Content uploaded by Joseph G Grzywacz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph G Grzywacz on Sep 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: Work-Family Facilitation
Toward a theory of Work-Family Facilitation
Joseph G. Grzywacz*
School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services
University of Northern Iowa
Paper to be presented at the 2002 Persons, Processes, and Places: Research on Families,
Workplaces and Communities Conference. San Francisco, CA.
Please address all correspondence to Joseph G. Grzywacz, Ph.D., University of Northern
Iowa, 203 Wellness/Recreation Center, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0241. Phone: 319-273-3528.
Fax: 319-273-5958. Email: joe.grzywacz@uni.edu.
*The research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (R03-AA-12744-01A1).
This is a working paper, please
do not cite without permission.
Work-Family Facilitation
1
Toward a theory of Work-Family Facilitation
ABSTRACT
Scholars and practitioners are increasingly accepting the idea that combining work and
family yields benefits as well as conflicts; however, a theory articulating what this phenomenon
is, why it happens, and how it occurs is missing from the broad work-family literature. In this
paper, a preliminary theory of work-family facilitation – that is, the extent to which participation
in one domain promotes enhanced engagement or processes in another – is offered. Drawing on
ecological theory, it is posited that work-family facilitation is driven by individual and system
propensities toward higher levels of organization, and that both individual and contextual
circumstances contribute to the occurrence of work-family facilitation. Several preliminary
propositions are offered to guide future research, and the role of work-family facilitation within a
broader empirical and theoretical context are discussed.
Work-Family Facilitation
2
Toward a theory of Work-Family Facilitation
Today there is growing recognition in professional and lay literature that work and family
can compliment one another, despite being simultaneous sources of stress (Frone, in press;
Barnett & Rivers, 1996). Although several scholars have conceptually defined work-family
facilitation (positive spillover/enhancement; Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Frone, in press; Grzywacz
& Marks, 2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992a; Sieber, 1974), theory regarding the putative causes and
consequences of work-family facilitation and subsequent empirical research explicitly examining
this phenomenon is absent from the broad, multidisciplinary work-family literature (for recent
review see Frone, in press). Thus, the overall purpose of this paper is to begin advancing a
theory of work-family facilitation by articulating what work-family facilitation is and exploring
the systemic properties that allow it to emerge.
While laying the groundwork for a theory of work-family facilitation it is import to avoid
common oversights that have undermined other theoretical statements about the linkages
between work and family. Edwards and Rothbard (2000), in a recent review of the literature,
contend that previous theoretical discussions have not adequately characterized the sign of the
relationship between work and family, and rarely are the compelling forces behind work-family
linkages specified. These authors further argue that inadequate attention has been given to the
distinction between the compelling forces behind various work-family linkages and the causal
structures through which they operate. Thus, this paper begins by providing an overview of
previous theoretical statements to conceptually define work-family facilitation and to specify the
theoretical processes that compel the emergence of work-family facilitation. Then, borrowing
extensively from work-family border theory (Campbell-Clark, 2000), it is posited that a
combination of individual and contextual characteristics typifies the casual structure within
Work-Family Facilitation
3
which work-family facilitation emerges. Several propositions characterizing the nature or sign
of work-family linkages are offered to guide preliminary research.
Foundational Properties of Work-Family Facilitation
Over twenty years ago Sieber (1974) articulated a theory of role enhancement that, for
many, serves as the primary theoretical foundation for how work can benefit family and vice
versa. The fundamental thesis of the role enhancement perspective is that participation in
multiple roles, or role accumulation, provides access to various resources that can be utilized by
the individual across various role responsibilities. The resources gained through role
accumulation and the individual skills developed by taking on additional roles are posited to
encourage positive outcomes at the individual level (e.g., well-being), and they are presumed to
promote group processes (e.g., work-group performance, family functioning). In contrast to the
prevailing zeitgeist of the time advocating complimentary role specificity, the role enhancement
hypothesis fundamentally argued that role breadth rather than specialization, was more natural
and functional for individuals and social systems (Sieber, 1974; for recent discussion see Barnett
& Hyde, 2001).
