Work family conflict and individual cons
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Emerald Article: Work-family conflict and individual consequences
Mian Zhang, Rodger W. Griffeth, David D. Fried
Article information:
To cite this document: Mian Zhang, Rodger W. Griffeth, David D. Fried, (2012),"Work-family conflict and individual consequences",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 7 pp. 696 - 713
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211259520
Downloaded on: 18-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 58 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
27,7
Work-family conflict and
individual consequences
696
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, and
Mian Zhang
Rodger W. Griffeth and David D. Fried
Received July 2010
Revised November 2010
July 2011
October 2011
Accepted October 2011
Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between two forms of
work-family conflict – work-family conflict and family-work conflict – and individual consequences
for Chinese managers.
Design/methodology/approach – Participants of this study were 264 managers from Mainland
China. The authors tested their hypotheses with structural equation modeling.
Findings – Work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional exhaustion. Family-work
conflict was negatively associated with life satisfaction and affective commitment, as well as
positively related to turnover intentions. Contrary to the research with samples of workers from
Western countries (e.g. the USA), the study found that work-family conflict was positively associated
with affective commitment and did not associate with turnover intentions for Chinese managers.
Originality/value – Using the perspective of the Chinese prioritizing work for family benefits, the
authors are the first to provide a preliminary test of the generalizability of the source attribution and
the cross-domain models to Chinese managers. The paper’s findings provide the preliminary evidence
that the cross-domain model works among the Chinese because of its cultural neutrality whereas the
source attribution model cannot be used to predict the associations between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences.
Keywords Work-family conflict, Life satisfaction, Emotional exhaustion, Organizational commitment,
Turnover intentions, Family life, Employees turnover, Job commitment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Work and family represent two important spheres in an adult’s social life. Work-family
conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which role demands originating from the work
domain are incompatible with role demands stemming from the family domain
(Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Work-family conflict is often viewed as a bidirectional
construct: Work-family conflict may occur when work interferes with family
(i.e. work-family conflict); it also may occur when family interferes with work
(i.e. family-work conflict) (Netemeyer et al., 1996). This distinction is important because
studies have shown that the two types of interference have different antecedents and
consequences (Frone et al., 1992; Kelloway et al., 1999; Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran, 2005; Netemeyer et al., 1996). Meta-analyses have revealed that high
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2012
pp. 696-713
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211259520
The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for their financial support
(grant no. 70972023). They are grateful to Dr Linda Isenhour’s comments on their earlier
manuscripts. The authors would also like to thank Charles Ritter for his assistance with an
earlier version of this paper.
work-family conflict and family-work conflict were related to a wide range of
work-related consequences (e.g. low job satisfaction, reduced organizational
commitment, high turnover intentions), family consequences (e.g. low marital and
family satisfaction), and physical and psychological health problems (e.g. depression
and poor physical health) (Allen et al., 2000; Eby et al., 2005; Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran, 2005).
Our literature review suggests two models that link bidirectional work-family
conflict to individual consequences: the cross-domain model and the source attribution
model. The cross-domain model proposes that interference from one role (e.g. work)
makes it difficult for an individual to satisfy demands of the other role (e.g. family).
Accordingly, the individual experiences greater distress in the role that receives the
interference (Ford et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997). The source attribution model
suggests that an individual attributes the source of role conflict to the role that the
individual believes caused the interference. Further, this model suggests that the
individual will become dissatisfied with the role perceived to be the source of the
conflict (Carr et al., 2008; Shockley and Singla, 2011).
Current empirical support for these models is largely based on research that utilizes
participants from countries with Western values (e.g. the US). Because the nature of
work-family interface may vary along cultural boundaries (Luk and Shaffer, 2005; Ford
et al., 2007; Spector et al., 2004, 2007), the extent to which predictions of the two models
can be replicated among populations who espouse Eastern values, such as the Chinese,
remains unclear.
To start to address this gap in literature, building on the perspectives from prior
studies (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Yang et al., 2000), we argue that prioritizing work for
family benefit is critical to understanding the nature of work-family interface among
the Chinese. Specifically, when work interferes with family, a Chinese worker is less
likely to attribute the source of interference to work because work is an important tool
which is used to achieve overall benefit of family (Aryee et al., 1999a, b). Besides, role
senders from the Chinese family are likely to support the individual’s work priority
behaviors because the behaviors are viewed as self-sacrifice made for the benefit of the
family rather than a sacrifice of the family for the selfish pursuit of one’s own career
development (Yang et al., 2000).
The central idea of this study is that how managers perceive work versus family
roles is related to the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict and
individual consequences. We propose that the cross-domain model is culturally neutral
and, thus, works among Chinese samples. In contrast, we posit that a culture difference
(i.e. prioritizing work for family benefits) may attenuate the effectiveness of the source
attribution model among the Chinese, and, thus, some findings from Western cultures
cannot be replicated in an Eastern one (i.e. China). To test our proposition, we explore
the relationship between bidirectional work-family conflict and two health-related
consequences (life satisfaction and emotional exhaustion) as well as two work-related
consequences (affective commitment and turnover intentions) among Chinese
managers.
This study contributes to work-family research by investigating a deeper layer that
explains how cultural differences are related to the associations between bidirectional
work-family conflict (i.e. work-family conflict and family-work conflict) and individual
consequences. Although prior studies have examined these associations among the
Work-family
conflict
697
JMP
27,7
698
Chinese (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Lu et al., 2009; Spector et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2004),
to our knowledge, our study is the first to underscore the validity of the two models
(i.e. the cross-domain model and the source attribution model) for predicting the
associations. By weighing the two mechanisms simultaneously in China, we can
potentially deepen our understanding of the associations between bidirectional
work-family conflict and individual consequences, and provide a different perspective
on how to manage work-family conflict among Chinese managers.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Work-family conflict
Work-family conflict research is largely based on role theory (Byron, 2005). According
to Kahn and associates (Kahn et al., 1964), roles are the result of the anticipations of
others about what is proper behavior in a particular position. Role demands arise from
expectations articulated by work and family role senders (e.g. one’s employer, spouse,
children) and/or from intrinsic values held by the individual regarding his or her own
work and family role requirements (Kahn and Quinn, 1970; Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Stress from role conflict occurs when individuals engage in multiple roles that are
incompatible, and this role conflict is associated with psychological strain (Katz and
Kahn, 1978). In line with role theory, we posit that the association between work-family
conflict and individual consequences depends on expectations of both the self sender
and other role senders.
As mentioned, work-family conflict and family-work conflict represent the
bidirectional nature of this type of conflict. Work-family conflict occurs when work
responsibilities hinder performance of family responsibilities (e.g. work obligations
impede the ability to provide adequate child care). Family-work conflict arises when
family activities hinder performance at work (e.g. marital problems impede job
performance). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) identified three types of work-family
conflict: time-based, strain-based and behavior-based. In this study, we focus on timeand strain-based conflict because behavior-based conflict appears to have less predictive
validity than the other two forms (Ling and Powell, 2001; Netemeyer et al., 1996).
Prioritizing work for family benefits: how the Chinese view work versus family roles
Some researchers imply that the Chinese value family less than Westerners do. These
studies note that Western individualistic societies value family and personal time more
than Eastern collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1980). For example, Shenkar and Ronen
(1987) found that Mainland Chinese managers rated family and personal time as low in
importance. Such findings seemingly contradict the view that people who reside in
countries with collectivist values, such as China, place more importance on family than
on work pursuits (e.g. Spector et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000).
However, the meanings of these self-report ratings should be interpreted within the
larger social context in which the individuals are embedded (Carlson and Kacmar,
2000; Lobel, 1991). Some studies attribute Chinese emphasis on work to their
collectivistic culture because collectivism encourages the Chinese to work for the
welfare of the family (Spector et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000). Therefore, Chinese
tradition regards work as adding to family benefits, rather than competing with them
(Redding, 1993). Specifically, the Chinese often view work activities as necessary for
enhancing the financial welfare and social status of the family and believe the benefits
of an increased workload for the welfare of the family far exceed costs, such as lost
personal time spent with family members (Yang et al., 2000). In contrast, Western
workers may view work as an instrumental means to enhancing their own careers
rather than as a way to provide for the welfare of the family (Yang et al., 2000).
Chinese work priority may also be viewed from an economic perspective (Aryee
et al., 1999a; Lu et al., 2006). Lu et al. (2006) contended that the Chinese were expected to
put their jobs before their families because it was an indispensable means for
maintaining and improving an acceptable living standard for their families. Aryee et al.
(1999a) argued that the Chinese evaluated self-interest and economic gains at the
family group level rather than at the individual level. To maximize economic benefits,
Chinese families support and indeed require a strong commitment to the work role
(Aryee et al., 1999a). Chinese people regard work as a way of fulfilling family
responsibilities and emphasize work success because work is instrumental in
obtaining the family’s economic well-being (Aryee et al., 1999a).
We use the phrase “prioritizing work for family benefits” to summarize how the
Chinese perceive work versus family roles. For most Chinese, the family is the root of
life, and promoting the overall benefit of family is the ultimate goal that strengthens
the root (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000). As such work is an important tool which
is used to achieve overall benefit of the family. Therefore, when work interferes with
family, an individual is less likely to attribute the source of the interference to the work
role. Besides, role senders from the family side are likely to support the individual’s
work priority behaviors.
Mechanisms linking work-family conflict to individual consequences
As noted previously, two major models link work-family conflict to individual
consequences: the cross-domain model and the source attribution model. The
cross-domain model suggests that individuals experience dissatisfaction with a role if
they have difficulty meeting its demands because of hindrance stemming from another
role (Ford et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997). It follows that individuals should
experience less affective attachment to the role for which they experience greater
interference. Consistent with this prediction, empirical studies with Western
participants reveal that individuals with high levels of work-family conflict
experience greater family dissatisfaction than those with lower levels of work-family
conflict. Further, individuals with high levels of family-work conflict experience
greater job dissatisfaction than those with lower levels of family-work conflict (Ford
et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997).
The core argument of the cross-domain model is that the interference caused by
demands of one role often results in poor performance and low satisfaction with the
other role. This cross-domain process does not depend on perceptions of the
work-family relationship. For example, no matter if workers are American or Chinese,
when they spend time taking care of sick children, they have to work faster or harder to
meet a work goal. This may, in turn, relate to high levels of distress associated with the
work role. Therefore, we posit that the model works in populations with different
characteristics. In other words, the cross-domain model is universal, and, thus, the
findings based on it can be replicated in other cultural settings such as China.
The source attribution model posits that individuals experience dissatisfaction with
the role they perceive to be the cause of the interference (Carr et al., 2008; Shockley and
Work-family
conflict
699
JMP
27,7
700
Singla, 2011). In short, this model posits that individual consequences are from the role
domain that is attributed to be the source of work-family conflict. In line with this logic,
some empirical findings show that work-family conflict associates with work-related
consequences (Byron, 2005; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998), whereas family-work conflict
relates to family-related consequences (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). A recent
meta-analysis found that the attribution formulation worked adequately with
aggregated samples largely from Western countries (Shockley and Singla, 2011).
The central idea of the source attribution model assumes that a person would
attribute the source of conflict to a role domain and, therefore, blame the role domain.
Unlike the cross-domain model, the attribution formulation involves cognitive
appraisal processes that occur with affective reactions (Shockley and Singla, 2011).
However, the cognitive appraisal process may be related to sample characteristics. For
example, when an individual sets work as the priority because of some reasons
(e.g. high level of job involvement, being at the earlier career stage, heavy financial
burden), the individual may not appraise the work role domain (i.e. the source of work
interferes with family) negatively. Specifically, in our study, because the Chinese
prioritize work for family benefits, when work interferes with family, the Chinese are
less likely blame the work role. Therefore, the source attribution model is less likely to
be effective in predicting the relationship between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences among the Chinese.
Work-family conflict and health-related consequences
As a universal mechanism, the cross-domain model can furnish the theoretical basis
that predicts the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict and
health-related consequences among the Chinese. An individual likely experiences a
high level of psychological distress associated with a given role if the individual
frequently struggles to meet the role demands because hindrance stems from another
role (Frone et al., 1992, 1997). Specifically, when work interferes with one’s family, the
individual has difficulty in responding to family demands; conversely, when family
interferes with work, the individual has difficulty meeting work demands. In either
case, psychological distress can result. Further, psychological distress, no matter the
origin, can worsen one’s health-related consequences (Frone et al., 1992).
Following this logic, we expect that the findings in Western samples can be
replicated in our Chinese sample; that is, both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict are associated with one’s greater overall feelings and attitudes about one’s life
(e.g. life satisfaction; Diener et al., 1985) and “psychological syndrome in response to
chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job” (e.g. emotional exhaustion;
Maslach et al., 2001, p. 397). Findings from Western societies have revealed that both
work-family conflict and family-work conflict were associated with health-related
consequences (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Researchers found a negative
relationship between bidirectional work-family conflict and life satisfaction (Kossek
and Ozeki, 1998; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Empirical studies also
found that work-family conflict was positively associated with burnout (Kossek and
Ozeki, 1999).
The findings from Chinese samples largely uphold our propositions. Lu et al. (2006)
found that both work-family conflict and family-work conflict were negatively related
to happiness for Taiwanese employees. Aryee et al. (1999a) found work-family conflict
was negatively associated with life satisfaction, but they did not find a relationship
between family-work conflict and life satisfaction. However, in a subsequent study,
Aryee et al. (1999b) found a negative relationship between family-work conflict and life
satisfaction. Based on the foregoing, we posit that:
Work-family
conflict
H1a. Work-family conflict is negatively related to life satisfaction.
H1b. Family-work conflict is negatively related to life satisfaction.
H2a. Work-family conflict is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
H2b. Family-work conflict is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
Work-family conflict and work-related consequences
The present study is concerned with the relationship between work-family conflict and
two work-related consequences: affective commitment and turnover intentions.
Affective commitment is defined as “the employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 11).
A meta-analysis study has shown that both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict were negatively associated with affective commitment (Allen et al., 2000).
Meta-analyses also have shown that both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict were positively related to turnover intentions (Kelloway et al., 1999; Kossek
and Ozeki, 1999; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005).
Because of its cultural neutrality, the cross-domain model can be used to predict the
associations that link family-work conflict to work-related consequences among the
Chinese. When family interferes with work, an individual has difficulty in meeting the
demands from the work domain, which leads to psychological strain associated with
the work role. The psychological strain that may reduce one’s ability to adequately
perform the work role will decrease the receipt of work-related rewards like promotions
and salary (Aryee et al., 1999a), which in turn, may hurt one’s organizational
attachment.
Empirical studies using Chinese samples uphold our logic. Studies found that
family-work conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999a) and
positively associated with turnover intentions (Wang et al., 2004). Therefore, using
both theory and empirical findings, we derive the following hypotheses.
H3. Family-work conflict is negatively related to affective commitment.
H4. Family-work conflict is positively associated with turnover intentions.
The attribution model, however, may not work among Chinese samples. For most
Chinese employees, work-family conflict is regarded as “normal” because putting work
first is consistent with the high value they place on the work domain (Aryee et al.,
1999a; Yang et al., 2000). Moreover, family members are likely to support one’s work
priority behaviors (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000). The Chinese are less likely to
blame the work domain when work interferes with family. Thus, we expect there may
be null or weak associations between work-family conflict and affective commitment
as well as turnover intentions.
Prior studies using Chinese samples largely support our anticipation. A number of
studies found there was no association between work-family conflict and job
701
JMP
27,7
702
satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999b), career satisfaction, affective commitment (Lu et al.,
2009) and turnover intentions (Wang et al., 2004; Yang, 2005). Only one study found a
positive relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Lu et al., 2006).
A recent cross-cultural study revealed that two work-related outcomes ( job
dissatisfaction and turnover intentions) were more positively associated with
work-family conflict for Western individualist societies than for Eastern collectivist
societies (Spector et al., 2007).
Method
Sample and procedures
Study participants were managers (middle and top-level) from companies in China. We
chose to study managers because they likely work long hours and have high levels of
responsibility and demands at work (Spector et al., 2007). Thus, we would anticipate
that they experience conflict between work and family.
Questionnaires were distributed during six management training programs. All
respondents were informed that their participation was totally voluntary. Following
Podsakoff et al.’s (2003, p. 887) recommendation, we attempted to alleviate the problem
of common source bias by asking respondents to answer different questionnaire
measures at two time points, two hours apart. At time 1, respondents were given a
questionnaire, which included an explanation of the purpose of the study, as well as a
promise that any information used in the study would remain confidential. In addition,
respondents provided demographic information and answered questions assessing
work-family conflict and family-work conflict. Two hours later, respondents answered
questions which assessed their life satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, affective
commitment and turnover intentions.
Altogether, 358 surveys were distributed and 306 participants completed the
questionnaires (i.e. a response rate of 85.4 percent). Following prior studies (e.g. Frone
et al., 1992; Frone et al., 1997), we excluded unmarried participants who had no
dependents at home from the analysis.
The final sample size was 264. The majority of respondents were male (81.5 percent)
with an average age of 39 years (SD ¼ 6). The vast majority of respondents had at least
one child (87 percent). The average age of children was 13 (SD ¼ 6). Participants
worked an average of 51.8 hours per week (SD ¼ 16.15). Consistent with previous
research using Chinese samples (e.g. Luk and Shaffer, 2005), we found that the majority
of participant spouses in this study were also employed (77.4 percent).
Measures
All the variables in our study were measured with well-established scales. Items in the
scales were originally in English. We followed the process of back translation to ensure
the quality of the measurements (Brislin et al., 1973). All measures used seven points
Likert-type scales.
Work-family conflict
We assessed work-family conflict and family-work conflict with Frone and Yardley’s
(1996) scale. The scale contains 12 items. Half of the items measure work-family
conflict (A sample item is “My job or career keeps me from spending the amount of
time I would like to spend with my family.”), and the other half assess family-work
conflict (A sample item is “My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work,
such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, or working overtime.”).
The Cronbach alpha estimate for work-family conflict was 0.83, and that for
family-work conflict was 0.84.
Life satisfaction
We assessed life satisfaction with five items from Diener et al.’s (1985) scale. One
sample item is “In most ways, my life is close to ideal.” The Cronbach alpha estimate
was 0.84.
Emotional exhaustion
We evaluated emotional exhaustion with five items from Schaufeli et al. (1996). An
example item is “I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another
day on the job.” The Cronbach alpha estimate was 0.89.
Affective commitment
We measured affective commitment with five items from Meyer and Allen’s (1997)
scale. One sample item is “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.”
The Cronbach alpha estimate was 0.88.
Turnover intentions
We assessed turnover intentions with three items from Wayne et al.’s (1997) study. An
example item is “I am seriously thinking about quitting my job.” The Cronbach alpha
estimate was 0.85.
Control variables
We measured age, gender, the existence of children, average age of children and
spousal work status as control variables. Age was measured as a continuous variable.
Gender, the existence of children and spousal work status were dichotomized as
dummy variables.
Data analyses
The analysis consisted of a two-step process (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). First,
construct validity of our measurement model was assessed with confirmatory factor
analysis. Second, our hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM).
We analyzed the covariance matrix using the maximum likelihood procedure in
LISREL 8.50 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2001). We did not include control variables when
testing hypotheses because they did not exhibit zero-order correlations with criteria
(see Table I).
Following recommendations by Bollen and Long (1993) as well as Hu and Bentler
(1998, 1999), we used multiple fit indices, including the x 2/df, the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).
CFI and IFI surpassing 0.90 indicate good fit, and values equal to or exceeding 0.95
signal excellent fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The RMSEA and the SRMR less than or
equal to 0.05 signal close fit; 0.05-0.08 values indicate reasonable fit (Browne and
Cudeck, 1992; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Work-family
conflict
703
Mean SD
Gender
Age
The existence of children
Average age of children
Spouse work status
Work-family conflict
Family-work conflict
Life satisfaction
Emotional exhaustion
Affective commitment
Turnover intentions
0.82
12.89
0.87
12.75
0.87
5.32
2.03
4.46
4.01
5.46
2.60
0.39
6.62
0.33
6.48
0.34
1.25
0.84
1.05
1.32
1.06
1.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JMP
27,7
704
Table I.
The descriptive statistics
and zero-order
correlations
Variables
10
11
20.00
20.03
0.36 * * *
20.01
0.88 * * *
0.01
0.03
0.04
20.19 * * 20.01
0.05
20.17 * * *
0.12 20.26 * * * 20.15 * (0.83)
0.07
0.10
20.10
0.04
20.01 20.09
(0.84)
(0.84)
20.02
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.10 20.12
20.12 *
20.05
0.05
20.04 20.02
0.08
0.30 * * *
0.15 *
20.22 * * * (0.89)
0.20 * * 20.16 * * (0.88)
0.01
20.10
0.09 20.04
20.06
0.12
20.21 * *
0.15 * 20.49 * * * (0.85)
20.04
0.06
20.05 20.01
0.09 20.04
0.25 * * * 20.01
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001; two-tailed test. The number in parenthesis on the diagonal of the table is Cronbach’s alpha estimate
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
An overall measurement model for all the variables in Figure 1 was assessed. We
conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses. Using modification indices, we
deleted twelve items of the variables because of the potential problem of cross loading.
However, each construct had at least three measurement items after the deletion. The
final factor model fit the data, and fit indices achieved acceptable levels (x 2/df ¼ 2.71;
RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.94; IFI ¼ 0.94; SRMR ¼ 0.06). Besides, all factor loadings
were statistically significant. The results showed that the variables in our
measurement model had appropriate convergent and discriminant validity.
Work-family
conflict
705
Assessing common source bias
The problem of common source bias may exist because all predictors and dependent
variables were self-reported (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To assess the potential nature of
this problem, we took two approaches recommended by Podsakoff et al.’s (2003). First,
we conducted a Harmon one-factor test. The single-factor measurement model poorly
fit the data (x 2/df ¼ 24.05; RMSEA ¼ 0.30; CFI ¼ 0.34; IFI ¼ 0.35; SRMR ¼ 0.25),
suggesting that same source bias might not a serious problem. Second, we added an
artificial common source construct into the final measurement model with all items
loading on it. The fit indices fell into acceptable level but did not achieve substantial
improvement (x 2/df ¼ 2.80; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.95; IFI ¼ 0.95; SRMR ¼ 0.05).
Although the chi-square decrease was statistically, significantly different
(Dx 2 ¼ 37:35; Ddf ¼ 18; p , 0:05), the variance extracted by the common source
factor was 0.25, falling below the 0.50 cutoff that has been suggested as indicating the
Figure 1.
Maximum likelihood
parameter estimates for
the paths in SEM model
JMP
27,7
706
existence of a latent factor representing the manifest indicators (Dulac et al., 2008). All
of the previous results indicated that common source bias was not a serious problem in
the current study.
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations
Table I shows the descriptive information and zero-order correlations among variables
in the current study. The simple correlations in Table I provide preliminary support for
H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, H4. Work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional
exhaustion (r ¼ 0:30; p , 0:001). Family-work conflict was negatively related to life
satisfaction (r ¼ 20:12; p , 0:05) and positively associated with emotional
exhaustion (r ¼ 0:15; p , 0:05). Family-work conflict was negatively related to
affective commitment (r ¼ 20:21; p , 0:001) and positively associated with turnover
intentions (r ¼ 0:25; p , 0:001). However, work-family conflict did not show a
relationship with life satisfaction.
Testing hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the standardized path estimates of the SEM. This model achieved an
acceptable level of fit (x 2/df ¼ 2.71; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.94; IFI ¼ 0.94;
SRMR ¼ 0.06).When outcomes were psychological health variables, family-work
conflict was negatively associated with life satisfaction (g ¼ 20:18; p , 0:05). Thus,
H1b was supported. Work-family conflict was positively related to emotional
exhaustion (g ¼ 0:39; p , 0:001). Therefore, the finding upheld H2a. However,
work-family conflict was not related to life satisfaction, and family-work conflict was
not associated with emotional exhaustion. Thus, our H1a and H2b were not supported.
With regard to work-related outcomes, H3 and H4 were supported: family-work
conflict was negatively associated with affective commitment (g ¼ 20:26; p , 0:001)
and positively related to turnover intentions (g ¼ 0:41; p , 0:001).
We also sought to test whether relationships occurred between work-family conflict
and affective commitment and between work-family conflict and turnover intentions.
Results did not show evidence of a relationship between work-family conflict and
turnover intentions. Interestingly, work-family conflict was positively associated with
affective commitment (g ¼ 0:17; p , 0:01).
Discussion
Theoretical implications
We contribute to work-family research by investigating the idea that cultural
differences are related to the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict
and individual consequences. Although prior studies have examined the associations
among the Chinese (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Spector et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2004), to
our knowledge, our study makes specific contributions by examining how Chinese
prioritization of work for family benefits is associated with the extent to which the two
models (i.e. the cross-domain model and the source attribution model) work in Chinese
cultural settings. We propose that the cross-domain model also works among the
Chinese because of its cultural neutrality, whereas the source attribution model cannot
be used to predict the associations between work-family conflict and work-related
consequences because the Chinese are less likely to blame the source of work-family
conflict (i.e. work domain).
The findings largely support our hypotheses. With regard to health-related
consequences, consistent with our expectation, Chinese managers who perceived
greater family-work conflict reported lower satisfaction with their lives. However, we
did not find support for our prediction that Chinese managers who experience greater
work-family conflict would report lower life satisfaction. The null association may be
because social support from family members buffers the negative association. As we
expected, work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
However, we did not find a positive association between family-work conflict and
emotional exhaustion. The null association may be because emotional exhaustion
largely stems from excessive job demands rather than family demands.
As for work-related consequences, consistent with the cross-domain model (Frone
et al., 1992, 1997) and the findings from Western studies (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki, 1999), we found that Chinese managers who perceived higher levels of
family-work conflict were less committed to their organizations and had stronger
intentions to quit. Contrary to the source attribution model (Shockley and Singla, 2011)
and empirical research in Western countries (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and Ozeki,
1999), we did not find evidence for a negative relationship between work-family
conflict and two work-related consequences (i.e. affective commitment and turnover
intentions). Frone (2003) argued that work-family conflict was more critical because
work-family conflict was greater than family-work conflict and was more associated
with work-related consequences. A recent meta-analysis found that the source
attribution model was the more influential mechanism that links bidirectional
work-family conflict and individual consequences (Shockley and Singla, 2011). In a
cross-cultural study, Spector and associates accepted Frone’s (2003) argument and did
not explore the relationship between family-work conflict and work-related
consequences (Spector et al., 2007). We conducted a t-test and found work-family
conflict was also greater than family-work conflict [tð305Þ ¼ 32:66; p , 0:001].
However, our findings suggest that future studies using Chinese samples should
include family-work conflict because of the relationship between family-work conflict
and individual consequences.
There are two interesting findings that need additional discussion. First, we found
that work-family conflict was negatively correlated to family-work conflict
(F ¼ 20:20; p , 0:01). This finding is not consistent with extant findings.
Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies
with US samples and found that the correlations range from 0.16 to 0.59. Consistent
with the perspective of work priority for family benefits, our finding suggests that the
Chinese may perceive work and family roles in a complementary, rather than
competing, way. Second, work-family conflict was positively associated with affective
commitment (g ¼ 0:17; p , 0:01). This finding suggests the Chinese who experience
work-family conflict could develop positive attitudes toward their employers because
work demands can ultimately bring benefits to them and to their families.
Implications for management practice and society
Our findings have practical implications for how to manage work-family conflict
among Chinese workers. The associations between family-work conflict and individual
consequences suggest managers should adopt some measures to decrease family-work
conflict. Family friendly practices (e.g. flexible time schedule, telecommuting and
Work-family
conflict
707
JMP
27,7
708
family support culture) may reduce family-work conflict because these practices could
facilitate employees’ responding to family demands.
Someone may conclude work-family conflict is not a significant issue in managing
Chinese employees because there are no associations between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences. We challenge this conclusion because of two following
reasons. First, although work-family conflict did not show correlations with
work-related consequences, it was positively related to emotional exhaustion, which
may further relate to physical and psychological health problems (Maslach et al., 2001).
Second, we suggest that managers should pay attention to the underlying reasons.
Although our findings do suggest Chinese managers are likely to endure more
work-family conflict than their Western counterparts, this outcome may be for
long-term returns for their families. Our findings suggest managers may help Chinese
employees conduct career planning and achieve career goals which are likely to
compensate for their enduring work-family conflict.
With the fast pace of modernization in China, work-family conflict has been
becoming a societal issue (Lu et al., 2009; Siu et al., 2005). Because Chinese workers may
prioritize work behaviors, they may also suffer from health-related problems such as
emotional exhaustion and life dissatisfaction. Researchers note that work overload and
work-family conflict are two significant factors that may worsen a person’s happiness
in the current Chinese society (Lu, 2006). A recent study finds that, though per capita
GDP in China is 2.8 times higher in 2000 than in 1990, the percentage of Chinese
describing themselves as very happy declined from 28 percent to 12 percent, and the
average life satisfaction rating fell from 7.3 to 6.5 (on the ten-point scale) (Brockman
et al., 2009). To reduce the potential decline of health-related consequences such as life
satisfaction, the society needs to promote the meaning of balancing work and family
roles and emphasize the important of personal interests.
Limitations and future directions
The most serious limitation of this paper is the lack of a causal relationship between
work-family conflict and work-related variables. Because most extant studies use
work-family conflict as a predictor, we assume the direction is from work-family
conflict to work-related variables. However, another explanation is possible: Less
satisfaction or commitment may result in high family-work conflict because employees
who are dissatisfied with their jobs and their organizations may put more effort on
responding to family demands (Wiley, 1987). If a Chinese worker gives priority to
family demands, this may imply that the worker has lost his or her loyalty to the
organization. In the future, there is a need to design research from which the
assessment of causality can be inferred.
One may question why we did not measure the Chinese prioritization of work for
family benefits with scales such as job involvement, family involvement or
work-family centrality. The reason is that extant scales cannot accurately assess the
meaning of the Chinese prioritizing work for family benefits. For example, one sample
item from Carr et al.’ (2008) work-family centrality scale was “The major satisfaction in
my life comes from my work rather than my family.” However, for the Chinese,
emphasizing work may not mean the major satisfaction in their life comes from their
work. Because the Chinese tend to view work as an important tool which is used to
achieve an overall benefit to the family (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000), a Chinese
respondent probably gives a low score to the sample measurement item, but is highly
committed to work priority behaviors. Future studies may measure prioritization of
work for family benefits by developing appropriate scenario questions.
Future studies can also explore the relationship between bidirectional work-family
conflict and other outcomes among Chinese workers. For example, we anticipate that
work-family conflict would be associated with better individual performance ratings.
Possible reasons are twofold. First, Chinese workers who experience greater levels of
work-family conflict probably put more time and effort into their work, which should
make it easier to achieve good performance outcomes. Second, putting more time and
effort should give the supervisor a good impression because setting work as a priority
is consistent with the Chinese work ethic norm. Therefore, supervisors would be
inclined to give good performance evaluations to subordinates who have greater levels
of work-family conflict. Future studies can verify such propositions.
We are cautious about the generalization of our findings among Chinese employees
because they are based on a view that the Chinese prioritize work for family benefits.
With the process of modernization in China, work value diversity has been increasing
(Siu et al., 2005). We speculate that the findings in this study may not be generalized to
Chinese workers who do not hold the viewpoint of prioritization of work for family
benefits. There is evidence that the younger generations in China have a different work
ethic. Compared with the Chinese born in the 1970s, those born in the 1980s are
reported to pay more attention to leisure and non-career interests (Zhu and Chen, 2006).
Further studies can investigate whether there are different patterns of work-family
priority among various age groups of Chinese workers.
It could be argued that there are other reasons associated with the high value of
work priority among Chinese workers. For example, because China is a developing
country, economic insecurity may force people to work hard in order to save money for
the future, or to avoid being laid off. Workforce demand is lower than the supply of
workers, and this creates a competition among workers to get and keep jobs. Chinese
workers have to put work first. There is a one-child policy in China’s mainland, and
this reduces family demands. These factors could increase the Chinese worker’s
relatively high priority for work. However, we believe that culture is the underlying
reason because the emphasis on work is also found among workers in other Eastern
countries. Korea and Japan are good examples. Both countries have implemented
capitalism, and they do not have a one-child policy. However, similar to the Chinese,
the majority of employees in Korea and Japan give high priority to work (Kanai and
Wakabayashi, 2001, 2004). Hence, we contend that cultural factors found in Eastern
cultures may be critical to molding the Chinese prioritization of work for family
benefits. Additional research can be designed to control for possible reasons from other
sources such as economic insecurity, a one-child policy, and family structure.
References
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Work-family
conflict
709
JMP
27,7
710
Aryee, S., Fields, D. and Luk, V. (1999a), “A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family
interface”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 491-511.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999b), “Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 259-78.
Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W.J. and Thorndike, R.M. (1973), Cross-cultural Research Methods, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Brockman, H., Delhey, J., Weizel, C. and Yuan, H. (2009), “The China puzzle: falling happiness in a
rising economy”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 387-405.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 230-58.
Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-98.
Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2000), “Work-family conflict in the organisation: do life role
values make a difference”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1031-54.
Carr, J.C., Boyar, S.L. and Gregory, B.T. (2008), “The moderating effect of work-family centrality
on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 244-62.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”,
Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-5.
Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Henderson, D.J. and Wayne, S.J. (2008), “Not all responses to
breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract
processes in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1079-98.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family
research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 124-97.
Ford, M., Heinen, B. and Langkamer, K. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict:
a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 143-62.
Frone, M.R. and Yardley, J.K. (1996), “Workplace family-supportive programmes: predictors of
employed parents’ importance ratings”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 351-66.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K. and Markel, K.S. (1997), “Developing and testing an integrative model
of the work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 145-67.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Source of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequence: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 424-53.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modelin
Emerald Article: Work-family conflict and individual consequences
Mian Zhang, Rodger W. Griffeth, David D. Fried
Article information:
To cite this document: Mian Zhang, Rodger W. Griffeth, David D. Fried, (2012),"Work-family conflict and individual consequences",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 7 pp. 696 - 713
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211259520
Downloaded on: 18-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 58 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
27,7
Work-family conflict and
individual consequences
696
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, and
Mian Zhang
Rodger W. Griffeth and David D. Fried
Received July 2010
Revised November 2010
July 2011
October 2011
Accepted October 2011
Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between two forms of
work-family conflict – work-family conflict and family-work conflict – and individual consequences
for Chinese managers.
Design/methodology/approach – Participants of this study were 264 managers from Mainland
China. The authors tested their hypotheses with structural equation modeling.
Findings – Work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional exhaustion. Family-work
conflict was negatively associated with life satisfaction and affective commitment, as well as
positively related to turnover intentions. Contrary to the research with samples of workers from
Western countries (e.g. the USA), the study found that work-family conflict was positively associated
with affective commitment and did not associate with turnover intentions for Chinese managers.
Originality/value – Using the perspective of the Chinese prioritizing work for family benefits, the
authors are the first to provide a preliminary test of the generalizability of the source attribution and
the cross-domain models to Chinese managers. The paper’s findings provide the preliminary evidence
that the cross-domain model works among the Chinese because of its cultural neutrality whereas the
source attribution model cannot be used to predict the associations between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences.
Keywords Work-family conflict, Life satisfaction, Emotional exhaustion, Organizational commitment,
Turnover intentions, Family life, Employees turnover, Job commitment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Work and family represent two important spheres in an adult’s social life. Work-family
conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which role demands originating from the work
domain are incompatible with role demands stemming from the family domain
(Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Work-family conflict is often viewed as a bidirectional
construct: Work-family conflict may occur when work interferes with family
(i.e. work-family conflict); it also may occur when family interferes with work
(i.e. family-work conflict) (Netemeyer et al., 1996). This distinction is important because
studies have shown that the two types of interference have different antecedents and
consequences (Frone et al., 1992; Kelloway et al., 1999; Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran, 2005; Netemeyer et al., 1996). Meta-analyses have revealed that high
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2012
pp. 696-713
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211259520
The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for their financial support
(grant no. 70972023). They are grateful to Dr Linda Isenhour’s comments on their earlier
manuscripts. The authors would also like to thank Charles Ritter for his assistance with an
earlier version of this paper.
work-family conflict and family-work conflict were related to a wide range of
work-related consequences (e.g. low job satisfaction, reduced organizational
commitment, high turnover intentions), family consequences (e.g. low marital and
family satisfaction), and physical and psychological health problems (e.g. depression
and poor physical health) (Allen et al., 2000; Eby et al., 2005; Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran, 2005).
Our literature review suggests two models that link bidirectional work-family
conflict to individual consequences: the cross-domain model and the source attribution
model. The cross-domain model proposes that interference from one role (e.g. work)
makes it difficult for an individual to satisfy demands of the other role (e.g. family).
Accordingly, the individual experiences greater distress in the role that receives the
interference (Ford et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997). The source attribution model
suggests that an individual attributes the source of role conflict to the role that the
individual believes caused the interference. Further, this model suggests that the
individual will become dissatisfied with the role perceived to be the source of the
conflict (Carr et al., 2008; Shockley and Singla, 2011).
Current empirical support for these models is largely based on research that utilizes
participants from countries with Western values (e.g. the US). Because the nature of
work-family interface may vary along cultural boundaries (Luk and Shaffer, 2005; Ford
et al., 2007; Spector et al., 2004, 2007), the extent to which predictions of the two models
can be replicated among populations who espouse Eastern values, such as the Chinese,
remains unclear.
To start to address this gap in literature, building on the perspectives from prior
studies (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Yang et al., 2000), we argue that prioritizing work for
family benefit is critical to understanding the nature of work-family interface among
the Chinese. Specifically, when work interferes with family, a Chinese worker is less
likely to attribute the source of interference to work because work is an important tool
which is used to achieve overall benefit of family (Aryee et al., 1999a, b). Besides, role
senders from the Chinese family are likely to support the individual’s work priority
behaviors because the behaviors are viewed as self-sacrifice made for the benefit of the
family rather than a sacrifice of the family for the selfish pursuit of one’s own career
development (Yang et al., 2000).
The central idea of this study is that how managers perceive work versus family
roles is related to the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict and
individual consequences. We propose that the cross-domain model is culturally neutral
and, thus, works among Chinese samples. In contrast, we posit that a culture difference
(i.e. prioritizing work for family benefits) may attenuate the effectiveness of the source
attribution model among the Chinese, and, thus, some findings from Western cultures
cannot be replicated in an Eastern one (i.e. China). To test our proposition, we explore
the relationship between bidirectional work-family conflict and two health-related
consequences (life satisfaction and emotional exhaustion) as well as two work-related
consequences (affective commitment and turnover intentions) among Chinese
managers.
This study contributes to work-family research by investigating a deeper layer that
explains how cultural differences are related to the associations between bidirectional
work-family conflict (i.e. work-family conflict and family-work conflict) and individual
consequences. Although prior studies have examined these associations among the
Work-family
conflict
697
JMP
27,7
698
Chinese (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Lu et al., 2009; Spector et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2004),
to our knowledge, our study is the first to underscore the validity of the two models
(i.e. the cross-domain model and the source attribution model) for predicting the
associations. By weighing the two mechanisms simultaneously in China, we can
potentially deepen our understanding of the associations between bidirectional
work-family conflict and individual consequences, and provide a different perspective
on how to manage work-family conflict among Chinese managers.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Work-family conflict
Work-family conflict research is largely based on role theory (Byron, 2005). According
to Kahn and associates (Kahn et al., 1964), roles are the result of the anticipations of
others about what is proper behavior in a particular position. Role demands arise from
expectations articulated by work and family role senders (e.g. one’s employer, spouse,
children) and/or from intrinsic values held by the individual regarding his or her own
work and family role requirements (Kahn and Quinn, 1970; Katz and Kahn, 1978).
Stress from role conflict occurs when individuals engage in multiple roles that are
incompatible, and this role conflict is associated with psychological strain (Katz and
Kahn, 1978). In line with role theory, we posit that the association between work-family
conflict and individual consequences depends on expectations of both the self sender
and other role senders.
As mentioned, work-family conflict and family-work conflict represent the
bidirectional nature of this type of conflict. Work-family conflict occurs when work
responsibilities hinder performance of family responsibilities (e.g. work obligations
impede the ability to provide adequate child care). Family-work conflict arises when
family activities hinder performance at work (e.g. marital problems impede job
performance). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) identified three types of work-family
conflict: time-based, strain-based and behavior-based. In this study, we focus on timeand strain-based conflict because behavior-based conflict appears to have less predictive
validity than the other two forms (Ling and Powell, 2001; Netemeyer et al., 1996).
Prioritizing work for family benefits: how the Chinese view work versus family roles
Some researchers imply that the Chinese value family less than Westerners do. These
studies note that Western individualistic societies value family and personal time more
than Eastern collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1980). For example, Shenkar and Ronen
(1987) found that Mainland Chinese managers rated family and personal time as low in
importance. Such findings seemingly contradict the view that people who reside in
countries with collectivist values, such as China, place more importance on family than
on work pursuits (e.g. Spector et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000).
However, the meanings of these self-report ratings should be interpreted within the
larger social context in which the individuals are embedded (Carlson and Kacmar,
2000; Lobel, 1991). Some studies attribute Chinese emphasis on work to their
collectivistic culture because collectivism encourages the Chinese to work for the
welfare of the family (Spector et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000). Therefore, Chinese
tradition regards work as adding to family benefits, rather than competing with them
(Redding, 1993). Specifically, the Chinese often view work activities as necessary for
enhancing the financial welfare and social status of the family and believe the benefits
of an increased workload for the welfare of the family far exceed costs, such as lost
personal time spent with family members (Yang et al., 2000). In contrast, Western
workers may view work as an instrumental means to enhancing their own careers
rather than as a way to provide for the welfare of the family (Yang et al., 2000).
Chinese work priority may also be viewed from an economic perspective (Aryee
et al., 1999a; Lu et al., 2006). Lu et al. (2006) contended that the Chinese were expected to
put their jobs before their families because it was an indispensable means for
maintaining and improving an acceptable living standard for their families. Aryee et al.
(1999a) argued that the Chinese evaluated self-interest and economic gains at the
family group level rather than at the individual level. To maximize economic benefits,
Chinese families support and indeed require a strong commitment to the work role
(Aryee et al., 1999a). Chinese people regard work as a way of fulfilling family
responsibilities and emphasize work success because work is instrumental in
obtaining the family’s economic well-being (Aryee et al., 1999a).
We use the phrase “prioritizing work for family benefits” to summarize how the
Chinese perceive work versus family roles. For most Chinese, the family is the root of
life, and promoting the overall benefit of family is the ultimate goal that strengthens
the root (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000). As such work is an important tool which
is used to achieve overall benefit of the family. Therefore, when work interferes with
family, an individual is less likely to attribute the source of the interference to the work
role. Besides, role senders from the family side are likely to support the individual’s
work priority behaviors.
Mechanisms linking work-family conflict to individual consequences
As noted previously, two major models link work-family conflict to individual
consequences: the cross-domain model and the source attribution model. The
cross-domain model suggests that individuals experience dissatisfaction with a role if
they have difficulty meeting its demands because of hindrance stemming from another
role (Ford et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997). It follows that individuals should
experience less affective attachment to the role for which they experience greater
interference. Consistent with this prediction, empirical studies with Western
participants reveal that individuals with high levels of work-family conflict
experience greater family dissatisfaction than those with lower levels of work-family
conflict. Further, individuals with high levels of family-work conflict experience
greater job dissatisfaction than those with lower levels of family-work conflict (Ford
et al., 2007; Frone et al., 1992, 1997).
The core argument of the cross-domain model is that the interference caused by
demands of one role often results in poor performance and low satisfaction with the
other role. This cross-domain process does not depend on perceptions of the
work-family relationship. For example, no matter if workers are American or Chinese,
when they spend time taking care of sick children, they have to work faster or harder to
meet a work goal. This may, in turn, relate to high levels of distress associated with the
work role. Therefore, we posit that the model works in populations with different
characteristics. In other words, the cross-domain model is universal, and, thus, the
findings based on it can be replicated in other cultural settings such as China.
The source attribution model posits that individuals experience dissatisfaction with
the role they perceive to be the cause of the interference (Carr et al., 2008; Shockley and
Work-family
conflict
699
JMP
27,7
700
Singla, 2011). In short, this model posits that individual consequences are from the role
domain that is attributed to be the source of work-family conflict. In line with this logic,
some empirical findings show that work-family conflict associates with work-related
consequences (Byron, 2005; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998), whereas family-work conflict
relates to family-related consequences (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). A recent
meta-analysis found that the attribution formulation worked adequately with
aggregated samples largely from Western countries (Shockley and Singla, 2011).
The central idea of the source attribution model assumes that a person would
attribute the source of conflict to a role domain and, therefore, blame the role domain.
Unlike the cross-domain model, the attribution formulation involves cognitive
appraisal processes that occur with affective reactions (Shockley and Singla, 2011).
However, the cognitive appraisal process may be related to sample characteristics. For
example, when an individual sets work as the priority because of some reasons
(e.g. high level of job involvement, being at the earlier career stage, heavy financial
burden), the individual may not appraise the work role domain (i.e. the source of work
interferes with family) negatively. Specifically, in our study, because the Chinese
prioritize work for family benefits, when work interferes with family, the Chinese are
less likely blame the work role. Therefore, the source attribution model is less likely to
be effective in predicting the relationship between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences among the Chinese.
Work-family conflict and health-related consequences
As a universal mechanism, the cross-domain model can furnish the theoretical basis
that predicts the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict and
health-related consequences among the Chinese. An individual likely experiences a
high level of psychological distress associated with a given role if the individual
frequently struggles to meet the role demands because hindrance stems from another
role (Frone et al., 1992, 1997). Specifically, when work interferes with one’s family, the
individual has difficulty in responding to family demands; conversely, when family
interferes with work, the individual has difficulty meeting work demands. In either
case, psychological distress can result. Further, psychological distress, no matter the
origin, can worsen one’s health-related consequences (Frone et al., 1992).
Following this logic, we expect that the findings in Western samples can be
replicated in our Chinese sample; that is, both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict are associated with one’s greater overall feelings and attitudes about one’s life
(e.g. life satisfaction; Diener et al., 1985) and “psychological syndrome in response to
chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job” (e.g. emotional exhaustion;
Maslach et al., 2001, p. 397). Findings from Western societies have revealed that both
work-family conflict and family-work conflict were associated with health-related
consequences (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Researchers found a negative
relationship between bidirectional work-family conflict and life satisfaction (Kossek
and Ozeki, 1998; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Empirical studies also
found that work-family conflict was positively associated with burnout (Kossek and
Ozeki, 1999).
The findings from Chinese samples largely uphold our propositions. Lu et al. (2006)
found that both work-family conflict and family-work conflict were negatively related
to happiness for Taiwanese employees. Aryee et al. (1999a) found work-family conflict
was negatively associated with life satisfaction, but they did not find a relationship
between family-work conflict and life satisfaction. However, in a subsequent study,
Aryee et al. (1999b) found a negative relationship between family-work conflict and life
satisfaction. Based on the foregoing, we posit that:
Work-family
conflict
H1a. Work-family conflict is negatively related to life satisfaction.
H1b. Family-work conflict is negatively related to life satisfaction.
H2a. Work-family conflict is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
H2b. Family-work conflict is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
Work-family conflict and work-related consequences
The present study is concerned with the relationship between work-family conflict and
two work-related consequences: affective commitment and turnover intentions.
Affective commitment is defined as “the employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 11).
A meta-analysis study has shown that both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict were negatively associated with affective commitment (Allen et al., 2000).
Meta-analyses also have shown that both work-family conflict and family-work
conflict were positively related to turnover intentions (Kelloway et al., 1999; Kossek
and Ozeki, 1999; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005).
Because of its cultural neutrality, the cross-domain model can be used to predict the
associations that link family-work conflict to work-related consequences among the
Chinese. When family interferes with work, an individual has difficulty in meeting the
demands from the work domain, which leads to psychological strain associated with
the work role. The psychological strain that may reduce one’s ability to adequately
perform the work role will decrease the receipt of work-related rewards like promotions
and salary (Aryee et al., 1999a), which in turn, may hurt one’s organizational
attachment.
Empirical studies using Chinese samples uphold our logic. Studies found that
family-work conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999a) and
positively associated with turnover intentions (Wang et al., 2004). Therefore, using
both theory and empirical findings, we derive the following hypotheses.
H3. Family-work conflict is negatively related to affective commitment.
H4. Family-work conflict is positively associated with turnover intentions.
The attribution model, however, may not work among Chinese samples. For most
Chinese employees, work-family conflict is regarded as “normal” because putting work
first is consistent with the high value they place on the work domain (Aryee et al.,
1999a; Yang et al., 2000). Moreover, family members are likely to support one’s work
priority behaviors (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000). The Chinese are less likely to
blame the work domain when work interferes with family. Thus, we expect there may
be null or weak associations between work-family conflict and affective commitment
as well as turnover intentions.
Prior studies using Chinese samples largely support our anticipation. A number of
studies found there was no association between work-family conflict and job
701
JMP
27,7
702
satisfaction (Aryee et al., 1999b), career satisfaction, affective commitment (Lu et al.,
2009) and turnover intentions (Wang et al., 2004; Yang, 2005). Only one study found a
positive relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction (Lu et al., 2006).
A recent cross-cultural study revealed that two work-related outcomes ( job
dissatisfaction and turnover intentions) were more positively associated with
work-family conflict for Western individualist societies than for Eastern collectivist
societies (Spector et al., 2007).
Method
Sample and procedures
Study participants were managers (middle and top-level) from companies in China. We
chose to study managers because they likely work long hours and have high levels of
responsibility and demands at work (Spector et al., 2007). Thus, we would anticipate
that they experience conflict between work and family.
Questionnaires were distributed during six management training programs. All
respondents were informed that their participation was totally voluntary. Following
Podsakoff et al.’s (2003, p. 887) recommendation, we attempted to alleviate the problem
of common source bias by asking respondents to answer different questionnaire
measures at two time points, two hours apart. At time 1, respondents were given a
questionnaire, which included an explanation of the purpose of the study, as well as a
promise that any information used in the study would remain confidential. In addition,
respondents provided demographic information and answered questions assessing
work-family conflict and family-work conflict. Two hours later, respondents answered
questions which assessed their life satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, affective
commitment and turnover intentions.
Altogether, 358 surveys were distributed and 306 participants completed the
questionnaires (i.e. a response rate of 85.4 percent). Following prior studies (e.g. Frone
et al., 1992; Frone et al., 1997), we excluded unmarried participants who had no
dependents at home from the analysis.
The final sample size was 264. The majority of respondents were male (81.5 percent)
with an average age of 39 years (SD ¼ 6). The vast majority of respondents had at least
one child (87 percent). The average age of children was 13 (SD ¼ 6). Participants
worked an average of 51.8 hours per week (SD ¼ 16.15). Consistent with previous
research using Chinese samples (e.g. Luk and Shaffer, 2005), we found that the majority
of participant spouses in this study were also employed (77.4 percent).
Measures
All the variables in our study were measured with well-established scales. Items in the
scales were originally in English. We followed the process of back translation to ensure
the quality of the measurements (Brislin et al., 1973). All measures used seven points
Likert-type scales.
Work-family conflict
We assessed work-family conflict and family-work conflict with Frone and Yardley’s
(1996) scale. The scale contains 12 items. Half of the items measure work-family
conflict (A sample item is “My job or career keeps me from spending the amount of
time I would like to spend with my family.”), and the other half assess family-work
conflict (A sample item is “My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work,
such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, or working overtime.”).
The Cronbach alpha estimate for work-family conflict was 0.83, and that for
family-work conflict was 0.84.
Life satisfaction
We assessed life satisfaction with five items from Diener et al.’s (1985) scale. One
sample item is “In most ways, my life is close to ideal.” The Cronbach alpha estimate
was 0.84.
Emotional exhaustion
We evaluated emotional exhaustion with five items from Schaufeli et al. (1996). An
example item is “I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another
day on the job.” The Cronbach alpha estimate was 0.89.
Affective commitment
We measured affective commitment with five items from Meyer and Allen’s (1997)
scale. One sample item is “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.”
The Cronbach alpha estimate was 0.88.
Turnover intentions
We assessed turnover intentions with three items from Wayne et al.’s (1997) study. An
example item is “I am seriously thinking about quitting my job.” The Cronbach alpha
estimate was 0.85.
Control variables
We measured age, gender, the existence of children, average age of children and
spousal work status as control variables. Age was measured as a continuous variable.
Gender, the existence of children and spousal work status were dichotomized as
dummy variables.
Data analyses
The analysis consisted of a two-step process (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). First,
construct validity of our measurement model was assessed with confirmatory factor
analysis. Second, our hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM).
We analyzed the covariance matrix using the maximum likelihood procedure in
LISREL 8.50 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2001). We did not include control variables when
testing hypotheses because they did not exhibit zero-order correlations with criteria
(see Table I).
Following recommendations by Bollen and Long (1993) as well as Hu and Bentler
(1998, 1999), we used multiple fit indices, including the x 2/df, the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).
CFI and IFI surpassing 0.90 indicate good fit, and values equal to or exceeding 0.95
signal excellent fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The RMSEA and the SRMR less than or
equal to 0.05 signal close fit; 0.05-0.08 values indicate reasonable fit (Browne and
Cudeck, 1992; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Work-family
conflict
703
Mean SD
Gender
Age
The existence of children
Average age of children
Spouse work status
Work-family conflict
Family-work conflict
Life satisfaction
Emotional exhaustion
Affective commitment
Turnover intentions
0.82
12.89
0.87
12.75
0.87
5.32
2.03
4.46
4.01
5.46
2.60
0.39
6.62
0.33
6.48
0.34
1.25
0.84
1.05
1.32
1.06
1.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JMP
27,7
704
Table I.
The descriptive statistics
and zero-order
correlations
Variables
10
11
20.00
20.03
0.36 * * *
20.01
0.88 * * *
0.01
0.03
0.04
20.19 * * 20.01
0.05
20.17 * * *
0.12 20.26 * * * 20.15 * (0.83)
0.07
0.10
20.10
0.04
20.01 20.09
(0.84)
(0.84)
20.02
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.10 20.12
20.12 *
20.05
0.05
20.04 20.02
0.08
0.30 * * *
0.15 *
20.22 * * * (0.89)
0.20 * * 20.16 * * (0.88)
0.01
20.10
0.09 20.04
20.06
0.12
20.21 * *
0.15 * 20.49 * * * (0.85)
20.04
0.06
20.05 20.01
0.09 20.04
0.25 * * * 20.01
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001; two-tailed test. The number in parenthesis on the diagonal of the table is Cronbach’s alpha estimate
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
An overall measurement model for all the variables in Figure 1 was assessed. We
conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses. Using modification indices, we
deleted twelve items of the variables because of the potential problem of cross loading.
However, each construct had at least three measurement items after the deletion. The
final factor model fit the data, and fit indices achieved acceptable levels (x 2/df ¼ 2.71;
RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.94; IFI ¼ 0.94; SRMR ¼ 0.06). Besides, all factor loadings
were statistically significant. The results showed that the variables in our
measurement model had appropriate convergent and discriminant validity.
Work-family
conflict
705
Assessing common source bias
The problem of common source bias may exist because all predictors and dependent
variables were self-reported (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To assess the potential nature of
this problem, we took two approaches recommended by Podsakoff et al.’s (2003). First,
we conducted a Harmon one-factor test. The single-factor measurement model poorly
fit the data (x 2/df ¼ 24.05; RMSEA ¼ 0.30; CFI ¼ 0.34; IFI ¼ 0.35; SRMR ¼ 0.25),
suggesting that same source bias might not a serious problem. Second, we added an
artificial common source construct into the final measurement model with all items
loading on it. The fit indices fell into acceptable level but did not achieve substantial
improvement (x 2/df ¼ 2.80; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.95; IFI ¼ 0.95; SRMR ¼ 0.05).
Although the chi-square decrease was statistically, significantly different
(Dx 2 ¼ 37:35; Ddf ¼ 18; p , 0:05), the variance extracted by the common source
factor was 0.25, falling below the 0.50 cutoff that has been suggested as indicating the
Figure 1.
Maximum likelihood
parameter estimates for
the paths in SEM model
JMP
27,7
706
existence of a latent factor representing the manifest indicators (Dulac et al., 2008). All
of the previous results indicated that common source bias was not a serious problem in
the current study.
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations
Table I shows the descriptive information and zero-order correlations among variables
in the current study. The simple correlations in Table I provide preliminary support for
H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, H4. Work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional
exhaustion (r ¼ 0:30; p , 0:001). Family-work conflict was negatively related to life
satisfaction (r ¼ 20:12; p , 0:05) and positively associated with emotional
exhaustion (r ¼ 0:15; p , 0:05). Family-work conflict was negatively related to
affective commitment (r ¼ 20:21; p , 0:001) and positively associated with turnover
intentions (r ¼ 0:25; p , 0:001). However, work-family conflict did not show a
relationship with life satisfaction.
Testing hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the standardized path estimates of the SEM. This model achieved an
acceptable level of fit (x 2/df ¼ 2.71; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; CFI ¼ 0.94; IFI ¼ 0.94;
SRMR ¼ 0.06).When outcomes were psychological health variables, family-work
conflict was negatively associated with life satisfaction (g ¼ 20:18; p , 0:05). Thus,
H1b was supported. Work-family conflict was positively related to emotional
exhaustion (g ¼ 0:39; p , 0:001). Therefore, the finding upheld H2a. However,
work-family conflict was not related to life satisfaction, and family-work conflict was
not associated with emotional exhaustion. Thus, our H1a and H2b were not supported.
With regard to work-related outcomes, H3 and H4 were supported: family-work
conflict was negatively associated with affective commitment (g ¼ 20:26; p , 0:001)
and positively related to turnover intentions (g ¼ 0:41; p , 0:001).
We also sought to test whether relationships occurred between work-family conflict
and affective commitment and between work-family conflict and turnover intentions.
Results did not show evidence of a relationship between work-family conflict and
turnover intentions. Interestingly, work-family conflict was positively associated with
affective commitment (g ¼ 0:17; p , 0:01).
Discussion
Theoretical implications
We contribute to work-family research by investigating the idea that cultural
differences are related to the associations between bidirectional work-family conflict
and individual consequences. Although prior studies have examined the associations
among the Chinese (e.g. Aryee et al., 1999a, b; Spector et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2004), to
our knowledge, our study makes specific contributions by examining how Chinese
prioritization of work for family benefits is associated with the extent to which the two
models (i.e. the cross-domain model and the source attribution model) work in Chinese
cultural settings. We propose that the cross-domain model also works among the
Chinese because of its cultural neutrality, whereas the source attribution model cannot
be used to predict the associations between work-family conflict and work-related
consequences because the Chinese are less likely to blame the source of work-family
conflict (i.e. work domain).
The findings largely support our hypotheses. With regard to health-related
consequences, consistent with our expectation, Chinese managers who perceived
greater family-work conflict reported lower satisfaction with their lives. However, we
did not find support for our prediction that Chinese managers who experience greater
work-family conflict would report lower life satisfaction. The null association may be
because social support from family members buffers the negative association. As we
expected, work-family conflict was positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
However, we did not find a positive association between family-work conflict and
emotional exhaustion. The null association may be because emotional exhaustion
largely stems from excessive job demands rather than family demands.
As for work-related consequences, consistent with the cross-domain model (Frone
et al., 1992, 1997) and the findings from Western studies (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki, 1999), we found that Chinese managers who perceived higher levels of
family-work conflict were less committed to their organizations and had stronger
intentions to quit. Contrary to the source attribution model (Shockley and Singla, 2011)
and empirical research in Western countries (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and Ozeki,
1999), we did not find evidence for a negative relationship between work-family
conflict and two work-related consequences (i.e. affective commitment and turnover
intentions). Frone (2003) argued that work-family conflict was more critical because
work-family conflict was greater than family-work conflict and was more associated
with work-related consequences. A recent meta-analysis found that the source
attribution model was the more influential mechanism that links bidirectional
work-family conflict and individual consequences (Shockley and Singla, 2011). In a
cross-cultural study, Spector and associates accepted Frone’s (2003) argument and did
not explore the relationship between family-work conflict and work-related
consequences (Spector et al., 2007). We conducted a t-test and found work-family
conflict was also greater than family-work conflict [tð305Þ ¼ 32:66; p , 0:001].
However, our findings suggest that future studies using Chinese samples should
include family-work conflict because of the relationship between family-work conflict
and individual consequences.
There are two interesting findings that need additional discussion. First, we found
that work-family conflict was negatively correlated to family-work conflict
(F ¼ 20:20; p , 0:01). This finding is not consistent with extant findings.
Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies
with US samples and found that the correlations range from 0.16 to 0.59. Consistent
with the perspective of work priority for family benefits, our finding suggests that the
Chinese may perceive work and family roles in a complementary, rather than
competing, way. Second, work-family conflict was positively associated with affective
commitment (g ¼ 0:17; p , 0:01). This finding suggests the Chinese who experience
work-family conflict could develop positive attitudes toward their employers because
work demands can ultimately bring benefits to them and to their families.
Implications for management practice and society
Our findings have practical implications for how to manage work-family conflict
among Chinese workers. The associations between family-work conflict and individual
consequences suggest managers should adopt some measures to decrease family-work
conflict. Family friendly practices (e.g. flexible time schedule, telecommuting and
Work-family
conflict
707
JMP
27,7
708
family support culture) may reduce family-work conflict because these practices could
facilitate employees’ responding to family demands.
Someone may conclude work-family conflict is not a significant issue in managing
Chinese employees because there are no associations between work-family conflict and
work-related consequences. We challenge this conclusion because of two following
reasons. First, although work-family conflict did not show correlations with
work-related consequences, it was positively related to emotional exhaustion, which
may further relate to physical and psychological health problems (Maslach et al., 2001).
Second, we suggest that managers should pay attention to the underlying reasons.
Although our findings do suggest Chinese managers are likely to endure more
work-family conflict than their Western counterparts, this outcome may be for
long-term returns for their families. Our findings suggest managers may help Chinese
employees conduct career planning and achieve career goals which are likely to
compensate for their enduring work-family conflict.
With the fast pace of modernization in China, work-family conflict has been
becoming a societal issue (Lu et al., 2009; Siu et al., 2005). Because Chinese workers may
prioritize work behaviors, they may also suffer from health-related problems such as
emotional exhaustion and life dissatisfaction. Researchers note that work overload and
work-family conflict are two significant factors that may worsen a person’s happiness
in the current Chinese society (Lu, 2006). A recent study finds that, though per capita
GDP in China is 2.8 times higher in 2000 than in 1990, the percentage of Chinese
describing themselves as very happy declined from 28 percent to 12 percent, and the
average life satisfaction rating fell from 7.3 to 6.5 (on the ten-point scale) (Brockman
et al., 2009). To reduce the potential decline of health-related consequences such as life
satisfaction, the society needs to promote the meaning of balancing work and family
roles and emphasize the important of personal interests.
Limitations and future directions
The most serious limitation of this paper is the lack of a causal relationship between
work-family conflict and work-related variables. Because most extant studies use
work-family conflict as a predictor, we assume the direction is from work-family
conflict to work-related variables. However, another explanation is possible: Less
satisfaction or commitment may result in high family-work conflict because employees
who are dissatisfied with their jobs and their organizations may put more effort on
responding to family demands (Wiley, 1987). If a Chinese worker gives priority to
family demands, this may imply that the worker has lost his or her loyalty to the
organization. In the future, there is a need to design research from which the
assessment of causality can be inferred.
One may question why we did not measure the Chinese prioritization of work for
family benefits with scales such as job involvement, family involvement or
work-family centrality. The reason is that extant scales cannot accurately assess the
meaning of the Chinese prioritizing work for family benefits. For example, one sample
item from Carr et al.’ (2008) work-family centrality scale was “The major satisfaction in
my life comes from my work rather than my family.” However, for the Chinese,
emphasizing work may not mean the major satisfaction in their life comes from their
work. Because the Chinese tend to view work as an important tool which is used to
achieve an overall benefit to the family (Aryee et al., 1999a; Yang et al., 2000), a Chinese
respondent probably gives a low score to the sample measurement item, but is highly
committed to work priority behaviors. Future studies may measure prioritization of
work for family benefits by developing appropriate scenario questions.
Future studies can also explore the relationship between bidirectional work-family
conflict and other outcomes among Chinese workers. For example, we anticipate that
work-family conflict would be associated with better individual performance ratings.
Possible reasons are twofold. First, Chinese workers who experience greater levels of
work-family conflict probably put more time and effort into their work, which should
make it easier to achieve good performance outcomes. Second, putting more time and
effort should give the supervisor a good impression because setting work as a priority
is consistent with the Chinese work ethic norm. Therefore, supervisors would be
inclined to give good performance evaluations to subordinates who have greater levels
of work-family conflict. Future studies can verify such propositions.
We are cautious about the generalization of our findings among Chinese employees
because they are based on a view that the Chinese prioritize work for family benefits.
With the process of modernization in China, work value diversity has been increasing
(Siu et al., 2005). We speculate that the findings in this study may not be generalized to
Chinese workers who do not hold the viewpoint of prioritization of work for family
benefits. There is evidence that the younger generations in China have a different work
ethic. Compared with the Chinese born in the 1970s, those born in the 1980s are
reported to pay more attention to leisure and non-career interests (Zhu and Chen, 2006).
Further studies can investigate whether there are different patterns of work-family
priority among various age groups of Chinese workers.
It could be argued that there are other reasons associated with the high value of
work priority among Chinese workers. For example, because China is a developing
country, economic insecurity may force people to work hard in order to save money for
the future, or to avoid being laid off. Workforce demand is lower than the supply of
workers, and this creates a competition among workers to get and keep jobs. Chinese
workers have to put work first. There is a one-child policy in China’s mainland, and
this reduces family demands. These factors could increase the Chinese worker’s
relatively high priority for work. However, we believe that culture is the underlying
reason because the emphasis on work is also found among workers in other Eastern
countries. Korea and Japan are good examples. Both countries have implemented
capitalism, and they do not have a one-child policy. However, similar to the Chinese,
the majority of employees in Korea and Japan give high priority to work (Kanai and
Wakabayashi, 2001, 2004). Hence, we contend that cultural factors found in Eastern
cultures may be critical to molding the Chinese prioritization of work for family
benefits. Additional research can be designed to control for possible reasons from other
sources such as economic insecurity, a one-child policy, and family structure.
References
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Work-family
conflict
709
JMP
27,7
710
Aryee, S., Fields, D. and Luk, V. (1999a), “A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family
interface”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 491-511.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999b), “Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 259-78.
Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W.J. and Thorndike, R.M. (1973), Cross-cultural Research Methods, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Brockman, H., Delhey, J., Weizel, C. and Yuan, H. (2009), “The China puzzle: falling happiness in a
rising economy”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 387-405.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 230-58.
Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-98.
Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2000), “Work-family conflict in the organisation: do life role
values make a difference”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1031-54.
Carr, J.C., Boyar, S.L. and Gregory, B.T. (2008), “The moderating effect of work-family centrality
on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 244-62.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”,
Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-5.
Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Henderson, D.J. and Wayne, S.J. (2008), “Not all responses to
breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract
processes in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1079-98.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family
research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 124-97.
Ford, M., Heinen, B. and Langkamer, K. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict:
a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 143-62.
Frone, M.R. and Yardley, J.K. (1996), “Workplace family-supportive programmes: predictors of
employed parents’ importance ratings”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 351-66.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K. and Markel, K.S. (1997), “Developing and testing an integrative model
of the work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 145-67.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Source of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequence: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 424-53.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modelin