Printer Friendly

Family-to-work interface and job performance: The moderating influence of conscientiousness.

INTRODUCTION

Home and work lives are two important domains of life which affected each other and a growing number of studies have examined the intersection between these work and family life (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Greenhaus, Allen & Spector, 2006; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2012, 2014; Tsionou & Konstantopoulos, 2015; Yu, Wang, & Zhang, 2017) At first the work and family were considered to be separate means unrelated to each other (Kanter, 1977), but now a growing body of empirical research has proven this was just a myth and has ultimately shed light on their interdependence (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus, et al, 2006). The work-family interface refers to a comprehensive model that emphasizes the bidirectional combination of the impact of work on family and the impact of family on work. Work-family interface consists of relationships between characteristics of work domain and activities, attitude and interpersonal relationships in family domain and vice-versa (Bakker, Demorouti, Oerelemans, & Sonnentag, 2013; Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005; Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Ferguson, 2015; Frone, Yardely, & Markel, 1997; Frone, 2003; Jennifer & McGaugald, 2007; Kinnunen, Feldt, Geruts, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Voydanoff, 2004; Wayne, Musisca, & Flesson., 2004).

Even though this interface has been a vigorous area of research activity in recent decades there are several areas which has not given attention yet. First, work-family interface consists of two independent constructs for balancing between work and family Studies addressing the work-family interface research have predominantly focused on dark side of the work-family interface i.e. on work-family conflict. While the bright side of work-family interface i.e. work-family facilitation has recently been investigated, consequently received limited attention by the investigators. Second, previous studies pertaining to work-family interface have consistently emphasized only on work-to-family interface while measured the bi-directional nature. Due to this reason, the impact of family life on work life (family- to- work interface) has been still underdeveloped and neglected. Finally, Extant studies on work-family. interface have examined the relationship between work-family interface and their outcomes. But these studies have not been focused their attention on the role of personality on these relationships specially on the moderating effect of personality in the relationship between work-family interface and their outcomes.

Therefore, based on the aforesaid background of the past researches, the purpose of the present study was to examine the moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between family-to-work interface and job performancethree components as a syndrome burnout concept.

Family-to-work Conflict : work-family conflict is defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell 1985, p.77). meaning that "participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role" (Van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009; Kalliath, Hughes & Newcombe, 2012).

Despite the fact that work-family occurs in both the directions i.e. work-to-family and family-to-work conflict, first researchers used to study only one direction of the conflict (work interference with family) (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984; Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988), they soon realized that work-family conflict is a bidirectional phenomenon (Choi & Kim, 2012; Kalliath, Hughes & Newcombe, 2012), and as such it consists of two dimensions, work-to-family and family-to-work (Fu & Shaffer, 2001; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson & Frone 2003; Frone, 2003; Zhao, Qu & Ghiselli, 2011). According to Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian, (1996: p. 401), work-family conflict (WFC) refers to "a form of inter-role conflict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the job interfere with performing family-related responsibilities", whereas family-work conflict (FWC) refers to "a form of inter-role conflict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the family interfere with performing work-related responsibilities" (Karatepe & Bekteshi, 2008; Karatepe, 2010).

Work-family conflict is based on the scarcity hypothesis and according to this individuals have fixed amount of resources and thus the involvement in multiple roles results in the allocation of much greater resources to one role than the others (Rothbard, 2001; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003). As a consequence, the individual's effectiveness in some life roles is being compromised (Greenhaus, Allen & Spector, 2006) and thus the experience of conflict between the work and the family domains is inevitable (Karatepe & Bekteshi, 2008).

Studies related to family-to-work conflict and job performance revealed that family-to-work conflict is responsible for the lower level of job performance (Frone et al., 1997; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; McEwen & Barling, 1994; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2012; Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zaman, Anes-ul-haque & Nawaz, 2014).