There are a variety of logical arguments and widespread empirical evidence supporting
the contention that role accumulation is beneficial for individuals as well as the social systems in
which they live and operate (for detailed recent discussion see Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Taking on
the role of an employee provides access to economic and social resources (e.g., income, health
benefits, social contacts) that can facilitate family processes (e.g., household production of
health, social capital) that may have been interrupted without acquisition of the employee role.
Consistent with this example, some scholars argue that young black men frequently do not marry
the mothers of their children because of the unavailability of jobs that pay wages sufficient to
Work-Family Facilitation
4
support the family (Oppenheimer & Lewin, 1999; Wilson & Neckerman, 1987). The idea that
role accumulation promotes enhanced individual wellbeing is supported by longitudinal studies
of labor force transitions suggesting that taking up new role responsibilities is associated with
better physical and mental health than eliminating roles (Waldron, Weiss, & Hughes, 1998;
Wethington & Kessler, 1989). The love and support received from family members can promote
a sense of meaning or purpose that serves as a buffer for job-related stress, thereby allowing
workers to maintain a higher level of productivity (Repetti, 1994; Weiss, 1990). In short,
grounded theory and empirical evidence supports the idea that work can benefit family and
family can benefit work.
Despite evidence indicating that work and family can benefit each other, theory and
research regarding this phenomenon has remained under developed. The role expansion
perspective provides the best-developed set of concepts related to how work and family can
benefit each other; however, the primary focus of the role expansion perspective is on the
individual not necessarily the linkage between work and family. Other concepts such as role
balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996) and work-family “fit” (Barnett, 1998) incorporate the idea
of facilitation without specifying what it is or its theoretical connection to other work-family
linkages. Still other concepts such as work-family enhancement (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,
1999), enrichment (Thompson & Bunderson, 2001), and positive spillover (Grzywacz & Marks,
2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992a) have invoked the idea of work-family facilitation, but an explicit
conceptualization of what this linkage is and how it operates remains absent in the literature
(Frone, in press).
Work-family facilitation can be conceived as a bidirectional phenomenon representing
the extent to which an individual’s active involvement in one domain (work) facilitates enhanced
Work-Family Facilitation
5
engagement or processes in another domain (family; Frone, in press). Several features of this
conceptualization require explicit comment. First, paralleling theory and evidence suggesting
that work-family conflict is bi-directional (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997), it is also
conceivable that participation in paid work can benefit family life (Hughes & Galinsky, 1994)
and that family structure and processes can benefit employment (Gattiker & Larwood, 1990;
Kirchmeyer, 1992a; Orthner & Pittman, 1986). Next, this conceptualization suggests at least two
pathways by which work and family can affect each other. By specifying that work (family)
“facilitates enhanced engagement in another domain,” the conceptualization clearly suggests that
work and family are connected and can benefit each other through the development of the
individual “border crosser” (Campbell-Clark, 2000). However, the idea that work (family) can
also promote more desirable processes at home (work) suggests that work and family can benefit
each other without directly involving the family member/worker. Finally, by omission, work-
family facilitation is conceived to be relatively independent of work-family conflict (Grzywacz
& Marks, 2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992). Just as health is more than the absence of illness, work-
family fit or balance is more than the absence of work-family conflict (Barnett, 1998; Frone, in
press). In fact, recent factor analyses suggests that work to family facilitation and family to work
facilitation were distinct attributes of the work-family interface, and that they were largely
independent of work to family and family to work conflict (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000).
Despite some apparent similarities, work-family facilitation is distinct from other work-
family linkages apart from work-family conflict. Paralleling the concept of “spillover,”
facilitation can represent a non-purposeful or generalized behavior pattern whereby skills
acquired from one domain are used in another. Similarly, paralleling the concept of
compensation, facilitation can also be the purposeful acquisition of experiences and resources
Work-Family Facilitation
6
from one domain that are absent from another (for recent review of work-family linkages see
Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Facilitation however is distinct from spillover because it can be
purposeful or non-purposeful, and facilitation is distinct from compensation because, as will be
discussed next, it serves an adaptive or adjustment process for the individual as part of a system
rather than a substitutive function for the individual.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Work-Family Facilitation
Although there is tacit agreement in the literature around the nominal meaning of work-
family facilitation, a theoretical specification of its putative causes remains elusive and subject to
interdisciplinary debate. Role theory has been the dominant overarching theoretical framework
used to predict and explain exchanges between work-family, and it suggests that specific roles
are characterized by pre-determined socially structured responsibilities that, when met, are
rewarded with role-specific privileges (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). From
this perspective, work-family facilitation would be caused by social expectations of individuals
to satisfy role-related responsibilities coupled with individuals’ desire to accumulate valued
resources.
Role theory provides clear insight into work-family facilitation, but it is also severely
limited. The primary benefit of role theory is that it highlights the reality that there are social
expectations that exist outside of individuals’ preferences and desires that exert some influence
on individuals role-related behavior. The new employment contract and the growth of
contingency labor (U. S. Department of Labor, 1999), trends toward greater equality in the
division of household labor, and the “fatherhood” movement are all examples of distinct social
presses that can enable or constrain work-family exchanges (for recent review division of
household labor and fatherhood literature see Coltrane, 2000; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb,
Work-Family Facilitation
7
2000). The primary limitation of role theory however is that it narrowly confines the possible
range of work-family facilitation. As Pittman (1994) suggests, role theory is helpful for
understanding the relative presence of strain (i.e., not meeting role-related responsibilities), but it
restricts the possibility of additional growth beyond what is socially prescribed as acceptable
role-related behavior. Role theory is therefore helpful for understanding how work (family)
resources might be used to resolve a family (work) related problem, but it provides little
theoretical explanation for the transmission of skills or resources in non-problem situations.
By focusing almost exclusively on the individual and the benefits she/he obtains from
role accumulation, perspectives informed by role theory overly constrain the possible pathways
through which work and family can benefit each other. Clearly, all else being equal, a confident
and well equipped individual is better able to meet the challenges and responsibilities in both
work and family (Barnett & Hyde, 2001), but this is not the only way that work can benefit
family and family can benefit work. Work-family facilitation may also be possible without
directly engaging the worker/family member. For example, worksite outreach programs
frequently use newsletters to raise awareness about “wellness” issues in hopes of stimulating
healthy behavior change (Chapman, 2002). If these newsletters are sent directly to the home,
family members can benefit directly from this information without the worker/family member
ever becoming involved. Work-family facilitation can also occur through responses by family
members or coworkers of the family member/worker to changes in the individual required by
her/his various roles. For example, the time structure imposed by the job of one family member
may elicit family adaptive strategies that develop personal skills in other family members or
promotes overall family function (Moen & Wethington, 1992). Likewise, structuring family time
into an employee’s schedule (e.g., capitalizes on flex time options) may enhance coworkers
Work-Family Facilitation
8
through job-sharing opportunities as well as enhanced overall productivity of the work group,
independent of the gains to individual worker wellbeing. In short, while role theory clearly
articulates one avenue through which work and family benefit each other (i.e., through the
developed individual), it is not well equipped to provide explanations for other feasible pathways
through which work-family facilitation can occur.
Developmental system-based theories, such as ecological theory, provide an alternative
perspective for considering work-family facilitation. Rather than focusing on social obligation
and hedonistic desires to acquire desirable resources, ecological theory suggests that individuals
and social groups (e.g., work units, families) seek higher, more complex forms of interaction and
organization (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Buckley, 1967; Hawley, 1986). Individual or
system development is posited to occur when individuals or systems exploit available resources
to adapt and accommodate to individual or environmental perturbations. Thus, to the extent that
it is seen as an “interaction between individuals’ and the persons, objects, and symbols of their
environments” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572), work-family facilitation can be
conceptualized as a process through which individual and social group development takes place.
Several streams of evidence corroborate the contention that individuals and systems seek
higher levels of organization and development. Backett and Davisons’ (1995) ethnographic
work suggests midlife adults organize their lifestyle practices around the central goal of meeting
and presumably integrating work and family responsibilities. Moen and colleagues (Becker &
Moen, 1999; Moen & Yu, 1999) argue that couples negotiate and exchange work and family
responsibilities throughout the life course to maximize personal and familial goals. The United
States Secretary of Labor contends that keeping up with the global economy will require
employers to address the work-family needs of employees (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999).
Work-Family Facilitation
9
Each of these strands of evidence suggest that the exploitation of resources from one domain to
enhance experiences in another is not motivated primarily by hedonistic desire for resource
accumulation, but rather by individual and system propensities for higher levels of development
and organization.
Although work-family facilitation can be conceived as a mechanism that aids
development, the “form and power of the process is contingent, at least partially, on additional
aspects of both persons and contexts” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572) that require
specification and attention. Although it is not explicitly guided by ecological theory, Cambell-
Clark’s (2000) recent articulation of work-family border theory provides a strong foundation for
discussing relevant contextual and individual characteristics that contribute to work-family
facilitation. Border theory provides an explanation for “how individuals manage and negotiate
the work and family spheres” (p. 750), and contends that contextual characteristics of the work
and family domains and their respective borders, as well as characteristics of the individual
“boarder-crosser” influence the ability to balance work and family.
Contexts in Work-Family Facilitation
Campbell-Clark (2000) differentiated between aspects of domains and their borders, as
well as individuals within each domain; however, each of these concepts characterizes the
context in which work-family exchanges unfold. In discussing unique means in which work and
family “valued ends” are attained, Campbell-Clark indirectly outlines the first contextual factor
relevant to the form and power of work-family facilitation: availability of resources. Although
all jobs provide resources, it is clear that jobs are not created equal in terms of the economic,
psychological, and social resources provided to workers (Grzywacz & Dooley, in press; Warr,
1994). For example, contingent employment through temporary firms frequently does not allow
Work-Family Facilitation
10
workers access to employer sponsored resources and benefits for managing work and family
(Christensen, 1998). Likewise, it is well established that single parent households frequently
have fewer financial and social resources for meeting the obligations of daily life (McLanahan &
Booth, 1989). Just as a handle provides an affordance (Gibson, 1982) for grasping and picking
up a cup, the relative level of resources and skills made available through employment and
family life provides affordances for work-family facilitation.
Apart from the relative level of resources and developed skills available through work or
family, the attributes or portability of these resources and skills are perhaps even more important
for work-family facilitation. Some resources (e.g., flexibility, support) and skills (e.g., problem
solving, management) are highly portable and functional in a myriad of ways while others are
more task-specific and cannot be applied to other situations. For example, time management
skills developed through the imposed time structures of paid employment (Jahoda, 1982) are
highly adaptable and may be used to organize and coordinate family responsibilities and to
maximize individual or family leisure time. Or, Kirchmeyer (1992b) has reported that workers
are more patient with their co-workers and clients because of their interactions with their young
children. By contrast, skills gained from task specific responsibilities such as filing, running
meetings, cooking, or cleaning may not be useful in other situations. Thus the relative
availability of exploitable or portable resources influences work-family facilitation such that:
Proposition 1a. A higher level of exploitable employment related resources and skills
will make possible more work to family facilitation.
Proposition 1b. Higher levels of exploitable family resources and skills will bring about
more family to work facilitation.
Work-Family Facilitation
11
The availability of resources affords the opportunity for work-family facilitation to occur;
however, the only way these resources can be exploited is if they find a port of entry into the
work or family system, thereby raising questions regarding characteristics of the boundaries
surrounding work and family. Boundary characteristics, particularly permeability and flexibility,
have been discussed in detail elsewhere and these authors suggest that impermeable boundaries
help reduce work-family conflict or strain (Hall & Richter, 1988) particularly when work and
family responsibilities are very different from each other (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000;
Campbell-Clark, 2000). Arguably, impermeable boundaries may reduce work-family conflict
and facilitate smoother role transitions; however, there are two theoretical shortcomings to
admonishments that impermeable boundaries are advantageous. First, although impermeability
is theoretically possible it is empirically impossible because the ability of a social system to
survive depends, at least in part, on its ability to acquire environmental resources and to
eliminate system toxins or waste products (Broderick, 1993; Buckley, 1967). Thus, the question
is not about whether or not a boundary is permeable, but rather it is a question of degree of
permeability. Second, previous scholars have tended to view intrusions of one domain on
another in as almost exclusively negative. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) interviews with highly
creative individuals suggest that moments of greatest professional insight frequently occurred
when the individual was either physically or psychologically detached from their work
environments. His work further suggests that these insightful moments were not without
distress, suggesting impermeable borders may be helpful for deterring work-family conflict and
accompanying distress but they will also reduce the possibility for insight and possible growth.
Selectively permeable boundaries are required for work-family facilitation to occur. As
Broderick (1993) contends, “if the boundary were not permeable, the system could neither access
Work-Family Facilitation
12
the resources it requires for survival from its environment nor rid itself of its own toxic waste
products. If the boundary were not selective, it could not avoid taking in toxic elements from the
environment, and the system could neither protect itself from attack nor hold on to those internal
elements that it needs to maintain its own organization.” (p. 123). The idea of selective
permeability has been invoked in various taxonomies of family types where families
characterized as “open” (Constantine & Israel, 1985; Kantor & Lehr, 1975) or “environmentally
sensitive” (Reiss, 1981) differ from “random” or “achievement sensitive” in terms of relatively
higher levels of control over incoming information and greater integration of internal and
external sources of information (Constantine & Israel, 1985). Thus, a second contextual
circumstance relevant to work-family facilitation relates to the selective permeability of the work
and family boundaries.
Proposition 2a. Open or environmentally sensitive families provide opportunities to
exploit employment-related resources thereby allowing for higher levels of work to
family facilitation.
Proposition 2b. Work places that are open to new ideas and that promote diverse
experiences among employees provide opportunities for family-related resources to be
exploited thereby allowing for higher levels of family to work facilitation.
In summary, there are at least two contextual characteristics of workplaces or families
that allow work-family facilitation to occur. Essentially, work-family facilitation is posited to
occur more frequently when exploitable resources or skills are readily available and the receiving
domain is selectively open to the resources or skills at its disposal. Preliminary empirical
evidence supports these general propositions. For example, to the extent that decision latitude
reflects the amount of skill development and direction afforded to employees (Karasek &
Work-Family Facilitation
13
Theorell, 1990), the strong correlation between high levels of decision latitude on the job and
more work to family facilitation (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) provides post-hoc support for the
contention that the relative availability of exploitable resources affords the opportunity for work-
family facilitation to occur. Similarly, to the extent to which a high level of decision latitude
also captures the openness of a job to new ideas and insight, the strong correlation between
decision latitude on the job and family to work facilitation suggests that openness to outside
ideas provides an opportunity for family to work facilitation.
The Individual in Work-Family Facilitation
While contextual circumstances can enable work-family facilitation, individual action is
also necessary to initiate and sustain the process. Bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) provides a solid foundation for discussing individuals’
involvement in work-family facilitation because it specifies three different aspects of persons
that influence the form and power of person-environment interactions such as work-family
facilitation. Each individual characteristic will be discussed next and examples will be provided
to demonstrate possible relevance to work-family facilitation; however, it is important to note
that each of the individual characteristics outlined are equally applicable to the individual family
member/worker as well as to individual co-workers or family members within the individual’s
work or family system.
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) argued that individual dispositions, resources, and
demand characteristics shape person-environment interactions in different ways. Work-family
facilitation would be initiated and sustained by developmentally generative disposition
characteristics, and thwarted and undermined by developmentally disruptive dispositions.
Enduring aspects of personality provide readily apparent examples of each of these types of
Work-Family Facilitation
14
dispositions because they prospectively predict work and family arrangements, and they
influence daily interactions patterns relevant to work-family facilitation (Costa & McCrae, 1980;
David, Green, Martin, & Suls, 1997; Smith, Pope, Sanders, Allred, & O'Keefe, 1988).
Extraversion contributes to being in work or family situations that provide opportunities for skill
growth and enhancement (Costa & McCrae, 1980), and by contributing to an open, permeable
work or family boundary through higher levels of situational positive affect (David et al., 1997).
Neuroticism provides an example of a developmentally disruptive disposition because it can
inhibit work-family facilitation by impeding the acquisition of skills or resources that may be
applicable in other domains, or in their contribution to creating closed or hostile environments
that are not receptive to new thoughts or ideas (Smith et al., 1988).
Proposition 3a: Developmentally generative disposition characteristics increase work-
family facilitation by giving rise to work and family arrangements with relatively greater
exploitable resources and skills, and selectively permeable work and family boundaries.
Proposition 3b: Developmentally disruptive disposition characteristics decrease work-
family facilitation by limiting the number of available exploitable resources and skills,
and by creating contexts that are less receptive to outside ideas.
Whereas dispositional characteristics initiate or sustain person-environment interactions,
resource characteristics reflect attributes of individuals that enhance effective functioning of the
interaction (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Given similar work and family arrangements (i.e.,
availability of exploitable resources and selectively permeable boundaries), individuals who are
innovative might be able to more fully utilize work-related skills in non-work situations than
individuals who are less innovative. Or, a person who has a higher level of knowledge in a given
domain may be better equipped to see and exploit linkages from disparate areas
Work-Family Facilitation
15
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). In summary, resources then are essentially enabling factors that allow
some individuals to exploit available resources and boundaries to a greater degree than other
individuals.
Proposition 4: Resource characteristics moderate the effect of available exploitable
resources and selective boundary permeability on work-family facilitation such that at
comparable levels of resources or permeability, people with more resources will report
more work-family facilitation.
Finally, demand characteristics reflect attributes of individuals that elicit responses from
the social environment that either promote or undermine person-environment interactions
(Bonfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) that contribute to work-family facilitation. Gender provides the
most notable example of a demand characteristic given reports indicating that men receive less
reinforcing feedback from the workplace than women for taking advantage of “family friendly”
policies such as parental leave (Pleck, 1993), and that women are more likely to scale back on
their hours and careers than men to balance work and family (Becker & Moen, 1999). Likewise,
employers may not extend opportunities relevant to work-family facilitation to some workers
based upon various social status indicators (Christensen, 1998; Grzywacz, Almeida, &
McDonald, 2002), or these individuals may be less able to act upon these resources because of
other environmental presses. Thus demand characteristics elicit from the social environment
differential opportunities for, and conditional (i.e., moderated) effectiveness of, circumstances
leading to work-family facilitation. By contrast, disposition and resource characteristics initiate
differential opportunities and conditional effectiveness of circumstances leading to work-family
facilitation.
Proposition 5: Socially constructed responses to individuals can create contexts that
Work-Family Facilitation
16
promote or undermine opportunities for work-family facilitation to occur, and they can
also undermine the effectiveness of individuals’ attempts to exploit available resources.
[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]
Figure 1 summarizes the current working model of work-family facilitation. First,
paralleling the widely accepted position that work to family and family to work conflict are
distinct, the model suggests that work to family and family to work facilitation are distinct.
Consistent with ecological theory, the model also suggests that work-family facilitation is a
function of both contextual circumstances in the work and family domains, as well as individual
characteristics. Reflective of the propositions outlined above, the model suggests that more
exploitable resources in the “foreign” domain and a selectively open boundary in the “receiving”
domain create opportunities for higher levels of work to family or family to work facilitation.
Dispositional characteristics of individuals as well as some social responses to individual
characteristics (i.e., demand characteristics) are posited to set circumstances into motion (or
thwart them) that are conducive to work-family facilitation, while individual resources and
demand characteristics condition the relative impact or effectiveness of these circumstances on
work-family facilitation. Finally, paralleling the systemic nature of the underlying theory, the
model also suggests there are opportunities for feedback loops. Previous successful experiences
applying family supports or skills to work-related issues may serve as an individual resource for
more effectively applying family supports or skills to other circumstances in the future. Or
similarly, if a family receives some benefit from the workplace, say through an Employee
Assistance Program, the family may be more open to future outreach efforts sponsored by the
workplace.
Work-Family Facilitation
17
Consequences and Implications of Work-Family Facilitation
Although work-family facilitation is a compelling phenomenon in itself, it is also
important to situate the concept in its larger context by outlining some possible implications of
work-family facilitation and connecting it with broader work-family concepts. Just as work-
family conflict has been conceptualized as a stressor and linked to a variety of individual (e.g.,
physical or psychological wellbeing), family (e.g., marital quality), and occupational (e.g.,
occupational commitment) outcomes (see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000), work-family
family facilitation can be conceptualized as a resources, and it can be studied as an independent
variable predicting similar outcomes as previous work-family conflict studies. The general
hypothesis would be that a higher level of work-family facilitation would be associated with
better physical health and wellbeing (Grzywacz, 2000), better marriages and parent-child
interactions, and greater occupational commitment, job satisfaction, and productivity.
Work-family facilitation also has obvious and direct linkages to current discussions of
work-family fit and role balance (Barnett, 1998; Frone, in press; Marks & MacDermid, 1996).
To the extent that work-family fit or balance is conceptualized as “the combination of multiple
dimensions of conflict and compatibility” (Barnett, 1998, p. 167), a theory for work-family
facilitation is necessary for broader discussions of how conflict and compatibility “go together”,
and what the most optimal combinations of these dimensions are for stimulating desirable
individual, family, and organizational outcomes. For example, previous operationalizations and
recent conceptualizations of work-family balance (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Marks &
MacDermid, 1996) suggest that work-family conflict and work-family facilitation simply offset
each other in a one-to-one fashion? Do work-family conflict and work-family facilitation exert
counter, additive independent effects on relevant outcomes? Or, similar to stress-buffering
Work-Family Facilitation
18
hypothesis suggesting that social support is only functional for health during high periods of
stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985), does work-family facilitation only buffer the effects of high work-
family conflict? Questions such as these need to be addressed to articulate and advance theories
of work-family fit or balance (Frone, in press), and to guide programmatic and policy
interventions designed to promote work-family fit.
Even if the theoretical antecedents and linkages of work-family facilitation outlined here
are not accepted, the work-family facilitation concept has gained wide acceptance (under various
titles), and substantial empirical work is necessary to help understand the concept. Additional
foundational research establishing that work-family facilitation in fact occurs, and that it is
distinct from other work-family linkages is an important first step in understanding the
phenomenon. Of course, valid and reliable measures of work-family facilitation will need to be
developed. There are some self-report measures that have been used and reported on (Grzywacz
& Marks, 2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992a; Moen, Harris-Abbott, Lee, & Roehling, 1999) but they do
not have a strong theoretical grounding, they have not been widely used or evaluated, and the
scales may have restricted items that do not adequately capture the complexity of work-family
facilitation. Moreover, because self-reports to items related to work-family facilitation may be
particularly sensitive to individual characteristics such as optimism or perceived control, it is also
important to develop and validate other observational measures of the concept (e.g., family or
supervisor reports). Next, prospective research is necessary examining the individual and
contextual antecedents of work-family facilitation, and these studies would be particularly
helpful if they collected data at three or more points to model some of the proposed feedback
mechanisms and to document variation in the phenomenon. Finally, applied research needs to be
Work-Family Facilitation
19
undertaken to test if work-family facilitation is responsive to programmatic or policy
intervention.
Conclusion
Combining work and family can yield individual, family, and workplace benefits.
Unfortunately, these benefits have been largely overlooked in research and policy related to
work-family or work-life issues, and when the benefits are recognized the theoretical meaning
and the linkages through which they occur has remained underdeveloped. The overall goal of
this paper was to being articulating these meanings and linkages, and to offer preliminary
propositions to guide future scholarship. Given the current absence of theory and research
surrounding work-family, there is a lot of ground to cover. However it must be covered to
extend our understanding of how work and family fit together and how this fit is created and
managed. Comprehensive and effective work-family or work-life policy directly or indirectly
involves maximizing the benefits gained from combining work and family, thus a theory of
work-family facilitation is an essential first step toward this end.
Work-Family Facilitation
20
References
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-491.
Backett, K. C., & Davison, C. (1995). Lifecourse and lifestyle: The social and cultural location
of health behaviours. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 629-638.
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature.
Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125-182.
Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women's involvement in multiple roles and
psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135-145.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. An expansionist theory.
American Psychologist, 56, 781-796.
Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (1996). She works-he works: How two-income families are happy,
healthy, and thriving. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back: Dual-earner couples' work-family strategies.
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 995-1007.
Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. New
Bury Park, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568-586.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.
Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 993-1028). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Chapman, L. S. (2002). Awarness strategies. In M. P. O'Donnell (Ed.), Health promotion in the
workplace, (3rd ed., pp. 166-181). Albany, NY: Delmar.
Christensen, K. (1998). Countervailing human resource trends in family-sensitive firms. In K.
Barker, & K. Christensen (Eds), Contingent work: American employment relations in
transition (pp. 103-125). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Campbell-Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
Human Relations, 53, 747-770.
Work-Family Facilitation
21
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social
embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208-
1233.
Constantine, L. L., & Israel, J. T. (1985). The family void: Treatment and theoretical aspects of
the synchronous family paradigm. Family Process, 24, 525-547.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to
some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes, & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span
development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: HarperCollins.
David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism,
extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of top-
down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 149-
159.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25,
178-199.
Frone, M. R. (in press). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167.
Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1990). Predictors for career achievement in the corporate
hierarchy. Human Relations, 43, 703-726.
Gibson, E. J. (1982). The concept of affordances in development: The renascence of
functionalism. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), The concept of development (The Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 55-81). Hillsdale, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current
status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work (pp.
391-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict
everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 236-243.
Work-Family Facilitation
22
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work-family spillover and daily
reports of work and family stress in the adult labor-force. Family Relations, 51, 28-36.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Dooley, C. D. (in press). “Good Jobs” to “Bad Jobs”: Replicated Evidence
of an Employment Continuum from Two Large Surveys. Social Science and Medicine.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work
and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.
Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work life and home life: What can organizations do
to help? Academy of Management Execute, 11, 213-223.
Hawley, A. H. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hughes, D. L., & Galinsky, E. (1994). Work experiences and marital interactions: Elaborating
the complexity of work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 423-438.
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of scarcity vs.
expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775-795.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common
view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13,
231-249.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417-432.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the
1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173-1191.
McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 557-580.
Work-Family Facilitation
23
Moen, P., Harris-Abbott, D., Lee, S., & Roehling, P. (1999). The Cornell Couples and Careers
Study. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Moen, P., & Wethington, E. (1992). The concept of family adaptive strategies. Annual Review of
Sociology, 18, 223-251.
Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (1999). Having it all: Overall work/life success in two-earner families.
Research in the Sociology of Work, 7, 109-139.
Oppenheimer, V. K., & Lewin, A. (1999). Career development and marriage formation in a
period of rising inequality: Who is at risk? What are their prospects? In A. Booth, A. C.
Crouter, & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Transitions to adulthood in a changing economy: No
work, no family, not future? (pp. 189-225). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work commitment. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 573-581.
Pittman, J. F. (1994). Work/family fit as a mediator of work factors on marital tension: Evidence
from the interface of greedy institutions. Human Relations, 47, 193-209.
Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are "family-supportive" employer policies relevant to men? In J. C. Hood
(Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 217-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Repetti, R. L. (1994). Short-term and long-term processes linking job stressors to father-child
interaction. Social Development, 3, 1-15.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39,
567-578.
Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., Allred, K. D., & O'Keefe, J. L. (1988). Cynical
hostility at home and work: Psychosocial vulnerability across domains. Journal of
Research in Personality, 22, 525-548.
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2001). Work-nonwork conflict and the phenomenology of
time: Beyond the balance metaphor. Work and Occupations, 28, 17-39.
U. S. Department of Labor. (1999). Futurework: Trends and challenges for work in the 21st
century. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Waldron, I., Weiss, C. C., & Hughes, M. E. (1998). Interacting effects of multiple roles on
women's health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 216-236.
Warr, P. B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work &
Stress, 8, 84-97.
Work-Family Facilitation
24
Weiss, R. S. (1990). Bringing work stress home. In J. Eckenrode, & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress
between work and family (pp. 17-37). New York: Plenum Press.
Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1989). Employment, parental responsibility, and psychological
distress: A longitudinal study of married women. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 527-546.
Wilson, W. J., & Neckerman, K. (1987). Poverty and family structure: The widening gap
between evidence and public policy issues. In W. Wilson (Ed.), The truly disadvantaged
(pp. 63-92). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Work-Family Facilitation
25
Work to Family
Family to Work
Permeability or
openness of Family
Permeability or
openness of Job
Work-Family Facilitation
Availability and
Portability of Work-
related resources and
skills
Availability and
Portability of family-
related resources and
skills
Individual
Disposition and
Demand
Characteristics
Individual Resources
and Demand
Characteristics
An Ecological Model of Work-Family Facilitation
Work-Family Facilitation
26