International Journal of Manpower

Work-family conflict/enrichment: the role of personal resources

Lior Oren, Liron Levin,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lior Oren, Liron Levin, (2017) "Work-family conflict/enrichment: the role of personal resources",
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 Issue: 8, pp.1102-1113, https://doi.org/10.1108/
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

IJM-06-2014-0135
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2014-0135
Downloaded on: 31 October 2017, At: 05:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 46 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"The relationship between work-family conflict, stress, and work attitudes", International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 Iss 8 pp. 1143-1156 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJM-01-2014-0014">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2014-0014</a>
(2017),"Work-life conflict of married and childless single female workers", International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 38 Iss 8 pp. 1157-1170 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2015-0089">https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2015-0089</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:198529 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm

IJM
38,8 Work-family conflict/enrichment:
the role of personal resources
Lior Oren and Liron Levin
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Psychology,
1102 Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
Received 23 June 2014
Revised 1 June 2015 Abstract
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

16 August 2015
24 October 2015 Purpose – The conservation of resources (COR) theory provides a theoretical foundation for work-family
18 January 2016 research. The purpose of this paper is to investigate thoroughly the associations between threat of or actual loss of
Accepted 30 May 2016 resources as well as gain of resources and work-family interaction, employing COR assumptions and measures.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 216 working mothers filled out a questionnaire that
included conservation of resources evaluation and scales measuring work-family conflict (WFC) and
enrichment. Analyses of variance were performed to test the hypothesized associations.
Findings – WFC and family-work conflict (FWC) were positively correlated with the threat of and actual loss
of resources; family-work enrichment (FWE) was positively correlated with the gain of resources. Participants
who reported higher threat of loss of resources compared to gain of resources reported high levels of WFC
and FWC; those who reported higher loss of resources compared to gain of resources reported high levels of
FWC. In addition, participants who reported gains that outweighed losses (whether actual loss or simply
threat of loss) reported higher levels of FWE.
Originality/value – The findings support using the COR theory as a theoretical basis for work-family
research and emphasize the detrimental role of threat of loss of resources. Theoretical and practical
implications are discussed.
Keywords Conflict, Enrichment, Conservation of resources, Resource reservoir, Work and family
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Manpower
Vol. 38 No. 8, 2017
pp. 1102-1113
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7720
DOI 10.1108/IJM-06-2014-0135
As the number of women, dual-earner couples, and single parents in the workforce increases
(Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014), and more individuals assume elder care responsibilities
(Zacher et al., 2012), it is clear that many employees face the challenge of managing
work and family roles (Major and Germano, 2006). Work-family balance has important
implications for individuals, organizations, and society, and consequently, a growing body
of research has explored the intersection of work and family domains.
Much research has focused on the stress of managing multiple roles. Work-family
conflict (WFC) arises when the demands in one domain (i.e. family) make it difficult to
meet the expectations and demands of the other domain (i.e. work) (Greenhaus and
Powell, 2003). The conflict perspective posits that individuals have a fixed amount of
psychological and physiological resources (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000), and juggling
multiple roles inevitably exhausts the total resources and leads to overall poor functioning
(Zedeck and Mosier, 1990). WFC is conceptualized as a bi-directional construct in which
work interferes with family (i.e. WFC) or family interferes with work (i.e. family-to-work
conflict(FWC)). The list of the possible consequences in relation to WFC is increasing.
These consequences may vary from physical and psychological health to attitudes
toward the job or to behaviors both within and outside the organization ( for a review,
see Amstad et al., 2011).
More recently, however, attention to the possible advantages of participating in both the
family and work domains has been growing (McNall et al., 2010; Wayne et al., 2007). Several
terms have been used to describe the positive side of work and family interface, including
enhancement (Ruderman et al., 2002), positive spillover (Hanson et al., 2006), and facilitation
(Frone, 2003), which, as some argue, are related but distinct constructs (Wayne, 2009), but
which others have used interchangeably. Work-family enrichment (WFE) arises when
 experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role (Greenhaus and Work-family
Powell, 2006). Carlson et al. (2006) posited that enrichment occurs when developmental, conflict/
capital, affective, and efficiency resources are acquired and transferred across domains. enrichment
WFE is also conceptualized as a bi-directional construct. Benefits can be derived from work
and applied to family (i.e. WFE) or derived from family and applied to work (i.e. family-to-
work enrichment (FWE)). Enrichment was found to be related to job satisfaction, family
satisfaction, and affective commitment, as well as indicators of physical and mental health 1103
(McNall et al., 2010).
In the past, one major barrier for work-family research has been the lack of a strong
conceptual framework capable of explaining the depleting and enriching relationships between
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

work and family (Greenhaus, 2008; Weer et al., 2010). If a theory was mentioned at all, WFC
researchers relied mainly on the role stress theory (Kahn et al., 1964), postulating that
participation in one role makes it more difficult to participate in another role. However, the role
stress theory has paid less attention to the family roles and cannot explain enriching
relationships between work and family. Several researchers (e.g. Frone, 2003; Wayne et al., 2007)
contended, therefore, that this area of research desperately needed theoretical development and
a foundation for empirical inquiry.
Although previous studies have suggested that conflict and enrichment between
work and family domains are two distinct processes, each having specific antecedents
(Boyar and Mosley, 2007), an integrated theoretical model that helps to account for both
conflicting and enriching relationships is needed (Casper et al., 2007; Frone, 2003).
A theoretical model may be able to demonstrate the relationships between enrichment and
conflict, and when is either most likely to occur. However, a paucity of research has
examined such a theoretical conceptualization (Aryee et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2009).
As already noted, in both enrichment and conflict, the critical role of resources has been
suggested (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Resources
have frequently been examined as antecedents in the work-family literature
(e.g. Hakanen et al., 2011). However, with few exceptions (e.g. Chen and Powell, 2012),
prior studies have focused on the level and amount of specific resources rather than on
gain or loss of resources, as suggested by the conservation of resources (COR) theory
(Hobfoll, 1989). In this study, we employed the well-known COR theory, and
investigated whether conflict and enrichment are related to change in resources.
We measured a broader range of resources, investigated threat of loss, loss and gain of
resources, and studied both the positive and negative bi-directional interactions between
work and family.

Loss and gain of resources and work-family interaction

The COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) is, arguably, one of the most influential theories
explaining human stress and well-being. The basic tenet of the COR theory is that
individuals strive to obtain, retain, protect, and foster those things that they value, or
serve as a means of obtaining things they value, named “resources”. Resources include
object resources (e.g. tools for work, car), condition resources (e.g. marriage, supportive
work relationships), personal resources (e.g. self-efficacy, self-esteem), and energy
resources (e.g. time, knowledge, credit). Individual difference variables (e.g. hope, personal
health) are also included as a component of the COR theory and are treated as resources
(Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). The COR theory suggests that resources exist in
caravans (Hobfoll, 2011). According to Hobfoll (2012), “The resource caravans concept
posits that personal, social, and material resources are created developmentally and that
they travel in “packs” or caravans, not singly as they are typically presented in the
literature” (p. 229; see also Greenhaus and Powell, 2006). For example, layoff may result,
among other things, in a reduced feeling of accomplishment, deterioration of relationships
 IJM with spouse and children, as well as less money for extras. In contrast, advancement to a
38,8 managerial role may result in a feeling of having control over one’s life, support from
co-workers, adequate home furnishings, but also less time with spouse and children.
According to the COR theory, stress occurs when resources are threatened, lost, or when
individuals invest resources and do not reap the anticipated level of return (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001).
In contrast, resource gains contribute to improved psychological well-being, health, and
1104 functioning, but there are relatively few studies of resources gains (Gorgievski and Hobfoll, 2009).
The COR theory has been suggested as a heuristic model that explains the etiology of the
interaction between work and family (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; McNall et al., 2010).
First, it integrates work and family by the concept of resources that join these different
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

domains in a common economy in which resources are exchanged (Hobfoll and

Freedy, 1993). Second, with its emphasis on loss and gain of resources, it may encompass the
pros and cons of the work-family interaction (i.e. conflict vs enrichment). Specifically, it is
argued that resources are lost in the process of juggling both work and family roles, and
these potential or actual losses of resources lead to a negative “state of being” (i.e. conflict)
(Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). In contrast, generation and preservation of resources leads
to “solid resource reservoir” (Hobfoll, 2002, p. 318) and triggers the enrichment process
(Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Williams et al., 2006).
Employing the COR as a theoretical basis, several studies examined the associations of
several resources with the work-family interaction. Family-supportive work environments
(Aryee et al., 2012) and high self-esteem (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999) were found to be
negatively related to both directions of conflict. Premeaux et al. (2007) found that while
flexibility in work scheduling and availability of dependent care were negatively related to
WFC, no relationships were found between job autonomy and conflict and, surprisingly, the
presence of a spouse or partner led to an increase in WFC. In addition, core self-evaluations
(i.e. self-efficacy and self-esteem) were found to be positively associated with WFE
(McNall et al., 2011).
As already noted, the COR theory has no predictions with regard to specific
resources, but deals with resources in total, and its main argument is that those with
greater resources are more resilient against stress than those with fewer resources are.
Accordingly, researchers (e.g. Greenhaus and Powell, 2006) found a wide range of
resources that can be associated with the interaction between work and family domains.
However, most studies investigated a few selected resources, and, not surprisingly, calls
have been made to investigate a broader range of resources (e.g. Demerouti et al., 2011;
Hakanen et al., 2011). Recently, Chen and Powell (2012) examined gain and loss of
work resources with regard to WFC and WFE. They found that resource loss directly
predicted WFC and resource gain directly predicted WFE. In addition, Chen et al. (2014)
found in a longitudinal study that work resource gain at time 1 weakened the
positive relationship between WFC at times 1 and 2, and work resource loss at time
1 weakened the positive relationship between WFE at times 1 and 2. However, only
intangible work role resources were assessed and FWE, FWC, as well as threat of loss of
resources were not studied.
We aimed to contribute to the literature by providing a more comprehensive
investigation of the relationship between loss, threat of loss, and gain of resources, on the
one hand, and conflict vs enrichment between work and family domains, on the other hand.
In accordance with the COR theory assumptions, we studied the associations between
resource reservoir and work-family interaction using the conservation of resources
evaluation (COR-E) measure that was created by Hobfoll et al. (1992) in order to measure
resource reservoir. Moreover, the results of previous studies showed that objectively clear
material loss, which was seldom examined in relation to the work-family interaction, was
highly related to well-being (Ennis et al., 2000; Oren and Possik, 2010).
 Based on the applications of the COR theory in the work-family interaction (Grandey and Work-family
Cropanzano, 1999; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006), we hypothesized: conflict/
H1. Levels of conflict between work and family domains (i.e. WFC, FWC) will be enrichment
positively correlated with threat or actual loss of resources.
H2. Levels of enrichment between work and family domains (i.e. WFE, FWE) will be
positively correlated with gain of resources. 1105
If resources underlie the ability to manage work and family interactions successfully, and
loss and gain of resources may occur simultaneously, then conflict and enrichment between
work and family domains should be related to change in resources. Downward changes in
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

resources (i.e. loss of resources outweighs gain of resources) should be positively related to
conflict and, in contrast, upward changes in resources (i.e. gain of resources outweighs loss
of resources) should be positively related to enrichment. Therefore, we hypothesized:
H3. Participants who report higher loss of resources than gain of resources will report
higher levels of conflict between work and family domains (i.e. WFC, FWC)
compared to participants who report higher gain of resources than loss of resources.
H4. Participants who report higher gain of resources than loss of resources will report
higher levels of enrichment between work and family domains (i.e. WFE, FWE)
compared to participants who report higher loss of resources than gain of resources.

Method
Participants
Participants were sought through the researchers’ personal networks and through websites
for working women and social networking websites (e.g. www.facebook.com), with
participant-to-participant snowballing encouraged. From 284 working mothers who were
contacted, 216 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 76 percent.
Participants were Israeli women working in a wide variety of industries in the interest of
obtaining a sample that represented a range of industries, tenure periods, and occupations.
Mean age was 35.84 (SD ¼ 7.51), mean years of education was 15.65 (SD ¼ 2.71), and tenure
with current employer was 6.94 years (SD ¼ 7.43). Most participants (73 percent) worked
full-time and all of them had dependent children aged 18 years or younger living at home
(M ¼ 2.21; SD ¼ 1.28). The majority of participants (95 percent) were married, reported that
their partner worked full-time, and had some help with children (mostly grandparents).
Participants lived in cities in western Israel, and over 70 percent of the participants defined
their socio-economic status as middle class.

Measures
Loss, threat of loss, and gain of resources were measured by COR-E (Hobfoll and Lilly, 1993).
COR-E is the companion measure for the COR theory, and was developed to examine
individuals’ resources. The subjects indicated the degree they lost, experienced threat of loss
or gained 53 resources (e.g. transportation, employment, medical insurance, family stability)
during the past six months on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (no threat of loss, loss, or gain)
to 4 (a great deal of threat of loss, loss, or gain). COR-E is a reliable and valid measure, and has
demonstrated excellent concurrent, divergent, and predictive validity of current stress in
community-based and trauma-based samples (Hobfoll et al., 1992; Hobfoll and Lilly, 1993).
Standardized item αs are not reported for COR-E because it is a checklist and one kind of loss
(or gain) does not necessarily mean that another kind occurs. Total impact scores were used in
order to define a single indicator of stress (or well-being) in the women’s lives.
 IJM WFC was measured using the WFC scale (Carlson et al., 2000). This scale has two
38,8 subscales, one measuring work conflicting with family (e.g. “My work keeps me from my
family activities more than I would like”, α ¼ 0.87) and one measuring family conflicting
with work (e.g. “The time I spend on family responsibilities often interferes with my work
responsibilities”, α ¼ 0.83). Each subscale consists of nine items measuring time-, strain-,
and behavior-based conflict. Ratings were completed on a five-point scale ranging from
1106 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Items were averaged into an overall measure of
WFC and FWC, consistent with the study’s aims and other studies (e.g. Carlson et al., 2000).
This measure is considered reliable and valid (Chang et al., 2010).
WFE was measured using Carlson et al.’s (2006) 18-item measure. This scale is also
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

comprised of two subscales, one measuring WFE (development, affect, and capital
dimensions; e.g. “I have developed skills in my job that are useful at home”, α ¼ 0.82) and
one measuring FWE (development, affect, and efficiency dimensions; e.g. “My family life
provides me with contacts that help my career”, α ¼ 0.79). Ratings were completed on a
five-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Again, items were
averaged into an overall measure of WFE and FWE, consistent with the study’s aims and
other studies (e.g. McNall et al., 2010). This scale is considered to have sound psychometric
properties (McMillan et al., 2011).

Procedure
Potential respondents in this community-based sample of employees were contacted either
by an electronic letter or personally by the researchers. They received a self-report
questionnaire accompanied by a cover letter indicating the purpose of the survey, assuring
that responses were confidential, and offering a report of the results to those interested.
Participants who consented to take part in the study completed the survey and returned it to
the researchers. Participants who were contacted by an electronic letter received a link to an
electronic survey file and answered the questionnaire online. Participation was voluntary
and participants received no reward for their participation. In order to ensure a good
response rate, participants were included in a lottery in which dinner in a restaurant could
be won. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and procedures were
approved by an institutional review board.

Results
Means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities, and intercorrelations among study
variables are presented in Table I.
As can be seen, WFC and FWC were positively correlated with both threat of loss and
actual loss of resources. Thus, our first hypothesis was supported. FWE (but not WFE) was
positively correlated with gain of resources. Thus, our second hypothesis was partially
supported. In addition, WFC and FWC as well as WFE and FWE were positively correlated.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Work-family conflict 2.67 0.73 (0.87)

2. Family-work conflict 2.51 0.64 0.60** (0.83)
Table I. 3. Work-family enrichment 3.54 0.58 −0.23** −0.09 (0.82)
Means, standard
4. Family-work enrichment 3.59 0.57 −0.16* −0.20** 0.58** (0.79)
deviations, Cronbach’s
α levels, and Pearson 5. Loss of resources 4.29 0.75 0.32** 0.32** −0.03 −0.15*
zero-order correlations 6. Threat of loss of resources 3.88 0.66 0.34** 0.29** −0.01 −0.03 0.69**
between study 7. Gain of resources 4.21 0.69 0.12 −0.03 0.07 0.17* 0.33** 0.34**
variables Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01
 WFC was found to be negatively correlated with WFE and FWE, and FWC was found to be Work-family
negatively correlated with FWE. Last, loss of resources was positively associated with both conflict/
the threat of loss of resources and the gain of resources; threat of loss of resources was enrichment
positively associated with gain of resources.
In order to compare participants who reported higher loss of resources with participants
who reported higher gain of resources, we created three equal groups according to percentile.
The first group consisted of participants who reported gain of resources higher than loss of 1107
resources (percentile 0-33, n ¼ 69), the second group included participants who reported gain
of resources similar to loss of resources (percentile 34-66, n ¼ 73), and the third group included
participants who reported loss of resources higher than gain of resources (percentile 67-100,
n ¼ 66). Three similar groups were also created in order to compare participants who reported
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

higher threat of loss of resources to participants who reported higher gain of resources. This
method of grouping can distinguish unique upward and downward changes in resources
(Hobfoll et al., 2003; Holahan et al., 1999, 2000; Hou et al., 2010), and allows for an examination
of loss vs gain hypotheses, which are central to COR.
To address the third hypothesis that participants who reported higher loss of resources
than gain of resources would report higher levels of conflict between work and family
domains, compared to participants who reported higher gain of resources than loss of
resources, four analyses of variance (one-way ANOVA) were performed: two analyses for
threat of loss of resources vs gain of resources as the independent variable, and two analyses
for loss of resources vs gain of resources as the independent variable. In the first analysis, the
dependent variable was WFC, and in the second analysis, the dependent variable was FWC.
The results are shown in Table II. As can be seen, in the two analyses with threat of loss
of resources vs gain of resources as the independent variable, significant effects were found
for WFC (F(2, 200) ¼ 3.32, p o0.05, η2 ¼ 0.04) and for FWC (F(2, 200) ¼ 3.62, p o0.05,
η2 ¼ 0.04). In the two analyses with loss of resources vs gain of resources as the independent
variable, a significant effect was found for FWC (F(2, 205) ¼ 5.27, p o0.001, η2 ¼ 0.05) but
not for WFC (F(2, 205) ¼ 1.96, n.s.). Thus, our third hypothesis was partially supported.
To address the fourth hypothesis that participants who reported higher gain of resources
than loss of resources would report higher levels of enrichment between work and family
domains, compared to participants who reported higher loss of resources than gain of
resources, four analyses of variance (one-way ANOVA) were performed: two analyses for
threat of loss of resources as the independent variable, and two analyses for loss of
resources as the independent variable. In the first analysis, the dependent variable was
WFE, and in the second analysis, the dependent variable was FWE.

Independent variable Dependent variable SS df MS F

Threat of loss of resources Work-family conflict Within groups 3.32 2 1.66 3.32*
vs gain of resources Between groups 101.38 200 0.51
Total 104.70 202
Family-work conflict Within groups 2.82 2 1.41 3.62*
Between groups 79.06 200 0.40
Total 81.88 202
Loss of resources vs gain Work-family conflict Within groups 2.03 2 1.02 1.96
of resources Between groups 106.15 205 0.52
Table II.
Total 108.18 207
Analyses of loss
Within groups 4.06 2 20.3 5.27** and threat of loss of
Family-work conflict Between groups 80.46 205 0.39 resources on family-
Total 84.52 207 work conflict and
Notes: n ¼ 208. *po 0.05; **p o0.01 work-family conflict
 IJM The results are shown in Table III. As can be seen, in the two analyses with threat of loss of
38,8 resources vs gain of resources as the independent variable, a significant effect was found for
FWE (F(2, 200) ¼ 4.42, po 0.005, η2 ¼ 0.05) but not for WFE (F(2, 200) ¼ 2.14, n.s.). Also, in
the two analyses with loss of resources vs gain of resources as the independent variable, a
significant effect was found for FWE (F(2, 205) ¼ 6.17, p o0.001, η2 ¼ 0.06) but not for WFE
(F(2, 205) ¼ 1.45, n.s.). Thus, our fourth hypothesis was partially supported.
1108
Discussion
The COR theory is considered the most commonly used theory in the work and family
literature (Steenbergen et al., 2007). Several studies found the hypothesized associations
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

between chosen resources and the work-family interaction, while in other studies, no such
associations were found. Accordingly, calls have been made to study a wider range of
resources that can be related to the interaction between work and family domains. As noted,
the COR theory predicts that changes in a person’s resource reservoir would be related to his
or her well-being, but has no prediction about specific resources. In the current study, we
aimed to fill this gap and provide a more thorough examination of the relationship between
loss, threat of loss, and gain in resource reservoir, on the one hand, and conflict vs
enrichment between work and family domains, on the other hand. By focusing on how
resource gain and loss are linked to the work-family interaction, the study increased our
understanding of the role of resources in individuals’ work-family experiences.
WFC and FWC were positively correlated with both threat of loss and actual loss of
resources, thus supporting our first hypothesis. These findings lend support to Hobfoll’s (1989)
claim that resource loss (whether actual loss or simply threat of loss) is related to feelings of
stress (i.e. WFC, FWC). Our findings also support the use of the COR theory as a theoretical
model for work-family research. Last, these results also corroborate previous empirical research,
cited in the introduction. Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) claimed that potential or actual loss of
resources is related to the conflict between work and family domains. Interestingly, threat of loss
of resources was associated with both WFC and FWC, as was actual loss of resources.
FWE (but not WFE) was positively correlated with gain of resources, thus providing partial
support to our second hypothesis. These findings support the COR model proposition that
individuals with more resources tend to show improved psychological well-being and
functioning (i.e. FWE). The findings support assertions that resources are related to positive
work-family interactions (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Wayne et al., 2007). Interestingly,
although researchers claimed that specific domain resources would be related to enrichment,
we found that resources, in general, are positively related to FWE, thus providing support to

Independent variable Dependent variable SS df MS F

Threat of loss of resources vs Work-family enrichment Within groups 1.26 2 0.63 2.14
gain of resources Between groups 59.13 200 0.30
Total 60.40 202
Family-work enrichment Within groups 2.58 2 1.29 4.42*
Between groups 59.03 200 0.30
Total 61.61 202
Loss of resources vs gain of Work-family enrichment Within groups 0.92 2 0.46 1.45
Table III. resources Between groups 65.10 205 0.32
Analyses of loss and
Total 66.02 207
threat of loss of
resources on family- Within groups 3.71 2 1.85 6.22**
work enrichment and Family-work enrichment Between groups 62.15 205 0.30
work-family Total 65.86 207
enrichment Notes: n ¼ 208. *p o0.05; **p o0.01
 Wayne et al.’s (2007) general proposition that the greater the overall accumulation of resources, Work-family
the greater is the potential for a positive work-family interaction. These results also support the conflict/
notion that FWE and WFE are distinct (Frone, 2003). Several studies demonstrated that enrichment
domain-specific resources are important enablers of the enrichment process, and that work
resources are primary contributors to WFE (Aryee et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2014; Grzywacz and
Butler, 2005; Voydanoff, 2004). In contrast, the role of family resources as contributors to FWE
was seldom investigated (Hakanen et al., 2011). It is noteworthy that the COR-E measure 1109
includes mostly personal resources, as opposed to work resources (e.g. family-friendly
organizational policies). This may explain the associations found between resources and FWE
and FWC as opposed to WFE and WFC. In addition, working mothers may be more sensitive
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

to changes in family resources than changes in work resources.

Change in resources was associated with both conflict and enrichment between work and
family domains. Specifically, participants who reported higher threat of loss of resources than
gain of resources reported higher levels of FWC and WFC, compared to other participants;
participants who reported higher loss of resources than gain of resources reported higher levels
of FWC. In contrast, participants who reported upward changes in resources reported higher
levels of FWE. These findings emphasize the importance of resource reservoir in managing
work and family interaction. Individuals who perceived themselves as losing resources reported
being in stress resulting from conflict between work and family domains. In contrast,
individuals who perceived themselves to be on the “gaining side” may have more energy and be
better equipped to handle stress (McNall et al., 2010) and thus, reported enrichment. In addition,
according to Hobfoll (2001), individuals who experience resource gain may strive to develop
resource surpluses in order to offset the possibility of future loss. Enrichment between work and
family domains can be regarded as such a surplus (Innstrand et al., 2008).
This study addresses several gaps in work-family literature. The study responds to
numerous calls (e.g. ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012; Greenhaus, 2008; Weer et al., 2010) to
provide a strong conceptual framework capable of explaining the depleting and enriching
relationships between work and family. Although the COR theory was employed by several
researchers as a theoretical basis for the work-family interaction, to the best of our knowledge,
this is the first study that uses the theory including its assumptions and original measure and
one of the few studies that addresses resource loss and gain. Our study also responds to
researchers’ calls to study a wider range of resources that may be related to the work-family
interaction (ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012; Wayne et al., 2007) and to study both
conflict and enrichment between work and family domains (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus, 2008;
Weer et al., 2010). The study corroborates recent findings (Chen and Powell, 2012; Chen et al.,
2014) on the role of loss and gain of resources in the work-family interaction.
Last, this study is the first to suggest the role of threat of loss of resources in the conflict
between work and family domains. In fact, threat of loss was found to be as important as
actual loss with regard to FWC and WFC. According to Hobfoll (1991, 2001), one of the
conditions that elicits stress is when resources are threatened with loss. Moreover,
substantial research demonstrated that threats of various kinds (e.g. economic uncertainty,
threats to self-esteem or to one’s survival or sense of continuity) lead people to feel unsafe or
anxious (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), and are linked to negative outcomes including low
marital satisfaction (Reizer et al., 2010) and low work motivation (Tziner et al., 2012).
Therefore, it is not surprising that threat of loss of resources is related to conflict.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, we used cross-sectional
correlational data, which constrain the ability to draw causality inferences. Thus, future
research employing a longitudinal design is required before conclusions regarding causality
can be derived. Second, all variables were measured using self-report. However, Greenhaus
and Powell (2006) noted the value of using self-report measures in WFE research because it
is the perception of the individual experiencing the enrichment that may be the most valid in
 IJM determining its level. Third, we used the method of grouping in order to distinguish unique
38,8 upward and downward changes in resources (Hobfoll et al., 2003; Holahan et al., 1999, 2000).
Dichotomous measures have been found to result in information loss, reduce power in
statistical tests, and increase the probability of type II errors (Streiner, 2002).
Notwithstanding the limitations, this study has theoretical as well as practical implications.
The study extends the theoretical arguments of the COR theory to the investigation of the
1110 work-family domains interaction, and emphasizes the importance of studying resource
reservoir rather than specific resources. Indeed, Wayne et al. (2007) offered two broad categories
of resources related to the enrichment process: personal characteristics and environmental
factors. However, research to date has tended to focus more on environmental influences, such
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

as skill discretion and job security (Carlson et al., 2011), and other resources have been neglected
(McNall et al., 2015). As our findings suggest, resources also may explain when enrichment vs
conflict is most likely to occur. Another implication of the current study is the role of threat of
loss of resources in conflict and enrichment between work and family domains. Future studies
should provide better understanding as to which kind of threat (e.g. job uncertainty, threat to
self-concept) leads to which kind of conflict, and through which mechanism.
With regard to practical implications, this study suggests that resources are related to
less conflict and more enrichment, and organizations should make any effort to provide their
employees with a rich repertoire of resources. Because working mothers place high
importance on family resources, organizations should adapt family-friendly work practices,
such as parental leave, job sharing, flexible work hours, and workplace nursery. Consistent
with Hobfoll’s (2002) notion of gain spirals and Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) broaden and build
theory, new resources may be built to enable workers to feel greater overall well-being and
enhanced work-family balance.

References
Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, N.K. (2011), “A meta-analysis of work-
family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-
domain relations”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 151-169.
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. 132-146.
Aryee, S., Chu, C.W.L., Kim, T.Y. and Ryu, K. (2012), “Family supportive work environment and
employee work behaviors: an investigation of mediating mechanisms”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 792-813.
Boyar, S.L. and Mosley, D.C. Jr (2007), “The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and
family satisfaction: the mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 265-281.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, R.M. and Williams, L.J. (2000), “Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56 No. 2,
pp. 249-276.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H. and Grzywacz, J.G. (2006), “Measuring the positive side of the
work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 131-164.
Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J.G., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E.M., Clinch, C.R. and Arcury, T.A. (2011), “Health
and turnover of working mothers after childbirth via the work-family interface: an analysis
across time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 1045-1054.
Casper, W.J., Eby, L.T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A. and Lambert, D. (2007), “A review of research
methods in IO/OB work-family research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 28-43.
 Central Bureau of Statistics (2014), available at: www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton65/shnaton65_all.pdf Work-family
(accessed May 28, 2015). conflict/
Chang, A., McDonald, P.K. and Burton, P.M. (2010), “Methodological choices in work-life balance enrichment
research 1987 to 2006: a critical review”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 21 No. 13, pp. 2381-2413.
Chen, Z. and Powell, G.N. (2012), “No pain, no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family
enrichment and conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 89-98. 1111
Chen, Z., Powell, G.N. and Cui, W. (2014), “Dynamics of the relationships among work and family
resource gain and loss, enrichment, and conflict over time”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 293-302.
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

Demerouti, E., Bouwman, K. and Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2011), “Job resources buffer the impact of work-
family conflict on absenteeism in female employees”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 166-176.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000), “Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship
between work and family constructs”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 178-200.
Ennis, N., Hobfoll, S.E. and Schroeder, K.E.E. (2000), “Money doesn’t talk it swears: how economic
stress and resistance resources impact inner-city women’s depressive mood”, American Journal
of Community Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-173.
Fredrickson, B.L. (1998), “What good are positive emotions?”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 300-319.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotion”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational
Health Psychology, American Psychology Association, Washington, DC, pp. 143-161.
Gorgievski, M.J. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2009), “Work can burn us out or fire us up: conservation of resources
in burnout and engagement”, in Halbesleben, J.R.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress and Burnout in
Health Care, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, pp. 7-22.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied to work-family
conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 350-370.
Greenhaus, J.H. (2008), “Innovations in the study of the work-family interface: introduction to
the special section”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3,
pp. 343-348.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2003), “When work and family collide: deciding between competing role
demands”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 291-303.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family
enrichment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 72-92.
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 Health Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-109.
Hakanen, J., Peeters, M. and Perhoniemi, R. (2011), “Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and
at home: a three-year cross-lagged panel design”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 8-30.
Hanson, G.C., Hammer, L.B. and Colton, C.L. (2006), “Development and validation of a multidimensional
scale of perceived work-family positive spillover”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 249-265.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1991), “Traumatic stress: a theory based on rapid loss of resources”, Anxiety Research,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 187-197.
 IJM Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
38,8 advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011), “Conservation of resources theory: its implication for stress, health and resilience”,
1112 in Folkman, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress, Health and Coping, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 127-147.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2012), “Conservation of resources and disaster in cultural context: the caravans and
passageways for resources”, Psychiatry, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 227-232.
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

Hobfoll, S.E. and Freedy, J. (1993), “Conservation of resources: a general stress theory applied to
burnout”, in Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C. and Marek, T. (Eds), Professional Burnout:
Recent Developments in Theory and Research, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 115-129.
Hobfoll, S.E. and Lilly, R.S. (1993), “Resource conservation as a strategy for community psychology”,
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 128-148.
Hobfoll, S.E., Lilly, R.S. and Jackson, A.P. (1992), “Conservation of social resources and the self”,
in Veiel, H.O.F. and Baumann, U. (Eds), The Meaning and Measurement of Social Support,
Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp. 125-142.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. and Jackson, A.P. (2003), “Resource loss, resource gain, and
emotional outcomes among inner city women”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 632-643.
Holahan, C.J., Moos, R.H., Holahan, C.K. and Cronkite, R.C. (1999), “Resource loss, resource gain and
depressive symptoms: a 10-year model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77
No. 3, pp. 620-629.
Holahan, C.J., Moos, R.H., Holahan, C.K. and Cronkite, R.C. (2000), “Long-term post treatment
functioning among patients with unipolar depression: an integrative model”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 632-643.
Hou, W.K., Law, C.C. and Fu, Y.T. (2010), “Does change in positive affect mediate and/or moderate the
impact of symptom distress on psychological adjustment after diagnosis? A prospective
analysis”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 417-431.
Innstrand, S.T., Langballe, E.M., Espnes, G.A., Falkum, E. and Aasland, O.G. (2008), “Positive and
negative work-family interaction and burnout: a longitudinal study of reciprocal relations”,
Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies
in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lu, J.F., Siu, O.L., Spector, P. and Shi, K. (2009), “Antecedents and outcomes of a four-fold taxonomy of
work-family balance in Chinese employed parents”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 182-192.
McMillan, H.S., Morris, M.L. and Atchley, E.K. (2011), “Constructs of the work/life interface: a synthesis
of literature and introduction of the concept of work/life harmony”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-25.
McNall, L.A., Masuda, A.D., Shanock, L.R. and Nicklin, J.M. (2011), “Interactive effects of core
self-evaluations and perceived organizational support on work-to-family enrichment”, Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 133-149.
McNall, L.A., Nicklin, J.M. and Masuda, A.D. (2010), “A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated
with work-family enrichment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 381-396.
McNall, L.A., Scott, L. and Nicklin, J.M. (2015), “Do positive affectivity and boundary preferences
matter for work-family enrichment? A study of human service workers”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
 Major, D.A. and Germano, L.M. (2006), “The changing nature of work and its impact on the workhome Work-family
interface”, in Jones, F., Burke, R. and Westman, M. (Eds), Work-Life Balance: A Psychological conflict/
Perspective, Psychology Press, London, pp. 13-38.
Oren, L. and Possik, H. (2010), “Is ideology a risk factor for PTSD symptom severity among Israeli
enrichment
political evacuees?”, Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 483-490.
Premeaux, S.F., Adkins, C.L. and Mossholder, K.W. (2007), “Balancing work and family: a field study of
multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 705-727.
1113
Reizer, A., Possick, H. and Ein-Dor, T. (2010), “Environmental threat influences psychological distress
and marital satisfaction among avoidantly attached individuals”, Personal Relationships, Vol. 17
Downloaded by DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:33 31 October 2017 (PT)

No. 4, pp. 585-598.

Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J., Panzer, K. and King, S. (2002), “Benefits of multiple role for managerial
women”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 369-386.
Steenbergen, E.F.V., Ellemers, N. and Mooijaart, A. (2007), “How work and family can facilitate each
other: distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 279-300.
Streiner, D.L. (2002), “Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data”,
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 262-266.
ten Brummelhuis, L.L. and Bakker, A.B. (2012), “A resource perspective on the work-home interface – the
work-home resources model”, American Psychologist, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 545-556.
Tziner, A., Fein, E.C. and Oren, L. (2012), “Human motivation and performance outcomes in the context
of downsizing”, in Cooper, C.L., Pandey, A. and Quick, J.C. (Eds), Downsizing: Is Less Still More?,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 101-133.
Voydanoff, P. (2004), “The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and
facilitation”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 398-412.
Wayne, J.H. (2009), “Reducing conceptual confusion: clarifying the positive side of work and family”,
in Crane, D.R. and Hill, J. (Eds), Handbook of Families and Work: Interdisciplinary Perspectives,
University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 105-140.
Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2007), “Work-family facilitation:
a theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Weer, C.H., Greenhaus, J.H. and Linnehan, F. (2010), “Commitment to nonwork roles and job
performance: enrichment and conflict perspectives”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 306-316.
Williams, A., Franche, R.L., Ibrahim, S., Mustard, C.A. and Layton, F.R. (2006), “Examining the
relationship between work-family spillover and sleep quality”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Zacher, H., Jimmieson, N.L. and Winter, G. (2012), “Eldercare demands, mental health, and work
performance: the moderating role of satisfaction with eldercare tasks”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 52-64.
Zedeck, S. and Mosier, K.L. (1990), “Work in the family and employing organization”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 240-251.

Corresponding author
Lior Oren can be contacted at: orenlio@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com