ArticlePDF Available

Toward a theory of Work-Family Facilitation

Authors:

Abstract

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
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do not cite without permission.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.
... The recognition of the fact that work and family responsibilities need not necessarily be incompatible and such a relationship can have positive results as well, resulted in conception theories like positive spillover (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), work-life facilitation (Grzywacz, 2002) and work-life enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). These theories basically focus on how positive encounters in one domain of life (e.g., work) can lead to productive experiences in the other domain (e.g., personal life) (Baltes et al., 2009). ...
... The un-rotated solution found no indication of one apparent factor Positive spillover has been used relatively interchangeably with other phrases in recent studies to indicate the benefits of participating in both work and family, such as facilitation, enhancement, and enrichment. The MIDUS scale, for example, has been described as a measure of both positive spillover (Grzywacz, 2000;Grzywacz et al., 2002;Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and facilitation (Grzywacz, 2002;Grzywacz & Butler, 2003;Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Positive spillover, according to the researcher, is one way via which both facilitation and enrichment may occur. ...
... The un-rotated solution found no indication of one apparent factor Positive spillover has been used relatively interchangeably with other phrases in recent studies to indicate the benefits of participating in both work and family, such as facilitation, enhancement, and enrichment. The MIDUS scale, for example, has been described as a measure of both positive spillover (Grzywacz, 2000;Grzywacz et al., 2002;Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and facilitation (Grzywacz, 2002;Grzywacz & Butler, 2003;Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Positive spillover, according to the researcher, is one way via which both facilitation and enrichment may occur. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study determines the nature and extent of positive spillover between work and family in case of female nurses in Jammu & Kashmir, India. The relationship is construed along three dimensions, namely, affective positive spillover, behavior-based instrumental positive spillover, and value-based instrumental positive spillover in both the directions of work to family and family to work. The work-life positive spillover (WFPS) is examined with respect to life satisfaction and psychological well-being (PWB) of female nurses. A survey was conducted using a questionnaire among female nurses in seven government-run hospitals in Jammu & Kashmir in North India. A total of 311 data points were gathered through random sampling. SPSS is used for analyzing data. Hypotheses were tested through SEM using AMOS 24 and in addition to Pearson correlation, Cronbach's alpha test, and descriptive statistics were used to draw out the inferences. The findings show that WFPS has a considerable impact on the PWB and life satisfaction of female nurses. This impact varied according to the aspects of spillover, with value-based instrumental positive spillover being most important in the case of psychological well-being and affective positive spillover being most significant in the case of life satisfaction. Thus far the relationship between work and life has been construed as being in conflict which thus has influenced the labor policy formulation in case of nurses and healthcare. A more holistic policy framework must also consider the positive relationship between work and life that this work has posited.
... Līdz pat mūsdienām darba un privātās dzīves koncepts vairāk tika izskatīts no negatīvā aspekta, jeb no darba un privātās dzīves konflikta skatupunkta. Lai gan tā arī ir būtiska līdzsvara komponente, tomēr tai nebūtu jāaizēno ieguvumi, ko iegūst darba devēji un indivīdi no iesaistīšanās abās jomās (Stephens, Grzywacz, 2014). Darba un privāts dzīves sadarbība un darba un privātās dzīves konflikts -divas komponentes tiek uzskatītas par primārām darba un privātās dzīves līdzsvara sastāvdaļām mūsdienu literatūrā (Brough u.c., 2020) . ...
... Darba un ģimenes (privātās dzīves) sadarbība fokusējas uz savstarpēji izdevīgām attiecībām starp darbu un privātās dzīves jomu (Stephens, Grzywacz, 2014). Dotais koncepts tiek definēts kā divvirzienu: indivīda nodarbinātības pieredze var radīt ieguvumus ģimenes sfērā ( "darba ar ģimeni" sadarbība) un indivīda ģimenes pieredze, kas var dot ieguvumus darba sfērā ( "ģimenes ar darbu" sadarbība) (Stephens, Grzywacz, 2014). ...
... Darba un ģimenes (privātās dzīves) sadarbība fokusējas uz savstarpēji izdevīgām attiecībām starp darbu un privātās dzīves jomu (Stephens, Grzywacz, 2014). Dotais koncepts tiek definēts kā divvirzienu: indivīda nodarbinātības pieredze var radīt ieguvumus ģimenes sfērā ( "darba ar ģimeni" sadarbība) un indivīda ģimenes pieredze, kas var dot ieguvumus darba sfērā ( "ģimenes ar darbu" sadarbība) (Stephens, Grzywacz, 2014). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Darba un privātās dzīves līdzsvara jautājums ir kļuvis jo īpaši aktuāls attālinātā darba apstākļos. Pētījuma mērķis ir izpētīt darbinieku darba un privātās dzīves līdzsvaru attālinātā darba apstākļos un noteikt to prioritārās dzīves sfēras. Pētījumā tika izmantota autores veidota anketa, kuru aizpildīja 31 respondents. Dotajā pētījumā tika konstatēts neapmierinošs darba un privātās dzīves līdzsvars, kā arī savstarpēji kontrastējoši rezultāti, kas veido pretrunas respondentu atbildēs. Tāpat tika konstatētas prioritārās dzīves sfēras- ģimene, darbs, romantiskas attiecības un veselība.
... The notion that work and family roles can benefit one another has been referred to as enrichment Rothbard, 2001), facilitation (Frone, 2003;Grzywacz, 2002), positive spillover (Crouter, 1984b;Hammer et al., 2002;Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003), and enhancement (Ruderman et al., 2002). Despite the differences in terminology, the concepts refer to very similar phenomenon. ...
... Greenhaus and Powell (2006) defined work-family enrichment as the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role, where quality of life includes high performance and positive affect. Grzywacz (2002) views work-family facilitation as the extent to which an individual's active involvement in one domain facilitates enhanced engagement or processes in another domain. ...
... Greenhaus and Powell specified two mechanisms or paths to enrichment: (1) an instrumental path in which a resource is transferred directly from one role to another role, thereby enhancing performance and positive affect in the second role and (2) an affective path in which positive affect in one role promotes high performance and positive affect in another role (Hanson et al., 2003). Similarly, Grzywacz's (2002) theory of work-family facilitation incorporates "exploitable" or portable resources that can be transferred from one role to another role. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The intersection of work and family lives Substantial research on the work-family interface has emerged over the past 25 years. An increasing participation of dual-earner partners and single parents in the work force, a blurring of gender roles, and a shift in employee values toward greater life balance have encouraged researchers to examine the many interdependencies between work and family roles (Barling & Sorensen, 1997; Barnett, 1998, 1999; Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Lambert, 1990; Repetti, 1987). The intersection of work and family lives has important implications for understanding the nature of careers. Not only do career experiences affect individuals' family lives but family life can also have a significant impact on work experiences and career outcomes (Crouter, 1984a, 1984b; Greenhaus & Singh, 2004; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Moreover, individuals pursuing boundaryless (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999) and protean (Hall, 2002) ...
... A conciliação da esfera pessoal/familiar com a esfera laboral é um tema amplamente estudado pelas ciências sociais. Este debate ancorado na asserção genérica de Work Life Balance tem vindo, ao longo do tempo, a deslocar-se do conflito latente entre estas duas esferas da vida (Greenhaus e Beutel, 1985) para uma perspetiva de pendor mais positivo, entendida como facilitação, isto é, para abordagens menos deletérias centradas nos efeitos positivos bidirecionais entre trabalho e vida pessoal/familiar, em termos de bem-estar e enriquecimento individual (Frone, 2003;Greenhaus e Powell, 2006;Stephens e Grzywacz, 2014). ...
... Outro aspeto reflete-se na descrição do impacto emocional da natureza do trabalho, sobretudo entre polícias e enfermeiros. O impacto emocional das situações com que têm de lidar no dia a dia também afeta a sua Apesar de os aspetos mencionados apontarem para uma ênfase mais negativa na conciliação das esferas profissional e privada nestes grupos profissionais, esta não é a única realidade, tal como também sugere a literatura associada à facilitação trabalho-família (Frone, 2003;Greenhaus e Powell, 2006;Stephens e Grzywacz 2014). Isto é, apesar dos múltiplos constrangimentos, nem todos os inquiridos ou entrevistados fazem uma avaliação negativa da sua realidade. ...
Article
Full-text available
O presente artigo aborda a temática da conciliação da esfera pessoal/familiar com a esfera laboral, a partir de dados de um estudo sociológico realizado em Portugal, junto de três grupos profissionais com particular pressão para o desempenho — enfermeiros, polícias e jornalistas —, assente numa metodologia de métodos mistos. Os resultados elucidam de que forma algumas características da natureza do trabalho (nomeadamente, o tipo de horário de trabalho, os ritmos de trabalho e o índice de exigência da atividade) têm impacto na gestão do tempo, no sono e na conciliação com a vida pessoal/familiar. Conclui-se pela preponderância da índole totalizante do trabalho.
... (2006) enrichment model posits that resources derived from the work role can be utilized to enhance one's non‐work life directly via an instrumental pathway and/or indirectly via an affective pathway. Thus, resource generation is a crucial driver of the enrichment process (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz, 2002). Drawing from meaningful work theory (Steger & Dik, 2010), we propose that meaningful work is a resource capable of promoting work‐to‐life enrichment. ...
... Our Based on findings that job resources contribute to both meaningfulness and work engagement (e.g., Clausen & Borg, 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), as well as the notion that resources are a key driver of the enrichment process (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz, 2002), it is clearly necessary to provide employees with adequate job resources. In addition, Schnell, Höge, and ...
Article
This study examined whether meaningful work may improve one's quality of life outside of the workplace (i.e., work-to-life enrichment). More importantly, we proposed and tested competing hypotheses regarding the role of work engagement in the relationship between meaningful work and work-to-life enrichment. Specifically, we investigated whether work engagement served as a mediator of this relationship, as suggested by the job demands-resources model, or instead a moderator, as suggested by conservation of resources theory. Two-wave survey data were collected from 194 respondents recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Analyses showed that meaningful work was positively related to work-to-life enrichment over time (i.e., 3 months later). Additionally, work engagement mediated but did not moderate the relationship between meaningful work at Time 1 and work-to-life enrichment at Time 2. We suggest that organizations foster a sense of meaningfulness in employees to facilitate engagement and in turn enrich employees' lives beyond the workplace. Therefore, not only organizations, but individuals as well may reap the benefits of meaningful work.
... This speculation is rooted in the evaluation led by Barnett (1998), who looked at the possibility of assisting in describing a view-existence fit. Accordingly, Grzywacz (2002) suggests that help occurs when people and social frameworks employ a given approach to perform Frontiers in Sociology frontiersin.org . /fsoc. . ...
Article
Full-text available
As the coronavirus pandemic affects virtually every sector of the economy, this ongoing review examines the effects of remote working on women's job performance-including hypotheses about serious activities and how they may balance work and family. In recent years, psychometric testing has become increasingly popular with organizations worldwide, and they are looking at this method to better understand how women achieve balance in their lives. The aim of this work is to investigate how different aspects of psychometrics and factors relating to work-life balance influence women's satisfaction levels. An exploratory factor assessment (EFA) and a confirmatory factor assessment (CFA) using a seven-point Likert scale were performed on data collected from 385 selected female IT workers whose satisfaction levels toward psychometric assessments in their organization were examined. The current study uses EFAs and CFAs to develop and identify the key factors in women's work-life balance. The results also showed that three significant variables accounted for 74% of the variance: 26% from work and family, 24% from personal factors, and 24% from loving their job.
... Taking a cue from positive psychology, current research has embraced a perspective that focuses on the synergistic, mutually beneficial effects of participating in both work and family (Allen & Martin, 2017). This emerging area of research has been labelled workfamily synergy (Beutell & Behson, 2018;Beutell & Schneer, 2014b), work-family enrichment (Gopalan, Grzywacz, & Cui, 2018;Greenhaus & Powell, 2006;Lapierre et al., 2017;Zhang, Xu, Jin, & Ford, 2018), work-family facilitation (Stephens & Grzywacz, 2014), and positive spillover (Elf, Gatersleben, & Christie, 2019), among others. This paper focuses on work-family synergy (WFS) defined as positive energy and mood states associated with engaging in work and family. ...
Article
This study proposes and tests a model of work-family synergy that addresses some of the shortcomings observed in the literature. We examine pathways that enhance work-family synergy (positive energy and mood states) and overall wellbeing for employees who report to a supervisor. Individual level data for 1534 working Americans who responded to the National Study for the Changing Workforce were examined using structural equation modelling and mediation techniques. Overall support for the proposed work-family synergy model was found. Only one significant gender difference was found but further study is needed. Supervisor and coworker support mediated relationships between work-resources and work-family synergy which, in turn, was related to wellbeing. Depression mediated the work-family synergy with job satisfaction relationship. The findings inform individuals and organizations on the importance enhancing and sustaining work-family synergy because of its relationship to job satisfaction and wellbeing.
... Aligned with COR Theory perspectives, resource expansion theories (e.g., Greenhaus and Powell 2006;Grzywacz 2002;Marks 1977;Sieber 1974) stipulate that experiences and resources acquired in one domain can be used to benefit another. Drawing on this premise and previous work-family literature (e.g., Butler et al. 2005;Grzywacz and Butler 2005;Grzywacz and Marks 2000;Vodydanoff 2004), Butler (2007) predicted for the work-school arena that job control would have a positive relationship with WSF. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study provides a comprehensive examinationof how the work–school interface relates to work outcomes such as task performance and job satisfaction. Additionally, this study builds upon past research by examining a range of work- and school-related resources and demands that collectively influence the work–school interface. Design/Methodology/Approach: Data were obtained from 170 working undergraduate students at multiple time points over the course of a semester, as well as from participants’ supervisors at the organizations in which the students work. Findings: The strongest antecedent of job satisfaction, interpersonal facilitation, and job performance was work–school facilitation. Demands in one role create pressures in the other. Contrary to expectations, job demands positively related to work–school facilitation, while school demands positively related to school–work facilitation. Implications: For practitioners, this study highlights the need to better understand the interplay between school and work roles for employees at a time when continuing education is emphasized. Employers benefit from the performance gains and positive attitudinal shifts that stem from experiences of facilitation between roles. From a theoretical perspective, this study reveals a unique pattern of results that adds to our understanding of the dynamics involved in the integrated work–school routines of working students. Originality/Value: This is one of the first studies to investigate the relationships between four bi-directional forms of the work–school interface and subsequent multi-source assessments of organizational outcomes. As such, it offers an examination of how conflict and facilitation from both the work and school domains relate to work outcomes.
... 8. Facilitation refers to the extent to which participation in one domain fosters enhanced engagement or processes in another domain. Facilitation includes skills, experiences, resources, and knowledge interacting with individual and contextual circumstances that are portable and contribute to increased levels of organization and development (Grzywacz, 2002). ...
Article
The problem and the solution. Working adults report they experience greater challenges today in their ability to be productive employees, experience personal and interpersonal health and well-being, and make meaningful contributions as citizens to their respective communities. By better understanding work—life theory and research, human resource development professionals can contribute to the strategic development of policies, practices, programs, and interventions that appear to alleviate or ameliorate demands fostering greater work—life integration. Integration is a solution representing a holistic strategy including effective and efficient coordination of efforts and energies among all stakeholders sharing interest and benefits from workers being able to fulfill their personal, work, family, and community obligations.
Article
This article reviews extant work-life literature to identify person-centered variables reflective of the agentic approach in crafting a balance between work and personal life. 49 articles are selected following the systematic literature review paradigm. Qualitative analysis of the studies elicited individual strategies, competencies, resources, and other attributes employed in managing work and life. These are clustered into 9 higher-order themes, each discussed in detail. Each of these trainable attributes opens avenues for further theoretical development and empirical investigation by scholars. We call for operationalization of the framework for effective implementation at work and implore exploring ramifications of civility on work-life outcomes. This individual-focused branch of work-life interface research holds immense potential for theoretical development and managerial implications in devising employee-centered initiatives. We explicitly invite a scholarly debate for moving beyond ‘balance’ and embracing ‘fulfillment’ as a concept and other propositions to develop theoretical research on.
Article
Full-text available
Research on work/family issues is currently being done by investigators from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, occupational health, sociology, and, less centrally, organizational behavior. Such energy and diversity might be expected to yield significant advances; however, for the most part, this promise has not been realized. Progress has been hampered by the lack of an inclusive model for understanding the processes by which work and family variables influence one another, a model that is theoretically grounded and integrates the major paradigms from these several disciplines. In an effort to develop a more inclusive and theoretically-grounded research model, I have organized this review around three critical theoretical issues that strongly shape the research literature and that need to be addressed in any proposed model.
Article
Full-text available
The literature on multiple roles and identities tends either to ignore strategies of role-system organization altogether or to assume that all people organize a salience hierarchy, through which they assign more importance to some roles and selves than to others. Drawing on our reading of William James and George Herbert Mead, we argue that the way people organize their roles and identities is an empirical issue, not an established fact, and that it is a live option for people to create a nonhierarchical pattern of self-organization. We offer findings from two studies of role balance. Using planned comparisons, we confirm hypotheses that people who maintain more balance across their entire systems of roles and activities will score lower on measures of role strain and depression and higher on measures of self-esteem, role ease, and other indicators of well-being. We end with some cautions and suggestions concerning the further exploration of role balance.
Article
This study tests the notion that the relation between work hours and marital quality is mediated by the perceived fit between work and family. A structural model was developed to examine this hypothesis in a sample of 407 male U.S. Army members and their wives, where both spouses' perceptions of the husband's work are considered. A sample of military families was used for this study because, at the interface between ''greedy institutions'' (Coser, 1974), the clash of demands between the role domains of work and family may be accentuated. Strong support for the mediation hypothesis was obtained. Actual work hours were unrelated to marital tension, and predicted only wives' satisfaction with husbands' work hours and with husbands' work settings. For husbands, satisfaction with work hours and job satisfaction were positively related to work/family fit, which, in turn, negatively predicted marital tension. No direct associations were seen for work variables on marital tension, but significant indirect relations are mediated by work/family fit. The model reveals parallel findings for wives. The spouses' perceptions of husbands' jobs, work/family fit, and marital tension were all reciprocally related, suggesting a number of avenues by which each partner's attitudes can indirectly affect the other's.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
This essay examines three aspects of mother-only families: their economic and social well-being, their consequences for children, and their role in the politics of gender, race, and social class. We conclude that economic insecurity is high in mother-only families because of the low earning capacity of single mothers, the lack of child support from nonresidential parents, and meager public benefits. We also find evidence of negative intergenerational consequences. Children in mother-only families are more likely to be poor in adulthood than children who live with both parents. They are also more likely to become single parents themselves. Economic deprivation, parental practices, and neighborhood conditions all contribute to lower socioeconomic mobility. Finally, we argue that the mother-only family has become a touchstone for a much broader set of struggles around changes in women's roles, the relationship between the state and the family, and class and racial inequality.
Article
Recent work has focused substantially on one subset of dual-earners, the high-powered two-career couple. We use in-depth interviews with more than 100 people in middle-class dual-earner couples in upstate New York to investigate the range of couples' work-family strategies. We find that the majority are not pursuing two high-powered careers but are typically engaged in what we call scaling back—strategies that reduce and restructure the couple's commitment to paid work over the life course, and thereby buffer the family from work encroachments. We identify three separate scaling-back strategies: placing limits; having a one-job, one-career marriage; and trading off. Our findings support and extend other research by documenting how gender and life-course factors shape work-family strategies. Wives disproportionately do the scaling back, although in some couples husbands and wives trade family and career responsibilities over the life course. Those in the early childrearing phase are most apt to scale back, but a significant proportion of couples at other life stages also use these work-family strategies.