Jaclyn Shor Jeffrey Greenhaus Katrina Graham Context Matters: A Model of Family-Supportive Supervision and Work-Family Conflict

Family-supportive supervision (FSS) & Work-to-family conflict (WFC) “One who empathizes with the employee’s desire to seek balance between work and family responsibilities” Thomas & Ganster, 1995; 7 A recent meta-analysis demonstrated a significant negative relationship between FSS and WFC Mr = -.25; p < .05 Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, (2011 However, the significant cross-study heterogeneity suggests the relationship is contingent on situational factors Q = 359.47; p < .05 Kossek et al., 2011

Research question Under what conditions does FSS relate to WFC? We apply two perspectives that are based on the conservation of resources framework Complementary/enhancement perspective Adler & Kwon, 2002; Greenhaus, Ziegert, & Allen, 2012 Work-home resources model Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012

Perceived Flexibility Perceived flexibility – evaluation of the degree to which his or her schedule at work can accommodate demands outside of the workplace Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997 Two commonly studied mediators: Family-supportive organizational perceptions & job control Boundary-spanning resource Gain spiral Family supportive supervisors provide emotional support, role modeling, instrumental support H1A: There is a positive relationship between FSS and perceived flexibility.

Perceived Flexibility Ability to control schedule should reduce time-based conflict Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985 Ability to manage the intersection of family and work will reduce stress Halpern, 2005 H1B: There is a negative relationship between perceived flexibility and work-to-family conflict. H1C: The negative relationship between FSS and work-to-family conflict is mediated by perceived flexibility.

Accessibility to Flexibility Practices Enhancement perspective – synergistic effect of multiple resources Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012; Greenhaus et al., 2012 Consistency and alignment between organization and supervisor message Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Schein, 2004 Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between FSS and perceived flexibility is stronger for employees who work in an organization that provides more access to flexibility practices than for those who work in an organization that provides less access to flexibility practices.

Job Demands A stressor that leads to depletion of resources and negative outcomes Hobfoll, 2002 Employees may be reluctant to utilize flexibility when job demands are high Employees may experience extensive stress such that flexibility cannot mitigate such stress Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between perceived flexibility and WFC is stronger for employees who have lower levels of job demands than for those who have higher levels of job demands.

Method 2008 Family and Work Institute’s National Study of the Changing Workforce Sample obtained through random telephone dialing methods 2,219 employees Eliminated surveyed people who did not have a supervisor and/or did not work >20 hours a week 51% male Average age 45 63% married 52% children <18

Measures FSS Accessibility of flexibility policies 6-item scale; α = .87 Sample item: “My supervisor is fair when responding to employees with personal/family needs” Accessibility of flexibility policies Employees were asked whether their organization provided three policies ‘Yes’ was coded as 1; ‘no’ was coded as 0; Scores ranged from 0 to 3 Sample item: “Are you allowed to work part of your regular paid hours at home?” Perceived flexibility 3-item scale; α = .64 Sample item: “I have schedule flexibility to manage work and family” Job demands 3-item scale; α - .64 Sample item: “My job requires that I work very fast” Control variables: Number of years in the workforce; Gender

Analyses Hierarchical regression Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes’ (2007) approach to moderated mediation

Perceived Flexibility Results FSS Perceived Flexibility WFC H1A H1B Supported β = .2320, p < .001 Supported β = -.9782; p < .001 H1C Partially Supported total effect: t = -16.8739, p < .000; direct effect: t = -7.2378; p < .000

Results FSS Perceived Flexibility WFC H2 H3 Access to Flexibility Practices Job Demands Supported β = .043; p < .001 Supported β = .043; p < .001

Discussion The relationship between FSS and WFC is complicated Access to flexibility practices and job demands, two situational factors, impact the strength of the relationship between FSS and WFC Conservation of resources is an applicable lens to use when understanding multiple resources and demands in the work-family interface Combined resources create synergies FSS and access to flexibility practices on perceived flexibility Extensive demands deplete the advantage of resources Job demands and perceived flexibility on WFC

Question to discuss tomorrow – should I add limitations and future research?