Crossover specificity of team level work

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

JMP
24,3

254
Received September 2007
Revised February 2008,
July 2008
Accepted October 2008

Crossover specificity of
team-level work-family conflict to
individual-level work-family
conflict
I.J. Hetty van Emmerik and Maria C.W. Peeters
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the crossover specificity of team-level stressors to

individual-level work-family conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a multilevel analyses with data
from 428 employees of a Dutch municipality working in 49 teams.
Findings – The results indicate the expected crossover specificity of different types of work-family
conflicts. After controlling for individual-level demands there is little evidence that team-level work
demands influence work-family conflict (WFC) or family-work conflict (FWC), but team-level WFC
and FWC do influence individual-level WFC and FWC, respectively.
Research limitations/implications – The paper distinguishes two types of WFC, but it did not
distinguish between strain- and time-based conflicts. Further, it did not pay attention to individual
differences (e.g., susceptibility to distress of team members), although such differences may be
important moderators of the crossover process.
Originality/value – This study is one of the first that empirically linked team-level stressors and
WFC to individual-level WFC and that tested crossover specificity. Findings indicated the associations
of team-level WFC and FWC and focal employees’ WFC and FWC respectively, thereby underscoring
the importance of crossover specificity.
Keywords Workplace, Stress, Family life, Employee behaviour, Conflict, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2009

pp. 254-268
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940910939331

Increasingly, employees are confronted with high pressures in both their work and
home life and many daily hassles stem from job demands that are incompatible with
family demands. Work-family conflict (WFC) refers to the extent to which a person
experiences pressures within the work domain that are incompatible with the
pressures that arise within the family domain and vice versa (Geurts et al., 1999;
Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). WFC encompasses two distinct constructs, work
interfering with family and causing conflict (WFC) and family interfering with work
and causing conflict (FWC) (Frone et al., 1992; Netemeyer et al., 1996).
In the present study, we will elaborate on how WFC and FWC in the workplace are
experienced by employees by examining both individual-level and team-level
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Damiet Martinot and Marloes Sengers for
conveying the data used in this study.

antecedents of work-family conflict. Do negative experiences at the team level affect
individual team members? What happens to employees when their colleagues have a

hard time suffering from work-family conflicts? We will focus on crossover specificity
and examine the association of team level WFC with individual level WFC, after
controlling for the influence of the individual level job demands.
Theoretical perspectives on crossover processes in the workplace
Social psychological theoretical perspectives, such as role theory and emotional
contagion theory, propose that stress outcomes are, at least to some extent, induced by
social processes (Bakker et al., 2006). This may especially hold for crossover processes
within teams since team-level crossover involves not only inter-individual transmission
of stress and strain but also applies to transmission of positive and negative feelings and
attitudes in general. When people enter a team, they bring their individual experiences
with them and thus they may also bring in, for instance, their experiences with
incompatible work and home responsibilities. These individual-level experiences may
influence other members of the team and may combine to form team-level experiences
and this is the foundation of team-level crossover (Kelly and Barsade, 2001).
Workplace experiences of one employee may cross over and affect other employees.
In this study, we conceptualize WFC experienced within the team as a form of crossover
that “demands” the reaction of the focal employee. A better understanding of the
processes involved will enable the identification of effective strategies for coping with the
crossover of strain (Bakker et al., 2006). The crossover process can be explained by
different theoretical perspectives, such as role theory and the emotional contagion model.

First, the processes involved in team crossover can be explained by role theory (Bolger
et al., 1989; Westman, 2002). Work role demands and home/family role demands refer to
the responsibilities, requirements, expectations, duties, and commitments associated
with a given role (Netemeyer et al., 1996). Employees may well be influenced by the
norms and role expectations of their co-workers. For instance, team members may
develop role expectations such that employees should prioritize work above family.
Norms about the number of hours employees are expected to work and whether or not
employees are expected to take work home are important aspects of an organizational
culture that may affect employees’ WFC (see McDonald et al., 2005). Hence, in such
cultures the amount of time spent at work is frequently interpreted as an indication of
employees’ dedication and commitment to work. When confronted with such norms and
role expectations, employees may be reluctant to take time off or to reduce their work
hours to attend to family responsibilities. As a consequence, these employees can be
expected to experience more WFC (e.g., Thompson and McNamara, 1997).
Crossover of WFCs may also take place through an explicit, conscious process of
sharing (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). For instance, employees complaining about their
workload may transfer their feelings to their co-workers. Such crossover can take the
form of tuning in to the emotions and attitudes of others. Tuning in refers to people
trying to imagine what the other person may feel, for instance, by comparing the other
person’s situation with their own experiences (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin et al., 2000).

This would be the case when a person tries to imagine how he or she would feel in the
position of another and, as a consequence, experiences the same feelings. In this case it
may be assumed that the emotions expressed by one partner elicit an empathic reaction
in the other partner (Bakker et al., 2003; Bakker and Demerouti, 2009 (this issue)).

Crossover
specificity

255

JMP
24,3

256

In contrast with the process of sharing, the emotional contagion model assumes a
non-conscious process of influencing each other: Individuals are not necessarily aware
that the process is occurring. Emotional contagion is the tendency to automatically
mimic and synchronize expressions, feelings, and attitudes with those of another
person and, consequently, to converge emotionally (Hatfield et al., 1994, p. 5). Frequent

exposure to another person’s emotions and paying close attention to them is one of the
conditions facilitating contagion (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin et al., 2000; Hatfield et al.,
1994). It is this frequent exposure to another person’s emotions and paying close
attention to them that is at the core of the contagion model and how the contagion
model explains the crossover of both FWC and WFC.
So far, studies already supported the idea that team-level crossover can be a
phenomenon within groups or teams. For instance, Westman and Etzion (1999)
examined crossover of stress in the workplace of school principals and teachers and
found a significant crossover of job-induced tension. Bakker et al. (2005) tested burnout
contagion among nurses and found that burnout complaints among colleagues in
intensive care units made a statistically significant and unique contribution to
explaining variance in individual nurses’ experiences of burnout. Bakker et al. (2006)
investigated the crossover of burnout and work engagement among 2,229
constabulary officers. The results of multilevel analyses confirmed a crossover
phenomenon by showing that team-level burnout and team-level work engagement
were related to individual team members’ burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, and
reduced professional efficacy) and work engagement (vigor, dedication, and
absorption) after controlling for individual members’ job demands and resources.
Results from a study of Crosetto (2004) revealed that emotional interactions within the
team resulted in a variety of individual and team emotional states triggered by

emotional contagion processes. Recently, Ilies et al. (2007) showed that the average
affective state of the other team members (so-called affective linkages) was related to
an individual team member’s affective state, for both positive and negative affect.
Crossover of team-level job demands
Numerous studies have already examined the antecedents of WFC. In particular job
stress, flexibility of work schedule, time devoted to the job/role, and a supportive
supervisor or organizational culture are considered to be important antecedents of
WFC (e.g., Bacharach et al., 1991; Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Greenhaus and Beutell,
1985; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Voydanoff, 1988). In fact, work overload by excessive job
demands appears to be one of the most critical factors determining WFC (e.g.,
Bacharach et al., 1991; Geurts et al., 1999; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Netemeyer et al.,
1996; Voydanoff, 1988; Wallace, 1999).
In the present study, we will focus on crossover of team-level work stressors and
team level WFC to a focal employee’s experience of WFC. The job demands that will be
examined are quantitative, mental and emotional job demands (Peeters et al., 2005).
Quantitative job demands refer to work overload or too much work to do in too little
time. Emotional job demands refer to the affective component of work and the degree
to which one’s work puts one in emotionally stressful situations. Mental job demands
refer to the degree to which work tasks call on a person to expend sustained mental
effort in carrying out his or her duties.

Crossover specificity of team-level WFCs to individual level WFCs
To examine WFC, we will explicitly distinguish between work interfering with family
(WFC) and family interfering with work (FWC). This distinction allows testing of
hypotheses concerning the unique antecedents and outcomes of both forms of WFC
(Frone et al., 1992) and allows for testing crossover specificity.
Bolger et al. (1989) already noted that stress contagion effects are quite specific. For
instance, burnout of team members may cross over to a focal employee’s burnout. It
seems reasonable to assume that such crossover specificity exists: After all, when the
greater part of team members has a common cold this may increase the chances of the
focal employee catching a cold but not to catch another disease. This specificity has
already been found in spouse-to-spouse crossover. Hammer et al. (1997) showed that
partners’ work-family conflict accounted for a significant amount of variance in both
males’ and females’ work-family conflict and did not cross over to related negative
consequences. The findings of Westman and Etzion (1995) revealed that the husbands’
sense of control and burnout were positively related to the corresponding variables
measured for their wives. However, up till now, only few studies have focused on
crossover specificity in the workplace (e.g., Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker et al., 2006;
Westman and Etzion, 1999). From the contagion perspective, we propose that not only
job demands (both at the individual and team level) may result in work family conflicts,

but also that there will be crossover specificity of team-level WFC to a focal employee’s
WFC and also crossover specificity of team-level FWC to a focal employee’s FWC.
The mechanism through which team-level WFC may be contagious is probably
employees talking to each other about their problems with regard to work-family
interference. They may talk about how family events are influenced by their job
demands. For instance, how they have to reschedule or postpone meals or about the
consequences of working late unexpectedly (see Kelloway et al., 1999). In this way, a
focal employee may “tune in” and as a result become more sensitive for his/her own
work-family interference and this is an example of an explicit, conscious process of
sharing (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). Further, employees who experience high levels of
WFC may report elevated levels of job-related distress because they are more likely to
feel overwhelmed by the ensuing struggle to meet their responsibilities at work and
therefore experience a reduction in the quality of their work life (Frone et al., 1992).
At first sight, it may seem a bit odd to propose that team-level FWC will contribute to
a focal employee’s FWC, after controlling for the individual-level job demands. However,
Beauregard (2006) has shown that working conditions can be important predictors of
FWC. Job-related variables appeared to explain significant additional variance in FWC
beyond the effects of family domain variables. These results suggest that job
characteristics may have more influence over the degree to which employees’ home
situation interferes with their work than has previously been assumed. Moreover, it is

important to examine team-level phenomena, for instance, the norm within a specific
team may promote people to talk about problems in their private life. Therefore, we
include both WFC and FWC as dependent variables in the following hypotheses:
H1. Team-level WFC is positively related to a focal employee’s WFC, after
controlling for the impact of individual-level job demands.
H2. Team-level FWC is positively related to FWC of a focal employee, after
controlling for the impact of individual-level job demands.

Crossover
specificity

257

JMP
24,3

258

Method
Procedure and respondents

This study was part of a survey on work conditions and occupational health among
employees of a Dutch municipality (n ¼ 1,737). Preceding the development of the
questionnaire, some qualitative interviews were conducted to identify the most
significant work conditions and these were subsequently included in a written
questionnaire. Responses of the interviewed employees were summarized and compared
with standard scales to measure work conditions and job demands. After that, the most
salient job demands were selected and assessed trough the survey. The implementation
of the research was completely taken care of by the municipality. Questionnaires were
sent to all employees. Anonymity was guaranteed, and an information campaign
supported the study. The response was 631 questionnaires (response rate ¼ 36 percent).
Since we used multi-level analyses, we selected respondents working in teams with size
$ four respondents, working together in the same departmental unit and reporting to
the same supervisor. The final sample consisted of 428 respondents (47 percent women
and 53 percent men) from 49 teams with a mean size of 8.7 (SD ¼ 5:5) respondents per
team. Mean age of the participants was 43.5 years (SD ¼ 10:0).
Measures at the individual level
WFC and FWC. WFC and FWC were measured using the respective scales from the
Survey Work Home Interference Nijmegen (Wagena and Geurts, 2000). Most items in
the WFC scale are congruent with items in similar scales, such as the scales used by
Netemeyer et al. (1996) and Kopelman et al. (1983). In the present research, WFC was
measured with seven items (e.g., “How often do you find it difficult to fulfill your
domestic obligations because you are constantly thinking about work?”; alpha ¼ 0:86).
FWC was measured with six items (e.g., “How often do you arrive late at work because
of domestic obligations?”; alpha ¼ 0:82). Items were scored on a five-point frequency
scale ranging from 1 “ Never” to 5 “Always”.
Job demands. Three types of job demands were measured using scales taken from
the Dutch Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (Van Veldhoven
et al., 2002). Quantitative job demands (five items, e.g. “Do you have to work very
fast?”, alpha ¼ 0:85), emotional job demands (seven items, e.g. “Is your work
emotionally demanding?”, alpha ¼ 0:79), and mental job demands (seven items, e.g.
“Must you be very precise in your work?” alpha ¼ 0:83). All items are scored on a
four-point scale (1 “Never” to 4 “ Always”).
Background/control variables. Since individual differences in susceptibility to
crossover of other employees’ attitudes have been documented (Doherty and Orimoto,
1995), we controlled for gender (male ¼ 0, female ¼ 1) and age (in years). Since number
of hours of paid worked is among the most consistent predictors of work-home conflict,
we controlled for number of hours paid work per week (see Tuten and August, 2006). In
addition to the three types of job demands and the number of paid hours per week, we
also measured the mean hours of overtime per week, i.e. the mean number of hours
respondents devoted to their work above their contracted hours. Finally, size of the team
(in number of employees) was also controlled for in the analyses, since individual
perceptions of WFC can be affected by the size of the group. For example, in small teams,
it is often obvious who is having a hard time coping with WFC and who is not. As team
size increases, these direct relationships may become less obvious (see Bowers, 2000).

Statistical analyses
Measures at the team-level. To compute team-level job demands and overtime, we
aggregated the individual – level variables. To check whether this aggregation of the
scales was justified, we computed the within-group inter-rater reliability rwg (James
et al., 1993). The rwg for the quantitative work load scale ¼ 0:91, for the mental job
demands scale ¼ 0:96, and for the emotional job demands scale ¼ 0:91. Further, for all
three team-level job demands, the rwg of all groups was greater than 0.70. As a rule of
thumb, a group is viewed to have an adequate level of agreement if rwg is greater than
0.70, thus it seems reasonable to conclude that aggregation was justified (see Klein
et al., 2000).
To compute team-level WFC and FWC, we first computed whether the participants
scored relatively low, medium, or high on these scales and divided the sample in three
equal sized groups. After that, employees were categorized as having WFC or FWC
when they scored in the high-risk category on the respective scales. In the analyses, the
percentage of employees falling in the high-risk group per team was used (for a
comparable procedure see Bakker et al. (2006)). Among all respondents, 36 percent was
classified high on WFC and 28 percent was classified high on FWC.
Multilevel analyses. To test whether the nesting structure in the data set called for
multilevel analyses, we computed F-values for group effects with analysis of variance
(ANOVA). With F ¼ 0:86 the FWC F-test was not significant. For WFC F ¼ 2:02
(p , 0:01), showing that the measurements are not independent and, confirming the
appropriateness of using multilevel analyses. Although one of the F-tests did not reach
significance, we still decided to conduct multilevel analyses based on the nature of the
hypothesized relationships. Hausman (1978) tests, to determine if we should use a
random effects or a fixed effects model, were not significant for both WFC
(Chi2 ¼ 0:90, ns) and FWC (Chi2 ¼ 0:54, ns) indicating that a random effects model is
the preferred type of multilevel analyses. Consequently, to test the hypotheses, we
performed random-effects GLS regression multilevel analyses with FWC and WFC as
the dependent variables. In each of the two analyses, we included group size, team-level
job demands, and team-level overtime as aggregated variables, and we controlled for
background variables, individual job demands, and overtime.
For the interpretation of the results, it is important to keep in mind that multilevel
programs report gamma parameters or unstandardized (b) coefficients and do not
report standardized or beta regression coefficients. These gamma or unstandardized
regression coefficients can be compared within rows, but not within columns (as is the
case for standardized regression coefficients) (Nezlek and Zyzniewski, 1998). For
example, the association between gender and WFC in Model 2 (g ¼ 20:17) is stronger
than the association between gender and WFC in Model 1 (g ¼ 20:15). With
unstandardized coefficients, the usual comparisons within columns are not possible:
One cannot infer from Model 1 that quantitative job demands (g ¼ 0:42) is a better
predictor of WFC than emotional job demands (g ¼ 0:20)
Results
Table I presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for individual level
and team level variables.
The results of the multi-level analysis for WFC and FWC are shown in Tables II and
III. To assess effect sizes, we computed the proportions of incremental explained

Crossover
specificity

259

1

2

Individual level
1 Gender
0.47 0.50
2 Age
43.49 9.99 2 0.16**
3 Hours paid work 34.43 8.02 2 0.49** 2 0.02
4 Overtime
2.11 3.66 2 0.13**
0.10*
5 Quantitative job
demands
2.62 0.65
0.01
0.10*
6 Mental job
demands
3.33 0.48
0.09
0.12*
7 Emotional job
demands
1.92 0.53
0.05
0.05
8 WFC
2.06 0.69 2 0.10*
0.02
9 FWC
1.42 0.45 2 0.07
2 0.06
Team-level
10 Size of the unit
8.70 5.50
0.07
0.02
11 Team-level
**
overtime
2.10 2.93 2 0.17
0.04
12 Team-level
Quantitative job
demands
2.62 0.28
0.22**
0.05
13 Team-level mental
**
job demands
3.33 0.20
0.25
0.01
14 Team-level
emotional job
demands
1.92 0.28
0.02
0.06
15 Team-level WFC
0.36 0.20 2 0.06
0.04
16 Team-level FWC
0.28 0.13 2 0.03
2 0.06
Notes: * p , 0:05; ** p , 0:01

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

JMP
24,3

260

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlations for all
variables (n ¼ 428, n of
groups ¼ 49)
Mean SD

14

15

0.43**
0.08
2 0.06

0.18**
0.07*

0.12* 0.26**
0.16** 0.37**
0.07
0.16**

0.35**
0.27**
0.44**
0.17**

2 0.15** 0.28** 2 0.11*
0.43** 0.75**

0.34**
0.05
0.25**
0.02
0.12*
2 0.06

0.12
0.25**

0.55**
2 0.02

0.03

0.03

2 0.15** 0.04

0.44**

0.17** 0.04

0.25**

2 0.16** 0.05

0.18**

0.42** 0.15**

0.04

0.04
0.21**
0.10**

0.12*
0.01
0.02

0.06
0.39**
0.22**

0.14** 0.36**
0.12* 0.31**
0.14** 0.18**

0.54**
0.08
0.08

2 0.02

0.21** 2 0.10*
0.11*
2 0.01

0.37**
2 0.26** 0.05
2 0.19** 0.06

0.42**

0.04
0.24** 0.45** 0.07
0.27**
0.15*
0.03
0.42** 0.49** 0.07
0.18**
0.27** 2 0.02
0.24** 0.27** 0.05
0.18** 0.35**

Work interfering with family
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
g
SE
g
SE
g
SE
Intercept
Individual level
Gender
Age
Hours paid work
Overtime
Quantitative job demands
Mental job demands
Emotional job demands

1.63 * *

0.29

1.79 * *

0.65

1.64 * *

0.54

2 0.15 *
2 0.00
2 0.01
0.06 * *
0.42 * *
2 0.22 * *
0.20 * *

0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.06

2 0.17 *
2 0.00
2 0.01
0.05 * *
0.35 * *
2 0.23 * *
0.33 * *

0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.07

2 0.13 *
2 0.00
2 0.00
0.06 * *
0.35 * *
2 0.24 * *
0.32 * *

0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.07

2 0.01
0.01
0.25 *
0.04
2 0.49 * *

0.01
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.15

2 0.00
2 0.03
2 0.08
0.20
2 0.46 * *

0.01
0.02
0.13
0.17
0.13

Team-level
Size of the unit
Team-level overtime
Team-level quantitative job demands
Team-level mental job demands
Team-level emotional job demands
Team-level inter-role conflict
Team-level WFC
D R2

0.31 * *

0.04 * *

0.99 * *
0.17
0.05 * *

Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01

Crossover
specificity

261

Table II.
Random-effects GLS
Regression for WFC
(n ¼ 428, n of
groups ¼ 49) in
unstandardized
regression coefficients

Family interfering with work
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
g
SE
g
SE
g
SE
Intercept
Individual level
Gender
Age
Hours paid work
Overtime
Quantitative
Mental
Emotional

1.49 * *

0.22

2 0.09
2 0.01 *
2 0.00
0.02 *
0.11 * *
2 0.05
0.06

0.05
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.05

Team-level
Size of the unit
Team-level overtime
Team-level quantitative job demands
- Team-level mental job demands
Team-level emotional job demands
Team-level inter-role conflict
Team-level FWC
D R2
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01

0.07 * *

1.70 * *

0.44

1.58 * *

0.43 * *

2 0.09
2 0.00 *
2 0.00
0.02 *
0.08
2 0.05
0.10

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.05

2 0.08
2 0.00
2 0.00
0.02 *
0.08 *
2 0.05
0.10 *

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.05

2 0.00
2 0.00
0.11
2 0.09
2 0.10

0.00
0.01
0.09
0.14
0.10

2 0.00
2 0.01
0.02
2 0.04
2 0.12

0.00
0.01

0.08 * *

0.1
0.10

0.84 * * 0.1
0.05 * *

Table III.
Random-effects GLS
Regression for FWC
(n ¼ 428, n of
groups ¼ 49) in
unstandardized
regression coefficients

JMP
24,3

262

variance for the different models and these proportions are also reported in Tables II
and III.
With an F-test we tested whether the incremental explained variance was
significant:








F ¼ R 2second model 2 R 2first model 12 =ðK2 2 K1Þ = 1 2 R 2second model =ðn 2 K2 2 1Þ
where K2 is the number of predictors in the second model and K1 is the number of
predictors in the first model. Further, differences in model fit were tested with a Wald
chi-squared difference test. Model 1 in Table II shows that the individual-level and
background variables explain 31 percent of the variance in WFC. Model 2 and 3 show
that the team-level variables explain an additional 9 percent of the variance in WFC.
From Table III it can be seen that the individual-level and background variables
explain 7 percent of the variance in FWC and that the inclusion of the team-level
variables explains an extra 13 percent (see Model 2 en 3) in individual-level FWC.
Unexpected, team-level emotional job demands are negatively associated with
individual WFC (g ¼ 20:49, p , 0:01). For FWC, the gamma coefficients of all three
team-level job demands do not reach significance. Taken together, these findings show
that team-level job demands do not increase individual team members’ levels of FWC
and WFC, after controlling for the impact of individual job demands.
Hypotheses testing
The crossover specificity hypotheses predicted that team-level WFC (H1) and FWC
(H2) are positively related to individual level WFC and FWC respectively, after
controlling for the impact of individual and team level job demands. The results of
Random-effects GLS Regression analysis show that, as predicted, team-level WFC is
positively associated with WFC (g ¼ 0:99, p , 0:01). Further, team-level FWC is
positively associated with a focal employee’s FWC (g ¼ 0:84, p , 0:01). Taken
together, these findings provide support for H1 and H2. There exists team-level
crossover specificity for both types of WFCs.
Discussion
In this study, unlike most WFC research, we explored the role of antecedents of WFC
from a team-level crossover point of view. We assessed the extent to which demands
experienced at the team-level were associated with employee’s individual experiences
of WFCs and tested for crossover specificity.
The crossover specificity hypothesis was supported. The results showed that
team-level WFC was positively associated with a focal employee’s WFC. Team-level
FWC was also positively associated with a focal employee’s FWC. Findings indicated
the associations of team-level WFC and FWC and focal employee’s WFC and FWC
respectively, thereby underscoring the specificity of crossover. This study may be one
of the first attempts to explore the role of crossover specificity. Theoretically, it is
noteworthy that these contagion effects are specific (Bolger et al., 1989), namely from
WFC at the team-level to WFC at the individual level and from FWC at the team-level
to FWC at the individual level. However, with the present study design, we can only
speculate on the reasons for this and future longitudinal studies should shed more light
on this phenomenon. Taken together, these results support the existence of emotional

contagion at the workplace (Westman, 2006). This is in line with Westman and Etzion’s
(1999) finding for school principals and teachers. They found a direct specific crossover
effect of job-induced tension between school principals and teachers and vice versa.
They did not find a direct crossover effect of burnout and this may reflect that burnout
represents a more “holistic” strain that relates both to the work and the nonwork
domains, whereas job-induced tension is a specific strain that relates to specific work
aspects. Further, it is possible that there are other (than contagion) explanations for the
group effect. For example, is it conceivable that there exists a micro-climate or culture
within teams in which there are shared expectations about acceptable levels of
WFC/FWC. It is possible that such an environment exerts a powerful influence on
individual perceptions of WFC/FWC.
The negative association of team-level emotional job demands with WFC was
unexpected. Perhaps this has to do with how people cope with emotional demands at
work. The feeling that one can cope successfully with emotional job demands might
decrease WFC. It is also possible that the shared emotional demands create a sense of
collectivity and cohesion within the work situation. In the context of a cross-sectional
study, it is possible that reports of job demands are influenced by WFC or FWC (i.e. the
causal arrow goes the other way), which is the classic problem in cross-sectional
research of this nature. Further, there are indications that over time there may be spiral
relationships. This could explain the relationship between individual level job
demands and individual level WFC/FWC. The so-called team level job demands might
represent a more objective measure of demands in the workplace, all of this leading to
the conclusion that there is no influence of job demands on WFC/FWC in the present
study. Further, we distinguished two types of WFC, but we did not distinguish
between strain- and time-based conflicts between work and family demands (see
Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Future research may find it useful to make this further
distinction because it may well be that especially strain-based conflicts are susceptible
to contagion, whereas time-based conflicts may be susceptible to other mechanisms.
We included a number of background variables in the analyses. Gender appeared to
be related to WFC but not to FWC: Women were more likely to suffer from WFC, but
FWC was not different between men and women. It might be that women are so
overburdened with work and home chores that work more easily interferes with home
for them than for happens to be the case for men. Further, age was not associated with
WFC but it was negatively associated with FWC. Younger employees suffer more from
FWC than older employees, and this may point to a life stage phenomenon for FWC.
However, taking your work home (i.e. WFC) apparently is something not linked to
one’s life stage or age. Weekly hours of work have been demonstrated to have a
significant impact on work-home conflicts (Crompton and Lyonette, 2006). In the
present study, we could not find such a relationship. It appeared that it is not the
weekly contracted hours that are associated with WFC, but it is the extra number of
hours or overtime that is important to explain work-family conflict.
Practical implications and suggestions for future research
High levels of WFC have been associated with various negative consequences, such as
poorer physical health, higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, and problem
drinking (see Grzywacz et al., 2006; Roehling et al., 2005). It is recommended that
organizations expand their conception of why they need to be concerned about WFC

Crossover
specificity

263

JMP
24,3

264

related issues. When perceptions of WFC are (partly) shared by colleagues this shared
perception can affect individual negative outcomes and group-level interventions to
reduce the negative effects, should be seriously considered (Van Yperen and Snijders,
2000). Management’s understanding of contagion is needed for a better appreciation of
organizational behavior from the perspective of team crossover of emotions, as well as
the development of creative and useful ideas for making teamwork more successful
(Crosetto, 2004).
Previous research has already shown the importance of team-level phenomena for
individual experiences and work outcomes (e.g., Bliese and Castro, 2000; Bliese and
Britt, 2001; Devine et al., 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Jex and Bliese, 1999). The results of the
present study also emphasize the importance of a multilevel perspective. People who
share the same environment may experience a similar level of stress to begin with, but
once they express stress or strain, a dynamic may set in that elevates the reaction of all
of the team members to the stressful situation Thus, whereas one employee’s behavior
may be a source of stress to many team members, their stress may in turn not only
boomerang back, but also start “ping-pong” reactions (Westman and Etzion, 1999).
Limitations
Some words of caution regarding the results of this study are necessary. Data were
collected with the single administration of a survey. This may raise concern about
common method variance. Although the use of aggregate variables makes this less
likely, future research efforts need to consider using longitudinal and multi-actor data.
For instance, future studies may include information from both supervisor and
employee collected at different points in time.
Conclusions
Although the existing work-family literature has not addressed crossover specificity,
our results suggest that this could improve further theory development. The purpose of
the present study was to explain how variables at the team-level are associated with
individual level outcomes. As already suggested by Bliese and Castro (2000), aggregate
ratings of constructs used in stress research allow one to assess the contextual work
environment in ways that cannot be done by relying merely on individual-level
variables. The team-level variables we used open up important possibilities in
occupational stress research. It is important to consider how social and contextual
variables can be integrated into research and theory (Bliese and Castro, 2000, p. 72).
Viewing stress and strain from a multilevel perspective makes it possible to examine
how processes at the organizational, departmental, or team-level affect individual
phenomena (Bliese and Jex, 2002).
Finally, prior research has shown that various sources of social support can reduce
an individual’s WFC (Carlson, 1999; Thompson et al., 1999). For instance, colleagues
can be supportive on an ongoing basis and understanding and respecting an
individual’s commitment to other life roles (Greenhaus and Powell, 2003; Powell and
Greenhaus, 2006). We looked at these issues from the other way around. Colleagues can
be very supportive but they can also be demanding. Contacts with burned-out and
cynical co-workers, demanding bosses, or emotionally exhausted subordinates, all can
be associated with a focal employee’s (decrease in) well-being. When possible,
employees tend to avoid interaction with these people but physical proximity and

organizational structure may prevent this unsolicited relationships (see Brass et al.,
2004; Deelstra et al., 2003). We focused on the negative side of people working together
and did not measure how supportive team members can be for each other. However, it
is possible that for team members plagued by high emotional job demands, supportive
interactions between employees alleviate stress and strain in such a way that these
interactions between employees prevent stress and strain to spilling over to the home
situation.
References
Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S. (1991), “Work-home conflict among nurses and
engineers: mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2009), “The crossover of work engagement: a closer look at the
role of empathy”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 220-36.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003), “The socially induced burnout model”,
in Shohov, S.P. (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 25, Nova Science Publishers,
New York, NY, pp. 13-30.
Bakker, A.B., Le Blanc, P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “Burnout contagion among nurses who
work at intensive care units”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 276-87.
Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, I.H. and Euwema, M.C. (2006), “Crossover of burnout and
engagement in work teams”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 464-89.
Beauregard, T.A. (2006), “Predicting interference between work and home: a comparison of
dispositional and situational antecedents”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 244-64.
Bliese, P.D. and Britt, T.W. (2001), “Social support, group consensus and stressor-strain
relationships: social context matters”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 425-36.
Bliese, P.D. and Castro, C.A. (2000), “Role clarity, work overload and organizational support:
multilevel evidence of the importance of support”, Work and Stress, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-73.
Bliese, P.D. and Jex, S.M. (2002), “Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupational stress
research: theoretical, methodological, and practical implications”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 265-76.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C. and Wethington, E. (1989), “The contagion of stress across
multiple roles”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 175-83.
Bowers, C.A. (2000), “When member homogeneity is needed in work teams”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 305-27.
Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R. and Tsai, W. (2004), “Taking stock of networks and
organizations: a multilevel perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 795-817.
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. (1999), “Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family
conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 236-53.
Crompton, R. and Lyonette, C. (2006), “Work-life ‘balance’ in Europe”, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 379-93.
Crosetto, G.J. (2004), “The experience of team emotion: a phenomenological study”, Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 65 Nos 3-A, p. 1140.

Crossover
specificity

265

JMP
24,3

266

Deelstra, J.T., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., Stroebe, W., Zijlstra, F.R.H. and Van Doornen, L.P.
(2003), “Receiving instrumental support at work: when help is not welcome”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 324-31.
Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B. and Melner, S.B. (1999), “Teams in
organizations: prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 678-711.
Doherty, R.W. and Orimoto, L. (1995), “Emotional contagion: gender and occupational
differences”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 355-71.
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.
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.
Geurts, S., Rutte, C. and Peeters, M. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of work-home
interference among medical residents”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 1135-48.
Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin, M.J., Giesen, C.W.M. and Bakker, A.B. (2000), “Financial problems and
health complaints among farm couples: results of a 10-yr follow-up study”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 359-73.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2003), “When work and family collide: deciding between
competing role demands”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90
No. 2, pp. 291-303.
Grzywacz, J.G., Frone, M.R., Brewer, C.S. and Kovner, C.T. (2006), “Quantifying work-family
conflict among registered nurses”, Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 414-26.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J. (2002), “A meta-analysis of
team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as
moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5,
pp. 819-32.
Hammer, L.B., Allen, E. and Grigsby, T.D. (1997), “Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples:
within-individual and crossover effects of work and family”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Rapson, R.L. (1994), Emotional Contagion, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Hausman, J.A. (1978), “Specification tests in econometrics”, Econometrica, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 1251-71.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D.T. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Explaining affective linkages in teams:
individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism/collectivism”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, (forthcoming).
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “R-sub(wg): an assessment of within-group
interrater agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-9.
Jex, S.M. and Bliese, P.D. (1999), “Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 349-61.
Kelloway, E.-K., Gottlieb, B.-H. and Barham, L. (1999), “The source, nature, and direction of work
and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 337-46.

