See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241644414

Satisfaction with work–life balance among German office workers

Article  in  Journal of Managerial Psychology · August 2010

DOI: 10.1108/02683941011056987

CITATIONS READS
53 1,469

2 authors:

Barbara Beham Sonja Drobnič

Berlin School of Economics & Law Universität Bremen
41 PUBLICATIONS   712 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   934 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of National Context on the Work-Life Interface View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Beham on 10 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Satisfaction with
Satisfaction with work-family work-family
balance among German office balance
workers
669
Barbara Beham
Institute of Management, School of Business & Economics, Received September 2008
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, and Revised May 2009
August 2009
Sonja Drobnič Accepted August 2009
Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Sociology, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to examine the relationships between various work demands and
resources and satisfaction with work-family balance in a sample of German office workers.
Work-to-family conflict is expected to mediate several relationships between dependent and
independent variables.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 716 office workers from two service sector
organizations in Germany participated in a comprehensive online survey. Hierarchical multivariate
regressions were used to test the predicted relationships.
Findings – Perceived high organizational time expectations, psychological job demands and job
insecurity were found to be negatively related to employees’ satisfaction with work-family balance.
Work-to-family conflict partially mediated those relationships. Social support at work and job control
revealed positive relationships with satisfaction with work-family balance, but contrary to predictions
this association persisted after controlling for work-to-family conflict.
Research limitations/implications – The study used a cross-sectional design and employees’ self
reports which may be problematic in drawing causal conclusions.
Originality/value – The majority of studies in work-family research look at either work-family
conflict, or more recently, at work-family facilitation/enrichment, but little research has been
conducted on employees’ overall assessment of satisfaction with work-family balance. By
investigating relationships between various work demands and resources and the mediating role of
work-to-family conflict in a sample of German office workers, the study extends previous research and
contributes to the work-family literature by clarifying the relationship between work-to-family conflict
and satisfaction with work-family balance.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Resources, Conflict, Germany
Paper type Research paper

Research for this study was supported by the European Commission through funding of the
Journal of Managerial Psychology
cross-national collaborative research project Quality of Life in a Changing Europe (QUALITY). Vol. 25 No. 6, 2010
The authors would like to thank co-researchers in the QUALITY project, and especially Dianna pp. 669-689
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
L. Stone and two anonymous JMP reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this 0268-3946
manuscript. DOI 10.1108/02683941011056987
JMP Introduction
25,6 In recent years, the challenge of balancing work and family has attracted significant
scholarly attention. Globalization, downsizing, and flexible work patterns have left
many employees with a feeling of increasing work demands and pressure, and a daily
struggle to manage their work and family responsibilities (Burchell et al., 2002). With
the wide-spread implementation of information and telecommunication technologies,
670 work and family life have become increasingly intertwined, and can no longer be
treated as independent domains (Lambert, 1990; Milliken and Dunn-Jensen, 2005;
Valcour and Hunter, 2005). How to balance work and family demands and achieve a
satisfactory equilibrium between the two realms has become a central question for
organizations and an important career value for many employees (Valcour, 2007). They
have started to rethink employment-related decisions such as the choice of occupation
or employer, career advancement, and the level of job involvement in terms of
opportunities for achieving a satisfactory level of work-family balance (e.g. Heiligers
and Hingstman, 2000; Lee and Kossek, 2005).
Drawing on a resources-demands theoretical framework (Voydanoff, 2005a), the
present study investigates whether certain work demands (organizational time
expectations, psychological job demands, job insecurity) and work resources (social
support at work, job control) influence employees’ overall assessments of satisfaction
with work-family balance. Some research has equated work-family balance with the
experience of low levels of work-family conflict (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Higgins et al.,
2000). This definition rests on the untested assumption that employees who experience
high levels of work-family conflict are automatically less satisfied with their ability to
balance their work and family responsibilities (Valcour, 2007). By testing the
relationship between negative work-home interference and satisfaction with
work-family balance the present study aims to fill this gap in work-family literature.
Negative work-to-home interference is also tested as a potential mediator of several
relationships between work demands and resources and satisfaction with work-family
balance. In addition, the study seeks to contribute to international work-family
literature by drawing on a sample of office workers in Germany.
The majority of studies on satisfaction with work-family balance to date, except for
a study among working parents in India (Aryee et al., 2005), has been conducted in the
USA (e.g. Clark, 2001; Clarke et al., 2004; Milkie and Peltola, 1999; Saltzstein et al., 2001;
Valcour, 2007). German employees, as most employees in the European Union, work in
legal environments that differ significantly from the countries such as the USA, where
collective bargaining in the private sector is not widespread and labor institutions are
weaker. Given the relative strength of labor unions in Germany and the role of
collective agreements, employees have higher job security, and more control over their
working conditions. The 1993 EU Directive on working time has encouraged greater
working time flexibility in Europe and has established standards for annual paid leave
and for averaging weekly work hours (Berg et al., 2004). On average, full-time workers
in the European Union have about five weeks of annual leave per year, while the USA
has no laws requiring firms to provide paid leave. Another important difference is that
the female employment rate is considerably lower in Germany than in the USA, and
part-time employment of women more common (Drobnič, 2000). Compared to the USA,
the German welfare state supports the male breadwinner model, allocating main
responsibility for paid work to men and family responsibilities to women (Blossfeld
and Drobnič, 2001). Since employees in Germany have a relatively high control over Satisfaction with
their working environment through collective bargaining, and mothers are likely to work-family
adjust their labor force participation to the needs of the family, one could expect lesser
work-to-home conflict in German employees. However, since family policies have until balance
very recently aimed at supporting parents to stay out of the labor market rather than
providing institutional support for reconciling work and family life, work-to-family
conflict may be higher if both partners are employed. Likewise, it is difficult to make 671
substantiated assumptions on how the level of satisfaction with work-family balance
may differ in the case of German workers compared with those in the USA. However,
we do expect that the relationships between work demands and resources and
satisfaction with work-family balance go in the same direction in different institutional
and cultural contexts.

Satisfaction with work-family balance

Work-family balance is a term frequently used in popular as well as academic writings,
although explicit definitions of the construct can hardly be found in the scholarly
discourse (Frone, 2003). In general, it is associated with an equilibrium or an overall
sense of harmony in life (Clarke et al., 2004). Higgins et al. defined work-family balance as
a “perceptual phenomenon characterized by a sense of having achieved a satisfactory
resolution of the multiple demands of work and family domains” (Higgins et al., 2000,
p. 19). Frone (2003) provided a four-fold taxonomy of work-family balance that includes
the separate components of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict,
work-to-family facilitation, and family-to-work facilitation. An empirical test of this
taxonomy did not reveal consistent patterns of relationships among those four
components (Aryee et al., 2005). It remains unclear how these components relate to an
individual’s level of satisfaction with his/her integration of work and family
responsibilities and whether all four components need to reach optimal levels in order
to satisfy a person (Valcour, 2007). The focus of the present paper is on satisfaction with
work-family balance which is to be clearly distinguished from work-family balance.
Satisfaction with work-family balance captures perceptual or affective reactions to an
unspecified level of balance rather than the level of balance itself (Greenhaus et al., 2003).
Satisfaction with work-family balance is defined as individuals’ assessments of an
adequate amount of resources to effectively respond to the demands of their work and
family roles (Valcour, 2007) as well as individuals’ affective responses to this assessment.
This definition understands satisfaction with work-family balance as a unitary, holistic
construct that includes a cognitive and affective component. The cognitive component,
which in general implies deciding whether an experience is positive, stressful, or
irrelevant with regard to well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), is comprised of an
appraisal of a person’s ability to meet multiple work and family responsibilities. The
affective component of satisfaction with work-family balance includes a positive feeling
or emotional state as a result of this positive appraisal.
Satisfaction with work-family balance is distinct from constructs describing
cross-domain transfer processes such as work-family conflict, enrichment, or
facilitation. Whereas cross-domain constructs such as work-family conflict refer to
experiences in one role which affect the quality of or the performance in the other role,
satisfaction with work-family balance refers to the overall level of contentment with
how one handles his/her work and family demands (Valcour, 2007).
JMP Whereas the majority of studies assessed satisfaction with work-family balance
25,6 with a single item measure (Clarke et al., 2004; Milkie and Peltola, 1999; Saltzstein et al.,
2001), Valcour developed a multi-item scale for the construct. An initial empirical test
revealed good internal consistency of the instrument. Satisfaction with work-family
balance was found to be negatively related with working hours and positively related
with job complexity and control over work time (Valcour, 2007).
672
Work demands
According to a resources-demands theoretical framework, in which this study is
grounded, work demands refer to “physical, social, or organizational aspects of a job
that require sustained physical or mental effort, and are therefore associated with
certain physiological and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). This
approach resonates with the theory of role strain (Goode, 1960), according to which
individuals have a finite amount of resources available that can be devoted to multiple
roles in life. Time or energy devoted to one role (e.g. work) is not available to another
role (e.g. family). Voydanoff (2005a) distinguishes two types of work demands:
time-based and strain-based demands. Whereas time-based work demands are related
to negative work-family outcomes through a process of resource drain or scarcity,
strain-based work demands work through processes of psychological spillover
between domains. Time-based work demands may include long working hours,
overtime, and organizational time expectations. Examples of strain-based demands are
work overload, work pressure, work distress or job insecurity. Several work demands
were found to be linked to higher levels of work-family conflict and lower levels of
work-family balance (Batt and Valcour, 2003; Frone et al., 1997; Hill et al., 2001; Major
et al., 2002; Milkie and Peltola, 1999; Valcour, 2007; Voydanoff, 2005a, b). The present
paper proceeds with three different types of work demands, namely organizational
time expectations, psychological job demands, and job insecurity and their
relationships with satisfaction with work-family balance.

Organizational time expectations

A prominent theme in work-family research is that organizational time demands and
long working hours have a negative effect on employee’s abilities to effectively balance
work and nonwork lives (e.g. Duxbury et al., 1994; Greenhaus et al., 1987; Gutek et al.,
1991; Hochschild, 1997; Spector et al., 2007; Voydanoff, 2005b). Even when work role
demands are not onerous, difficult, or displeasing, they are required at particular times
and places (Goode, 1960, p. 485), and can come into conflict with family roles. Long
working hours and overtime, in particular, may reduce individuals’ time available for
family life, and thus make it difficult for them to fulfill their family obligations
(Tenbrunsel et al., 1995). Coser (1974) described both work and family as “greedy
institutions” that demand as much as possible from individuals engaged in them. As a
consequence, individuals who work long hours were found to experience conflict
between work and family (e.g. Major et al., 2002; Voydanoff, 2005b), and to be less
satisfied with their work-family balance (Milkie and Peltola, 1999; Valcour, 2007).
Whereas Valcour (2007) investigated the relationship between actual working hours
and satisfaction with work-family balance, the present paper examines the role of
individuals’ perceptions of organizational time demands. Organizational time
expectations refer to organizational norms about how many hours employees are
expected to work and how they should use their time. This construct is distinct from Satisfaction with
workaholism which refers to individuals’ actual, voluntary, and steady allocation of a work-family
considerable amount of time to work related activities (Harpaz and Snir, 2003).
Organizational time expectations capture employees’ perceptions to what extent their balance
organization expects them to prioritize work over family. They form an important part
of an organization’s work-family culture and vary significantly across organizations
(Thompson et al., 1999). High organizational time expectations were found to be related 673
to the experience of conflict between work and family (Beauregard, 2005; Thompson
et al., 1999), and clearly hamper employees in balancing work and family life. In line
with these findings, it is hypothesized:
H1. Perceived high levels of organizational time expectations will be negatively
related to satisfaction with work-family balance.

Psychological job demands

Psychological job demands refer to stressors that are directly related to the job task
and to workload accomplishment (Karasek, 1979; Karasek et al., 1998). A heavy
workload or conflicting job demands, for example, may create strain which spills over
into family life and increases the experience of work interfering with family life.
Several empirical studies have revealed positive relationships between workload, work
role ambiguity and work-family conflict (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999; Butler et al., 2005;
Carlson and Perrewé, 1999; Frone et al., 1997; Spector et al., 2007; Voydanoff, 2004a,
2005b). Exposure to high levels of psychological job demands may mitigate employees’
ability to actively participate in non-work roles and negatively impact their overall
assessment of satisfaction with work-family balance. A study among US government
employees reported a negative association between work demands and satisfaction
with work-family balance (Saltzstein et al., 2001). Accordingly, it is hypothesized:
H2. Perceived high levels of psychological job demands will be negatively related
to satisfaction with work-family balance.

Job insecurity
Job insecurity can be defined as an individual’s “powerlessness to maintain desired
continuity in a threatened job situation” (Rosenblatt and Ruvio, 1996, p. 587). Global
competition, restructuring and increasing workplace flexibility have increased
employee’s feelings of job insecurity, and its detrimental effects on employee’s
attitudes and well-being have attracted increasing scholarly attention in the last two
decades (Sverke et al., 2002). The literature distinguishes two forms of job insecurity:
objective job insecurity or actual job loss, and subjective job insecurity which refers to
an individual’s fear or worry about the job future (Sverke and Hellgren, 2002). Several
studies reported that perceived threats to one’s job have negative consequences for
individuals, similarly as actual job loss (e.g. Dekker and Schaufeli, 1995; Latack and
Dozier, 1986). In this paper, the focus is on perceived job insecurity rather than actual
job loss.
According to Voydanoff (2005b), job insecurity is a strain-based work demand
which presents a threat to the economic well-being of an individual, a necessary
requirement for the stability and quality of one’s family life. There is empirical
evidence that job insecurity is related to a number of work-family outcomes such as
JMP marital tension (Hughes and Galinsky, 1994), marriage and family problems (Wilson
25,6 et al., 1993), and higher levels of work-to-family conflict in employees (e.g. Batt and
Valcour, 2003; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Voydanoff, 2004b, 2005b). However, no
study that has been looking at the impact of job insecurity on satisfaction with
work-life balance could be identified. In increasingly turbulent business environments,
employees may be increasingly exposed to job loss or at least perceive their jobs as
674 insecure which presents a threat to their personal life. Accordingly, it is hypothesized:
H3. Perceived job insecurity will be negatively related to satisfaction with
work-family balance.

Work resources
The workplace can provide employees with resources that are beneficial for family life
and enable them to better function in the family domain. Work resources refer to
aspects of one’s job that are either functional in achieving work goals, reduce costs
associated with job demands, or stimulate personal growth and development. They can
either be intrinsic to the task (e.g. job variety, job autonomy, feedback) or located in the
context of the workplace or broader work environment (e.g. learning and career
opportunities, social support at work) (Demerouti et al., 2001). According to the
enhancement argument in role theory (Sieber, 1974), participation in the work role can
generate a number of domain resources such as skills, abilities, psychological benefits
and social support, that enable employees to better take care of their family
responsibilities. Empirical studies have revealed positive relationships between job
autonomy, job variety and complexity, learning opportunities, meaningful work and
respect, and work-family facilitation (Butler et al., 2005; Grzywacz and Butler, 2005;
Voydanoff, 2004b)

Job control
Job control refers to the degree to which an employee perceives that he/she can control
when, where, and how to do his/her job (Kossek et al., 2006). Control over work is a
resource that is inherent to the job itself and increases employees’ abilities to manage
demands of multiple life roles. The re is empirical evidence that having control over
one’s work is related to increased individual well-being (Hackman and Oldham, 1980),
less work-family conflict (Kossek et al., 2006; Thomas and Ganster, 1995), and higher
levels of work-family facilitation (Butler et al., 2005) and work-family balance (Offer
and Schneider, 2008). More specifically, having control over one’s working time which
enables individuals to better attend to family responsibilities was found to be
positively related to satisfaction with work-life balance (Valcour, 2007). In line with
these findings, it is hypothesized:
H4. Job control will be positively related to satisfaction with work-family balance.

Social support at work

Research on occupational stress and the work-family interface has identified social
support as an important resource or coping mechanism to deal with the negative
effects of stress (Carlson and Perrewé, 1999; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Social support
at work refers to interpersonal relationships and social interactions with peers or
supervisors that help to protect individuals from the negative effects of stress (Nielsen
et al., 2001). Supervisors and peers may either provide direct assistance and advice in Satisfaction with
order to help employees to better meet their family responsibilities, and/or provide work-family
emotional support by understanding and listening, and by showing concern for the
well-being of the employees and their families (Frone et al., 1997). Having a supportive balance
supervisor was found to be related to lower levels of work-to-family conflict (Batt and
Valcour, 2003; Ganster and Fusilier, 1989) and to higher levels of work-to-family
facilitation in employees (Voydanoff, 2004b). Social support from co-workers was 675
found to be negatively associated with employees’ work-to-family conflict (Major et al.,
2007). Wayne et al. (2007) suggested that supportive co-workers may lead to positive
affect, a sense of energy, and confidence from work, which may enhance family
functioning. A recent meta-analysis found both perceived social support from
supervisors and co-workers to be positively related to job satisfaction (Ng and
Sorensen, 2008). In line with these findings, it is expected that social support at work
will be related to higher levels of satisfaction with work-family balance.
H5. Social support at work will be positively related to satisfaction with
work-family balance.

Negative work-to-home interference

According to role theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966), negative work-home interference or
work-family conflict is defined as “a type of inter-role conflict that occurs when the role
demands stemming from one domain (work or family) interfere or are incompatible
with role demands stemming from the other domain (family or work)” (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985, p.77). While early studies conceptualized conflict between work and
family/home as a uni-dimensional construct (Bedeian et al., 1988; Kopelman et al.,
1983), later research distinguished two directions of interference: work interfering with
family/home and family/home interfering with work (Frone et al., 1992; Frone et al.,
1997; Geurts et al., 2005). Drawing on the scarcity argument in role theory (Goode,
1960), work-related stressors and characteristics (e.g. work distress, work overload,
work time commitment) were primarily related to negative work-to-home interference
(WHI), whereas family-related stressors and characteristics (e.g. family distress,
parental overload, and parental time commitment) were mainly linked to negative
home-to-work interference (HWI) in previous research (Boyar et al., 2008; Frone et al.,
1997; Stevens et al., 2007). As the present study is concerned with demands and
resources originating in the work domain, the focus in this paper is on WHI.
Empirical studies have revealed a number of negative consequences of high levels
of work-to-family conflict for individuals, such as turnover, burnout, life stress and
strain (see Allen et al., 2000 for an overview). A meta-analysis conducted by Kossek
and Ozeki (1998) reported consistent negative relationships between work-to-family
conflict and job and life satisfaction. Although some researchers suggested that
work-family conflict and satisfaction with work-family balance could be opposite ends
on a continuum (Higgins et al., 2000; Valcour, 2007), an empirical test of this
assumption is still missing. Employees who experience high levels of work-to-home
interference may be less able to manage their work and family responsibilities, and
thus negatively evaluate their work-family balance. Accordingly, it is hypothesized:
H6. Work-to-home interference will be negatively related to satisfaction with
work-family balance.
JMP Several studies provided empirical evidence that work-to-family conflict at least
25,6 partially mediates the relationships between work demands and health outcomes such
as life stress, health complaints, emotional exhaustion, and burnout (Geurts et al., 2003;
Jansen et al., 2004; Montgomery et al., 2006; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Frone et al. (1992)
suggested a model that specifies WHI as a mediating factor through which work
demands negatively influence non-work satisfaction. The results of a recent
676 meta-analysis conducted by Ford et al. (2007) provide partial support for this model.
Work-to-family conflict was found to be a partial mediator of the relationships between
job involvement, job stress, work support, and work hours and family satisfaction.
According to the model of Frone et al. (1992), job demands such as organizational
time expectations, psychological job demands and job insecurity may be related to
increased levels of WHI. The experience of high WHI may diminish employees’
abilities to reconcile work and family responsibilities, and leave them with lower levels
of overall satisfaction with work-family balance. Work resources such as social
support at work or job control, on the other hand, may alleviate work-to-family conflict
in employees, and leave them with feelings of having successfully managed their work
and family life. Accordingly, it is hypothesized:
H7a WHI will mediate the negative relationship between high levels of
organizational time expectations and satisfaction with work-family balance.
H7b. WHI will mediate the negative relationship between perceived high levels of
psychological job demands and satisfaction with work-family balance.
H7c. WHI will mediate the negative relationship between perceived job insecurity
and satisfaction with work-family balance.
H8a. WHI will mediate the positive relationship between job control and
satisfaction with work-family balance.
H8b. WHI will mediate the positive relationship between social support at work
and satisfaction with work-family balance.

Method
Data and sample
Data for this study were obtained from two service sector organizations in Germany.
The participating companies were in the financial services and information
technology. An online survey was used to collect data in both organizations. E-mail
addresses were facilitated by the HR-departments of the respective companies.
Participants were allowed to complete the questionnaire during working hours.
A total of 2,273 questionnaires were distributed among the employees of those two
companies. 880 questionnaires were returned (for a response rate of 39 per cent). After
controlling for missing data, 716 questionnaires were retained for further analyses. Of
the respondents, 57.4 per cent were male and 42.6 per cent were female. The average
age of respondents was 40.2 years; 72 per cent were married or had a partner; 40 per
cent had a least one child living at home; parents reported an average of 1.6 children; 40
per cent of respondents had a university degree, 30 per cent had a high school diploma,
and 30 per cent less than a high school diploma. Average organizational tenure was ten
years. Of the participants, 10 per cent worked a part-time schedule of 30 hours or less Satisfaction with
per week. On average, respondents worked 40.2 hours per week. work-family
balance
Measures
Satisfaction with work-family balance. Satisfaction with work-family balance was
measured with three items developed by Valcour (2007). Response options ranged from 677
1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Higher scores indicated higher levels of
satisfaction with work-life balance. These items were “How satisfied or dissatisfied are
you with the way you divide your time between work and personal life?”, “How
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to meet the needs of your job with
those of your personal or family life?”, and “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the opportunity you have to perform your job well and yet be able to perform
home-related duties adequately?” Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.89.
Organizational time expectations. Three items assessed employees’ perceptions of
organizational time demands (Dikkers et al., 2004). Responses were made on a
five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree) with higher scores
indicating higher levels of perceived organizational time expectations. Example items
were “To get ahead in this organisation, employees are expected to work overtime on a
regular basis.” and “In this organization employees are expected to put their job before
their private life when necessary.” Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.85.
Psychological job demands. Five items taken from the Swedish
Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ) were used to measure psychological
demands at work (Sanne et al., 2005). Example items were “Does your job require you
to work fast?” and “Does your job often make conflicting demands on you?” Each item
was rated on a four-point scale (1 ¼ never; 4 ¼ always) with higher scores indicating
more psychological demands at work. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.75.
Job insecurity. Four items on a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree;
5 ¼ strongly agree) were used to measure perceived job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2004).
Higher scores indicated higher levels of perceived job insecurity. Example items were
“I am afraid I will lose my job.” and “I worry about keeping my job.” Cronbach’s alpha
was 0.90.
Negative work-to-home interference. Three items of the SWING Work-Home
Interaction Survey Nijmegen were used to assess negative work-to-home interference
(Geurts et al., 2005). Example items were “How often does it happen that you do not
have the energy to engage in leisure activities with your spouse/family/friends because
of your job?” and “How often does it happen that your work obligations make it
difficult to feel relaxed at home?” Each item was rated on a four-point scale (1 ¼ never;
4 ¼ always). Higher scores indicate high levels of work-to-home conflict. Cronbach’s
alpha of the scale was 0.75.
Job control. Job control was assessed with two items taken from the decision
authority scale of the Swedish Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ) (Sanne
et al., 2005), and two items from the psychological job control measure of Kossek et al.
(2006). Example items were “Are you free to decide how your job is to be done?” and
“Are you free to decide when you do your work?“ Responses were made on a four-point
scale (1 ¼ never; 4 ¼ always). Higher scores indicated high levels of job control.
Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.72.
JMP Social support at work. Five items of the social support sub-scale of the Swedish
25,6 DCSQ (Sanne et al., 2005) were used to assess social support at work. Response options
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with higher scores indicating
higher levels of social support at work. Example items were “People at work
understand that I can have a bad day” and “I get along well with my supervisor.”
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.84.
678 Controls. Sex, age, organizational tenure (measured in years), number of children,
supervisor status, and type of organization were used as control variables in all
statistical analyses. Sex was a dummy variable coded 0 ¼ men and 1 ¼ women.
Supervisor status was dummy-coded with 0 ¼ employee and 1 ¼ supervisor. Type of
organization was coded with 0 ¼ financial sector and 1 ¼ IT services.

Data analysis and results

Multiple regression analyses were used to test the study hypotheses. The procedure as
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) was applied to assess the mediating role of
work-to-home interference. According to this strategy, three steps are required for the
assessment of mediation:
(1) the dependent variable (DV) is regressed onto the independent variable (IV);
(2) the mediator is regressed onto the IV; and
(3) the DV is regressed onto both the IV and the mediator.
Support for mediation requires significant relationships in the first two steps, as well
as a non-significant relationship between the IV and DV when the mediator is present.
Because the procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986) does not test for significance of the
mediating effect, a Sobel test was performed to assess whether the indirect effect was
significant (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).
Due to potential overlap of variables, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted prior to hypotheses testing to verify that psychological job demands,
organizational time demands, negative work-to-home interference and satisfaction
with work-family balance are four distinct constructs. A CFA using maximum
likelihood estimation supported a four-factor solution, x 2 (71, n ¼ 716) ¼ 282.89. The
key fit indices of the four-factor model were as followed: root mean square error of
approximation ¼ 0.07, comparative fit index ¼ 0.95, normed fit index ¼ 0.94, and
Tucker-Lewis Index ¼ 0.93. The fit of the four-factor solution was also compared with
a one-factor model, and several two- and three-factor models, but the four-factor model
did fit the data significantly better in all instances.

Results
Table I presents Pearson’s correlation coefficients, means, standard deviations, and
Cronbach’s alphas for all study variables.
Results of hierarchical regression analyses are presented in Table II. Model 1 only
includes control variables. None of them was significantly related to satisfaction with
work-family balance. In Model 2, satisfaction with work-family balance was regressed
on perceived work demands, and in Model 3 on both work demands and work
resources. Consistent with H1-H3, perceived high organizational time expectations
(b ¼ 2 0.20, p , 0.01), perceived psychological job demands (b ¼ 2 0.25, p , 0.01),
and perceived job insecurity (b ¼ 2 0.13, p , 0.01) were all significantly and
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Sex 0.43 0.49 –

2 Age 40.19 10.49 2 0.18 * * –
3 Job tenure 10.07 10.06 2 0.05 0.69 * * –
4 No of children 0.71 0.91 2 0.15 * * 0.22 * * 0.09 * –
5 Supervisor status 0.22 0.42 2 0.13 * * 0.12 * * 0.10 * * 0.04 –
6 Org. time demands 3.08 0.94 0.05 2 0.02 0.04 2 0.02 0.15 * * (0.85)
7 Psych. job demands 2.19 0.53 2 0.10 * * 0.21 * * 0.16 * * 0.05 0.21 * * 0.30 * * (0.75)
8 Job insecurity 2.09 0.94 0.09 * 2 0.13 * * 2 0.15 * * 2 0.04 2 0.11 * * 0.15 * * 0.09 * (0.90)
9 Job control 2.18 0.56 2 0.09 * 0.27 * * 0.24 * * 0.09 * 0.17 * * 2 0.07 * 0.06 2 0.24 * * (0.72)
10 Social support 4.07 0.63 2 0.02 2 0.15 * * 2 0.11 * * 2 0.07 0.06 2 0.10 * * 2 0.07 2 0.13 * * 0.13 * * (0.84)
11 WHI 1.98 0.59 0.05 0.04 0.04 2 0.05 0.17 * * 0.40 * * 0.46 * * 0.24 * * 2 0.07 2 0.15 * * (0.75)
12 Satisfaction wf-balance 3.34 0.87 2 0.02 2 0.03 0.00 2 0.02 2 0.08 * 2 0.34 * * 2 0.34 * * 2 0.22 * * 0.17 * * 0.23 * * 2 0.59 * * (0.89)
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; Cronbach’s alpha appears along the diagonal in parentheses; n ¼ 716; sex is dummy-coded 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female; supervisor status is dummy-
coded 0 ¼ employee, 1 ¼ supervisor

Pearson’s correlation
balance
work-family

variables
coefficients among study
679
Satisfaction with

Table I.
JMP
Standardized coefficients (beta)
25,6 Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Controls
Female (reference ¼ male) 20.03 2 0.02 2 0.01 0.01
Age 2 0.02 2 0.02 0.00 0.01
680 Job tenure 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Number of children 2 0.01 2 0.01 2 0.01 20.04
IT (ref. ¼ financial services) 2 0.04 2 0.01 2 0.03 20.06
Supervisor (ref. ¼ employee) 2 0.08 2 0.02 2 0.05 20.01
Work demands
Org. time expectations 2 0.23 * 2 0.20 * 20.09 *
Psych. job demands 2 0.25 * 2 0.25 * 20.07
Job insecurity 2 0.17 * 2 0.13 * 20.06
Work resources
Job control 0.13 * 0.12 *
Social support 0.16 * 0.12 *
Work-family interface
WHI 20.48 *
F 1.01 19.30 * 20.07 * 37.70 *
Table II. Adjusted R 2 0.00 0.19 0.23 0.39
Hierarchical regression Change in R 2 0.19 0.04 0.16
analysis of satisfaction
with work-family balance Notes: *p , 0.01; n ¼ 716

negatively related to satisfaction with work-family balance (Model 3). Job control
(b ¼ 0.13, p , 0.01) and social support at work (b ¼ 0.16, p , 0.01) were significantly
and positively related to satisfaction with work-family balance. Thus, H4 and H5 were
supported.
When work-home interference was added in Model 4, results supported H6,
showing a negative and statistically significant relationship between WHI and
satisfaction with work-family balance (b ¼ 2 0.48, p , 0.01). H7a-H7c posited that
negative work-to-home interference will mediate the relationship between
psychological job demands, organizational time expectations, and job insecurity and
satisfaction with work-family balance. H8a-H8b suggested that the relationship
among job control and social support at work and satisfaction with work-family
balance will be mediated by negative work-home interference. As all independent
variables were significantly related to the dependent variable the first requirement
according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure was fulfilled. WHI regressed on the
independent variables (results not shown) yielded significant and positive
relationships for organizational time expectations (b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.01), psychological
job demands (b ¼ 0.36, p , 0.01), and job insecurity (b ¼ 0.16, p , 0.01), and a
significant, negative relationship for social support at work (b ¼ 2 0.08, p , 0.05),
thus fulfilling the second requirement. However, job control was not significantly
associated with negative work-home interference (b ¼ 2 0.03, p ¼ 0.34).
Step 3 of the procedure (Table II, Model 4), in which satisfaction with work-family
balance was regressed on both the mediator and the independent variables, resulted in
non-significant standardized beta weights for psychological job demands (b ¼ 2 0.07,
p ¼ 0.07) and job insecurity (b ¼ 2 0.06, p ¼ 0.07), indicating full mediation. The Satisfaction with
standardized beta weights for perceived organizational time expectations were still work-family
significant but decreased considerably (b ¼ 2 0.09 versus 2 0.20), suggesting partial
mediation. The results of the Sobel test provided support for the indirect relationship balance
between perceived organizational time expectations (z ¼ 2 6.61, p , 0.01),
psychological job demands (z ¼ 2 9.18, p , 0.01) and job insecurity (z ¼ 2 5.14,
p , 0.01), and satisfaction with work-family balance via WHI. However, regression 681
coefficients for job control and social support remained significant and hardly changed
in size. Accordingly, H7a-H7c, referring to work demands, received support, whereas
H8a-H8b on work resources were not supported by the data.

Discussion
Drawing on a resources-demands theoretical framework (Voydanoff, 2005a), the
present study examined work-related antecedents of employees’ satisfaction with
work-family balance and the mediating role of negative work-to-home interference.
Satisfaction with work-family balance was conceptualized in line with Valcour’s (2007)
unitary and holistic definition of the construct. Consistent with the resource-demands
perspective as well as the resource scarcity argument in role strain theory (Goode,
1960), perception of high levels of organizational time expectations were found to be
negatively related to employees’ satisfaction with work-life balance, implying that
organizational time demands decrease employees’ abilities to reconcile multiple role
demands and successfully integrate work and family life. Social support at work from
colleagues and supervisors was found to be positively related to satisfaction with
work-family balance, which is consistent with the enhancement argument in role
theory (Sieber, 1974). High levels of psychological job demands stemming from the job
itself were negatively related to employees’ satisfaction with work-family balance. The
continuous experience of work overload, tight deadlines and conflicting demands at
work create strain in employees, reduce their ability to take care of their non-work
responsibilities, and are accompanied by feelings of dissatisfaction with work-family
balance. Having control over one’s working time, space and mode of task
accomplishment, on the other hand, enable employees to better manage their
multiple responsibilities and were associated with a positive evaluation of their
work-family balance. These findings are in favor of work redesign initiatives in
organizations which provide employees with greater control and autonomy at work,
and thus allow for more flexibility in managing their job and family demands. Such
initiatives may include flexible work schedules, autonomous work teams, and
employee involvement in decision making. Berg et al. (2003) provide empirical evidence
that high-commitment work-environments, which are comprised of such initiatives,
have a positive impact on employees’ abilities to balance work and family demands.
Consistent with predictions, perceived job insecurity was negatively related to
satisfaction with work-family balance. This finding confirms the importance of secure
employment conditions for employee well-being and satisfaction. Although
organizations may not always be able to avoid feelings of job insecurity among
their staff (e.g. in economic turbulences), they may provide accurate information and
enhance internal communication in order to minimize the negative impact of job
insecurity on employee well-being (Sverke and Hellgren, 2002).
JMP Further, negative work-to-home interference was tested as an antecedent of
25,6 satisfaction with work-family balance and as a mediator of several relationships. The
picture that emerges from this study is intriguing. Work demands (perceived high
levels of organizational time demands and psychological job demands, as well as
perceived job insecurity) and satisfaction with work-family balance were to a large
extent mediated by WHI. These results suggest that high job demands compete for
682 scarce individual resources such as time and energy, which leaves employees with the
feelings of conflict between work and family life. The experience of negative
work-to-home interference is associated with lesser employees’ ability to manage both
realms and lower satisfaction with work-family balance. However, factors that are
positively related to satisfaction with work-family balance, such as experiencing
control over one’s job and social support at work, are largely independent of WHI. In
other words, even in presence of work-home conflict, job control and social support at
work increase satisfaction with work-family balance and in this way partly offset the
negative impact of WHI. Social support from colleagues and supervisors is an
important components of an organization’s work-family culture (Thompson et al.,
1999). Consequently, organizations need to create organizational environments
supportive of employees’ non-work responsibilities if they seek for employees with a
balanced life. Such environments do not only require organizational initiatives such as
the implementation of family-friendly policies but also require managers, mentors and
co-workers who are sensitive toward work-family issues and supportive of employees
with multiple role demands. Inexperienced managers and those who do not have
family responsibilities themselves may need assistance (e.g. in form of training) in how
to better manage and support their employees (Nord et al., 2002).
Some research on work-family balance suggested that individuals may only
experience work-family balance when conflict between work and family is present at a
low level (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Higgins et al., 2000; Valcour, 2007). Although other
studies do not support this argument (Aryee et al., 2005; Grzywacz and Marks, 2000), a
definite test of this assumption was still missing. The present study provides evidence
that negative work-to-home interference and satisfaction with work-family balance are
inversely related and may represent opposite ends of a continuum. Despite a high
correlation between WHI and satisfaction with work-family balance, the results of the
confirmatory analysis suggest that these are distinct constructs. Employees who
experience high levels of work-to-home conflict tend to be less satisfied with their
ability to balance work and non-work responsibilities. However, job related resources,
such as control over work and social support at work function as a cushion against
dissatisfaction. Hence, organizational and personal initiatives which aim at reducing
work-to-home conflict and supportive organizational environment are necessary in
order to increase satisfaction with work-family balance in employees.

Limitations and future research suggestions

This study has some limitations that should be noted here. As is the case with the
majority of studies in work-family research, the study has a cross-sectional
non-experimental design which does not allow for definite causal conclusions (Spector,
2002; Stone-Romero and Rosopa, 2008). Mediation models, such as the one proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) have been criticized for lacking the validity of inferences
about mediation when findings are based on non-experimental research. According to
Stone-Romero and Rosopa (2008), an ideal study for testing causal mediation would Satisfaction with
have to consist of two randomized experiments. Such a study design would provide for work-family
a test of a mediation model that has a high level of internal validity. Since the data used
in this study are non-experimental survey data, we cannot provide a definite evidence balance
of mediation. The results of our study are consistent with the assumed causal model of
high work demands leading to work-home conflict and consequently to low
satisfaction with work-family balance but we cannot rule out rival explanations of 683
detected relationships. Experimental research designs and longitudinal studies are
required in the future to determine the directionality of the proposed relationships.
Another limitation of the study is its sample composition (office workers of two
organizations in banking and information technology). Hence, the results of the study
may not generalize to a larger population of workers. Next, all variables were
self-reported by the study participants, introducing the possibility that common
method bias may influence the results. As outlined by Podsakoff et al. (2003), there are
a number of statistical and procedural remedies for minimizing common method
variance. One of the most frequently used methods for assessing common method
variance is Harman’s single-factor test, which is based on the assumption that a single
factor will emerge from an exploratory factor analysis when common method variance
is present (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although the Harman’s single factor test does not
statistically control for common method bias effects, it can serve as a diagnostic
technique for assessing the extent to which common variance may be a problem A post
hoc analysis utilizing Harman’s single-factor test revealed that the variables in this
study did not load onto a single factor. Furthermore, Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggested
that common method bias can be reduced by protecting the anonymity of the
respondent and reducing evaluation apprehension. In our study, this was
accomplished through the cover e-mail requesting participation in the study.
Respondents were assured of confidentiality, anonymity, and that there were no right
or wrong answers to the questions on the survey.
Despite these statistical and procedural remedies, the possibility of common method
variance cannot be completely discounted. Future research would definitely benefit
from multiple data sources, but we would also like to point out that using multiple
sources for collecting data on sensitive issues such as work-family integration can be
problematic (Aryee et al., 2005). Especially in countries with strict legal regulations for
data protection, such as Germany, gathering data on sensitive issues from colleagues
and supervisors is extremely difficult because matching of multisource data
undermines anonymity of respondents.
Apart from methodological improvements, several content-related suggestions for
future research can be pointed out. In addition to the time- and strain-based work
demands examined in this study, there are several additional organizational demands
which potentially may have an influence on satisfaction with work-family balance,
such as time pressure and intensification of work, face-time, workload, career
expectations and peer pressure. In terms of work resources, it would be advisable to
look at different sources of organizational support, such as colleagues and supervisors
separately as they may influence satisfaction with work-family balance differently.
Whereas this study used a measure of social support that is not specific to the
work-family interface, future studies would definitively benefit from using more
specific measures such as family supportive supervisory behaviors (Hammer et al.,
JMP 2007). In addition, the impact of different types of work-family benefits on satisfaction
25,6 with work-family balance would be worth examining. Last but not least, the present
study focused on demands and resources originating in the work place. Looking at
family demands and resources such as dependent care responsibilities, distribution of
housework, and social support from partners, family members or friends would
improve our understanding about factors outside of the work domain that contribute to
684 individual’s satisfaction with work-family balance (Valcour, 2007).

References
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 278-308.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S. and Tan, H.H. (2005), “Rhythms of life: antecedents and outcomes of
work-family balance in employed parents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 132-46.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 259-78.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Batt, R. and Valcour, P.M. (2003), “Human resource practices as predictors of work-family
outcomes and employee turnover”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 189-220.
Beauregard, T.A. (2005), “Predicting interference between work and home. A comparison of
dispositional and situational antecedents”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 244-64.
Bedeian, A.G., Burke, B.G. and Moffett, R.G. (1988), “Outcomes of work-family conflict among
married male and female professionals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 475-91.
Berg, P., Kalleberg, A.L. and Appelbaum, E. (2003), “Balancing work and family: the role of
high-commitment environments”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 168-88.
Berg, P., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2004), “Contesting time: international
comparisons of employee control of working time”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 331-49.
Blossfeld, H.-P. and Drobnič, S. (Eds) (2001), Careers of Couples in Contemporary Societies: From
Male Breadwinner to Dual-Earner Families, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Boyar, S.L., Maertz, C.P. Jr, Mosley, D.C. Jr and Carr, J.C. (2008), “The impact of work/family
demand on work-family conflict”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 215-35.
Burchell, B.J., Ladipo, D. and Wilkinson, F. (2002), Job Insecurity and Work Intensification,
Routledge, London.
Butler, A.B., Grzywacz, J.G., Bass, B.L. and Linney, K.D. (2005), “Extending the demands-control
model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work-family
facilitation”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 155-69.
Carlson, D.S. and Perrewé, P.L. (1999), “The role of social support in the stressor-strain
relationship: an examination of work-family conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 513-40.
Clark, S.C. (2001), “Work cultures and work/family balance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Satisfaction with
Vol. 58, pp. 348-65.
work-family
Clarke, M.C., Koch, L.C. and Hill, E.J. (2004), “The work-family interface: differentiating balance
and fit”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 121-40. balance
Coser, L.A. (Ed.) (1974), Greedy Institutions. Patterns of Undivided Commitment, Free Press, New
York, NY.
Dekker, S.W.A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (1995), “The effects of job insecurity on psychological health 685
and withdrawal: a longitudinal study”, Australian Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 57-63.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job
demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,
pp. 499-512.
Dikkers, J., Geurts, S., Den Dulk, L., Peper, B. and Kompier, M.A. (2004), “Relations among
work-home culture, the utilization of work-home arrangements, and work-home
interference”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 11, pp. 323-45.
Drobnič, S. (2000), “The effects of children on married and lone mothers’ employment in the
United States and (West) Germany”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 137-57.
Duxbury, L., Higgins, C.A. and Lee, C. (1994), “Work-family conflict. A comparison of gender,
family type, and perceived control”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 15, pp. 449-66.
Ford, M.T., Heinen, B.A. and Langkarner, K.L. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict:
A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77, pp. 65-78.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K. and Markel, K.S. (1997), “Developing and testing an integrative model
of the work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 145-67.
Ganster, D. and Fusilier, M.R. (1989), “Control in the work-place”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.
(Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, London,
pp. 235-80.
Geurts, S.A., Kompier, M.A., Roxburgh, S. and Houtman, I.L. (2003), “Does work-home
interference mediate the relationship between workload and well-being?”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 532-59.
Geurts, S.A.E., Toon, W.T., Kompier, M.A.J., Dikkers, J.S.E., Van Hooff, M.L.M. and Kinnunen, U.M.
(2005), “Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: development and
validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING”, Work & Stress, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Goode, W.J. (1960), “A theory of role strain”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 483-96.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J.H., Bedeian, A.G. and Mossholder, K. (1987), “Work experiences, job performance,
and feeling of personal and family well-being”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31,
pp. 200-15.
Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M. and Shaw, J.D. (2003), “The relation between work-family balance
and quality of life”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 510-31.
JMP Grzywacz, J.G. and Butler, A.B. (2005), “The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family
facilitation: testing a theory and distinguishing a construct”, Journal of Occupational
25,6 Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-109.
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000), “Reconceptualizing the work-family interface”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 111-26.
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations for
686 work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 560-8.
Hackman, R. and Oldham, G. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Zimmerman, K. and Daniels, R. (2007), “Clarifying the construct of
family supportive supervisory behaviors”, in Perrewé, P.L. and Ganster, D. (Eds), Research
in Occupational Stress and Well-being, Vol. 6, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 171-211.
Harpaz, I. and Snir, R. (2003), “Workaholism: its definition and nature”, Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 3, pp. 291-319.
Heiligers, P.J.M. and Hingstman, L. (2000), “Career preferences and the work-family balance in
medicine: gender differences among medical specialists”, Social Science & Medicine,
Vol. 50, pp. 1235-46.
Higgins, C., Duxbury, L. and Johnson, K.L. (2000), “Part-time work for women: does it really help
balance work and family?”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., Ferris, M. and Weitzman, M. (2001), “Finding an extra day a week: the
positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance”, Family
Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Hochschild, A.R. (1997), The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work,
Metropolitan Books, New York, NY.
Hughes, D. and Galinsky, E. (1994), “Work experiences and marital interactions: elaborating the
complexity of work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 423-38.
Jansen, P.P.M., Peeters, M.C.W., De Jonge, J., Houkes, I. and Tummers, G.E.R. (2004), “Specific
relationships between job demands, job resources and psychological outcomes and the
mediating role of negative work-home interference”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 65, pp. 411-29.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 285-308.
Karasek, R.A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I.L. and Bongers, P. (1998), “The Job Content
Questionnaire ( JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of
psychosocial job characteristics”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 322-55.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 157-77.
Kopelman, R.E., Greenhaus, J.H. and Connolly, T.F. (1983), “A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: a construct validity study”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 32, pp. 198-215.
Kossek, E.E. and 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, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-49.
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A. and Eaton, S.C. (2006), “Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family
effectiveness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 347-67.
Lambert, S.J. (1990), “Processes linking work and family: a critical review and research agenda”, Satisfaction with
Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 239-57.
work-family
