Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journa l home pa ge : www.e lse vie r.c om/loc a te /jvb

Commitment to nonwork roles and job performance: Enrichment

and conflict perspectives
Christy H. Weer a,*, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus b, Frank Linnehan b
a
Department of Management and Marketing, Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, 1101 Camden Avenue, Salisbury, MD 21801, USA
b
Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, 101 N. 33rd Street Academic Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

A R t i c l E
I N f o A B s t R A C t

Article history:
An extensive commitment to nonwork roles was negatively associated with the job perfor-
Received 23 July 2009
mance of 182 women legal secretaries. In addition to its direct negative effect on job per-
Available online 5 August 2009
formance, nonwork role commitment had both a negative indirect effect (through
emotional energy expended on nonwork roles) and a positive indirect effect (through
Keywords:
resources acquired from nonwork roles) on job performance. Consistent with a family-
Family-to-work conflict
to-work conflict perspective, the negative effect was stronger than the positive effect.
Family-to-work enrichment
Job performance We suggest that the level and type of job occupied by the respondents in the study may
Nonwork role commitment have been responsible for the dominance of the negative effect and encourage researchers
to examine the contextual influences that might explain the conditions under which com-
mitment to life outside of work dampens or promotes performance in the work domain.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0. Introduction

The growing participation of women, single parents, and dual-earner partners in the workforce, many with responsibil-
ities for the care of their aging parents (Neal & Hammer, 2007), has made it increasingly difficult for employees to juggle
their work and family responsibilities (Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998). As a result of these changes and challenges, a
growing body of research over the past several decades has examined the interdependencies between work and family roles
(Barling & Sorensen, 1997; Barnett, 1998, 1999; Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Foley,
2007;
Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Lambert, 1990; Repetti, 1987).
Two significant trends have emerged from this research. First, it is generally recognized that the causal relationships be-
tween work experiences and family experiences are bidirectional; that is, work can affect family life and family can affect
work life (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Foley, 2007). Second, the literature has moved beyond its early preoccupation with
work–family conflict to study the positive effects that work and family lives can have on each other as represented by such
concepts as work–family enrichment, facilitation, and positive spillover (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Green-
haus & Powell, 2006; Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007 ). For most of its history,
the work–family literature has been dominated by a conflict perspective in which the demands associated with participating
in a role were assumed to interfere with an individual’s ability to meet the requirements of other life roles ( Marks, 1977;
Sieber, 1974). More recently, however, scholars acknowledge that individuals can acquire resources from their participation
in a role that can enhance or facilitate their functioning and well-being in another role ( Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006; Hanson et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2007).
In this study, we examined the relationship between employees’ commitment to nonwork roles and their job
performance. Although there is growing interest in the impact of family and other nonwork roles on work experiences
and outcomes

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chweer@salisbury.edu (C.H. Weer).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.07.003
 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316 307

(Wallace & Young, 2008), there is still relatively little research on the effect of employees’ commitment to nonwork roles on
their functioning at work. Does extensive commitment to nonwork roles diminish job performance as many organizations
seem to fear (Kofodimos, 1990) or does it enhance job performance as suggested by an enrichment perspective?
This study builds on recent research that suggests that extensive commitment to nonwork roles can have a positive effect on
managers’ job competencies and performance (Graves, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 2007; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). We
extend the research of Ruderman et al. (2002, Study 2), who examined the direct relationship between multiple role
commit- ment and managerial skills by exploring the processes through which these relationships may exist. Because
enrichment is based on the transfer of resources from one role to another (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and conflict is based
on excessive de- mands arising in a role that intrude in another role (Voydanoff, 2005), examining the role of resources and
demands as medi- ating mechanisms can shed light on the ways in which nonwork role commitment relates to job
performance.
Moreover, whereas Graves et al. (2007) and Ruderman et al. (2002) found that commitment to nonwork roles had a
positive effect on the job competencies and performance of women managers and executives, our study focused on non-
managerial employees, namely legal secretaries. In light of recent calls for recognizing the role of context in organizational
behavior (Johns, 2006) and for work–family research to examine populations beyond managers and professionals (Casper,
Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Heymann, Boynton-Jarrett, Carter, Bond, & Galinsky, 2002), we examined the
relationship between nonwork role commitment and job performance for non-managerial employees.
In sum, the present study has the potential to contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we examined the
relationship between commitment to nonwork roles and job performance, a relationship that is rarely studied in the work–family
literature (Casper et al., 2007). Second, by examining the demands produced by participating in nonwork roles and the resources
acquired from participating in nonwork roles, we can determine whether the relationship between nonwork role
commitment and job performance is better explained by a conflict perspective (demands) or an enrichment perspective
(resources). Third, by study- ing these relationships among legal secretaries, we can examine the generalizability of prior findings
(Graves et al., 2007; Ruder- man et al., 2002) to non-managers, an understudied population in work–family research (Casper
et al., 2007).

1. Theory and hypotheses

1.1. Overview of model

Fig. 1 proposes potential negative and positive effects that commitment to nonwork roles may have on job performance.
Consistent with a negative conflict perspective, we suggest that high levels of commitment to nonwork roles place time and
energy demands on individuals (Voydanoff, 2004) that drain resources (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) away from work and dam-
pen effective performance on the job. In addition, consistent with a positive enrichment perspective, we propose that extensive
commitment to nonwork roles provides opportunities to acquire resources from these roles that, if transferred to the work do-
main, can facilitate employees’ job performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The following sections discuss the conceptual
rationale for each of the linkages in the model as well as the overall effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance.

1.2. Relationships of nonwork role commitment with nonwork demands and resources

According to role theory, every role in which an individual participates has its own prescribed set of responsibilities
(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) that are partially determined by the expectations of role senders, those

Nonwork
Resource Acquisition

 Interpersonal and task-related

skills
 New perspectives
 Self-confidence
H2 (+)  Social capital H3 (+)

Nonwork Role Commitment Job Performance

H1 (+) Nonwork Role Demands H4 (-)

 Time
 Emotional energy
 Physical energy

Fig. 1. Full structural model.

308 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

individuals with whom the focal person interacts during role activities. In addition, identity theory suggests that individuals
also place expectations upon themselves for roles in which they participate. Individuals have multiple identities (Stryker,
1968; Stryker & Serpe, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) that are often organized in a hierarchy of centrality or importance as
a source of self-definition (Thoits, 1991). Because individuals’ psychological commitment to a role reflects the importance
of that role to their self-identity (Greenberger & O’Neil, 1993) and individuals seek to reaffirm their self-identity through
their actions, they should be more willing to respond to the demands of roles to which they are highly committed (Kahn,
1990, 1992; Kahn et al., 1964). In support of this, research has indicated that the importance of a particular role to an indi-
vidual’s self-identity is associated with an extensive investment of time and energy in that role (Lobel & St. Clair, 1992;
Roth- bard & Edwards, 2003; Stryker & Serpe, 1994).
In sum, because individuals are more likely to conform to role demands and invest time and energy in roles to which they
are psychologically committed, we propose:
Hypothesis 1. Nonwork role commitment relates positively to nonwork role demands.
Engaging in role-related activities also provides opportunities for individuals to acquire role-specific resources or privi-
leges (Kahn et al., 1964). We examined resources that individuals may acquire through their commitment to nonwork roles
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and can be associated with enhanced functioning at work (Ruderman et al., 2002): enriched
interpersonal and task-related skills, new perspectives, increased self-confidence, and social capital.
Interpersonal and task-related skills include a broad set of cognitive and relational skills, coping skills, multi-tasking
skills, and knowledge derived from role experiences (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; McCau-
ley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994; Ruderman et al., 2002). For example, parenting experiences can provide opportu-
nities to acquire interpersonal skills such as active listening and effective communication, and active participation in
multiple nonwork roles can enable individuals to become more efficient, focused, and organized as they juggle various role
commitments (Ruderman et al., 2002, Study 1). New perspectives involve novel ways of viewing or handling situations. Indi-
viduals may learn to respect individual differences, recognize individual needs, be more understanding of other people’s
problems, and look at problems from a broader perspective through experiences gained from nonwork activities ( Crouter,
1984; Ruderman et al., 2002). Psychological resources such as self-confidence may also be derived through nonwork expe-
riences. For example, taking risks and successfully coping with challenges outside of work may help build individuals’
strength and self-confidence (Ruderman et al., 2002, Study 1). Finally, social capital in the form of advice and insights
may be acquired from friends and family members (Ruderman et al., 2002, Study 1).
Although prior research suggests that individuals may acquire resources as a result of their participation in nonwork
roles, we propose that a high level of commitment to these roles provides greater opportunities to acquire resources than
a low level of commitment. Individuals deeply committed to a role are likely to be receptive to developing new skills, per-
spectives, and social capital because of the importance of performing effectively in highly salient roles (Thoits, 1991). There-
fore, we propose:
Hypothesis 2. Nonwork role commitment relates positively to resource acquisition from nonwork roles.

1.3. The relationship between nonwork resource acquisition and job performance

Theories of work–family enrichment emphasize the role of resources derived from work and/or family roles. Greenhaus
and Powell’s (2006) instrumental path to work–family enrichment involves the transfer of resources from the role in which
they have been acquired to the other role to enhance performance in the latter role.
The most direct evidence regarding the effect of nonwork-derived resources on job performance comes from Ruderman
et al. (2002, Study 1) who asked women managers and executives ‘‘Are there any dimensions or aspects of your personal life
that enhance your professional life?” Substantial percentages of their respondents indicated that resources gained from
non- work experiences enhanced their professional roles, the most frequently mentioned of which were enriched
interpersonal skills (42%), psychological benefits (23%), emotional support and advice (19%), and handling multiple tasks
(9.7%). In their follow-up study, Ruderman et al. (2002, Study 2) found that the more psychologically committed women
managers were to their nonwork roles, the stronger the task-related and interpersonal skills they displayed at work.
Although they did not directly assess the acquisition of resources in their second study, Ruderman et al. (2002, p. 381)
concluded that ‘‘The two studies together suggest that personal experiences provide resources that help managers respond
to work-related demands.”
Consistent with theory on the positive work–family interface (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Wayne et al., 2007), we
propose a positive linkage between nonwork resources and job performance:
Hypothesis 3. Resource acquisition from nonwork roles relates positively to job performance.

1.4. The relationship between nonwork role demands and job performance

The proposed linkage between nonwork role demands and job performance is based on a scarcity theory perspective
(Goode, 1960) that assumes that personal resources such as time and energy are finite and that the devotion of greater
 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316 309

resources to one role drains resources (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) that could be applied to other roles. In the present case,
the demands associated with participating in nonwork roles can produce time-based and strain-based family-to-work con-
flict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) that makes it difficult to fulfill the responsibilities of the work role and inhibits job
performance.
The research linking nonwork role demands to job performance is limited and indirect. Nevertheless, there is some evi-
dence that the time devoted to the family role is negatively related to the time spent at work (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000;
Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996; Wallace
& Young, 2008) which presumably dampens performance on the job. In addition, family-to-work conflict has been found to
be negatively related to job performance (Aryee, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Graves et al., 2007; Netemeyer,
Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Whitt & Carlson, 2006) although this research did not explicitly examine the role of time,
emotional demands, and physical demands associated with nonwork activities. Taken together, these two streams of
research suggest that the time and energy demands associated with commitment to nonwork roles have negative
implications for perfor- mance in the work domain. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 4. Nonwork role demands relate negatively to job performance.

1.5. The total effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance

Our model proposes two paths linking nonwork role commitment to job performance. The relative strength of the two
paths determines whether the total (or net) effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance is positive or negative.
A positive total effect could occur because nonwork role commitment has a stronger effect on resource acquisition than on
nonwork role demands and/or because the positive effect of resource acquisition on job performance is stronger than the
negative effect of nonwork role demands on job performance. Conversely, a negative total effect could occur because non-
work role commitment has a stronger effect on nonwork role demands than on resource acquisition and/or because the
neg- ative effect of nonwork role demands on job performance is stronger than the positive effect of resource acquisition on
job performance.
Although prior research has not directly compared the strength of these linkages, there are several reasons to believe
that the positive path is stronger than the negative path. First, studies that measured both family-to-work conflict and
family-to- work enrichment generally found substantially higher average enrichment scores than conflict scores
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Whitt & Carlson, 2006), suggesting that employees are more likely to experience enrichment
than conflict. Second, two empirical studies relevant to the present research (Graves et al., 2007; Ruderman et al., 2002)
observed positive relationships between commitment to nonwork roles and job performance. However, these studies
focused on a sample of managerial women, and it is unclear whether a total positive effect of nonwork role commitment on
job performance would emerge among non-managerial employees.
Because the linkages of nonwork role commitment with resources, demands, and job performance have not been exam-
ined previously, and our sample of secretaries was considerably different than the managerial and executive samples exam-
ined by Graves et al. (2007) and Ruderman et al. (2002), we pose the following research question in lieu of a directional
hypothesis:

Research question. Is the total effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance positive or negative?

2. Method

2.1. Procedure and sample

The sample for the present study consisted of 182 matched pairs of legal secretaries and their managers from five law
firms located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. In three of the five firms, the managers who provided job per-
formance ratings were the secretaries’ direct supervisors, whereas in two firms, the rating managers were the secretaries’
second-line supervisors. Although it may be unusual for second-line supervisors to provide performance ratings, these man-
agers strongly indicated that they were the most qualified to assess the job performance of the secretaries because they
were responsible for overseeing and evaluating the performance and career opportunities of the secretaries. Analyses
(shown in the Measures section) revealed no major differences in the performance ratings provided by the first-line and
second-line supervisors.
Two separate online surveys were developed, one for the secretaries and the other for the managers. Each firm assigned
a confidential code number to each secretary that preserved the secretary’s anonymity to the researchers. After the
confiden- tial code numbers were assigned, the researchers distributed a letter that invited each legal secretary in the firms
to partic- ipate in the study. This letter, which contained the unique confidential code number, included an overview of the
study, emphasized the voluntary nature of the study, and assured complete anonymity. In addition, the letter informed the
secre- taries that they would be receiving an email from firm management providing a link to the survey, explained the
importance
310 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

of the code number, and asked the secretaries to retain the letter so that they could enter their code number on the online
survey.
One week after the secretaries received the letter inviting them to participate in the study, the manager sent a follow-up
email to the secretaries that included the hyper-link to the survey Website. At the same time that the email containing the
secretary survey hyper-link was distributed, the researchers sent a separate email to the managers that included the hyper-
link to the supervisor survey Website. Each manager was asked to enter each secretary’s confidential code number on the
online survey and complete a separate survey for each legal secretary in the firm. Two weeks after the surveys were admin-
istered, managers sent a follow-up email to the secretaries reminding them of the study and again providing them with the
survey link.
On-line surveys were completed by 193 (62%) of the legal secretaries in the firms (68 in firm 1, 38 in firm 2, 12 in firm 3,
54 in firm 4, and 21 in firm 5). Supervisor surveys were completed for 297 of the 311 secretaries (95% response rate) pro-
ducing 184 matched pairs of secretaries and managers for a combined response rate of 59.2%. Because only two of the sec-
retaries were men, we eliminated them from the sample to yield a final sample of 182 women secretaries and their
managers. The majority of the secretaries were White (n = 156, 85.7%) and married (n = 125, 68.7%) and averaged 45.7
years of age. The highest level of education completed for the majority of the secretaries was a high school diploma ( n =
104, 57.1%), while 24.2% (n = 44) completed an associate degree, 15.4% (n = 28) had a bachelor’s degree and fewer than
2% had a master’s degree or a professional degree. Four of the five managers were women, all had a minimum of 3 years in
their current position with their firm, and had oversight of the secretaries they rated for at least 3 months.

2.2. Measures

The secretary survey included measures of nonwork role commitment, nonwork role demands, nonwork resource acqui-
sition, and demographic characteristics. The supervisor survey included an assessment of the secretary’s performance and
demographic characteristics.

2.2.1. Nonwork role commitment

Role commitment reflects the importance of a role to an individual’s self-identity (Greenberger & O’Neil, 1993). Although
prior studies (Graves et al., 2007 and Ruderman et al., 2002) have measured multiple role commitment using items derived
from the Life-Role Salience Scale (Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986), this measure was not appropriate for the current
study. A number of these items reflect the expenditure of time and energy as commitment to a role, and because we con-
ceptualize time and energy as demands resulting from role commitment, rather than as commitment itself, using these items
would have confounded our measures. Therefore, we used five items adapted from Godshalk (1997) to assess role commit-
ment. Respondents were asked, ‘‘For those activities in which you participate (family, community, religious, student,
leisure), please indicate the IMPORTANCE of each in your life.” Responses were made on a 5-point scale (1 = unimportant to
5 = very important). Respondents who indicated in a previous question that they did not participate in an activity were
asked to mark ‘‘not applicable” and a score of zero was entered for that role. Because our intent was to capture the
extensiveness of the respondents’ cumulative commitments to an array of nonwork roles, we summed their ratings for
the five roles, similar to the procedure used by Ruderman et al. (2002, Study 2). Therefore, nonwork role commitment
scores had a potential range of 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating stronger total commitment to nonwork roles.

2.2.2. Nonwork resource acquisition

Because there was no existing measure of resource acquisition, we developed five items that assessed the degree to
which individuals perceived that they have acquired resources from each nonwork role in which they participated.
Respondents rated the degree to which participating in each role (family, community, religion, student, leisure) provided
them with five specific resources (skills, perspectives, self-confidence, information and advice, and social contacts). Sample
items included, ‘‘To what extent has volunteering in your community increased your skills (e.g., interpersonal skills, multi-
tasking skills)” and ‘‘To what extent has volunteering in your community increased your self-confidence?” Responses were
made on a 5- point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great extent). We calculated the mean score for each resource across
the five roles and then summed the resources to create a composite measure. As with the measure of nonwork role
commitment, respon- dents who did not participate in a role received a score of zero for all resources associated with
that role.

2.2.3. Nonwork role demands

Respondents indicated the number of hours in an average week (including weekends) they spent on each of the five non-
work roles. The weekly hours were summed across roles to produce an assessment of the respondents’ total nonwork time
demands.
Energy demands reflect the level of physical and emotional energy (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003) that individuals expend in
their nonwork role activities. Because no existing scale was available, we adapted four items from a scale by May, Gilson,
and Harter (2004). Two items assessed emotional energy (e.g., ‘‘I really put my heart into .. .”) and two items assessed
physical energy (e.g., ‘‘I really exert myself to my fullest when.. .”). Respondents answered these four items for each
nonwork role in which they participated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). We first calculated
the mean scores for emotional energy and physical energy demands for each role and then, consistent with our other
measures, summed the
 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316 311

scores to create a summary measure for each type of energy. Therefore, the scores reflected the total levels of emotional en-
ergy and physical energy associated with participation in nonwork roles.

2.2.4. Demographic characteristics

The secretary survey also included a number of background items including marital status (1 = married or living with
partner, 2 = not married or living with partner), education level (1 = high school/GED equivalent, 5 = professional degree)
and job tenure (1 = fewer than 3 months, 6 = 10 years or longer).

2.2.5. Job performance

Managers rated secretaries’ job performance on three performance criteria that were common across the firms: (1)
typing and transcription, (2) proofreading/editing, and (3) administration. The items in the job performance scale were
identical to the items that were used by the firms in their annual performance evaluations. Four items were used to assess
typing and transcription performance (e.g., ‘‘Transcribes tapes using appropriate format, correct spelling and proper
punctuation”), three items assessed proofreading/editing performance (e.g., ‘‘Edits typed material for clarification and
sentence structure‘‘), and six items assessed administrative job performance (e.g., ‘‘Prepares routine legal documents
according to standard for- mat, e.g., deposition notices”). For each item, performance was assessed on a four-point scale
used by the firms (1 = not meeting job standards or potential, 4 = exceptional skill is evident). Responses were averaged
across all items to produce
a total job performance score with strong reliability (a = .98).
Because managers in three of the firms rated the performance of secretaries who reported directly to them, and
managers in two of the firms rated the performance of secretaries who did not directly report to them, we conducted a
number of anal- yses to compare the ratings made by these two groups of managers. First, we found no difference in the
mean job perfor- mance ratings provided by these two groups of managers (first-line supervisors, M = 3.13, SD = .52;
second-line supervisors, M = 3.19; SD = .72, F = .49, ns). Second, we found that the alpha coefficient of the job
performance scale for first-line supervisors (.980) was almost identical to the alpha coefficient for second-line supervisors
(.984). Third, we found that correlations between job performance ratings and other variables expected to be related to
performance were similar for the two groups of managers. For example, the correlation between the 13-item job
performance measure and a one-item measure of overall job performance was .80 (p < .01) for the first-line supervisors
and .84 (p < .01) for the second-line super- visors. Taken together, these findings suggest that first- and second-line
supervisors approached the task of rating secretar- ies’ job performance in a similar manner.

2.3. Analyses

We used structural equation modeling with AMOS 6.0 (Arbuckle, 2005) to examine the structural fit of our model to the
data and to test our hypotheses and research question. The fit statistics we examined included (a) Chi-square goodness-of-
fit statistic, (b) Chi-square statistic/degrees of freedom, (c) RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), (d) Bentler–Bonnett NFI, and
(e) CFI (Bentler, 1990). Research has suggested that satisfactory model fit is indicated by Chi-square goodness of fit to
degrees of freedom ratios no greater than 2, RMSEA values no higher than .08, NFI values no smaller than .90, and CFI
values no smaller than .95 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

2.3.1. Models tested

We examined two structural models to test our hypotheses. We first examined the full model shown in Fig. 1 and then we
assessed a model including the direct effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance to ensure an accurate estima-
tion of the total effect of nonwork role commitment on performance in the work domain.

2.3.2. Controls
Because an ANOVA revealed that managers’ performance ratings varied across the five firms (F = 4.167, p < .01), four
firm dummy variables were created and were controlled in all analyses. In addition, we controlled for secretaries’ marital
status, education, and job tenure because of the potential influence of these variables on respondents’ work and nonwork
experi- ences (Frone & Russell, 1992).
As noted above, role commitment, resource acquisition, and time and energy demands were assessed within each non-
work role and then summed across roles. This procedure is consistent with our conceptualization of these variables as
cumu- lative commitments, resources, and demands arising from participation in multiple nonwork roles. However,
because respondents’ scores on these variables are partially dependent on the number of roles in which they engaged, we
also con- trolled for the number of roles in which respondents participated in all analyses.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations (partialing out the effects of the control variables) for the
study variables. It can be seen that nonwork role commitment was positively related to resource acquisition (r = .16, p < .05)
as well as to emotional (r = .49, p < .01) and physical (r = .41, p < .01) energy demands. Moreover, emotional energy demands
(r = —.28, p < .01) and physical energy demands (r = —.17, p < .05) were negatively related to job performance.
312 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

Results indicate that our hypothesized structural model fit the data reasonably well, v2 (38, N = 182) = 80.05, p < .000;
(v2/df = 2.10, RMSEA = .07, NFI = .92, CFI = .95). We then tested an alternative model adding a direct linkage between non-
work role commitment and job performance. This model (v2 (37, N = 182) = 75.59, p < .000; (v2/df = 2.04, RMSEA = .07,
NFI = .92, CFI = .96)) represented a significantly improved fit over our original model (Dv2 (38–37 = 1, N = 182) = 4.46,
p < .05). The path coefficients from this alternative model are shown in Fig. 2. The findings provide strong support for
Hypothesis 1, which predicted positive relationships between nonwork role commitment and nonwork demands. Nonwork
role commitment was positively related to all three nonwork role demands: time demands ( b = .26, p < .001), emotional en-
ergy demands (b = .79, p < .001), and physical energy demands (b = .71, p < .001).
Hypothesis 2, which predicted that commitment to nonwork roles would be positively related to resource acquisition,
was supported (b = .23, p < .01) as was Hypothesis 3, which predicted that the resources acquired from nonwork roles would
be positively related to job performance (b = .15, p < .05). In addition, results of a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) indicated that the
resources acquired from nonwork roles mediated the relationship between nonwork role commitment and job performance
(z = 1.89, p = .058). Partial support was found for Hypothesis 4 in that only the emotional energy devoted to nonwork roles
was negatively related to job performance (b = —.42, p < .05). Moreover, a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) indicated that emotional
energy mediated the relationship between nonwork role commitment and job performance (z = —3.38, p = .001). However,
no relationship was found between physical energy demands (b = .02, ns) or time demands (b = .03, ns) and job performance.
Although not hypothesized, our alternative model included a direct linkage between nonwork role commitment and job
performance. Results indicated a negative, direct relationship between nonwork role commitment and job performance
(b = —.24, p < .05).
Our research question asked whether the total effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance would be positive
or negative. The total effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance was negative ( —.54) and was comprised of
both direct (—.24) and indirect (—.30) effects. As indicated in Fig. 2, the indirect effect of nonwork role commitment on
job performance was negative because the negative path through emotional energy demands was stronger than the positive
path through resource acquisition. Specifically, by examining the standardized betas, we can see that the path between non-
work role commitment and emotional energy demands (.79) was stronger than the path between nonwork role
commitment and resource acquisition (.23), and the negative path between emotional energy demands and job
performance (—.42) was stronger than the positive path between resource acquisition and job performance (.15).

4. Discussion

Is commitment to nonwork roles positively related to job performance, as suggested by an enrichment perspective, or is
it negatively related to job performance, as suggested by a conflict perspective? Our findings suggest the presence of both
enrichment and conflict processes. The positive indirect effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance is
consistent with a family-to-work enrichment perspective (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Individuals extensively committed to
nonwork roles acquire resources from these roles that are associated with effective performance on their jobs. To our
knowledge, this is the first study to empirically examine the relationship between the accumulation of resources acquired in
one role and performance in the other role. Apparently, the resources acquired through a deep commitment to multiple
nonwork roles can be transferred through an instrumental path (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Hanson et al., 2006) to
enhance functioning at work.
The negative indirect effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance indicates that individuals highly
committed to nonwork roles experience strong emotional energy demands arising from these roles that have a negative
effect on job performance. This finding illustrates energy-based (Greenhaus, Allen, & Spector, 2006) or strain-based
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) family-to-work conflict in which the emotional energy expended in fulfilling the requirements
of nonwork roles either depletes the emotional energy one brings to work or produces strain symptoms that are carried
over into the work domain, in either case depressing one’s level of job performance.
Despite support for both enrichment and conflict perspectives, the strength of the negative path through emotional en-
ergy demands was stronger than the positive path through resource acquisition. Nonwork role commitment had a stronger

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and partial correlations for all variables.a

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Nonwork role commitment 13.98 3.77
2. Nonwork resource acquisition 16.58 3.67 .16*
3. Nonwork time demands 26.51 17.24 .15 .12
4. Nonwork emotional energy demands 14.01 4.36 .49** .20* .15
5. Nonwork physical energy demands 12.25 4.04 .41** .24** .08 .74**
**
6. Job performance 3.16 .64 —.25 .10 .00 —.28** —.17*
a
N = 182. The partial correlations in this table controlled for the number of roles in which respondents participated, marital status, education level, job
tenure, and four dummy variables representing the five law firms.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316 313

Nonwork
Resource Acquisition

.23**
.15*

Job Performance
Nonwork Role -.24*
Commitment

.26*** Nonwork
Time Demands -.42***

Nonwork
Emotional Energy
Demands

Nonwork
Physical Energy
Demands

Fig. 2. Standardized structural model. The model controls for the number of roles in which respondents participated, marital status, education level, job
tenure, and four dummy variables representing the five law firms. Only significant paths are shown. The path shown as a dashed line was not predicted.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

effect on emotional energy demands than on resource acquisition, and emotional energy demands had a stronger effect than
resource acquisition on job performance. In short, psychological commitment to nonwork roles was more likely to interfere
with job performance than enhance job performance, a finding that is inconsistent with the conclusions of Graves et al.
(2007) and Ruderman et al. (2002).
This discrepancy in findings may reflect the different contexts of the studies, in particular our sample of legal secretaries
in comparison to the managers and executives studied by Graves et al. (2007) and Ruderman et al. (2002). For example, the
statistically significant but modest path between resource acquisition and job performance in the present study may
indicate that, while beneficial, the resources that our respondents acquired may not have been as relevant to their type of
work as they would have been to managerial and executive work. The extent to which resources help promote effective job
perfor- mance is at least partly dependent on the responsibilities associated with the job. Perhaps the tasks and
responsibilities of upper-level managers and executives are more likely to require the particular resources acquired from
nonwork roles (e.g., social contacts, skills, new perspectives) than the tasks and responsibilities of non-managerial
employees. Because a sub- stantial portion of the workforce is represented by non-managerial employees, future research
should seek to identify other resources that may be more relevant to enhancing the performance of this segment of the
workforce.
The strong negative effect of nonwork emotional energy demands on job performance observed in the present study may
also reflect contextual factors. Graves et al. (2007) suggested that strong performance pressures discourage managers and
executives from allowing their participation in nonwork roles to interfere with their functioning at work. If secretaries do
not have as formidable a set of work pressures as managers and executives, it is understandable why the emotional energy
the secretaries in our sample expended outside of work was ‘‘permitted” to drain them of the energy needed on the job. We
do not suggest that the intrusion of nonwork activities into the work domain is limited to employees in lower-level jobs (see
Wallace & Young, 2008) but rather that they may have somewhat more permeable boundaries between nonwork and work
than employees in higher-level jobs. Because non-managerial employees are an important segment of our workforce, this is
an issue worthy of additional research.
Moreover, job level may be associated with the extensiveness of the material resources available to help individuals bal-
ance the demands associated with their commitments to multiple roles (Casper et al., 2007). The secretaries in this study
may not have had access to resources such as paid help and quality daycare to which higher-level managers and executives
may have had access. Without these stress-buffering resources, the demands associated with participation in multiple
roles may overtax individuals, leaving them with less energy to perform effectively at work (Heymann et al., 2002). In
sum, the negative indirect effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance may reflect the nature of our sample, that
is, the tasks they performed and the environment in which they worked, what Johns (2006) referred to as the occupation,
task, and social dimensions of context.
We also observed a sizeable negative direct effect of nonwork role commitment on job performance that is more difficult
to explain. It is possible that a high level of psychological commitment to nonwork roles produces additional pressures or
314 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

demands on individuals (e.g., interpersonal conflicts with role senders) not measured in the present study that have
negative effects on job performance. It is also possible that individuals who are highly committed to nonwork roles are less
involved in their jobs (Parasuraman et al., 1996) which in turn may depress their performance at work. Further research is
needed to identify the additional factors beyond emotional energy demands that explain the negative effect of nonwork role
commit- ment on job performance.
In addition to providing insight into the relationship between nonwork role commitment and job performance, the pres-
ent study revealed a number of intermediate linkages among model variables that raise interesting issues regarding work
and family life. For example, the stronger relationships of nonwork role commitment with physical and emotional energy
demands than with time demands suggest that the real ‘‘costs” of commitment to multiple roles may be the expenditure
of energy rather than the expenditure of time. Moreover, the recent emphasis on the importance of positive emotion and
affect at work (Luthans & Youssef, 2007) might explain why only the depletion of emotional energy (and not physical energy
or time) was associated with low levels of job performance.
It is also possible that the strength of the relationship between the acquisition of resources from nonwork roles and job
performance is contingent upon individual differences within a particular sample. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) proposed
that individuals who acquire resources from one role are more likely to apply the resources to another role when the latter
role is highly salient to the individual because being successful in that role is more central to their self-identity (Thoits,
1991). Future research should examine individual and interpersonal factors that moderate the relationship between re-
sources acquired from participation in nonwork roles and job performance.

4.1. Study limitations

As with any research, the present study has limitations that place restrictions on the conclusions that may be drawn.
Because of our cross-sectional design it is impossible to determine the causal directionality of observed relationships. For
example, it is plausible that high levels of job performance provide individuals with the confidence to participate extensively
in multiple nonwork roles. Therefore, future research should employ longitudinal designs to provide more confidence in
inferring the causal direction of relationships. In addition, it would be useful to develop an expanded measure of resource
acquisition that is more comprehensive in its assessment of resources derived from participation in nonwork roles.
Although our findings shed some light on the potential role of context in work–family relationships, a stronger test of
contextual influences would have examined the job performance consequences of nonwork role commitment for employees
in different levels and types of jobs and different industries within the same study. In a similar vein, our sample consisted
solely of women in one job. Although Graves et al. (2007) found no sex differences in their structural equation models, it is
possible that samples that include women and men in different types of jobs may reveal interactions between sex and job
type in the relationships between nonwork and work lives that were impossible to detect in our study.
Finally, our sample was based in one region (mid-Atlantic) of one country (the United States). In light of recent insights
into the role of national culture in work–family dynamics (Poelmans, 2005b), it is important to extend our line of research to
countries that differ from the U.S. in their norms regarding work and family lives and in the work-life initiatives provided by
governments and employers.

4.2. Implications for individuals and organizations

Our findings suggest that employees should monitor the effects of their commitment to multiple life roles on their
involvement and accomplishments at work and make decisions that are consistent with their life goals. Employees who find
that their extensive commitment to nonwork activities restricts their job performance may consider curtailing their commit-
ments outside of work, accepting the tradeoffs associated with decreased job performance, or finding ways to prevent their
life commitments from interfering with their achievements at work. For example, self-management strategies such as goal
setting and time management (Adams & Jex, 1999; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003) may enable employees to manage their
family and work domains more efficiently thereby reducing the negative effect of nonwork role commitment on job perfor-
mance. In addition, enacting rites of separation from nonwork activities and rites of incorporation into work activities
(Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000) may help employees transition from nonwork to work activities more smoothly so that
their expenditure of emotional energy in nonwork activities does not detract from their performance in the work domain.
All of these actions illustrate individual decision-making strategies (Greenhaus & Powell, 2007; Poelmans, 2005a) that may
help employees retain their commitment to life outside of work without compromising their job performance.
Moreover, organizations can help employees manage their commitments to multiple life roles. For example, supportive
supervisors can encourage employees to reflect on their life priorities and understand the impact of their commitments out-
side of work on their job performance. Beyond that, flexibility in work schedules and locations may reduce the negative ef-
fect of nonwork demands on job performance by providing additional control that enables employees to meet work
requirements at times and places consistent with their nonwork commitments. Support from the work domain, shown to
be associated with low family-to-work conflict (Byron, 2005; Greenhaus, Ziegert, & Allen, 2009), is a mechanism by which
organizations and employees can collaboratively solve problems regarding the potential impact of nonwork roles on work
outcomes.
 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316 315

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a Radford University College of Business Summer Research Grant awarded to the first
author.

References

Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work–family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 4, 72–77.
Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career-oriented men and women: The Life Role
Salience Scales. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 48, 831–838.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AMOS 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters.
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45,
813–837.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. A. (2003). Reduction of work–family conflict through the use of selection, optimization, and compensation behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1005–1018.
Barling, J., & Sorensen, D. (1997). Work and family: In search of a relevant research agenda. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s
organizations (pp. 157–169). New York: Wiley.
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124,
125–182.
Barnett, R. C. (1999). A new work-life model for the twenty-first century. ANNALS, AAPSS, 562, 143–158.
Barnett, R., & Hyde, J. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: A new theoretical view. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 16, 149–214.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bond, J., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & 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, 68, 131–164.
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 28–43.
Crouter, A. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work–family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425–441.
Edwards, J., & Rothbard, N. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Friedman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Allies or enemies? What happens when business professional confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frone, M. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick (Ed.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Society.
Frone, M., & Russell, M. (1992). Prevalence of work–family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 723–729.
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of work–family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,
145–167.
Godshalk, V.M. (1997). The effects of career plateauing on work and nonwork outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel
University.
Goode, W. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.
Graves, L., Ohlott, P., & Ruderman, M. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 44–
56.
Greenberger, E., & O’Neil, R. (1993). Spouse, parent, worker: Role commitments and role-related experiences in the construction of adults’ well- being.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 181–197.
Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work–family conflict: The dark side of the work–family interface. In P. L. Perrewe
& D. C. Ganster (Eds.). Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 5, pp. 61–98). Amsterdam: JAI Press/Elsevier.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2007). A conceptual analysis of decision making at the work–family interface. In Paper presented at the second international
conference of work and family, July 6–8. Barcelona, Spain: IESE Business School, University of Navarra.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Ziegert, J. C., & Allen, T. D. (2009). When family-supportive supervision matters: Relationships between multiple sources of support and
work–family balance. In Paper presented at the international community, work & family conference, April 16–18, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Foley, S. (2007). The intersection of work and family lives. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 131–152).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of
gender and work (pp. 391–412). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 249–265.
Heymann, J., Boynton-Jarrett, R., Carter, P., Bond, J., & Galinsky, E. (2002). Work–family issues and low-income families. New York, NY: The Ford Foundation.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–350.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress. New York: Wiley.
Kofodimos, J. R. (1990). Why executives lose their balance. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 58–73.
Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239–257.
316 C.H. Weer et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 306–316

Lobel, S., & St. Clair, L. (1992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 1057–1069.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: The
Free Press.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.
Marks, S. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.
May, D., Gilson, R., & Harter, L. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
McCauley, C., Ruderman, M., Ohlott, P., & Morrow, J. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
544–560.
Neal, M. B., & Hammer, L. B. (2007). Working couples caring for children and aging parents: Effects on work and well-being. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Netemeyer, R., Boles, J., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400–409.
O’Driscoll, M., Ilgen, D., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 272–279.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-
being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.
Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2005a). The decision process theory of work and family. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,
cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 263–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Poelmans, S. A. Y. (Ed.). (2005b). Work and family: An international research perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Repetti, R. L. (1987). Linkages between work and family roles. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and problems: Social psychological aspects (pp. 98–127).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rothbard, N., & Edwards, J. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699–730.
Ruderman, M., Ohlott, P., Panzer, K., & King, S. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369–386.
Sieber, S. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology
(pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The importance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 30, 558–564.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, T. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience and role behavior: Theory and research example. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.),
Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199–219). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 5, 16–35.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thoits, P. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112.
Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9, 275–285.
Wallace, J. E., & Young, M. C. (2008). Parenthood and productivity: A study of demands, resources and family-friendly firms. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72, 110–122.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents
and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63–76.
Whitt, L., & Carlson, D. (2006). The work–family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational
support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343–357.