Kelly, J.R. and Barsade, S.G. (2001), “Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 99-130.
Klein, K.K., Bliese, P.D., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.B., Griffin, M.A., Hoffman, D.,
James, L., Yammarino, F. and Bligh, M. (2000), “Multilevel analytical techniques:
Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions”, in Klein, K.K. and
Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:
Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 512-53.
Kopelman, R.E., Greenhaus, J.H. and Connolly, T.F. (1983), “A model of work, family and
interrole conflict: a construct validation study”, Organisational Behaviour and Human
Performance, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 198-213.
McDonald, P., Brown, K. and Bradley, L. (2005), “Explanations for the provision-utilisation gap
in work-life policy”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-55.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-10.
Nezlek, J.B. and Zyzniewski, L.E. (1998), “Using hierarchical linear modeling to analyze grouped
data”, Group Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 313-20.
Peeters, M.C.W., Montgomery, A.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “Balancing work
and home: how job and home demands are related to burnout”, International Journal of
Stress Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Powell, G.N. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2006), “Managing incidents of work-family conflict:
a decision-making perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 1179-212.
Roehling, P.V., Jarvis, L.H. and Swope, H.E. (2005), “Variations in negative work-family spillover
among white, black, and hispanic American men and women: does ethnicity matter?”,
Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26 No. 6, p. 840.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Lyness, K.S. (1999), “When work-family benefits are not
enough: the influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational
attachment, and work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 392-415.
Thompson, D.P. and McNamara, J.F. (1997), “Job satisfaction in educational organizations:
a synthesis of research findings”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 7-39.
Tuten, T.L. and August, R.A. (2006), “Work-family conflict: a study of lesbian mothers”, Women
in Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 578-87.
Van Veldhoven, M., De Jonge, J., Broersen, S., Kompier, M. and Meijman, T. (2002), “Specific
relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: a three-level
analytic approach”, Work and Stress, Vol. 16, pp. 207-28.
Van Yperen, N.W. and Snijders, T.A.B. (2000), “A multilevel analysis of the demands-control
model: is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level?”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 162-90.
Voydanoff, P. (1988), “Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family
conflict”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 749-61.
Wagena, E. and Geurts, S.A.E. (2000), “SWING. Ontwikkeling en validering van de ‘Survey
Werk-thuis Interferentie-Nijmegen’” (“SWING. development and validation of the ‘survey
work-home interference-Nijmegen”), Gedrag & Gezondheid, Vol. 28, pp. 138-58.
Wallace, J.E. (1999), “Work-to-nonwork conflict among married male and female lawyers”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 797-816.
Westman, M. (2002), “Crossover of stress and strain in the family and workplace”, Research in
Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 2, pp. 143-81.

Crossover
specificity

267

JMP
24,3

268

Westman, M. (2006), “Negative and positive crossover in the family and among team members”,
in Rossi, A.M., Perrewe, P.L. and Sauter, S.L. (Eds), Stress and Quality of Working Life:
Current Perspectives in Occupational Health, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC,
pp. 68-86.
Westman, M. and Etzion, D. (1995), “Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to
another”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-81.
Westman, M. and Etzion, D. (1999), “The crossover of strain from school principals to teachers
and vice versa”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 269-78.
Further reading
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “The crossover of burnout and work
engagement among working couples”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 5, p. 661.
About the authors
I.J. Hetty van Emmerik, PhD Business Administration at Free University, Amsterdam (1991), is
an Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht
University, The Netherlands. Her research interests broadly include social relationships in the
working context (e.g. mentoring, networking, social support issues) and the association with
various career outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, commitment, burnout, and work engagement).
Complementary interests include gender differences, leadership, diversity within the working
context, and differential preferences of employees. She has published in various journals such as
Career Development International, Work and Stress, Work and Occupations, Group and
Organization Management, and the Journal of Managerial Psychology. I.J. Hetty van Emmerik is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: H.vanEmmerik@uu.nl
Maria C.W. Peeters is Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Organizational
Psychology, Utrecht University in The Netherlands. Her research focuses on occupational health
psychology. More specifically, she is especially occupied with research on the work-family
balance and with research on diversity issues such as cultural diversity at work and the
well-being of older workers. Amongst others, she was guest editor of the special issue of JMP on
“The work and well-being of older workers”.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints