Conflict and Facilitation in Work-Family Relations among Teachers Rachel Gali Cinamon and Yisrael Rich Rachel Gali Cinamon and Yisrael Rich Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan Univesity Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan Univesity Introduction Method Participants -322 female teachers aged (266 married; 281 had children) who worked in 40 Israeli secondary, middle and elementary public schools and had 1-36 years of experience responded to questionnaires. 29 teachers aged 28-51, married and mother to 1-7 children, participated in the qualitative part of the study. 18 teachers worked in high school, 9 in middle schools and 2 in elementary schools. The interviewer was a female school counselor with considerable interview experience with adults. Instruments 1)Gutek, Searles, and Klepa’s (1991) questionnaire and six additional items measured W  F conflict. 2)Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson's (2003) 10-item scale assessed W  F and F  W facilitation (alpha=.81). 3)Manager support was measured using Loerch, Russell, and Rush’s (1989) scale; five comparable items assessed spousal support and five items assessed collegial support. 4)Flexible working hours was determined using two questions from Izraeli (1993). 5)Emotional exhaustion was assessed by items from Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter's (1996) inventory. 6)Vigor was evaluated with Schaufeli, Salanova and Bakker's (2001) scale. 7)Items generated for the specific variables included teacher involvement with student behavior problems and teacher and student perceptions of school climate. 8) Demographic variables A semi-structured interview protocol was developed for the study after three pilot interviews. It included three main issues: 1.What does it mean for you to be a teacher? 2. What does it mean for you to be a mother and a spouse? 3. How do you manage/blend work and family roles? Results Research on work-family relations (WFR) often focuses on work-family conflict (WFC) and reveals negative effects for W  F conflict and F  W conflict on varied measures in the work and family domains (Frone, 2003). Facilitative WFR also exist but knowledge regarding positive aspects of role blending are limited (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2003). Bidirecionality (W  F and F  W) also characterizes facilitative relations (Wayne et al., 2004). However, relations between conflict and facilitation trajectories remain unclear (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005). Do they share similar antecedents? Do they trigger similar outcomes in opposite directions? Answers may clarify models of work-family relations and help design effective interventions. Additionally, Cinamon and Rich (2005) demonstrated the value of investigating teachers' unique stressors to explain WFC variance. Accordingly, we examined generic WFR (conflict and facilitation) antecedents (number and flexibility of working hours and support from managers, colleagues and spouses) and pedagogical variables specific to the teaching profession (student and teacher school climate and student misbehavior). We also measured teachers’ vigor and emotional exhaustion as WFR outcomes. Vigor is characterized by energy and resilience (Schaufeli, Salanova, & Bakker, 2001) and is conceptually opposite of emotional exhaustion. Investigating these issues should provide better understanding of teachers' work-family relations and occupational well-being. The study employed mixed methods, not only quantitative methods, in order to gain insight into teachers’ personal meanings of WFR. Qualitative methods eliciting thick descriptions of personal experience of role blending should facilitate achieving this goal. Work-Family Relations: No significant correlations emerged between conflict and facilitation. Levels of facilitation were significantly higher than levels of conflict. Conflict between work and family co-exists in participants’ descriptions alongside enrichment. Contrary to the quantitative results, the conflict element of role blending was salient in teachers’ descriptions. Most believed that work demands reduced their ability to fulfill optimally their obligations as mother and spouse, for example, “There are situations that my daughter doesn’t eat supper, because I can’t do it. I could not keep the routine of supper… the hours that I come home, the inconsistent work hours, the need to come back to school in the afternoon and in the evening- all this,,,” Some participants' family commitments led them to trim career aspirations. Facilitative relations also arose but with less emphasis and salience. Generic and specific variables and WFR: Linear regression showed that of the generic variables only manager support explained a significant amount of variance (5%) in W  F conflict (β =.-.18; t=-2.5; p <.05 ). Specific variables explained 10% of the variance led by investment in students’ misbehavior problems ( β =.18; t=2.5; p <.05). In the qualitative results, manager support was far less central. Their descriptions included specific teaching conditions that precipitated conflict or facilitation. Stimuli of conflict were: lesson preparation late at night, talking with parents at home, afternoon school meetings, and conflicts with students. Good relations with students and student achievements were mentioned as antecedents of facilitation as illustrated in the following: “when I solve a problem with a student, or when they succeed at something, I am the happiest person and I have energy for my kids at home.” Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test generic and specific antecedents of teacher burnout and vigor. Regarding WFF, the model has satisfactory fit with χ 2 (6), N = 227 = and with Goodness of fit, normed and comparative fit indexes of.98,.93 and.95, respectively and RMSEA=.09. The direct paths from peer support and teacher's climate perceptions to vigor are significant, β =.42 (p <.05) and β = -.44 (p <.05), respectively. F  W facilitation appears to have positive impact on vigor, β =.26 (p <.05). The partial-mediation model accounts for 24% of the variance of vigor, 20% of the variance of W  F facilitation and 12% of the variance of F  W facilitation. * * Conflict and facilitation are different constructs within the framework of WFR, and have different sources and kinds of outcomes. * Work interferes with the family more than vice versa; the family is more facilitating to work than work is to the family. *Specific variables are primary contributors to the variance of WFR, especially for facilitation. *Support emerged as a major variable in effective work and family blending. *Mixed methods of analysis improve clarity and precision of understanding of work-family relations. Conclusions We investigated work-family conflict and facilitation among 332 Israeli teachers using quantitative and qualitative methods. Generic and occupational-specific antecedents were studied as were teacher emotional exhaustion and vigor. Results indicated the existence of complex relations between conflict and facilitation. Support was an especially important variable in the quantitative analyses whereas occupational-specific variables were particularly important in the qualitative analyses. Finally, emotional exhaustion and vigor appeared to be predicted by different sets of antecedents. Abstract t(310)= -4.09, p<.05.t(310)=-38.09; p<.001 This poster and a related paper can be downloaded at: