processes (in press). Gupta, N., & Jenkins, D. (1985). Dual career couples. In T. A. Beehr, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations ( pp. 141 – 175). New York: Wiley. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work – family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560 – 568. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work – family conflict in dual earner couples: withinindividual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185 – 203. Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work and family conflicts in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 51 – 75. Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Work force 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indiannapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767 – 782. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151 – 188.
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
311
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek,J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York: Wiley. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Non-work participation and work attitudes: a test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775 – 795. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptions of work-to-work spillover: challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231 – 249. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Work-to-work spillover: a more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28, 531 – 552. Kline, M., & Cowan, P. A. (1989). Re-thinking the connections among ‘‘work’’ and ‘‘family’’ and well being: a model for investigating work and family contexts. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: theory, research, and applications ( pp. 61 – 90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1988). Work – family conflict, policies and the job – life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior – human resource research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139 – 149. Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Stress in dual-career families. In B. A. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work: an annual review ( pp. 139 – 168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: alternative theories and implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 16, 507 – 521. Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationship among family domain variables and work – family conflict for men and women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 283 – 308. MacDermid, S. M. (1998). Research on work and family: firm footholds and new terrain. Presented at the March 1998 Conference on Work and Family, New York. MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 132 – 140. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921 – 936. Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglotco, M. (1995). Work – family conflict and the stress buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178 – 192. Motowidlo, S., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618 – 629. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work family conflict and work – family conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400 – 410. O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272 – 279. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). The changing world of work and family. In S. Parasuraman, & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: challenges and choices for a changing world ( pp. 3 – 13). Westport, CT: Quorum. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339 – 356. Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275 – 300. Parasuraman, S., Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). The influence of self and partner family variables on career development opportunities of professional women and men. In P. Tharenou (Ed.), Best Paper and Abstract Proceedings of the Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, 125 – 129. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabionowitz, S., Bedeion, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives’ employment and husbands’ well being. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 185 – 201. Piotrkowski, C. S., Rapoport, R. N., & Rapoport, R. (1987). Families and work. In M. B. Sussman, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family ( pp. 251 – 283). New York: Plenum.
312
S. Parasuraman, J.H. Greenhaus / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 299–312
Repetti, R. L. (1987). Linkages between work and family roles. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and problems: social psychological aspects ( pp. 98 – 127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work – nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155 – 168. Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). Associations among stress-related individual differences. In C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: individual differences in the stress process ( pp. 33 – 66). Chichester, England: Wiley. Schneer, J. A., & Reitman, F. (1993). The impact of gender as managerial careers unfold. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 290 – 315. Schneer, J. S., & Reitman, F. (1995). Effects of alternative family structures on managerial career paths. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 830 – 843. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567 – 578. Singh, R., Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (1998). The influence of family responsibilities, gender, and social support on the career involvement of professionals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Springfield, MA. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions to job characteristics: bias effect or substantive effect? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205 – 214. Spector, P. E., Jex, S. M., & Chen, P. Y. (1995). Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traits with incumbent and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 59 – 65. Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers’ work experience effects children’s behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 221 – 232. Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work – family conflict. Journal of vocational behavior , 60, 1 – 16. Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101 – 112. Voydanoff, P. (1980). Work and family: a review and expanded conceptualization. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: theory, research, and application ( pp. 1 – 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watanabe, S., Takahashi, K., & Minami, T. (1998). The emerging role of diversity and work – family values in a global context. In P. C. Earley, & M. Earley (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology ( pp. 319 – 332). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Watson, D. (1988). When the woman is the boss: the dilemmas of taking charge. Group and Organizational Studies, 13, 168 – 181. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 169 – 181. Wiersma, U. J. (1990). Gender differences in job attitude preferences: work – home role conflict and job level as mediating variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 231 – 243. Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work – family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837 – 868. Zedeck, S. (1992). Introduction: exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organizations ( pp. 1 – 32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.