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

2. 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 = ; p < .05
Kossek et al., 2011

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

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

13. 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

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