Latack, J.C. and Dozier, J.B. (1986), “After the axe falls: job loss on a career transition”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 375-92. balance
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lee, M.D. and Kossek, E.E. (2005), “Crafting lives that work: a six-year retrospective on
reduced-load work in the career and lives of professionals & managers”, McGill 687
University, Montreal.
Major, D.A., Fletcher, T.D., Davis, D.D. and Germano, L.M. (2007), “The influence of work-family
culture and workplace relationships on work interference with family: a multilevel model”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 881-97.
Major, V.S., Klein, K.J. and Ehrhart, M.G. (2002), “Work time, work interference with family and
psychological distress”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 427-36.
Milkie, M.A. and Peltola, P. (1999), “Playing all the roles: gender and the work-family balancing
act”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, pp. 476-90.
Milliken, F.J. and Dunn-Jensen, L.M. (2005), “The changing time demands of managerial and
professional work: implications for managing the work-life boundary”, in Kossek, E.E. and
Lambert, S. (Eds), Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 43-59.
Montgomery, A.J., Panagopolou, E., De Wildt, M. and Meenks, E. (2006), “Work-family
interference, emotional labor and burnout”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 36-51.
Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), “Toward a further understanding of the relationship
between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 243-68.
Nielsen, T.R., Carlson, D.S. and Lankau, M.J. (2001), “The supportive mentor as a means of
reducing work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 364-81.
Nord, W.R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A. and Viano, K. (2002), “Real-world reactions to work-life balance
programs: lessons for effective implementation”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 223-38.
Offer, S. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The emotional dimension of family time and their implications
for work-family balance”, in Korabik, K., Lero, D.S. and Whitehead, D.L. (Eds), Handbook
of Work-family Integration. Research, Theory, and Best Practices, Elsevier, London,
pp. 177-90.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y.S., Godshalk, V.M. and Beutell, N.J. (1996), “Work and family
variables, entrepreneurial career success and psychological well-being”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 275-300.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-31.
Rosenblatt, Z. and Ruvio, A. (1996), “A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: the case
of Israeli teachers”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 587-605.
JMP Saltzstein, A.L., Ting, Y. and Saltzstein, G.H. (2001), “Work-family balance and job satisfaction:
the impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees”,
25,6 Public Administrative Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 452-7.
Sanne, B., Steffen, T., Mykletun, A. and Dahl, A.A. (2005), “The Swedish
Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ): factor structure, item analyses, and
internal consistency in a large population”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 33,
pp. 166-74.
688
Sieber, S. (1974), “Toward a theory of role accumulation”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 39,
pp. 567-78.
Spector, P.E. (2002), “Research methods in industrial and organizational psychology: data
collection and data analysis with special consideration to professional issues”,
in Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Sage Publications, London, pp. 10-26.
Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S.A.Y., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez,
J.I., Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M, Beham, B., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, C.-Q.,
Lu, L., Moreno-Velázquez, I., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Salamatov, V., Shima, S., Suarez
Simoni, I., Ling Siu, O. and Widerszal-Bazyl, A. (2007), “Cross-national differences in
relationships of work demands, job satisfaction and turnover intentions with work-family
conflict”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 805-35.
Stevens, D.P., Minnotte, K.L., Mannon, S.E. and Kiger, G. (2007), “Examining the ‘neglected side
of the work-family interface’. Antecedents of positive and negative family-to-work
spillover”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 242-62.
Stone-Romero, E.F. and Rosopa, P.J. (2008), “The relative validity of inferences about mediation
as a function of research design characteristics”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 326-52.
Sverke, M. and Hellgren, J. (2002), “The nature of job insecurity: understanding employment
uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium”, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 51, pp. 23-42.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. and Näswell, K. (2002), “No security: a meta-analysis and review of job
insecurity and its consequences”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 242-64.
Sverke, M.J., Hellgren, K., Näswall, A., Chirumbolo, H., De Witte, H. and Goslinga, S. (2004), Job
Insecurity and Union Membership: European Unions in the Wake of Flexible Production,
P.I.E. – Peter Lang, Brussels.
Tenbrunsel, A.E., Brett, J.M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L.K. and Reilly, A.H. (1995), “Dynamic and static
work-family relationships”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 63, pp. 233-46.
Thomas, L. and Ganster, D. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 6-15.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and 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, Vol. 54, pp. 392-415.
Valcour, M.P. (2007), “Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work
hours and satisfaction with work-family balance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92
No. 6, pp. 1512-23.
Valcour, P.M. and Hunter, L.W. (2005), “Technology, organizations, and work-family
integration”, in Kossek, E.E. and Lambert, S.J. (Eds), Work and Family Integration:
Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 61-84.
Voydanoff, P. (2004a), “Implications of work and community demands and resources for Satisfaction with
work-to-family conflict and facilitation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 275-85. work-family
Voydanoff, P. (2004b), “The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict balance
and facilitation”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, pp. 398-412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005a), “Toward an conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance:
a demands and resources approach”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 67, pp. 822-36. 689
Voydanoff, P. (2005b), “Work demands and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: direct
and indirect relationships”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 707-26.
Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, M.K. (2007), “Work-family facilitation:
a theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 63-76.
Wilson, S.M., Larson, J.H. and Stone, K.L. (1993), “Stress among job insecure workers and their
spouses”, Family Relations, Vol. 42, pp. 74-80.

About the authors

Barbara Beham is currently an Assistant Professor in Gender & Diversity Management at the
Institute of Management at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin in Germany. She holds a Master
in Business Administration and a doctoral degree in business and social sciences. Her research
focuses on work-life balance, family-supportive organizational policies and practices, managerial
decision making in the work-family context, and organizational behavior. Barbara Beham is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: barbara.beham@wiwi.hu-berlin.de
Sonja Drobnič is Professor of Sociology at the University of Hamburg, Germany. She received
her PhD from Cornell University and was a Fellow at Radcliffe College, Harvard University. Her
current research interests include the relationship between working conditions and quality of
life, social capital, division of household labor, gender, and longitudinal research methods. She
has published in some leading sociological journals and co-edited Careers of Couples in
Contemporary Societies: From Male Breadwinner to Dual-Earner Families (Oxford University
Press, 2001) and Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women and Household Work in Cross-National
Perspective (Stanford University Press, forthcoming).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats