Work–family conflict, perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals

Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j v b

Work–family conflict, perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals Wendy Jean Casper a,⁎, Christopher Harris b, Amy Taylor-Bianco c, Julie Holliday Wayne d a b c d

University of Texas at Arlington, Department of Management, 701 S. West St., Box 19467, Arlington, TX 76019-0467, USA Tilburg University, Netherlands Ohio University, USA Wake Forrest University, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 October 2010 Available online 5 May 2011 Keywords: Work–family conflict National culture Supervisor support Organizational commitment Brazil

a b s t r a c t The current study examines a variety of relationships pertaining to work–family conflict among a sample of Brazilian professionals, in order to shed light on work–family issues in this cultural context. Drawing from the cultural values of Brazil and social identity theory, we examine the relationships of two directions of work–family conflict (work interference with family and family interference with work), perceived supervisor support, and sex with affective and continuance organizational commitment. Work interference with family was related to higher continuance commitment and perceived supervisor support was related to higher affective commitment. An interaction between family interference with work and perceived supervisor support predicting continuance commitment revealed a reverse buffering effect such that the relationship was stronger under conditions of high support. Results are discussed within the Brazilian context. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

As hours worked and women's workforce participation increase globally, employees around the world experience more conflict between work and family roles. The growth in dual professional couples working for multinational firms has also led to work–home conflict in many parts of the world (Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004). Despite the global importance of work– family issues and calls for studies in distinct cultural contexts (Poelmans, O'Driscoll, & Beham, 2005), work–family research has mainly been conducted in Anglo societies. In fact, a review found that 75% of work–family studies used samples of only US workers (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007). The most widely researched topic in work–family literature is work–family conflict (WFC) and much research has examined outcomes of WFC in US samples (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). However, little research has explored the consequences of WFC in non-Anglo cultures (Poelmans et al., 2005). Today's global environment requires that multinational firms adapt to the cultures of the countries in which they operate. As such, it is important to understand the work–family issues of culturally diverse groups around the world. Such knowledge is important because we cannot rely on existing work–family research to provide recommendations for other legal and cultural contexts (Casper & Swanberg, 2011). Thus, the overarching goal of the current study is to explore the work–family interface in a sample of Brazilian professionals, responding to calls for research in non-Anglo cultures (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Burnett, 2007; Spector et al., 2007; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Brazil is an important context in which to study work–family conflict for a number of reasons. First, family is considered the most central element of Brazilian culture (Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005). Brazil also has a rapidly growing economy and is now the world's eighth largest economy by nominal GDP and the ninth largest by purchasing power parity (June 2010, World Fact Book). In economic terms, Brazil is known as one of the big four BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that Goldman Sachs argues will become among the most dominant world economies by 2050 (O'Neill, 2007). Coinciding with the countries' economic progression is the growth in women's employment, dual-earner couples, and single parent families with female heads of ⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 817 272 3122. E-mail address: [email protected] (W.J. Casper). 0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.011

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

641

household (Lobel, 2009). Between 1985 and 2002 women's participation in the workforce in Brazil grew from 32 to 40% (Bruschini, 2007) with women constituting 56.5% of people employed in Brazil in 2005 (IBGE, 2005a). All of these conditions make Brazil a key country to explore the work–family interface. The current study extends past research in several ways. First, we explore the relationship between WFC and work outcomes using an understudied sample of Brazilian professionals. This is important because most work–family research has been conducted in Anglo countries and the few studies of WFC in non-Anglo countries have most often been conducted in Asia (e.g., Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000). Second, drawing from an understanding of the sex role norms for men and women in Brazil, we explore sex differences in work–family conflict. Third, we explore whether experiences of work–family conflict among Brazilian professionals relate to their organizational commitment. We do so because a study of the world's ten largest economies indicates that Brazilians are the most committed to their organizations (79%), ranking above the US at sixth (67%) (Towers Perrin, 2007). Whereas research in Anglo cultures suggests that work–family conflict is negatively related to organizational commitment (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Casper, Martin, Buffardi, & Erdwins, 2002), no studies we are aware of have examined commitment as an outcome of WFC in Latin cultures. Given Brazil's notably high organizational commitment relative to other countries, we deemed it a relevant work attitude to consider. Fourth, the only research we are aware of on WFC in Latin cultures has focused on work interference with family exclusively (Spector et al., 2007). Because of the centrality of family in the Brazilian culture (Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005), one should also consider whether family interference with work relates to Brazilian professionals' work attitudes. Finally, in the US, research strongly suggests that support, particularly from one's supervisor, serves a buffering role in the job stressor–strain relationship (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). In the paternalistic, bureaucratic, hierarchical structures that prevail in Brazil (Matos, 1996), perceived supervisor support is likely important to whether WIF and FIW influence a worker's commitment to his/her organization. In short, the goals of our study are to use a unique sample of Brazilian professionals (i) to examine sex differences in the experiences of FIW and WIF, (ii) to explore the influences of FIW, WIF, and perceived supervisor support on organizational commitment, (iii) to make informed predictions about these relationships in a Brazilian context, and (iv) to examine whether similar relationships are found as have been reported previously for Anglo samples (Allen et al., 2000; Casper et al., 2002). Thus, our study examines the generalizability of work– family relationships beyond an Anglo context and addresses the work–family concerns of an understudied population. Next, we contextualize the study by providing a description of the Brazilian legal, public policy, structural, and cultural environment which likely influence the work–family experiences of Brazilian professionals. From this backdrop, we develop hypotheses about sex differences in work–family interference. We also hypothesize about the relationship of WIF and FIW to organizational commitment and the moderating roles of sex and supervisor support. Finally, we describe our methodology, results, and discuss our findings and their implications. Contextual influences on Brazilians' work–family experiences There are numerous legal, public policy, and other contextual factors likely to influence the work–family experiences of Brazilian professionals. In terms of public policy, the Brazilian Constitution guarantees maternity leave of 120 days and a 2008 law extended the leave to up to 6 months, but the additional 60 days is optional for private companies (IBGE, 2009). The Constitution also guarantees 5 days for paternity leave. Thus, there is more supportive public policy for family in Brazil than in the US, where most work–family samples are gathered. Although there are more women in the Brazilian workplace than there are men (IBGE, 2005b), employed women spend significantly more time each week in household work (21.8 h) than do men (9.1 h). In fact, a 2001 study found that 57% of Brazilian women indicated that their male partner had done no housework at all in the week prior to the interview (Lobel, 2009). Moreover, in 2009 (IBGE, 2009), men earned significantly more money (approximately $575.00 per month in US dollars) than did women (approximately $325.00 per month). Given disparities in income and amount of time spent in household work, Brazilian men and women may differ in their work–family experiences. Substantial research, mostly conducted in Anglo societies, suggests sex influences work–family relationships (Eby et al., 2005). For instance, women face greater work–family stress than do men (Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001) and have more responsibility for dependent care (Kossek, 1990). Sex differences in work–family experiences should be greater in cultures with low gender egalitarianism (Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009; Emrich, Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2004), and Brazil has been noted for low gender egalitarianism (Lobel, 2009). For instance, the women's economic opportunity index ranked the US #15 and Brazil #38 for women's equality, indicating the lower gender egalitarianism in Brazil relative to cultures where most work–family research has been conducted (Economic Intelligence Unit, 2010). In Brazil, women's primary role is caretaker of children and husbands rather than an employee outside the home (Olivas-Lujan et al., 2009). Despite the fact that Brazilian women are now more educated than previously, they lag significantly behind men in career attainment (Santos, 2006). Women hold only 21% of the management positions in the private sector and tend to be relegated to community and social services, cultural services, clinical services, and hospitals (Santos, 2006). In sum, due to traditional sex role expectations, Brazilian women are seen to have a primary duty to family, and men to have primary responsibility for work (Olivas-Lujan et al., 2009). Thus, women should report higher FIW due to family caretaking, and men should report higher WIF, due to focus on work. Hypothesis 1a. Women will report more FIW than will men. Hypothesis 1b. Men will report more WIF than will women.

642

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

Cultural influences on work-family experiences In addition to sex role norms and structural features of work and family in Brazil, cultural factors also influence the work-family interference. One characteristic that varies across cultures is individualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Societies which focus predominately on the self, valuing independence and achievement, are individualistic (Markus & Kitayama, 1998), whereas those that focus on connections with others are collective (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Collectivism can take several forms, and the form most pertinent to work-family issues is what has been labeled in-group collectivism, which refers to the degree to which individuals express (and should express) pride in, loyalty to, and cohesiveness in their organization or family units (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). In societies that are high on in-group collectivism the family unit is larger and includes extended family members (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins) whom one can draw on for support to meet family and work demands (Falicov, 2001; Ling & Powell, 2001). In contrast, family units are smaller in societies low on in-group collectivism. In these cultures, extended family members often live far away, and relationships are more distant. As such, people often have only their spouse to draw on for family support (Powell et al., 2009). The US, where most work-family samples are drawn from (Casper et al., 2007), is highly individualistic and the family unit typically includes only a spouse and children (Hofstede, 1984). Latin American societies are collective (Friedrich, Mesquita, & Hatum, 2006; Hofstede, 1984) and Brazil is no exception (Tanure & Duarte, 2005). Like other societies high on in-group collectivism, the family unit is large in Brazil, and people often cohabitate with extended family members such as parents and siblings, in addition to a spouse and children. Latin societies like Brazil have been noted for the value placed on family (StoneRomero, Stone, & Salas, 2003) and family is said to be the most central element of Brazilian culture (Carlo, Roesch, Knight, & Koller, 2001; Gouveia, Albuquerque, Clemente, & Espinosa, 2002; Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005). Thus, cultural expectations prescribe that Brazilians place family above work. In contrast, Anglo societies often prioritize work more highly, and it is accepted and even expected to place work ahead of family (Lobel & Kossek, 1996). Collectivism and the relative importance of work and family are likely to influence work–family experiences, as described shortly. Another cultural dimension that may relate to the work–family interface is the degree to which specificity/diffusion within a culture results in greater segmentation or integration of personal and private roles (Powell et al., 2009). Specific cultures support a stronger boundary to segment work (public) and family (private), whereas diffuse cultures support greater work–family integration. Collective societies are often diffuse and individualistic societies are often specific (Spector et al., 2007). Diffuse and collective cultures often view work as a contribution to family, whereas specific and individualistic societies often view work and family roles as competing (Powell et al., 2009; Spector et al., 2007). Brazil has been noted to be a diffuse culture as a result of their emergence from a farming economy where family worked together, suggesting work–family boundaries may be more permeable (Tanure & Duarte, 2005). Below, we explain how Brazil's culture may shape work–family experiences of Brazilian professionals. Studies of work–family issues in Brazil A few previous studies have examined work–family relationships in cultures other than the US, but most have been in Asian cultures (Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Yang et al., 2000). Several authors have noted the importance of work–family issues in Latin cultures such as Brazil, and called for studies of work–family issues in Latin cultures (Edlund, 2007; Lobel, 2009; Sorj, Fontes, Carusi, & Quintaes, 2004; Spector et al., 2007). The few studies that have explored work–family issues in Latin cultures examined country clusters (Hill et al., 2004; Spector et al., 2004, 2007). However, exploring individual Latin countries is important, because despite similarities in Latin countries, there is variance due to distinct cultural and legal environments, and relationships may not be uniform. Of all the South American countries, Brazil is the leading economic power (Pearson & Stephan, 1998) with a large presence of multinational corporations (Lobel, 2009). Given the large increase in women's participation in the workforce (Bruschini, 2007) and the rapid growth in dual-career families and single mother households in Brazil (Lobel, 2009), the study of work–family conflict in Brazil is timely and important. The few studies which have examined work–family issues in Latin cultures have yielded mixed findings with respect to whether findings from Anglo cultures generalize to Latin cultures. Hill et al. (2004) examined how WFC relates to work–family fit and job satisfaction across 48 countries, and found that relationships are generalized across four distinct cultural groups (US, Eastern countries, Western developing counties, and Western affluent countries). In contrast, other studies have found that work–family relationships differ across cultures. For instance, Spector et al. (2004) found that the relationship between work hours and work–family stress was stronger in Anglo cultures than Latin cultures. In addition, Spector et al. (2007) found that WIF was more strongly related to job dissatisfaction and turnover intentions in Anglo than Latin cultures. The present study extends past research by examining other commonly studied work–family relationships (namely, work–family conflict and organizational commitment) and whether results obtained in the present study are comparable to patterns from previous findings using US samples. If so, scientist–practitioners can have greater confidence that conclusions from past research can be applied to Brazilian professionals. If results differ, different relationships and processes exist and as such, we cannot readily extrapolate from findings using US samples. Work–family conflict and organizational commitment Work–family conflict is “a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Conflict can originate in either domain, such that work can interfere with family (WIF) or family can interfere with work (FIW; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). WIF and FIW are related but distinct constructs which relate differently to outcomes (Gignac, Kelloway, & Gottlieb, 1996; Frone, Russel, & Cooper, 1992).

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

643

Past work with US samples has linked work–family conflict to distinct dimensions of organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that with all forms of commitment, individuals are more inclined to stay with their organization, but that the reasons they stay are different and have unique implications for employee engagement and job performance. Affective commitment reflects emotional attachment — employees stay at the organization because they want to. Continuance commitment is employee motivation to remain with an organization because they have to. Normative commitment denotes moral obligation such that workers remain because they feel they ought to. Despite Meyer and Allen's (1997) model of three types of commitment, normative commitment has been found to be highly related to affective commitment (Allen & Allen, 1996), and past studies of work–family conflict and commitment have focused on these two most distinct dimensions of commitment: affective and continuance commitment (Casper et al., 2002). Focusing on these two types of commitment speaks not only to whether workers are likely to remain but whether they do so because they want to (affective commitment) or because they have to (continuance commitment). This is important because, in Anglo samples, affective commitment is positively and continuance commitment is negatively related to performance (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffine, & Jackson, 1989). Affective, but not continuance commitment, has also been linked to organizational citizenship behavior in Anglo samples (Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995). In short, research from Anglo samples suggests that it is beneficial for organizations to enhance affective but not continuance commitment. Past research with US samples has found that WIF negatively relates to affective commitment (Allen et al., 2000; Good, Sisler, & Gentry, 1988; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Streich, Casper, & Salvaggio, 2008) and positively relates to continuance commitment (Casper et al., 2002; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Streich et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovich, and Topolnytsky (2002) found that work interfering with family exhibited a correlation of −.20 with affective commitment, and of .24 with continuance commitment. Thus, existing work–family research conducted in Anglo cultures suggests that WIF is associated with negative consequences in the work domain (e.g., lower affective and higher continuance commitment). Social identity theory and relevant features of the Brazilian culture suggest that WIF is likely to affect organizational commitment for the present sample as well. Specifically, social identity theory suggests that people are more comfortable when highly salient roles interfere with less salient roles (e.g., FIW for Brazilians) than when less salient roles interfere with more salient roles (e.g., WIF for Brazilians), as intrusions into salient roles threaten one's self-concept (Thoits, 1991). Because Brazil is a collective culture in which family is highly valued, when work is viewed as interfering with one's performance and satisfaction in a highly valued role (i.e., family), WIF is likely to generate negative affect toward the source of the interference (i.e., one's job or organization). As such, WIF is likely to generate feelings of less loyalty to the organization, or reduced affective commitment. Moreover, WIF might positively relate to continuance commitment, especially in a Brazilian sample, because when WIF occurs, it threatens one's self-concept (Thoits, 1991). Because of the salience of the family role among Brazilian employees, individuals may engage in efforts to reduce the imposed threat to one's self-concept that WIF generates. One such mechanism for coping with WIF would be to rationalize that one remains in the job out of necessity. Thus, individuals with WIF may cope by reducing their emotional engagement in the originating role (i.e., affective commitment) or by increasing their beliefs that they remain in the role out of necessity (i.e., continuance commitment). Hypothesis 2a. WIF will be negatively related to affective commitment. Hypothesis 2b. WIF will be positively related to continuance commitment. Research on the relationship between FIW and organizational commitment is less well developed than that on WIF. Findings from US samples are mixed with respect to this relationship. Some studies have found a negative relationship between FIW and affective commitment (Netemeyer et al., 1996); others have found no relationship (Casper et al., 2002; O'Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992). The one study we are aware of that examined FIW and continuance commitment found no relationship (Casper et al., 2002). Using social identity theory as a lens through which to explore the Brazilian culture, however, suggests why relationships between FIW and commitment might exist. Individuals invest effort into identities on which they place importance, as suggested by Lobel and St. Clair's (1992) finding that individuals with strong career identities invested more effort into their career than those with weaker career identities. Because Brazilians place high value on family roles, they are likely to invest more heavily in their family roles relative to work roles. When emotion, time, energy, and thought are invested in a particular role (e.g., family), that role may interfere with the other role (e.g., work). Because of the importance of family, when Brazilians perceive that family interferes with their work, they may respond by decreasing the emotion, energy, or time invested in their work role. That is, they want to work less (i.e., lower affective commitment). Furthermore, when people experience FIW, it is likely due to high family role demands (Voydanoff, 2005). When family role demands are high, especially for those who value family, they may feel unable to leave their current organization because their opportunity to change jobs and/or do well in a new job is limited by their family demands. Moreover, members of diffuse cultures such as Brazil are likely to view work as a way to provide for one's family rather than compete with it (Powell et al., 2009). As such, one's perception of family interfering with work may generate feelings of greater need for one's job (i.e., continuance commitment). In sum, the experience of FIW by Brazilian professionals is likely to be associated with less affective and more continuance commitment. Hypothesis 3a. FIW will be negatively related to affective commitment. Hypothesis 3b. FIW will be positively related to continuance commitment.

644

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

Main and moderating effects of perceived supervisor support The work–family conflict–commitment relationship can be conceptualized as a more specific example of the stressor–strain relationship. Past research suggests that social support may both directly mitigate strain and also ameliorate the stressor–strain relationship (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Viswesvaran et al., 1999) and as such, support may directly relate to commitment and reduce the relationship between WFC and commitment. Perceptions of support have been argued to be more important than objective indices because it is perceptions that influence cognitive appraisals of situations (Glazer, 2006). Perceived supervisor support is defined as employees' general views about the degree to which their supervisors value their contribution and care about their well-being (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Social exchange theory suggests that social exchange occurs based on the notion that gestures of good will be reciprocated in the future (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961). Thus, employees who experience good treatment by their organizations are likely to “give back” with more favorable attitudes toward their employer (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, PSS should facilitate positive attitudes toward the organization in general (Levinson, 1965). Consistent with this, studies in Anglo samples have found that PSS positively relates to affective commitment (Gagon & Michael, 2004; Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001). To our knowledge, only one study (Thomas, Bliese, & Jex, 2005) has examined the relationship between PSS and continuance commitment. Using a sample of U.S. Army personnel, there was a positive, but not significant, relationship between PSS and continuance commitment. In a meta-analysis of a related relationship, Meyer et al. (2002) examined satisfaction with supervision and its relationship with continuance commitment and found the correlation was not significant and was negative. Thus, findings from US samples do not appear to support a relationship between supervisor support and continuance commitment. However, the little we do know about the relationship between supervisor support and organizational commitment comes from research in Anglo American cultures, despite the fact that supervisor support may be viewed differently in distinct cultures (Glazer, 2006). Relatedness is of critical importance in Latin American collective cultures, long noted for the importance they place on relationships at work (Sorj et al., 2004; Stone-Romero et al., 2003). This collective orientation of Brazilians may be important to the role that supervisor support plays. The nature of the Brazilian cultural context as being very relational suggests that supervisor support may be important to Brazilian professionals, and thus, PSS is likely related to their organizational commitment. Hypothesis 4a. PSS will positively relate to affective commitment. Hypothesis 4b. PSS will negatively relate to continuance commitment. In addition to a direct effect on commitment, perceived supervisor support may also moderate the relationship between work– family conflict and organizational commitment. Support replenishes depleted resources (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999), and as such, supervisor support may affect the degree to which work–family conflict relates to lower affective and higher continuance commitment. Beehr and Glazer (2001) note that studies in Western samples have typically found that supervisor social support buffered the relationship between stressors and strains, but that studies in non-Western samples have yielded mixed results. More specific to the outcome of interest in the present study, research in Anglo samples has found that support can buffer the relationship between work–family conflict and organizational commitment (Casper et al., 2002). It is not clear whether the moderating effect of support on the stressor–strain relationship should generalize beyond Anglo samples to Brazilians (Beehr & Glazer, 2001). Brazil's cultural values, such as power distance, suggest that supervisor support is likely to be important to employees. Power distance is the extent to which a society accepts unequal distribution of power in institutions (Hofstede, 2001). A similar distinction has been drawn between societies that are more hierarchical or egalitarian (Schwartz, 1999). Brazil has high power distance and is very hierarchical (Hofstede, 1994; Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005; Tanure & Duarte, 2005). Employees in high power distance societies are often reluctant to challenge or disagree with their supervisors (Adsit, London, Crom, & Jones, 1997) and desire more guidance, such as supervisor support, than those in low power distance societies (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). Brazil is also very collective and the combination of high power distance and collectivism makes Brazil a culture where supervisors are likely to exhibit paternalistic leadership (Tanure & Duarte, 2005). Paternalistic leadership is both highly directive and highly supportive (Dickson et al., 2003); paternalistic leaders would likely take care of employees and their families. Because of high power distance and the desire for highly supportive supervision, supervisor support will likely affect the work–family conflict–organizational commitment relationship. Specifically, when more supervisor support is present, the negative effect of WIF on affective commitment should be lessened. Similarly, with increased support, the positive relationship between WIF and continuance commitment should be reduced. Hypothesis 5a. Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between WIF and affective commitment such that, if more support is present, the strength of the negative relationship of WIF with affective commitment will be reduced. Hypothesis 5b. Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between WIF and continuance commitment such that, if more support is present, the strength of the positive relationship of WIF with continuance commitment will be reduced. Hypothesis 6a. Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between FIW and affective commitment such that, if more support is present, the strength of the negative relationship of FIW with affective commitment will be reduced. Hypothesis 6b. Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between FIW and continuance commitment such that, if more support is present, the strength of the positive relationship of FIW with continuance commitment will be reduced.

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

645

Sex as a moderator As already noted, social identity theory argues that intrusions into salient roles pose a threat to one's self-concept, but intrusions into less salient roles do not (Thoits, 1991). Traditional gender roles suggest Brazilian men should have a more salient work identity and women a more salient family identity. Thus, women should perceive WIF as more threatening, and men should perceive FIW as more threatening. This suggests the relationship between WIF and commitment should be stronger for women, whereas the relationship between FIW and commitment should be stronger for men. Hypothesis 7a. The relationship between WIF and affective and continuance commitment will be stronger for women than for men. Hypothesis 7b. The relationship between FIW and affective and continuance commitment will be stronger for men than for women. The study's hypotheses involving the relationships of WIF and FIW with organizational commitment with sex and perceived supervisor support as moderators are depicted in Fig. 1. Method Sample and procedures The sample consisted of 168 Brazilian professionals (i.e., managers, directors, consultants, engineers) who worked full-time in a variety of industries including banking, telecommunication, hospitality, textile, law, automotive, and computers, among others. The participants were attending a 1-week certificate training program in the U.S. as part of their MBA program. During this training session, the Brazilians completed a survey measuring work and family variables. All participants had at least one cohabiting family member, with an average of 2.4 family members cohabiting together. The sample was 70% male. In Brazil, men are more heavily represented in professional positions. In 2004, only 3.9% of employed women were in management, whereas for men the proportion was 5.5% (IBGE, 2005a,b), although access to management occurs more equally in public service than in the private sector. The average age of participants was 36 years and 95% of sample had dependent children. Measures Measures were drawn from past research which provided evidence of their reliability and validity. Although all participants spoke English, as they were attending EMBA classes in English, research has found that when bilingual participants complete surveys in their second language, they are more prone to extreme and socially desirable responses (Gelfland, Raver, & Holcombe, 2002), so the survey was administered in Portuguese. The survey was compiled in English, then translated into Portuguese, and finally, back-translated into English to ensure the equivalence of the English and Portuguese versions of the survey instrument (Brislin, 1980). Two bilingual MBA students were involved in the translation–back translation process. Both students' first language was Portuguese and both spoke fluent English. One student conducted the English to Portuguese translation, and the other the back translation. Reliabilities of all scales were at or above the acceptable .70 level (Cortina, 1993). For all scales, participants responded on a five-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Family interfering with work We measured FIW with 5 items from Netemeyer et al. (1996). A sample item is “The demands of my family interfere with work-related activities.” The alpha coefficient was .75.

Employee Sex Affective Commitment

Work-Family Interference Family-Work Interference

+ Continuance Commitment

+

_

Perceived Supervisor Support

Fig. 1. A summary of the study's hypotheses relating WIF and FIW to organizational commitment with sex and perceived supervisor support as moderators.

646

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

Work interfering with family Five items from Netemeyer et al. (1996) measured WIF. A sample item is “Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me.” The alpha coefficient was .84. Perceived supervisor support Perceived supervisor support was measured with 8 items from Eisenberger et al. (2002). A sample item is “My supervisor cares about my well-being.” The alpha coefficient was .83. Affective organizational commitment Eight items from Meyer and Allen (1984) measured affective commitment. A sample item is “I would be glad to continue working in this company until the end of my career.” Alpha was .72. Continuance organizational commitment Eight items from Meyer and Allen (1984) measured continuance commitment. A sample item is “It would be very difficult for me if I had to leave my job now, even if I wanted.” Alpha was .70. Results Means, standard deviations, and correlations were calculated and are presented in Table 1. First, Table 1 was examined for the main effect hypothesis regarding sex differences in work-family and family-work interference. As can be seen in Table 1, sex was not related to either WIF (r = −.02, p N .05) or FIW (r = −.06, p N .05), indicating no sex differences in either direction of work– family conflict, and failing to support Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Next, Table 2 presents hierarchical regression analyses of sex, WIF, FIW, PSS, and their interactions predicting affective and continuance commitment. For the regression analyses, age, number of cohabiting family members, parental status, and hours spent in both work and family activities each week were entered in block 1 as covariates. The main effects of sex, WIF, FIW, and PSS were entered in block 2, all two way interactions were entered in block 3, and the three way interaction was entered in the final block. Of the covariates, only number of family members cohabiting predicted significant variance in affective commitment, such that participants who lived with more family members reported higher affective organizational commitment (beta = .21, p b .05). Examining the next block of the analysis, neither WIF nor FIW was related to affective commitment (beta = .00 and −.14, respectively, p N .05), failing to support Hypothesis 2a or 3a. Of the covariates, only hours worked per week was a unique predictor of continuance commitment, with those who worked more hours exhibiting higher continuance commitment (beta = .18, p b .05). In block 2, WIF was positively related to continuance commitment (beta = .21, p b .05), supporting Hypothesis 2b but FIW was not (beta = .08, p N .05), failing to support Hypothesis 3b. Participants who reported greater PSS reported higher affective commitment to their organizations (beta = .34, p b .05; see Table 2), supporting Hypothesis 4a. PSS was negatively related to continuance commitment (beta = −.14, p N .05), failing to support Hypothesis 4b. Neither the interaction between WIF and PSS or FIW and PSS was a significant predictor of affective commitment (beta = .19 and .51, respectively, p N .05), failing to support Hypothesis 5a or 6a. Likewise, the interaction between WIF and PSS did not predict continuance commitment (beta = .35, p b .05), inconsistent with Hypothesis 5b. However, the interaction between FIW and PSS did predict continuance commitment (beta = 1.18, p b .05). The interaction was graphed using procedures from Aiken and West (1991). As can be seen in Fig. 2, the nature of the interaction was opposite predictions, failing to support Hypothesis 6b. Specifically, the interaction reveals a reverse buffering effect in which the positive relationship between FIW and continuance

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations. Variable

Mean

SD

1

1. Age 2. No. of family cohabiting 3. Children 4. Hours worked/week 5. Hours in family/week 6. Sex 7. WIF 8. FIW 9. PSS 10. Affective commitment 11. Continuance commitment

36.11 2.36 .95 45.51 29.18 .30 3.14 2.22 3.79 3.54 3.00

7.13 1.16 .23 11.33 16.91 .46 .91 .75 .69 .60 .67

(–) .18 ⁎ .20 ⁎ .00 .11 − .23 ⁎⁎ .05 − .08 .00 .08 .01

2

3

4

5

6

(–) − .13 − .03 − .05 − .02 .01 .07 .16 ⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .06

(–) .10 .12 .04 .10 − .05 − .07 − .10 − .08

(−) .06 − .15 .16 ⁎ .13 .02 − .06 .17 ⁎

(–) .03 − .18 ⁎ − .02 − .14 .02 .05

(–) − .02 − .06 − .13 .06 .02

7

(.84) .32 ⁎⁎ − .20 − .14 − .26 ⁎⁎

8

9

10

11

(.75) − .28 ⁎⁎ − .24 ⁎⁎ .20 ⁎⁎

(.83) .38 ⁎⁎ − .19 ⁎

(.72) − .06

(.70)

n = 168, sex: 0 = male; 1 = female, children, 0 = no; 1 = yes, WIF = work interference with family, FIW = family interference with work, PSS = perceived supervisor support. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

647

Table 2 Sex, work interference with family, family interference with work, and perceived supervisor support predicting affective commitment and continuance commitment. Affective organization commitment Variables

ΔR

.07

.07

R

Block 1 Age # of people cohabiting Children Hours worked per week Hours spent in family per week Block 2 Sex WIF FIW PSS Block 3 Sex × WIF Sex × FIW Sex × PSS WIF × PSS FIW × PSS Block 4 Sex × WIF × PSS Sex × FIW × PSS

Continuance organization commitment

2

.05 .21** − .08 − .05 .03 .23

2

.16 ⁎⁎

.11 .00 − .14 .34 ⁎⁎

R2

Δ R2

.04

.04

.14

.10 ⁎⁎

.23

.09 ⁎⁎

.24

.01

.02 .06 − .10 .18* .05 .04 .21 ⁎ .08 − .14

.24

.01

− .05 − .04 − .14 .19 .51

.09 .06 .48 .35 1.18 ⁎⁎ .25

.01

− 1.60 .97

− 2.04 .81

n = 168, sex: 0 = male; 1 = female, children, 0 = no; 1 = yes, WIF = work interference with family, FIW = family interference with work, PSS = perceived supervisor support. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05.

organizational commitment was eliminated under conditions of low support, but when supervisor support was high, there was a positive relationship between FIW and continuance organizational commitment. Finally, the interactions of WIF and sex in predicting affective (beta = −.05, p N .05) and continuance commitment (beta = .09, p N .05) were also not significant, failing to support Hypothesis 7a. Finally, the interaction between FIW and sex was also not a significant predictor of either form of commitment (affective, beta = −.04, p N .05; continuance, beta = .06, p N .05), failing to support Hypothesis 7b.

