Sloan Network Encyclopedia Entryrepo.library.upenn.edu/.../1/Work-Family_Role_Conflict.pdfSloan Network Encyclopedia Entry Work-Family Role Conflict (2003) Authors: Leslie Hammer,

Sloan Network Encyclopedia Entry

Work-Family Role Conflict (2003)

Authors: Leslie Hammer, Ph.D., Portland State University, and Cynthia Thompson, Ph.D., Zicklin School

of Business, Baruch College, CUNY

Date: May 12, 2003

Basic Concepts and Definitions

Work-family conflict is a type of inter-role conflict in which the role demands stemming from one domain

(work or family) are incompatible with role demands stemming from another domain (family or work)

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).

According to Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), roles are the result of expectations of

others about appropriate behavior in a particular position. Role conflict is described as the psychological

tension that is aroused by conflicting role pressures. Role theory suggests that conflict occurs when

individuals engage in multiple roles that are incompatible (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Work-family conflict can be time-based, strain-based, or behavior based (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Time-based conflict occurs when role pressures stemming from the two different domains compete for the

individual's time (e.g., requiring employees to work late with little notice might make it difficult for

employees to meet family obligations, like picking up a child at daycare). Strain-based conflict occurs

when the strain experienced in one role domain interferes with effective performance of role behaviors in

the other domain. For example, a father who is anxious about his child's illness might not be able to fully

concentrate on his job as copy editor, causing him to make mistakes in his work. Behavior-based conflict

is described as conflict stemming from incompatible behaviors demanded by competing roles. For

example, a manager in a financial services firm might be expected to be aggressive, unemotional, and

hard-driving, but these same behaviors in the family domain would most likely lead to conflict with family

members. Time-based conflict, the most common type of work-family conflict, is based on the scarcity

hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that the sum of human energy is fixed and that multiple roles

inevitably reduce the time and energy available to meet all role demands, thus creating strain (Goode,

1960) and work-family conflict (Marks, 1977).

As can be seen in the examples above, work-family conflict is bi-directional. That is, work can interfere

with family (referred to as work-to-family conflict) and family can interfere with work (referred to as family-

to-work conflict).

*This Encyclopedia Entry was part of the former Sloan Work and Family Research Network which is no

longer in operation.

These dimensions of directionality have been identified as distinct, reciprocal constructs that have

independent antecedents and outcomes (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel,

1997). For example, some research has demonstrated that work-to-family conflict is primarily caused by

work-related stressors and characteristics and that it predicts family-related affective and behavioral

outcomes, while family-to-work conflict is caused by family-related stressors and characteristics and

predicts work-related outcomes (e.g., Frone et al., 1997).

Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies

This is an important area of study for both researchers and practitioners, as more and more employees

are struggling with multiple roles (e.g., employee, parent, student, caretaker of elderly parents). Research

to date suggests that high levels of work-family conflict are related to dysfunctional outcomes for the

individual (e.g., life dissatisfaction, anxiety, depression, poor health), for relationships (e.g., increased

interpersonal conflict, divorce), and for the organization (e.g., absenteeism, tardiness, loss of talented

employees).

State of the Body of Knowledge

Work-family conflict has been related to important individual and organizational outcomes, such as

absenteeism (Barling, MacEwen, Kelloway, & Higginbottom, 1994; Goff et al., 1990; Hepburn & Barling,

1996; Kossek, 1990; Kossek & Nichol, 1992; MacEwen & Barling, 1994; Thomas & Ganster, 1995),

intentions to leave work (Aryee, 1992; Burke, 1988) and decreased job, family, and life satisfaction

(Bedian et al., 1988; Boles, Johnston, & Hair, 1997; Burke, 1988; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992;

Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Wiley, 1987). Additionally, negative mental and

physical health outcomes have been related to high levels of work-family conflict and work-to-family

conflict (Barnett & Rivers, 1996; Boles et al., 1997; Frone, 2000; Frone et al., 1997; Thomas &

Ganster, 1995).

