Received 01/19/18

Revised 03/22/19
Accepted 03/31/19

•
DOI: 10.1002/joec.12125

supervisor support and

organizational commitment:
the role of work–family conflict,
job satisfaction, and work–life balance
A K M Mominul Haque Talukder

Building on conservation of resources theory and social exchange theory, the author
examined the relationship between supervisor support and organizational commitment
through work–family conflict, work–life balance, and the job satisfaction of employees
working in the financial sector in Australia. The study comprised 305 employees recruited
through an online survey. Results indicate that supervisor support is negatively related
to work–family conflict. In turn, work–life balance and job satisfaction are negatively
linked to work–family conflict. The results further show that both work–life balance
and job satisfaction are positively related to organizational commitment. Theoretical
and practical implications, as well as limitations, are discussed.

Keywords: supervisor support, work–family conflict, job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, Australia

Work–life balance (WLB) is defined as “an individual’s ability to meet work and
family commitments, as well as other non-work responsibilities and activities” (Hill,
Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001, p. 49). There is a consensus among scholars
that WLB is highly valued by most employees (Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, 2014) and
has important implications for people’s well-being and work productivity worldwide
(Lyness & Judiesch, 2014). The underlying assumption across many areas of research
is that work and family are intertwined in such a way that what happens in one
domain is likely to affect the other domain (Kanter, 1977). This interaction between
work and family leads to both positive and negative consequences (e.g., Pleck, 1977;
Rapoport & Rapoport, 1969). WLB is also attracting increasing scholarly attention
for its potential to advance positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations
(Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014; Greenhaus, Ziegert, & Allen, 2012). Nevertheless, the
research on WLB has remained relatively underdeveloped (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011;

A K M Mominul Haque Talukder, School of Business and Economics, North South University,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, and School of Business, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia. A K M
Mominul Haque Talukder is now at Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to A K M Mominul Haque Talukder, Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria,
PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, British Columbia, V8N 2Y2, Canada (email: mtalukder@uvic.ca).

© 2019 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

98 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56
Valcour, 2007). Specifically, there has been a paucity of studies on the individual
and contextual factors influencing WLB and on the positive outcomes associated
with greater WLB (Maertz & Boyar, 2011; Russo, Shteigman, & Carmeli, 2016).
The present research is based in Australia, where more than 70% of workers
ages 18 to 65 have expressed their desire to spend more time in leisure pursuits
or with their family, and nearly 40% have stated that they want to spend less time
at work (Skinner & Chapman, 2013). Although WLB is identified as being more of
an aspiration than a reality for many Australians, unpaid overtime is surprisingly
common in many workplaces, with more than half of all workers stating they have
worked unpaid overtime. This has amounted to donating $128 billion annually to
employers, a figure that is not improving (Baker, Johnson, & Denniss, 2014). Fur-
thermore, almost two thirds of Australian workers feel that their current working
arrangements have a negative impact on their health, well-being, and relationships.
For example, the financial industry—the focus of this article—demands long hours
because of competitive pressures from globalization, consolidation, and new technolo-
gies whereby productivity is often difficult to measure in terms of the hours spent at
work (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002).
Employees’ attitudes and behaviors are subject to their motivation, which
organizational researchers have found to be crucial because it provides competitive
advantage to the organization (Aryee, Chu, Kim, & Ryu, 2013). Research has
shown that formal family-supportive practices in organizations are instrumental in
ameliorating the negative consequences of work–family conflict (WFC). Employees
experience WFC when “participation in the work role is made more difficult by
participation in the family role” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). There is
recognition that many of these practices, such as the provision of child care, are
expensive to implement, and employees tend to be reluctant to use them because of
concerns about the career penalties associated with their use (Allen, 2001; Eaton,
2003; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). As a result, the research focus has
shifted from formal to informal practices (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, &
Hanson, 2009; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). Supervisor support is
one such informal practice. Thomas and Ganster (1995) described supervisor support
as “supervisory behavior towards employees that would allow employees to achieve
a balance between their responsibilities at home and at work” (p. 9). Supervisors
provide instrumental and socioemotional support to employees in addition to
resources that help employees integrate work and nonwork demands; prevent and
alleviate stress (Halbesleben, 2006); and demonstrate care for, and commitment to,
employees. Hence, it is imperative to understand how supervisor support influences
WFC, which could enable employers to create an environment that is conducive
to WLB, job satisfaction, and eventually employees’ organizational commitment
in the Australian financial sector. Job satisfaction refers to a “pleasurable positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke,
1976, p. 1300). Organizational commitment is “a relative strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Steers,
& Porter, 1979, p. 226).

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 99

 To shed further light on this issue, one must theorize and identify the direct and
indirect mechanisms by which supervisor support affects organizational commitment.
Therefore, the research question for the present study was as follows: “How does
supervisor support relate to organizational commitment through WFC, job satisfaction,
and WLB?” In support of this, a conceptual model was developed to examine
the relationships between supervisor support, WFC, WLB, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment.
The present study contributes to the literature in two significant ways. First, the model
proposes that supervisor support influences WFC; in turn, WFC diminishes WLB and
job satisfaction. Although these attitudinal consequences (i.e., job satisfaction, WLB,
and organizational commitment) are well recognized in management studies, they have
not been simultaneously examined as emanating from supervisor support (Drummond
et al., 2017; Jenkins, Bhanugopan, & Lockhart, 2016; Mills, Matthews, Henning, &
Woo, 2014; Wayne, Casper, Matthews, & Allen, 2013; Zheng, Kashi, Fan, Molineux, &
Ee, 2016). Second, the present study expands previous research by linking supervisor
support and organizational commitment through a set of variables (WFC, WLB, and
job satisfaction) in the context of the Australian financial sector.
The present research is grounded in conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll,
1989) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain why and how supervisor
support influences organizational commitment through WFC, job satisfaction, and
WLB. The primary tenets of COR theory are that individuals strive to gain and
maintain resources that are valuable to them (e.g., food, self-esteem, promotion, time)
and that resource loss has a greater psychological impact than does resource gain as
it is related to stress. An increase in job demands translates into additional resources
being required or consumed by the work sphere; because resources are limited, fewer
resources are then left available to fulfill demands in the family (e.g., Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Lapierre & Allen, 2006).
Social exchange theory suggests that when employees perceive that the organization
helps them in some way, such as by providing care and support for their family life,
they will reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors (Blau, 1964). Consistent
with social exchange theory, research demonstrates that one way employees reciprocate
their belief that their organization is supportive of their family is by forming a stronger
attachment to the organization (Allen, 2001; Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Greene-Shortridge,
2012; Tang, Siu, & Cheung, 2014). It should be noted that the current study considers
WLB rather than work–family balance to recognize that all employees may need to
balance work and nonwork commitments (Jenkins et al., 2016).
According to Thomas and Ganster (1995), “Balancing responsibilities between
home and work can be achieved through supervisory behavior” (p. 9). This is because
supervisors can signal their support by inquiring about employees’ family needs or
expressing concern and encouragement to employees who are strained by demands
for resources between family and work (Bagger & Li, 2014). Such family support from
supervisors is critical in reducing WFC experienced by employees (Breaugh & Frye,
2008). This is in line with COR theory, which states that when supportive supervisors
cater to employees’ family needs, for example, allowing employees to have flexible

100 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

schedules or making provisions for child care on organizational premises, they may
provide emotional or instrumental support or modes of role modeling that are assumed
to lessen WFC (Glavelia, Karassavidoua, & Zafiropoulos, 2013; Hammer et al., 2009).
Allen (2001) reported that WFC is reduced when employees perceive family support
from their organizations. Additionally, supervisor support could alleviate WFC (Thomas
& Ganster, 1995). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Supervisor support at work negatively relates to WFC.

A complementary perspective to the WLB literature is that a lack of balance

may lead to conflicts between life domains. Conflict has been found to be higher
among employees who work a greater number of hours (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999;
Greenhaus, Bedeian, & Mossholder, 1987; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Nielson,
Carlson, & Lankau, 2001). More hours spent at work make it more difficult for
people to fulfill responsibilities at home, and thus they experience higher work
demands, which contributes to WFC (Zhang & Liu, 2011). Analogous arguments
can be drawn from COR theory, such that workload is a job demand or stressor
that represents the consumption of energy in terms of time and psychological
resources. An increase in such demands translates into additional resources
being required or consumed by the work sphere. Because resources are finite,
this leaves fewer resources available to fulfill family demands (e.g., Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007). For instance, the more time
one spends at work, the less time one has available to fulfill home demands
(e.g., Thompson et al., 1999), and conflict is created between the two domains
because of insufficient resources to fulfill the demands of both. Resource drain
can occur daily as the result of high workload, which negatively affects a person’s
family role performance, resulting in daily WFC (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
Ostensibly, this conflict causes the person to experience a reduced level of WLB.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2a: WFC negatively relates to WLB.

The relationship between WFC and job satisfaction has received a wealth of
empirical investigation, with most of the research indicating that greater WFC
relates to less job satisfaction (Dorio, Bryant, & Allen, 2008). COR theory
(Hobfoll, 1989) explains stress outcomes for both intra- and interrole stress.
For example, employees experiencing conflict in their work role may come to
believe that they cannot successfully perform their job. As a result, they may be
forced to invest more of their resources (e.g., time, energy) into their work role
for fear of losing their job. COR theory proposes that interrole conflict leads to
stress because resources are lost in the process of juggling both work and family
roles. These potential or actual losses of resources lead to a negative “state of
being,” which may include dissatisfaction with the job, depression, anxiety,
or physiological tension. Consistent with COR theory, the depletion argument

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 101

(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) assumes that engaging in multiple roles leads to
role conflict, given that individuals have a fixed amount of time and energy.
Furthermore, WFC is likely to occur because specific aspects of work make it
difficult to balance work and nonwork demands. A person who is having trouble
managing work and nonwork responsibilities may experience more intense
dissatisfaction with the accumulation of specific aspects of his or her work that
are believed to be contributing factors to the conflict (Bruck, Allen, & Spector,
2002). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2b: WFC negatively relates to job satisfaction.

Social exchange theory posits that unspecified obligations based on trust will
lead to gestures of goodwill being reciprocated at some point in the future. This
theory is built on the principle of reciprocity, which is based on the assump-
tions that “people should help those who have helped them, and people should
not injure those who have helped them” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 171). In terms of
WLB practice, both social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity suggest
that when organizations provide family-friendly benefits to their employees that
are not mandated by the organizations, reciprocity should come into play. It
can be argued that if employees perceive that they are being cared for through
the provision of family-friendly programs (e.g., child care, flexible work ar-
rangements), the more likely employees are to conclude that the organization
is treating them well and thus will feel obligated to “pay back” or reciprocate
by becoming more committed to the organization. The argument of employee
reciprocation with commitment to the organization is supported by previous
researchers (e.g., Allen, 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Other researchers (e.g.,
Halpern, 2005; Kossek, Colquitt, & Noe, 2001) have also reported that employee
commitment is enhanced when organizations provide work-friendly programs
to help employees fulfill family and nonwork responsibilities. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: WLB positively relates to organizational commitment.

A satisfaction-to-commitment model assumes that satisfaction is a cause of

commitment (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). This is consistent with the view that job
satisfaction is one of the micro foundations of the more macro concept of organizational
commitment (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974), and job satisfaction results
from a cognitive and rational evaluation of the degree to which the job measures
up to an individual’s aspirations and values (Kalleberg, 1977; Mastekaasa, 1984).
Porter et al. (1974) suggested that because job satisfaction is primarily one’s attitude
toward the job and tends to be associated with aspects of the work environment, it
will develop more quickly than commitment, which is an effective response to the
whole organization and thus requires a comprehensive assessment of an employee’s
relationship with the organization.

102 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

 The preceding argument endorses social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) in that
employees seem to reciprocate in the form of more favorable attitudes toward an
organization that is perceived to be supportive of them (Tang et al., 2014). Applying
this to the work–family interface, employees and their organizations are considered
as two exchange counterparts. When employees perceive that their organizations
are helping them to integrate their work and family roles, they perceive those
organizations as more supportive and consequently feel obligated to reciprocate
with positive feelings about their jobs and organizations (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan,
2005; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees who are satisfied are likely to
be attached to the organization, which could ultimately elevate their level of com-
mitment. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction positively relates to organizational commitment.

Overall, the proposed theoretical model in the present study (see Figure 1) can
be summarized as follows: WFC is reduced when employees’ family needs are
taken care of by their supervisors. Consistent with COR theory, higher levels of
support from supervisors are related to lower levels of WFC. Next, reduced levels
of conflict that stem from both family and work domains will provide employees
with a higher level of WLB, and, in support of COR theory, there is a negative
relationship between WFC and WLB. In further support of COR theory, given their
fixed resources and the conundrum of managing work life and family life, employees
may experience dissatisfaction at work. Consistent with social exchange theory,
enhancement of employees’ WLB and their satisfaction at work will increase their
commitment to the organization.

WLB

SS WFC OC

JS

Control
Variables: Age,
Gender, Education

FIGURE 1
Hypothesized Model
Note. SS = supervisor support; WFC = work–family conflict; WLB = work–life balance; JS =
job satisfaction; OC = organizational commitment.

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 103

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Participants were employees in the financial industry in Sydney, Australia. The

financial sector provides financial services to commercial and retail customers; in
Australia, this sector alone contributes 9% of the country’s gross domestic product
(Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017). However,
the present study included finance, banking, insurance, and accounting firms. Given
that the focus was on supervisor support linked to organizational commitment through
work–life conflict, job satisfaction, and WLB, it was important to ensure that the
participants had some degree of work and family issues. Therefore, to be eligible,
participants had to meet the following criteria: They had to be married, work at least
30 hours per week, have 2 years’ work experience, and be between 18 and 65 years
of age. The participants were initially recruited from 1,206 employees through a
web survey. An initial email invitation was sent to selected panelists asking them
to participate in the study. This was followed by another invitation that required a
high response rate. Each survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete, and
participation was voluntary.
The survey’s web link was appended to the email. Of the total population of em-
ployees, 35 responses were removed because of incomplete data, and another 10
responses were removed because the respondents had worked less than a year for
their current employer. This resulted in a final sample of 305 participants (25.3%).
This was considered satisfactory because research has suggested that surveys with-
out any prior contact with respondents can typically have less than a 15% rate of
response (Malhotra, Agarwal, & Peterson, 1996). The current study’s sample size
of 305 is five times higher than the total number of items (i.e., 25). This supports
Stevens’s (1996) requirement for a representative sample. Most of the participants
were married (76%) and younger than 50 years old (77%). The participants’ occupa-
tions ranged from entry-level (47%) to mid-level (31%) and senior (22%) positions.
The survey questions were obtained from established scales that have been used
extensively in the WLB research, and they were revised to make them relevant for
employees in the financial sector. Descriptive statistics were performed to examine
maximum and minimum values within each variable to check for nonresponse bias.
Both histograms and scatter plots were run to stem any potential outliers in the whole
data set. Both frequency tables and histograms were used to examine the normality
of distributions; the skewness and kurtosis were between –1 to +1, indicating that
both were not significantly different from that of the normal distribution.

Measures

All measures used a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater levels of each construct unless
otherwise noted.

104 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

 Supervisor support. Supervisor support was measured with five items: three items
adapted from Clark (2001) and two items from Thompson et al. (1999). These five items
of supervisor support were considered to have appropriate evidence of reliability and
validity (e.g., Bagger & Li, 2014). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .91.
WLB. WLB was measured with five items: one item from Greenhaus et al. (2012),
two items from Brough et al. (2014), and two items from Carlson, Grzywacz, and
Zivnuska (2009). The measure for WLB, which has been developed and used by
researchers, was also empirically validated (Brough et al., 2014; Carlson et al., 2009;
Greenhaus et al., 2012; Russo et al., 2016). The Cronbach’s alpha in the present
study was .93. Using multiple items for both supervisor support and WLB helps
to average out the errors and specificities that are inherent in single items, thus
leading to increased reliability and construct validity (DeVellis, 2003).
WFC. WFC was measured with five items from Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian
(1996). This measure has been validated with strong psychometric properties by
various scholars (Scott, Ingram, Zagenczyk, & Shoss, 2015; Wayne et al., 2013).
The Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .84.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with five items from Brayfield
and Rothe (1951). This measure has been validated by Abbas, Raja, Darr, and
Bouckenooghe (2014). The Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .91.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured with five
items adapted from Mowday et al. (1979). This measure has gained good psycho-
metric properties in past studies (e.g., Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). The Cronbach’s
alpha in the present study was .89.

Control Variables

To rule out the possibility that the results were attributable to demographics, I con-
trolled for gender (dummy coded male = 1, female = 2), age (measured in years),
and education (high school = 1, diploma/certificate = 2, graduate = 3, postgraduate
or above = 4). However, the results only showed a significant negative relationship
between the participants’ level of education and age (r = −.19, p < .01) and gender
(r = −.14, p < .01) but not organizational commitment.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the convergent and dis-
criminant validity of the study variables. Initially, some items were deleted to
retain higher factor loadings. All items loaded highly on their factors and con-
tained coefficient values well above the cutoff point of .7, indicating convergent
validity of the data (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994). The exploratory factor analysis
revealed that the variables were strongly related to their own factors with no
cross-loadings, with a minimum value higher than .5 (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010). Moreover, the correlations between the factors did not exceed
.7; this ensured discriminant validity of the data.

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 105

 To hold back multicollinearity, the study measured both variance inflation factor
and tolerance scores, which were below 3 and above .10, respectively (Hair et al.,
2010). The study also applied Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003) prior to the hypothesis tests, which allowed the examination of
an internal validity concern of monomethod bias.

RESULTS
Measurement Validation

AMOS Version 23 (Arbuckle, 2014) was used to evaluate the fit of both the measurement
model and structural model. The Cronbach’s alphas for the constructs used in this study
ranged from .84 to .93 (see Table 1), which exceeded the suggested cutoff value of .70
(Hair et al., 2010). Following usual practice, overall model fit was examined by various fit
indices, including the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). There is reason-
able model fit when RMSEA is below .08 and the TLI, IFI, and CFI values are above .90.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the distinctiveness of the scales used
in this study. The model fit of the five-factor measurement model (i.e., supervisor support,
work–life conflict, WLB, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) was assessed.
All fit indices’ values—χ2(266) = 622.36, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, TLI = .93, IFI = .94,
and CFI = .94—were within the recommended range, indicating an acceptable model fit
(Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). The normed χ2/df ratio of 2.34 was within the recommended range
of 1 to 3 (H. W. Marsh & Hocevar, 1985).

Path Analysis

The means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s alphas for the study
variables are presented in Table 1. To examine the proposed model links, I created

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities
of Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 4.55 1.08 —
2. Gender 1.50 0.50 –.08 —
3. Education 3.53 1.07 –.19** –.14** —
4. SS 4.77 1.30 .05 –.08 .05 .91
5. WFC 3.94 1.42 –.05 –.01 .06 –.32** .84
6. WLB 4.91 1.38 .07 –.01 .02 .51** –.61** .93
7. JS 4.37 1.29 .12* .00 –.01 .48** –.11* .43** .91
8. OC 4.36 1.31 .03 .04 .00 .52** –.12* .38** .63** .89
Note. N = 305. Values in boldface on the diagonal are coefficient alphas. SS = supervisor support;
WFC = work–family conflict; WLB = work–life balance; JS = job satisfaction; OC = organizational
commitment.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

106 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

summated scores by averaging corresponding items to the five variables. Overall,
the results provided support for all proposed hypotheses (see Table 2).
The research question concerning the relationship between supervisor support and
employees’ WFC, WLB, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment was addressed
by means of path analysis. Supervisor support was negatively related to WFC (β = −.41,
p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1, which proposed that higher levels of supervisor
support for employees would lessen WFC (see Table 2). In turn, WFC was negatively
linked to WLB (β = −.57, p < .001) and job satisfaction (β = −.17, p < .10), support-
ing Hypotheses 2a and 2b, respectively. Similarly, organizational commitment was
positively related to WLB (β = .10, p < .10) and job satisfaction (β = .52, p < .001),
thus supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4. Furthermore, the strongest negative link was
reported between WFC and WLB (β = −.57, p < .001), whereas a positive relationship
was found between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (β = .52, p < .001).
Figure 2 presents the results of the path analysis using a structural model. The
structural model was tested following the measurement model. Squared multiple
correlations were also assessed. Overall, the model explained 23% of the variance
in employees’ organizational commitment. It is interesting that the highest squared
multiple correlations was for WLB (R2 = .45), which showed that supervisor support
alone helped explain 45% of the variance in WLB.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of the present study was to investigate the links between
supervisor support and WFC, job satisfaction, WLB, and organizational commit-
ment that stem from a conceptual model of predictors and outcomes of WFC in the
context of the Australian financial sector. Using COR theory (Grandey & Cropanzano,
1999; Hobfoll, 1989) and social exchange theory, the study addressed the relation-
ship between supervisor support and organizational commitment that was mediated
through WFC, job satisfaction, and WLB.

TABLE 2
Standardized Estimates From the Structural Model
Direct Effect b t p Results
Hypothesis 1
Supervisor support → Work–family conflict –.41 –5.56 <.001 Supported
Hypothesis 2a
Work–family conflict → Work–life balance –.57 –10.84 <.001 Supported
Hypothesis 2b
Work–family conflict → Job satisfaction –.17 –2.81 <.10 Supported
Hypothesis 3
Work–life balance → Organizational commitment .10 1.89 <.10 Supported
Hypothesis 4
Job satisfaction → Organizational commitment .52 9.16 <.001 Supported
Note. N = 305.

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 107

 WLB
R 2 = .45 .10†
–.57***
–.41***
SS WFC OC
R 2 = .12 R 2 = .23
–.17†
JS .52***
R 2 = .03

Control
Variables: Age,
Gender, Education

FIGURE 2
The Path Diagram of the Structural Model
Note. Values outside the circles represent standardized regression coefficients. SS = supervisor
support; WFC = work–family conflict; WLB = work–life balance; JS = job satisfaction; OC =
organizational commitment.
†
p < .10. ***p < .001.

The findings from this study extend the existing body of work–life literature. First,
the data support Hypothesis 1 that supervisor support can mitigate the conflict
between employees’ work and family life. The results show that supervisor support
has a positive impact of lessening employees’ WFC, which is in turn correlated with
higher WLB (Goh, Ilies, & Wilson, 2015). This underpins the essence of COR theory
in that the likely energy stemming from a supportive supervisor can compensate for
imbalances between work and family conflict. This finding confirms past research,
many of which suggested that the existence of formal family-supportive policies
alone is not enough to ease employees’ WFC, given that these policies rely on the
informal discretion of supervisors (Hammer et al., 2009).
This study’s findings revisit the idea that supervisor support has been identified
as a crucial component in reducing WFC (e.g., Allen, 2001; Behson, 2002). Hence,
organizations can consider how supervisors play a role in influencing employees’
WFC, WLB, job satisfaction, and commitment at work. The results advance previous
studies that emphasize the crucial component of understanding work and family
issues in curbing WFC (e.g., Allen, 2001; Booth & Matthews, 2012) and demonstrate
a strong influence of supervisors’ work–family support to curtail WFC (Behson,
2005; Kossek et al., 2011). Clark (2001) suggested that the well-being of families
lies mostly in the hands of first-line supervisors.
Hypothesis 2a, which proposes that WFC is inversely related to WLB, is validated
in the study. This finding supports past studies in that WLB is higher among those
who work fewer hours as a result of reduced work demands (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999;

108 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

Greenhaus et al., 1987; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Nielson et al., 2001). The finding is
in line with the idea that high job involvement (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Parasuraman
& Simmers, 2001) leads to greater work demands (Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000)
and therefore requires greater time commitment at work (Parasuraman & Simmers,
2001). Because of this, employees are likely to experience work–life conflict, which
consequently diminishes their WLB. This idea was underpinned by the present study.
In support of Hypothesis 2b that WFC is negatively related to job satisfaction,
the results of the study show that greater WFC reduces job satisfaction (Dorio et al.,
2008), which is in line with COR theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal,
1964). This is because employees who experience work-role conflict may come to
believe that they cannot successfully perform their job, which can force them to
invest more of their resources into the work role for fear of losing their job. COR
theory proposes that interrole conflict leads to stress because resources are lost in
the process of juggling both work and family roles. These potential or actual losses of
resources lead to a negative state of being, which may include dissatisfaction at work.
In support of Hypothesis 3 that WLB is positively linked to organizational commitment,
the results of the present study reveal that employees who balance their work–life domain
demonstrate higher levels of commitment to the organization. This finding extends that of
Lambert (2000), who found that employees’ experiences with family-friendly benefits (as
part of WLB) foster organizational citizenship behaviors, suggesting that employees feel
obligated to exert “extra” effort in return for “extra” benefits, which is in line with social
exchange theory. The findings of the present study also suggest that if employees perceive
that they are being cared for through the provision of family-friendly programs (e.g., child
care, flexible work arrangements), they will conclude that the organization is treating them
well and feel obligated to reciprocate by becoming more committed to the organization.
The preceding sentence corroborates Hypothesis 4 that job satisfaction is positively
related to organizational commitment. The results of this study support a positive associa-
tion between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Slattery & Selvarajan, 2005).
Previous studies have revealed that job satisfaction has a strong influence on commitment
(e.g., R. M. Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Steers, 1977). Furthermore,
Farrell and Rusbult (1981) showed that job satisfaction is an antecedent of organizational
commitment, and they provided support for their model in a longitudinal study (Rusbult &
Farrell, 1983) that indicated clearly that the causal direction is from satisfaction to com-
mitment. This also supports the essence of social exchange theory.

Limitations

Limitations of this study should be noted. The survey data were collected from a
single source (the financial sector) and from Sydney; therefore, the conclusions
may carry less weight than those triangulated from multiple sources and across
Australia. The variables were self-reported during one period, which may leave
the data subject to some response biases. However, and consistent with the past
research, steps were taken to reduce single-source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Another limitation was that no multigroup analysis was conducted, which could

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 109

have produced different results for either single or multiple demographic variables.
The study did not compare participants’ occupational levels, types of employment,
and race and ethnicity; thus, future research could consider these issues. Caution
should be used in interpreting the study’s results given that a larger group could
lead to different results.

Theoretical Implications

The present study has several important theoretical implications. First, the study
found a negative relationship between supervisor support and WFC. This supports
one of the important premises of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) that gaining potential
resources (e.g., time, energy, emotions) from supervisors will generate more re-
sources that can be harnessed by employees to mitigate conflict between their work
and life. The study’s results argue that when employees perceive their supervisors
as facilitating an environment that is conducive to the successful management of
work and family issues, both satisfaction and commitment to the organization can
be predicted over time (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Second, the study found that
WFC was negatively related to both job satisfaction and WLB. Furthermore, job
satisfaction and WLB were positively associated with organizational commitment.
This underpinned social exchange theory in that when employees’ job conditions
were family supportive, they experienced increased WLB. In turn, this can lead
employees to have more satisfaction and commitment toward their job and loyalty
to their employer (Blau, 1964; Wayne et al., 2013).
The study’s findings extend the previous theoretical framework (e.g., Aryee et al.,
2013; Bagger & Li, 2014) for organizational responsiveness to WFC and positive
attitudes, especially in the context of the Australian financial sector. Investigating
possible mediating factors can help organizations recognize the dire exigency of
supervisor support in leveraging organizational commitment.

Managerial Implications

Improved planning and coordinating of tasks and resources, by both supervisors and
employees, can reduce daily workload (Goh et al., 2015). Specifically, encourag-
ing supervisors to discuss and accommodate employees’ work and family concerns
can lessen employees’ conflict experiences between work and home. Implementing
formal organizational policies might be costly and less effective than building a
family-supportive organizational culture by inculcating family-supportive attitudes
and behaviors among supervisors. Furthermore, informal support concerning family
seems to be a necessary condition to lessen WFC. Consistent with previous stud-
ies, the present results confirm that supervisor support, as an informal workplace
practice, offers a more flexible, personalized response to employees seeking to bal-
ance work and life demands (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). Importantly, WFC
and job satisfaction were stronger mediators of the relationship between supervisor
support and organizational commitment than was WLB. To attenuate dissatisfaction,

110 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

employees can approach their supervisors and discuss how to grant time that they
can devote to their family (Glavelia et al., 2013). Employees can also discuss with
supervisors ways to mitigate pressure in relation to their work and family roles. This,
in turn, could increase employees’ positive mood and bolster their satisfaction. The
results of the mediation analyses explain how supervisor support is associated with
organizational commitment through WFC, job satisfaction, and WLB. Employees
who report supervisor support experience higher levels of WLB through relatively
little work–life conflict.
Supervisors can extend their support in several ways. For example, supervisors
can express empathy for employees’ desire to seek balance between work and family
responsibilities (Hammer, Kossek, Zimmerman, & Daniels, 2007; Thomas & Ganster,
1995). In addition, supervisors can accommodate employees’ flexible schedule, be
tolerant of short personal phone calls with their children after school hours, grant
time trades so that new eldercare arrangements can be monitored, allow employees
to bring a child to work on a snow day, or even offer a kind word in stressful times
such as when a babysitter quits (Hammer et al., 2007; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Supervisors, as a proxy for managers, can be powerful in making workplaces more
family friendly because they can act not only as gatekeepers for the availability and
effective implementation of work–family initiatives but also as change agents for
informal supportive organizational cultures (Straub, 2012). Indeed, supervisors have
considerable discretion over the types and levels of family support that employees
receive (McCarthy, Darcy, & Grady, 2010; Straub, 2012) regardless of whether
family-friendly benefits are provided by the organization.

Directions for Future Research

The findings of this study suggest several additional avenues for future research.
Further fine-grained analyses on the different dimensions of supervisor support (i.e.,
emotional support, instrumental support, or role modeling) may provide additional
insight into when supervisor support is most effective in increasing employee com-
mitment. Additional research is also necessary to enhance the internal and external
validity of the present findings. Comprehensive meta-analyses along with longitudinal
designs can help rule out alternative causal explanations imposed by cross-sectional
design. The use of multiple sources of data on variables such as family-supportive
supervision (e.g., supervisors) and WFC (e.g., spouses) would help allay concerns
regarding common method variance, although the observed interactions were not
the result of a common method (Evans, 1985).
A substantial body of research has demonstrated that supportive supervisors play
a key role in how individuals experience the workplace (Hammer et al., 2009). The
present study extends the research by identifying the mechanism by which supervi-
sor support triggers employees’ organizational commitment through job satisfaction
and WLB that stem from work and life domains. In relation to this, organizational
commitment increases through the mediating effect of WLB and job satisfaction.
Continued research along these lines is needed to fully understand the conditions

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 111

that minimize employees’ WFC, which would affect their job satisfaction and WLB.
To my knowledge, a very limited number of studies have reported this mechanism,
which makes the present study significant.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that, through supervisor support, managers can lessen
WFC and augment job satisfaction and WLB to bolster organizational commitment of
employees working in the Australian financial sector. The present study asserts that
supervisor support can play a meaningful role in employees’ WLB. When employees
receive workplace support, this support can increase their engagement and effort
in their daily work, which is in line with the current finding that if employees are
satisfied with their WLB, they will increase their commitment to the organization.
Employees’ satisfaction is then reflected at home, and this home-life satisfaction is
further reflected at work. This spillover effect can yield an elevated commitment by
employees to their job and their employer.

REFERENCES

Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2014). Combined effects of perceived politics and
psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Manage-
ment, 40, 1813–1830. doi:10.1177/0149206312455243
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). AMOS (Version 23.0) [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2017). Trade in services Australia 2016.
Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/trade-in-services-australia-2016.pdf
Aryee, S., Chu, C. W. L., Kim, T., & Ryu, S. (2013). Family-supportive work environment and employee
work behaviors: An investigation of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 39, 792–813.
doi:10.1177/0149206311435103
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E., & Tan, H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work–family
balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132–146. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.1.132
Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2014). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes
and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management, 40, 1123–1150.
doi:10.1177/0149206311413922
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8–34. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x
Baker, D., Johnson, M., & Denniss, R. (2014). Walking the tightrope: Have Australians achieved work/
life balance? Retrieved from The Australia Institute website: http://www.tai.org.au/content/walking-
tightrope-have-australians-achieved-worklife-balance
Behson, S. J. (2002). Coping with family-to-work conflict: The role of informal work accommoda-
tions to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 324–341. doi:10.1037/1076-
8998.7.4.324
Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work–family support.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 487–500. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.004
Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees’ use of work–family policies and the workplace social
context. Social Forces, 80, 813–845. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0002
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

112 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

Booth, S. M., & Matthews, R. A. (2012). Family-supportive organization perceptions: Validation of an
abbreviated measure and theory extension. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 41–51.
doi:10.1037/a0026232
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35,
307–311. doi:10.1037/h0055617
Breaugh, J. A., & Frye, N. K. (2008). Work–family conflict: The importance of family-friendly employment
practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 345–353. doi:10.1007/
s10869-008-9081-1
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance:
A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2724–2744. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.899262
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfac-
tion: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336–353. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1836
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work–family balance more than conflict and
enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 1459–1486. doi:10.1177/0018726709336500
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: An exami-
nation of work–family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540. doi:10.1177/014920639902500403
Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 348–365.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1759
DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dorio, J. M., Bryant, R. H., & Allen, T. D. (2008). Work-related outcomes of the work–family interface:
Why organizations should care. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of
work–family integration (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Drummond, S., Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.-L., Timms, C., . . . Lo, D. (2017). The
relationship of social support with well-being outcomes via work–family conflict: Moderating effects of
gender, dependants and nationality. Human Relations, 70, 544–565. doi:10.1177/0018726716662696
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived
performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145–167. doi:10.1111/1468-232X.00285
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship
between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199. doi:10.5465/
amr.2000.2791609
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte-Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated
multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305−323.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment,
and turnover: The impact of reward, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 28, 78–95. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(81)90016-7
Glavelia, N., Karassavidoua, E., & Zafiropoulos, K. (2013). Relationships among three facets of family-supportive
work environments, work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A research in Greece. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3757–3771. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.778317
Goh, Z., Ilies, R., & Wilson, K. S. (2015). Supportive supervisors improve employees’ daily lives: The
role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life satisfaction via work–family conflict.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 65–73. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.009
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family
conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work–family balance: A review and extension of the literature.
In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 165–183).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance,
and feelings of personal and family wellbeing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 200–215.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90057-1

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 113

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and non-work family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–85. doi:10.2307/258214
Greenhaus, J. H., & Kossek, E. E. (2014). The contemporary career: A work–home perspective. An-
nual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 361–388. doi:10.1146/
annurev-orgpsych-031413-091324
Greenhaus, J. H., Ziegert, J. C., & Allen, T. D. (2012). When family-supportive supervision matters: Rela-
tions between multiple sources of support and work–family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80, 266–275. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.008
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological
perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. doi:10.1037/1076-8998. 5.1.111
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation
of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1134–1145. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134
Halpern, D. F. (2005). Psychology at the intersection of work and family: Recommendations for employ-
ers, working families, and policymakers. American Psychologist, 60, 397–409. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.60.5.397
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and
validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal
of Management, 35, 837–856. doi:10.1177/0149206308328510
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying the construct of family-
supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel perspective. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster
(Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being: Exploring the work and non-work interface (pp.
165–204). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day, a week: The positive
influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50, 49–58.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00049.x
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking work
and non-work domains. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 326–341.
doi:10.1080/13594320701363712
Jenkins, S., Bhanugopan, R., & Lockhart, P. (2016). A framework for optimizing work–life balance
practices in Australia: Perceived options for employee support. Journal of Employment Counseling,
53, 112–129. doi:10.1002/joec.12033
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological
Review, 42, 124–143. doi:10.2307/2117735
Kanter, R. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and
policy. New York, NY: Sage.
Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance:
The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work–family climates. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 29–44. doi:10.2307/3069335
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family
conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and
organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–313. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable workforce: Organizational strategies for
promoting work–life balance and well-being. In C. Cooper & P. Chen (Eds.), Work and wellbeing (pp.
295–318). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work–life benefits and organizational citizenship
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815. doi:10.5465/1556411

114 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of orga-
nizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work–family conflict and employee
well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169–181. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.169
Lincoln, J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1990). Culture, control, and commitment: A study of work organization
in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of indus-
trial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2014). Gender egalitarianism and work–life balance for managers:
Multisource perspectives in 36 countries. Applied Psychology, 63, 96–129. doi:10.1111/apps.12011
Maertz, C. P., & Boyar, S. L. (2011). Work–family conflict, enrichment, and balance under “levels” and
“episodes” approaches. Journal of Management, 37, 68–98. doi:10.1177/0149206310382455
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural
marketing research: A state-of-the-art review. International Marketing Review, 13, 7–43.
doi:10.1108/02651339610131379
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-
concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 562–582. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562
Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57–75. doi:10.2307/2391746
Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators
Research, 14, 141–163. doi:10.1007/BF00293407
McCarthy, A., Darcy, C., & Grady, G. (2010). Work–life balance policy and practice: Understanding line manager
attitudes and behaviours. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 158–167. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.12.001
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, M. J., Matthews, R. A., Henning, J. B., & Woo, V. A (2014). Family-supportive organizations and
supervisors: How do they influence employee outcomes and for whom? The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25, 1763–1785. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.860387
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and
family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing
work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1806
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Organizational work–family resources
as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process of work–family conflict and enrichment.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 28–40. doi:10.1037/a0026428
Parasuraman S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, work family conflict and well-being: A
comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 555–568. doi:10.1002/job.102
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work–family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417–427. doi:10.2307/800135
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and
turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609. doi:10.1037/h0037335
Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (1969). The dual-career family: A variant pattern and social change.
Human Relations, 22, 3–30. doi:10.1177/001872676902200101
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. A. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job
satisfaction, job commitment, ad turnover variations in rewards, costs, alternatives and investments.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–438. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.429

journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56 115

Russo, M., Shteigman, A., & Carmeli, A. (2016). Workplace and family support and work–life balance:
Implications for individual psychological availability and energy at work. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11, 173–188. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1025424
Scott, K. L., Ingram, A., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Shoss, M. K. (2015). Work–family conflict and social under-
mining behavior: An examination of PO fit and gender differences. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 88, 203–218. doi:10.1111/joop.12091
Skinner, N., & Chapman, J. (2013). Work–life balance and family friendly policies. Evidence Base, 4,
1–25. doi:10.21307/eb-2013-002
Slattery, J. P., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2005). Antecedents to temporary employee’s turnover intention. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 53–66. doi:10.1177/107179190501200106
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 46–56. doi:10.2307/2391745
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Straub, C. (2012). Antecedents and organizational consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior:
A multilevel conceptual framework for research. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 15–26.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.08.001
Tang, S., Siu, O., & Cheung, F. (2014). A study of work–family enrichment among Chinese employees:
The mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 63, 130–150.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00519.x
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family conflict
and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The
influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family
conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1681
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and
satisfaction with work–family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1512–1523. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1512
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work
withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397–427.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00078.x
Wayne, J. H., Casper, W. J., Matthews, R. A., & Allen, T. D. (2013). Family-supportive organization
perceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of work–family conflict and enrichment
and partner attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 606–622. doi:10.1037/a0032491
Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work–family support in work–
family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 445–461.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.002
Yang N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work–family conflict: A Sino–U.S. comparison
of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 113–123.
doi:10.5465/1556390
Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: Review and prospect. International
Journal of Business and Management, 6, 89–103. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n1p89
Zheng, C., Kashi, K., Fan, D., Molineux, J., & Ee, M. S. (2016). Impact of individual coping strategies
and organizational work–life balance programs on Australian employee well-being. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 501–526. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1020447

116 journal of employment counseling • September 2019 • Volume 56

Copyright of Journal of Employment Counseling is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.