Discussion

Continuance Organization Commitment

The current study contributes to the literature by exploring the work–family experiences of Brazilian professionals. Specifically, we examine sex differences in work–family interference and how work–family conflict, sex, and perceived supervisor support relate to organizational commitment. This is important because culture may have an important influence on work–family relationships (Powell et al., 2009), and most work–family studies have been conducted with US samples (Casper et al., 2007). Given notable cultural differences between Brazil and the US, it is not surprising that some of our results were not consistent with

Low PSS High PSS

Low FIW

High FIW

Fig. 2. Interaction between family interfering with work and perceived supervisor support in predicting continuance commitment.

648

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

the results from Anglo samples. Still, some findings were similar to those from Anglo samples, suggesting that it is important to examine the specific relationship rather than assuming relationships will or will not generalize to other cultures. Several observations and findings from the current study were consistent with those in Anglo contexts. Descriptively, the Brazilian professionals in this sample reported greater work interference with family than family interference with work. Thus, for both Anglo and Brazilian cultures, work–family interference is asymmetrical with work interfering with family more often than vice versa. Also, as in Anglo contexts, structural role demands (such as number of hours spent in role), were associated with work– family interference (Eby et al., 2005). The findings of no sex differences in the experience of work–family interference, though surprising due to sex role differences in Brazil, were largely consistent with studies in Anglo samples (Byron, 2005). We anticipated sex differences in a culture like Brazil with lower gender egalitarianism (Olivas-Lujan et al., 2009). Still, despite the more traditional gender roles expected in Brazil, both female and male participants in this study were mid-level professionals and managers. Thus, it is possible that the women in this study were less traditional than most Brazilian woman. Employees in countries like Brazil that are engaged in the global economy are also being influenced by Western Anglo values, and this may be particularly true of Brazilian women who have more gender egalitarian views than Brazilian men (Olivas-Lujan et al., 2009). Thus, like other studies, men and women did not differ in their reported work–family interference. In terms of the relationships between work–family interference and work attitudes, there was no relationship between WIF and affective commitment in this sample of Brazilian professionals, despite the fact that many studies with Anglo samples have found this relationship (Allen et al., 2000). No significant relationship between FIW and affective commitment was found either, although past findings with Anglo samples have been inconsistent. Past studies have also found negative relationships between work role conflict and affective commitment across four different cultures (although Brazil was not examined), which led the authors to suggest cross-cultural similarity in how stress operates across cultures (Glazer & Beehr, 2005). However, findings for work–family conflict may differ from those for work conflict, given cultural differences may be more pronounced when considering values and expectations associated with family (Powell et al., 2009). The fact that some of the negative consequences of work–family conflict were not found in the Brazilian sample may reflect the fact that work and family in Brazil are more diffuse and integrated than in Anglo samples where work–family conflict has typically been examined (Powell et al., 2009). The concept of work–family conflict was developed in the US where the notion of competing roles is well-accepted (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In contrast, for Brazilians, as members of a diffuse culture, the notion of competition between roles may be less salient and there may be greater integration between work and family. Thus, if work– family conflict does not hold the same negative meaning for Brazilians as for Anglos, it may be less likely to result in deleterious consequences. Although FIW was unrelated to continuance commitment, WIF was associated with higher continuance commitment. These findings parallel to what was identified in a previous sample of employed mothers in the US (Casper et al., 2002). Casper et al.'s study suggested mothers who experience WIF, yet remain employed with their organizations, may attribute their commitment to need (continuance commitment) as opposed to want (affective commitment), to avoid guilt from allowing work to interfere with family (Casper et al., 2002). It was suggested that WIF may be especially troubling to mothers (as opposed to fathers) since their sex-role socialization has likely resulted in motherhood being central to their identity (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000). This contention is consistent with social identity theory, which suggests that threats to or interference with a role that is central to one's identity are more troubling than intrusions into a role that is less central to one's self-concept (Thoits, 1991). Brazilians, who are socialized to be “family-centric” (Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005), most likely possess strong family identities. Thus, when Brazilians experience WIF, they may attribute this interference to need (continuance commitment) rather than choice (affective commitment) to avoid guilt that may result from WIF. Results from the current study also provide some insight into similarities and differences in how support may operate across cultures. The current study found a main effect of supervisor support on commitment, consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Participants who perceived greater support from supervisors reported higher affective organizational commitment. Because supervisors act as agents of the organization, workers interpret their support as a benefit from the organization. In turn, they may reciprocate with emotional attachment to the organization, and stay because they want to rather than because they have to. These findings parallel the direct effects of support which have been found in Anglo cultures (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). In fact, supervisor support may be even more important in Brazil than in Anglo cultures. Brazilians are more collective, care more about harmonious relationships, and are more sensitive to hierarchy than Anglos. This combination of collectivism and hierarchy often result in supervisory styles which are highly paternalistic (Amado & Brasil, 1991; Tanure & Duarte, 2005). Given parternalistic leadership is expectated in Brazil, one would expect supervisor support to relate to organizational commitment. Anglo samples have also found that support buffers the relationship between stress and strain (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). However, supervisor support functioned differently in this sample of Brazilians than in most studies in Anglo cultures. Based on cultural values of power distance and desire for highly supportive supervision (Dickson et al., 2003), we expected supervisor support to exhibit a traditional buffering effect in which deleterious relationships would be reduced when support was high. Instead, we found a reverse-buffering effect in which the deleterious relationship of FIW with continuance commitment was stronger under conditions of high supervisor support. Consistent with this, in a review of the effects of social support, Beehr and Glazer (2001) found that supervisor support consistently buffered the negative effect of stressors (i.e., work– family conflict) on strains (i.e., commitment) in Western nations but that results were inconsistent in non-Western nations. So why would this reverse buffering effect occur in our Brazilian sample? One explanation may be the way different forms of commitment are conceptualized in distinct cultures. Although in Anglo cultures continuance commitment is thought of as a

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

649

negative form of commitment (i.e., I am stuck at this organization), both affective and continuance commitment reduce turnover and the degree to which these forms of commitment are desirable or undesirable may differ across cultures. Research in Anglo cultures suggests attaching to an organization because one wants to is associated with better performance than attaching because one has to (Meyer et al., 1989). However, in individualistic Anglo cultures work is associated with personal achievement and selffulfillment, and having one's individual needs met through work is important (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). In contrast, collective cultures often see work as a “means to an end” to support their more salient role as a family member (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). Thus, although Anglos may feel that working for an organization because one “has to” is undesirable, given it may impair individual need fulfillment, employment because one “has to” may not have the same meaning for Brazilians, given any secure employment can help them meet their most important needs — those of the family. Past studies on social norms in the US and Brazil also support the notion that continuance commitment may have a different connotation in Brazil than in the US. Bontempo, Lobel, and Triandis (1990) found both Brazilian and Americans “intend to do what is expected of them, so they follow norms” (p. 206). However, Americans reported feeling forced to comply with norms, whereas Brazilians gained satisfaction from complying with them. Staying because one “has to” may reflect complying with social norms to work to support one's family — such norms may be satisfying to Brazilians, but stifling to Anglo Americans. Because Brazilians see family as most central to their identity (Korin & Carvahlo Petry, 2005), having a supportive supervisor while coping with family interferences with work may be instrumental in meeting family demands in spite of such conflict. If an employee has a supportive supervisor, he/she may feel that changing organizations (and thus, supervisors) would be neglecting family responsibilities, as this support may be critical in taking care of a family. If having a supportive supervisor results in favorable performance in the family role, this may affirm a Brazilian's self-concept (Thoits, 1991), resulting in a self-perception of being a “good” family member, which may lead them to stay with their current organization (and supervisor), whether they want to or not. Practical implications It is important to understand the work–family issues of culturally diverse groups across the world, not just within the US, and these findings suggest that findings from one culture may not extrapolate to other cultures. Thus, scientists should expand the cultural contexts in which they study work–family issues so that practitioners can provide appropriate recommendations for particular legal and cultural contexts (Casper & Swanberg, 2011; Poelmans et al., 2005). In the Brazilian context, these results indicate that structural role variables are associated with work–family interference. Specifically, workers who spent more time at work had higher work interference with family; those who spent more hours in family duties had lower work interference with family. Although labor legislation in Brazil requires that employees work no greater than 45 h weekly, evidence suggests that Brazilian employees work more than the legally mandated hours. For example, Lobel (2009) found that almost 40% of men and 25% of women work more than 45 h weekly. These findings are consistent with the current study which found that 43.2% of workers worked over 45 h weekly. Similarly, having more cohabitating household members was related to greater loyalty to one's organization. Practically, these findings suggest that for Brazilian employees, structural features of one's work and family influence the experience of work–family conflict as well as one's work attitudes. Organizations interested in supporting employee work–family issues might survey employees to understand their specific concerns and to identify which workers are at highest risk for conflict and in need of more support. Importantly, when Brazilian employees perceived greater support from their supervisors, they felt greater loyalty to their organization. Research is needed to determine whether affective commitment is positively related to job performance in Brazilian contexts as it is in Anglo contexts (Meyer et al., 1989). Tentatively, however, these results suggest that Brazilian supervisors should display support for their employees to foster their loyalty to the firm. Contrary to expectations, however, work–family interference did not negatively affect loyalty to one's organization, yet it was positively related to one's perceived need to stay with the organization. Again, assuming that firms want to reduce continuance commitment (which may not be desirable in a Brazilian context as discussed above), they might consider means to reduce work– interference with family, such as reducing work hours. Overall, these findings suggest that there may be fewer negative consequences of work–family interference for Brazilian employees than what has been found in Anglo samples. Practically, one might argue, therefore, that less managerial attention to reducing work–family interference may be needed in Brazil than in specific, individualistic Anglo cultures. Of course, need further replication before firm conclusions can be made. Limitations and directions for future research The current study, like all research, has limitations to consider in the interpretation of the results. Given data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey, common method variance may have influenced some of the findings. However, one of the interesting findings was an interaction effect which cannot reflect common method variance since they are non-linear (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, there is no definitive way to know whether the perceptual constructs we explored in the current study had the same meaning in Brazil as in the Anglo context in which they were developed. However, we used a translation-back translation procedure as recommended by cross-cultural researchers to minimize such concerns (Brislin, 1980). It is notable that in the current sample of Brazilians, work–family conflict and the interactions involving this construct were related only to continuance and not affective organizational commitment. Research in Anglo samples has more often studied affective than continuance commitment as an outcome of work–family conflict. Thus, more research is needed to understand how work–family

650

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

variables relate to other forms of commitment. Although Anglo samples have found that the kind of commitment has important implications for job performance (Meyer et al., 1989), such findings may not necessarily generalize to different cultures which are more collective or humane (Powell et al., 2009). More research with diverse samples is clearly needed on work–family issues across distinct cultures given interpretations of family and work are so culture-based and most research (Casper et al., 2007). Conclusion The current study suggests the importance of cultural context in studying work–family conflict, and explores the relationship between work–family conflict and its outcomes in an important economy, Brazil. There were similarities between this study's findings and those in Anglo cultures such as the asymmetrical nature of work and family interference and lack of sex differences. Other findings, however, differed from prior research conducted in the US. For example, WIF predicted continuance but not affective commitment, suggesting potential differences in the meaning of the “need” to keep one's job in a diffuse, collectivistic, family-centered culture relative to a specific, individualistic, and work-centered culture. Also, the finding of a reverse buffering effect for supervisor support stands in direct contrast to the buffering effect commonly found in US samples. Thus, the buffering effects of supervisor support may differ across cultures. These differences between past findings in Anglo samples and the current Brazilian sample may reflect diverse cultural norms and expectations which may lead to different interpretations of and meanings to the various constructs we examine. Although the current study begins to shed light on work–family conflict in Brazil, more research is needed to understand work–family conflict in the many diverse cultures in which individuals work. References Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). : Thompson Southwestern. Adsit, D. J., London, M., Crom, S., & Jones, D. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in upward ratings in a multi-national company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 385–401. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Allen, N. J., & Allen, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An exploration of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308. Amado, G., & Brasil, H. V. (1991). Organizational behaviors and cultural context: The Brazilian “jeitinho”. International Studies of Management and Organization, 21, 38–61. Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491–511. Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2001). A cultural perspective of social support in relation to occupational stress. In P. Perrewe, D. C. Ganster, & J. Moran (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (pp. 97–142). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bontempo, R., Lobel, S., & Triandis, H. (1990). Compliance and value internalization in Brazil and the U.S.. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 200–213. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Barry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2. (pp. 389–444). Bruschini, A. (2007). Work and gender in Brazil: The last ten years. Available at www.fcc.org.br/seminario//bruschini.pdf Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43. Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work–family conflict, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment of working mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99–108. Casper, W. J., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Career and work concerns of diverse and understudied workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., Knight, G. P., & Koller, S. H. (2001). Between-or within-culture variation? Culture group as a moderator of the relations between individual differences and resource allocation preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 559–579. Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, S., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha?: An examination of theory and application. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104. Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729–768. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). A retrospective on work and family research in IO/OB: A content analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197. Economic Intelligence Unit (2010). Women's economic opportunity: A new pilot index and global ranking from the economist intelligence unit: Findings and methodology. London: Economic Intelligence Unit. Edlund, J. (2007). The work–family time squeeze: Conflicting demands on paid and unpaid work among working couples in 29 countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48, 451–480. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. Emrich, C. G., Denmark, F. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Cross-cultural differences in gender egalitarianism: Implications for societies, organizations, and leaders. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 343–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Falicov, C. J. (2001). The cultural meaning of money. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 313–328. Friedrich, P., Mesquita, L., & Hatum, A. (2006). The meaning of difference: Beyond cultural and managerial homogeneity stereotypes of Latin America. Management Research, 4, 53–71. Frone, M. R., Russel, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. Gagon, M. A., & Michael, J. H. (2004). Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood production employees. Forest Products Journal, 54, 172–177. Gelfland, M. J., Raver, J. L., & Holcombe, K. M. (2002). Methodological issues in cross-cultural organizational research. In S. J. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 216–246). Gignac, M. A. M., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employment: A meditational model of work–family conflict. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15, 525–542.

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

651

Glazer, S. (2006). Social support across cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 605–622. Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressor across four countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 467–487. Good, L. K., Sisler, G. F., & Gentry, J. W. (1988). Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail management personnel. Journal of Retailing, 64, 295–314. Gouveia, V. V., Albuquerque, J. B., Clemente, M., & Espinosa, P. (2002). Human values and social identities: A study in two collectivist cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 333–342. Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model and work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537–550. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family conflict. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568. Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work–family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 1300–1316. Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9, 389–398. Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: HarperCollins. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World. IBGE (Brazil Census Bureau) (2005a). Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios. File trabalho_rendimento — Tabela 3.1. Retrieved on February 07, 2011 from http://ibge.gov.br/home/default.php IBGE (Brazil Census Bureau) (2005b). Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra de Domicílos. File mulher — Tabela 10.15. Retrieved on February 07, 2011 from http://ibge.gov.br IBGE (Brazil Census Bureau) (2009). Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra de Domicílos. File brasil_tc_brasil_trabalho — Tabela 4.1. Retrieved on February 07, 2011 from http://ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/default.shtm Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90. Korin, E. C., & Carvahlo Petry, S. S. (2005). Brazilian families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N. Garcia Preto (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 166–177). (Second ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in child care assistance needs: Problems, preferences, and work-related outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 769–791. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390. Ling, Y., & Powell, G. (2001). Work–family conflict in contemporary China: Beyond an American-based model. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1, 357–373. Lobel, S. (2009). Work-life in Brazil. Boston, MA: Center for Work and Family at Boston College. Lobel, S., & Kossek, E. E. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the “family friendly” organization. In E. E. Kossek, & S. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workforce (pp. 221–244). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Lobel, S., & St. Clair, L. (1992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1057–1069. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63–87. Matos, F. G. (1996). Cultural renovation. Decidir, 2, 24–25. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–98. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. H., Goffine, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152–156. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovich, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to organizations: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflicts and work–family conflict scales. The 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. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272–279. Olivas-Lujan, M. R., Monserrat, S. I., Ruiz-Gutierrrez, J. A., Greenwood, R. A., Gomez, S. M., Murphy, E. F., et al. (2009). Values and attitudes toward women in Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, and Mexico. Employee Relations, 31, 227–244. O'Neill, J. (November 2 2006). Ask the expert: BRIC and investor strategy. Financial Times. Retrieved May 17, 2011 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c8192f646a66-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html#axzz1MeOwEzkP Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work–family conflict and well-being: A comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 551–568. Pearson, V. M. S., & Stephan, W. G. (1998). Preferences for styles of negotiation: A comparison of Brazil and the U.S. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 67–83. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Poelmans, S. A. Y., O'Driscoll, M., & Beham, B. (2005). A review of international research in the field of work and family. In S. A. Y. Poelmans (Ed.), Work and family: An international research perspective (pp. 3–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Towards culture-sensitive theories of the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 597–616. Santos, N. M. (2006). Successful women: A vision of Brazil. In B. J. Punnett, J. A. Duffy, S. Fox, A. Gregory, T. R. Lituchy, S. I. Monserrat, M. R. Olivas-Lujan, & N. M. B. F. Santoas (Eds.), Successful professional women of the Americans: From polar winds to tropical breezes. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47. Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1593–1615. Sorj, B., Fontes, A., Carusi, D., & Quintaes, G. (2004). Reconciling work and family: Issues and policies in Brazil. Conditions of work and employment programme, series no. 8. Geneva: International Labour Office. Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., O'Driscoll, M., et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work–family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60, 805–835. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelman, S., Allen, T. D., O'Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J., et al. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work–family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Lain American versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142. Stone-Romero, E., Stone, D., & Salas, E. (2003). The influence of culture on role conceptions and role behavior in organizations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 328–362. Streich, M., Casper, W. J., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2008). Examining couples' agreement about work–family conflict. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 252–272. Tanure, B., & Duarte, R. G. (2005). Leveraging competitiveness upon national cultural traits: The management of people in Brazilian companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2201–2217.

652

W.J. Casper et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 640–652

Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112. Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizational commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2375–2398. Towers Perrin (2007). Global workforce survey. Retrieved March 1, 2011 at http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url=global/publications/gws/index. htm&country=global Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Voydanoff, P. (2005). The effects of community demands, resources, and strategies on the nature and consequences of the work–family interface: An agenda for future research. Family Relations, 54(5), 583–595. Yang, N., Chen, C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources for work–family conflict: A sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 113–123. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334. World Fact Book. South America: Brazil (updated June 25, 2010). Central intelligence agency. Retrieved July 28, 2010 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/br.html