Much of the research on work-family conflict has been based on the premise that multiple roles inevitably

create strain (e.g., Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton, & Neal, 1994; Frone et al., 1992; Goff, Mount, & Jamison,

1990; Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997), as suggested by role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and role

scarcity (Goode, 1960). However, there is a growing body of research which has found evidence of

positive spillover, both from work to home and from home to work. The results of some of these studies

support the enhancement hypothesis, which proposes that an individual's supply of energy is abundant

and expandable (Marks, 1977). Multiple roles may be life enhancing in that they provide additional

sources of social support, increased skills, and heightened self-esteem and well being. Baruch and

Barnett (1987), for example, found that women who had multiple life roles (e.g., mother, wife, employee)

were less depressed and had higher self-esteem than women and men who had fewer life roles.

However, it is the quality of roles that is important. That is, the greater the quality of a person's multiple

roles (e.g., having an interesting, challenging job and a happy home life), the greater their self-esteem.

See Barnett and Hyde (2001) for a comprehensive overview of this line of research.

Several researchers have commented on the importance of understanding factors that are associated

with (and/or are antecedents of) work-family conflict. For instance, it has been documented that

employees with significant dependent care responsibilities (e.g., employees who have responsibilities

caring for young children, employees with large families, employees who care for dependent elders) tend

to report higher levels of work-family conflict (see Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell,

1985; and Scharlach & Boyd, 1989). Some studies have found that women experience greater work-

family conflict (see Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1992). Research has also examined organizational factors

(e.g., characteristics of the employee's workplace) that can affect work-family conflict. For example, the

impact of workplace culture on employees' perception of work-family conflict has been widely noted (see

Galinsky et al., 1996; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).

Recently, work-family conflict has been examined from a systems perspective demonstrating that one

member of a couple's experience of work-family conflict can significantly impact their partner's experience

of work-family conflict (Hammer et al., 1997). These work and family "crossover effects" of stress and

strain from one member of a dyad to the other have been recently presented in a theoretical model

developed by Westman (2001).

Implications for Practice and Research

Practitioners are interested in the extent to which various interventions, such as family-friendly policies

and programs, and the supportiveness of the work-family culture (Thompson et al., 1999), actually reduce

employees' work-family role conflict and how this can have significant impact on a number of work, family

and personal outcomes, as mentioned above. Therefore, future research should be aimed at examining

the effectiveness of such interventions.

References

Barling, J; MacEwen, K. E.; Kelloway, K.; & Higginbottom, S. F. (1994). Predictors and outcomes of elder-

care-based interrole conflict. Psychology and Aging, 9(3), 391-397.

Barnett, R.C., & Hyde, J.S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American

Psychologist, 56, 781-796.

Barnett, R. & Rivers, C. (1996). She works/he works: How two-income families are happier, healthier, and

better-off. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.

Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1987). Role quality, multiple role involvement, and psychological well-

being in midlife women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 578-585.

Bedian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married

male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475-491.

Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., Hair, J. F. (1997). Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional

exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. Journal of Personal

Selling & Sales Management, 1, 17-28.

Burke, R.J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. In Journal of Social

Behavior and Personality. In E.B. Goldsmith (Ed.) Work and family: Theory, research, and applications,

3(4), 287-302.

Chapman, N.J., Ingersoll-Dayton, & Neal, M. B. (1994). Balancing the multiple roles of work and

caregiving for children, adults, and elders. In G. P. Keita and J. J. Hurrell (Eds.). Job Stress in a Changing

Workforce: Investigating Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues. (pgs. 283-400). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Frone, M.R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The National Co-morbidity

Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888-895.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict:

Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78.

Frone, M. R.; Yardley, J. K.; & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the

work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 145-167.

Galinsky, E., Bond, T., & Friedman, D. (1996). The role of employers in addressing the needs of

employed parents. Social Issues, 52, 111-136.

Goff, S. J.; Mount, M. K.; & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family conflict,

and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793-809.

Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of

Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klewpa, 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 and family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-

individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 185-203.

Hepburn, C. G., & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conflict, and employee absence:

A daily study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 311-318.

Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career family.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 51-75.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational Stress. New

York: Wiley.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in child care assistance needs: Employee problems, preferences, and

work-related outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43(4), 769-791.

Kossek, E. Y Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes and performance.

Personnel Psychology, 45, 485-509.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship:

A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 139-149.

MacEwen. K.E. & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family

interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244-254.

Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.

American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936.

Scharlach, A., & Boyd, S. (1989). Caregiving and employment: Results of an employee survey. The

Gerontologist, 29, 382-387.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict

and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.

Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The

influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

Westman, M. (2001). Stress and Strain Crossover. Human Relations, 54(6), 717-751.

Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes: Some

unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13 467-472.

Other Recommended Readings on this Topic:

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American

Psychologist, 56, 781-796.

Bridges, J. S., & Orza, A. M. (1996). Black and white employed mothers' role experiences. Sex Roles, 35,

377-385.

Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236-253.

Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work-family conflict? Journal of

Family Issues, 11, 455-476.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict:

Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78.

Gorey, K. M., Rice, R. W., & Brice, G. C. (1992). The prevalence of elder care responsibilities among the

workforce population. Research on Aging, 14(3), 399-418.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of

Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family

conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.

Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict:

A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198-215.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship:

A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 139-149.

Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. S. (1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality:

Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 62-79.

Mederer, H. J. (1993). Division of labor in two-earner homes: Task accomplishment versus household

management as critical variables in perceptions about family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

55, 133-145.

Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, 67,

65-76.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict

and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.

Thompson, C. A., & Beauvais, L. (2000). Balancing work/life. In Smith, D. (Ed.), Women at work:

Leadership for the next century (pp. 162-189). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Read for an

easy overview)

Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1999). Multiple roles and psychological distress: The intersection of the

paid worker, spouse, and parent roles with the adult child role. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,

725-738.

Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American

Psychologist,

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

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network

has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family

studies. (More about the Matrix ...).

Note: The domain areas most closely related to the entry’s topic are presented in full color. Other

domains, represented in gray, are provided for context.

About the Matrix

Sloan Work and Family Research Network

Resources for Teaching: Mapping the Work-Family Area of Studies

Introduction

It was appropriate that the members of the Founding Editorial Board of the Resources for Teaching

began their work in 2000, for their project represented one of the turning points in the area of work

and family studies. This group accepted the challenge of developing resources that could support the

efforts of teaching faculty from different disciplines and professional schools to better integrate the

work-family body of knowledge into their curricula. The Virtual Think Tank began its work with a

vision, a spirit of determination, and sense of civic responsibility to the community of

work-familyscholars.

A fundamental challenge emerged early in the process. It became clear that before we could design

resources that would support the teaching of those topics, we would first need to inventory topics and

issues relevant to the work-family area of studies (and begin to distinguish the work-family aspect of

these topics from "non work-family" aspects).

The members of the Virtual Think Tank were well aware that surveying the area of work and family

studies would be a daunting undertaking. However, we really had no other choice. And so, we began

to grapple with the mapping process.

Purpose

1. To develop a preliminary map of the body of knowledge relevant to the work-family area of study

that reflects current, "across-the-disciplines" understanding of work-family phenomena.

2. To create a flexible framework (or map) that clarifies the conceptual relationships among the

different information domains that comprise the work-family knowledge base.

It is important to understand that this mapping exercise was undertaken as a way to identify and

organize the wide range of work-family topics. This project was not intended as a meta-analysis for

determining the empirical relationships between specific variables. Therefore, our map of the workfamily

area of study does not include any symbols that might suggest the relationships between

specific factors or clusters of factors.

Process

The Virtual Think Tank used a 3-step process to create the map of the work-family area of studies.

1. Key Informants: The members of the Virtual Think Tank included academics from several different

disciplines and professions who have taught and written about work-family studies for years. During

the first stage of the mapping process, the Virtual Think Tank functioned as a panel of key informants.

Initially, the Panel engaged in a few brainstorming sessions to identify work-family topics that could

be addressed in academic courses. The inductive brainstorming sessions initially resulted in the

identification of nearly 50 topics.

Once the preliminary list of topics had been generated, members of the Virtual Think Tank pursued a

deductive approach to the identification of work-family issues. Over the course of several

conversations, the Virtual Think Tank created a conceptual map that focused on information domains

(see Table 1 below).

The last stage of the mapping process undertaken by the Virtual Think Tank consisted of comparing

and adjusting the results of the inductive and deductive processes. The preliminary, reconciled list was

used as the first index for the Online Work and Family Encyclopedia.

2. Literature review: Members of the project team conducted literature searches to identify writings in

which authors attempted to map the work-family area of study or specific domains of this area. The

highlights of the literature review will be posted on February 1, 2002 when the First Edition of the

Work-Family Encyclopedia will be published.

3. Peer review: On October 1, 2001, the Preliminary Mapping of the work-family area of study was

posted on the website of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network. The members of the Virtual

Think Tank invite work-family leaders to submit suggestions and comments about the Mapping and

the List of Work-Family Topics. The Virtual Think Tank will consider the suggestions and, as indicated,

will make adjustments in both of these products. Please send your comments to Marcie Pitt-

Catsouphes at [email protected]

Assumptions

Prior to identifying the different information domains relevant to the work-family area of study,

members of the Virtual Think Tank adopted two premises:

1. Our use of the word "family" refers to both traditional and nontraditional families. Therefore, we

consider the term "work-family" to be relevant to individuals who might reside by themselves. Many

work-family leaders have noted the problematic dimensions of the term "work-family" (see Barnett,

1999). In particular, concern has been expressed that the word "family" continues to connote the

married couple family with dependent children, despite the widespread recognition that family

structures and relationships continue to be very diverse and often change over time. As a group, we

understand the word "family" to refer to relationships characterized by deep caring and commitment

that exist over time. We do not limit family relationships to those established by marriage, birth,

blood, or shared residency.

2. It is important to examine and measure work-family issues and experiences at many different

levels, including: individual,dyadic (e.g., couple relationships, parent-child relationships,

caregivercaretakerrelationships), family and other small groups, organizational, community, and societal.

Much of the work-family discourse glosses over the fact that the work-family experiences of one person or

stakeholder group may, in fact, be different from (and potentially in conflict with) those of another.

Outcomes

We will publish a Working Paper, "Mapping the Work-Family Area of Study," on the Sloan Work and

Family Research Network in 2002. In this publication, we will acknowledge the comments and

suggestions for improvement sent to us.

Limitations

It is important to understand that the members of the Virtual Think Tank viewed their efforts to map

the work-family area of study as a "work in progress." We anticipate that we will periodically review

and revise the map as this area of study evolves.

The members of the panel are also cognizant that other scholars may have different

conceptualizations of the work-family area of study. We welcome your comments and look forward to

public dialogue about this important topic.

Listing of the Information Domains Included in the Map

The members of the Virtual Think Tank wanted to focus their map of work-family issues around the

experiences of five principal stakeholder groups:

1. individuals,

2. families,

3. workplaces,

4. communities, and

5. society-at-large.

Each of these stakeholder groups is represented by a row in the Table 1, Information Domain Matrix

(below).

Work-Family Experiences: The discussions of the members of the Virtual Think Tank began with an

identification of some of the salient needs & priorities/problems & concerns of the five principal

stakeholder groups. These domains are represented by the cells in Column B of the Information

Domain Matrix.

• Individuals' work-family needs & priorities

• Individuals' work-family problems & concerns

• Families' work-family need & priorities

• Families' work-family problems & concerns

• Needs & priorities of workplaces related to work-family issues

• Workplace problems & concerns related to work-family issues

• Needs & priorities of communities related to work-family issues

• Communities' problems & concerns related to work-family issues

• Needs and priorities of society related to work-family issues

• Societal problems & concerns related to work-family issues

Antecedents: Next, the Virtual Think Tank identified the primary roots causes and factors that might

have either precipitated or affected the work-family experiences of the principal stakeholder groups.

These domains are highlighted in Column A of the Information Domain Matrix.

• Individual Antecedents

• Family Antecedents

• Workplace Antecedents

• Community Antecedents

• Societal Antecedents

Covariates: The third set of information domains include factors that moderate the relationships

between the antecedents and the work-family experiences of different stakeholder groups (see

Column C in Table 1).

• Individual Covariates

• Family Covariates

• Workplace Covariates

• Community Covariates

• Societal Covariates

Decisions and Responses: The responses of the stakeholder groups to different work-family

experiences are highlighted in Column D.

• Individual Decision and Responses

• Family Decisions and Responses

• Workplace Decisions and Responses

• Community Decisions and Responses

• Public Sector Decisions and Responses

Outcomes & Impacts: The fifth set of information domains refer to the outcomes and impacts of

different work-family issues and experiences on the principal stakeholder groups (see Column E).

• Outcomes & Impacts on Individuals

• Outcomes & Impacts on Families

• Outcomes & Impacts on Workplaces

• Outcomes & Impacts on Communities

• Outcomes & Impacts on Society

Theoretical Foundations: The Virtual Think Tank established a sixth information domain to designate

the multi-disciplinary theoretical underpinnings to the work-family area of study (noted as Information

Domain F).

Table 1: Matrix of Information Domains (9/30/01)