Work and family are two important domains of individuals' life. Therefore, the problems associated with one domain (work/family) spillover to the other domain (family/work), and distract from the limited resources (e.g., time and energy) and thus, resulting ineffective performance at work-place (Ahmad, 2008; Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Makikangas, 2003). This explanation is consistent with the conservation of resource model of work-family conflict (Grandy & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Netemeyer, Maxham, & Pulling, 2005). The basic feature of conservation of resource theory is that individuals seek to obtain, retain, protect and foster resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). This theory again suggests that potential or actual loss of resources or a threat of such a loss lead to negative feeling that may lead to a stress reaction. The potential or actual loss of resources resulted in the ineffective job performance.

Family-to-Work Facilitation : Despite the fact that in the literature there is a growing interest in the bright side of the work-family interaction, research on the facilitation process appears to be scanty (Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Carlson et al., 2006; Choi & Kim, 2012; Edward & Rothbard, 2000; Jennifer & McGaugald, 2007; Karatepe & Bekteshi, 2008; McNall, Nicklin & Masuda, 2010; Kinnunen et al., 2006; Russo & Buonocore, 2012; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2014; Wayne, Grazywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007; Wayne et al., 2004).

Work-family facilitation in defined as the extent to which an individual engagement in one life domain (work/family) provides gains (i.e. development affective, capital or efficiency) which contributes to enhanced the functioning of another life domain (i.e. family/work) (Carlson et al., 2006; Wayne et al., 2007). This positive side of the work-family interface is also considered to be bidirectional (Vanderpool & Way, 2013), and so it consists of two different directions, work-to-family facilitation (WFF) and family-to-work facilitation (FWF).

Empirical research pertaining to the relationship between work-family facilitation and job performance is sparse (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). As identified and discussed by Sieber (1974), employees' participation in multiple roles can enhance the quality of life through different mechanisms such as: (1) role privileges, (2) overall status security, (3) resources for status enhancement and role performance relates, and (4) enrichment of the personality and ego gratification. Consequently, involvement in multiple roles can have positive outcomes that in turn, lead to enhanced job performance of the employees' (Barnett & Baruch, 1985). Similarly, Marks (1977) has proposed the expansion theory in response to the scarcity approach. In this approach, the author has suggested that human energy is a supply-demand phenomenon, and the body creates energy to perform the multiple roles that people undertake.

Consequently, it can be said that some roles performed without any energy loss and they may create energy for use in that role or in other role performances, therefore enhances the job performance. In a very recent study, Karatepe and Bekteshi (2008) have also reported that both work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation trigger frontline employees' job performance. This finding suggests that participation in multiple roles create a sense of benefits and employees' gaining multiple resources and learning opportunities form all the domains, therefore individuals are able to display effective performance at work-place.

Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness: Although, work-family literature has proliferated over the years, there are some gaps in the literature still exist. Dispositional factors have been minimally considered in work-family interface research. Friede and Ryan (2005), and Allan et al. (2012), have recommended that the role of personality in work-family interface be considered in future research.

The COR theory assumes that individual factors may affect people's resources and play an important role in job resources development, such as personality and temperament (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Langelaan, Bakker, van Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006; Riolli & Savicki, 2003). Some researchers believe that personality traits may lead to individual differences in the experience of work-family interface (Friede & Ryan, 2005; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Langballe, Innstrand, Aasland, & Falkum, 2011; Premeaux, Adkins, & Mossholder, 2007). In a metanalysis Allen et. al. (2012) have reported that some positive personality dimensions of big-five such as conscientiousness and agreeableness are the strongest predictors of work-family interface. However, the moderating role of these personality traits in the relationship between both aspects of work-family interface and its outcomes remains unexplored, which should be explored in further studies. To the date in best of the author knowledge only two studies have examined the moderating role of conscientiousness dimension of personality in the relationship between work-family interface and job performance (Witt & Crlson, 2006; Zaman et. Al., 2014).

Conscientiousness, dimension of the Big Five model of personality is related to diligence, achievement orientation, and organisation (McCrae & John, 1992) and provides time efficiency, organisational skills, active problem solving, and lower vulnerability to stress (David & Suls, 1999; Vollrath & Torgersen, 2008; Wayne et al., 2004). Therefore, Conscientiousness is one of the strongest personality predictors of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and is negatively related to work-family conflict and positively related to work-family facilitation (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne et al., 2004). Therefore, high levels of conscientiousness may enable workers to handle multiple roles efficiently and would be likely moderate the impact of both the directions of work-family interface on job performance. Witt and Carlson (2006) have reported that person with low level of conscientiousness presented with inter-role conflict that was strongly related to lower job performance as compared to higher conscientiousness in workers. This strengthens the argument that employees' work performance is strongly positively related to personality attributes. In a recent study Zaman et. al., (2014) have reported that conscientiousness dimension of personality did not moderated the relationship between work-family conflict and job performance.

The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between work-family interface and job performance has been explained through two process instrumental and motivational process processes (Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zaman, et. al., 2014). To the date studies have only explain this relationship through motivational process (Ito and Brotheridge 2003; Witt & Carlson, 2006; Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, 2004) and no study has explained this relationship through instrumental process. Therefore, present study explained the moderating role of conscientiousness in relationship between work-family interface and job performance through the instrumental pathway.

The moderating effect of conscientiousness through motivational process argued that conscientiousness dimension of personality may increase work-family conflict because conscientious individuals have a greater investment in both work and family roles and are motivated to do their best in all of their roles (Kossek, Noe, & DeMar, 1999). Hence, high-conscientiousness individual is more motivated than low-conscientiousness individual because they "direct their effort, they are willing to exert higher levels of effort, and they exert effort for a longer period of time" (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1999). This argument suggests that very high levels of work-family conflict may have the greatest impact on the highly motivated, conscientious workers may accept a reduction in overt performance.

Through instrumental pathway it can be said that the competencies related to high levels of conscientiousness provide resources that would decrease the impact of family-to-work conflict on job performance. Personal characteristic of Conscientiousness provides time efficiency, organizational skills, active problem-solving, and lower vulnerability to stress (David & Suls, 1999; Vollrath & Torgersen, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004). Therefore, individuals with high levels of conscientiousness are efficient to handle multiple roles. On the other hand, individuals with low level of conscientiousness may not effectively juggle family and work responsibilities because of their lack of organization, prioritization, and related competencies. Therefore, workers low in conscientiousness may be unable to be good performer when experiencing high levels of family-to-work conflict.

Hypotheses:

H1- Family-to-work conflict would be more strongly related to job performance among low conscientiousness individuals than high conscientiousness individuals.

H2- Family-to-work facilitation would be more strongly related to the job performance among individuals with high level of conscientiousness than individuals with low level of conscientiousness.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure :The present study conducted on two hundred fifty married IT professional from various software organization geographically located at Delhi, Noida and Nasik, (India). Data were obtained on the basis of response of the IT professional by means of structured questionnaires. The respondents were asked to fill up the self-report measures of work-family conflict, work-family facilitation, job performance and one personality dimension of NEO-PIR i.e. conscientiousness along with the personal data sheet.

Measures :

Family work conflict : Family work conflict was assessed by work-family conflict scale developed by Singh and Singh, (1996).

Family work facilitation: A suitable scale was developed for the assessment of work-family facilitation. The scale comprised of two subscales work-to-family facilitation scale and family-to-work-facilitation scale. Specifically, 22 items were used to operationalize work-to-family facilitation and 15 items were used to operationalize family-to-work facilitation. All the items were true keyed items. The items were rated on the five-point rating scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicated greater work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for work-to-family and family-to-work facilitation scale were found to be 0.86 and 0.85 respectively

Job Performance: Job performance is measured by Performance Rating Scale developed by Pestonjee and Singh, (1978) was used to assess performance of an employee at work-place.

Personality: Conscientiousness dimension of personality is measured with the help of Neo-Five factor inventory (form S of NEO-PI-R) developed by Costa and McCrae, (1992).

Personal data sheet: Questions pertaining to demographic information were included in the personal data sheet. Demographic variables included: age, gender, education, working experience, income, no. of working hours/week, no. of family members, no. of children, and spouse employment.

RESULTS

Different statistics have been applied to analyze the data including descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard deviation and Range of the scores), correlation coefficients, and hierarchical regression analyses.

The findings of the above table indicated that family-to-work conflict was found to be negatively associated with job performance (r= -0.39). Results further reveled that conscientiousness dimension of personality is positively associated with the family-to-work facilitation (r= 0.37) and job performance (r= 0.43). Similarly, family-to-work facilitation is significantly positively related to job performance (r= 0.24).

Three steps moderating hierarchical regression analysis was perform to see the moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between family-to-work conflict and job performance. In each set of hierarchical regression, the demographic variables were entered in the first step of the regression equation to partial out their effects prior to entering the predictor variable. The second step of equation adds both predictor variable i.e. family-to-work conflict and conscientiousness. In third step of regression analysis the interaction term of family-to-work conflict and conscientiousness.

We have predicted that family-to-work conflict is more strongly related to job performance among low conscientiousness individuals than high conscientiousness individuals

The results of three step-wise hierarchical regression analyses are shown in Table 2. In the analysis, Step 1 described control variables accounted for a 12.6% of significant amount of explained variance, (F, 8, 241 = 4.36). Step 2 we entered FWC and conscientiousness to see their main effect. These both added 19.6% over and above the control variable (F, 10, 239= 34.64). results further revealed that FWC ([beta] = -0.247) and conscientiousness ([beta] = 0.316) dimension of personality significantly predicted the job performance. We entered the cross-product terms at step 3. The set of two-way interactions accounted for 3.8% of significant incremental variance (F, 11, 238= 13.95) in job performance over and above the variance explained by the main effects and demonstrated a significant moderating effect ([beta] = -.201) on job performance. It supported hypothesis 1.

The results of three step-wise hierarchical regression analyses for moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between family to work facilitation and job performance are shown in Table 3. In the Step 1we entered the control variables which described 12.6% of significant amount of variance, (F, 8, 241 = 4.36). Step 2 we entered FWF and conscientiousness to see their main effect. These both added 18% of total variance over and above the control variable (F, 10, 239= 25.34). results further revealed that FWF ([beta] =0.196) and conscientiousness ([beta] = 0.361) dimension of personality significantly predicted the job performance. We entered the cross-product terms at step 3. The set of two-way interactions accounted for 3.0% of significant incremental variance (F, 11, 238= 15.70) in job performance over and above the variance explained by the main effects and demonstrated a significant moderating effect ([beta] =.196, p < 0.01) on job performance. It supported hypothesis 2.

Discussion: The present study examined the moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between family-to-work interface and job performance.

The results of correlation table concerning the relationship between work-family conflict and job performance indicated that work-family conflict was significantly negatively predicted job performance of employees. Based on the scarcity hypothesis the aforementioned findings indicated that individuals have less amount of physical and mental resources, and these substantial resources are lost in the process of juggling between work and family roles. Therefore, an individual is not able to make a proper balance between their work and non-work life and hence display ineffective performance at work-place. (Greenhaus, Allen, & Spector, 2006; Rothbard, 2001; Wayne et al., 2004; Frone et al., 1997; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Ahmad, 2008; Frone, 2000; Witt & Carlson, 2006; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2012).

Regarding the relationship between family-to-work facilitation and job performance the findings revealed that family-to-work facilitation is significantly positively related to job performance. Based on the expansion theory of Marks, (1977) it can be explained that human energy is a supply-demand phenomenon, and the body creates energy to perform the multiple roles that people undertake. Consequently, it can be said that some roles performed without any energy loss and they may create energy for use in that role or in other role performances, therefore enhances the job performance (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Karatepe & Bekteshi, 2008; Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974; Srivastava & Srivastava, 2014; Zaman, et. al., 2014).

The finding concerning the relationship between conscientiousness trait of personality and job performance revealed that conscientiousness was significantly positively associated with the employees' job performance. The characteristic features of conscientiousness indicate the individual's degree of organization, persistence, motivation in goal-directed behavior, competence, self-discipline and achievement (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Studies have shown that conscientiousness was a significant predictor of career success, as measured by salary, promotion or status, this ultimately lead to greater job performance because people high in conscientiousness have a sense of duty and obligation to their work and have high job performance, career success, motivation and job satisfaction. (Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zaman et. Al., 2014).

In developing our hypotheses, we described instrumental process through which Conscientiousness dimension of personality moderate the relationship between family-to-work conflict and job performance. We predicted that Family-to-work conflict is more strongly related to job performance among low conscientiousness individuals than high conscientiousness individuals. Through instrumental pathway it can be said that the competencies related to high levels of conscientiousness provide resources that would decrease the impact of family-to-work conflict on job performance. Individuals with high level conscientiousness have efficiency, good time management and good organization (McCrae & Costa, 1991) which may enable them to accomplish more tasks in less available time and they are less preoccupied with their work and family roles. Thus, conscientiousness trait of personality is likely to result in greater boundary separation of work and family, which in turn reduces their levels of stress, strain and incompatible time demands. Therefore, they experience low level of work-family conflict. This finding is in agreement with a number of empirical studies (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne et al., 2004; Witt & Carlson, 2006). Therefore, individuals with high levels of conscientiousness are efficient to handle multiple roles so they are good performer even when experiencing high levels of family-to-work conflict. On the other hand, individuals with low level of conscientiousness may not effectively juggle family and work responsibilities because of their lack of organization, prioritization, and related competencies. Therefore, workers low in conscientiousness may be unable to be good performer when experiencing high levels of family-to-work conflict.

The instrumental process is reflected in the higher level of job-relevant competencies that highly conscientious workers develop and maintain. In addition to attending to detail, being organized, and planning, highly conscientious individuals typically have an organized support network (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Hence, they have a relatively potentially greater pool of sources away from work with whom to develop new competencies as well as the ability to efficiently and effectively develop them. Consequently, they are more likely than individuals low in conscientiousness to develop competencies away from work that can be carried to work. The positive relationships between conscientiousness and work-family facilitation indicates that higher conscientiousness is associated with careful planning, effective organization, and efficient time management (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1999). Hence, they can successfully and thoroughly accomplish their work and family domain related tasks. Successful accomplishment of tasks in a role (work/family) enhances the positive mood, self-esteem, and levels of confidence of the individual, which transfer across domains thereby, enhance facilitation between work and family roles. Family-to-work facilitation is more strongly related to the job performance among individuals with high level of conscientiousness than individuals with low level of conscientiousness.

The results of the present study are to enhanced the existing literature of family-work interface by focusing on an under-researched area of the moderating role of personality traits between both the dark and bright side of family-work interface and its outcomes (Allan et al., 2012, Witt & Carlson, 2006, Zaman et. Al., 2014). Conscientiousness dimension of personality is found to be significant moderators between the both aspects of family-work interface i.e. family-to-work conflict and family-to-work facilitation and job performance. The implication of the present study for organizational policy that personality factors need to be taken into account when making policy decisions in organizations as they may increase or decrease employees' work performance. Increased work performance is positively associated with organizational performance. This finding helps the organizational psychologists to consider the role of personality while designing interventions and training to manage and reduce inter-role conflict and enhance inter-role integration of employees in organizations.

The present study advances our knowledge bout work-family interface by investigating the moderating role of personality in the relationship between work-family interface and job performance. But there are several limitations that should be considered in evaluating the findings of our study. The phenomenon of work-family facilitation has not been well established. Therefore, as research on work-family interface continues, future investigators should examine the other antecedents and consequences of work-family facilitation. Similarly, future researchers should focus their attention on the relationship between facilitation and other critical work-related outcomes such as, organizational citizenship behaviour, turnover intention, readiness to change and organizational commitment which are recently emerging. In addition, future research should explore other concepts related to positive psychology concepts such as resiliency, hope, creativity and talent in the experience of work-family facilitation. To fully understand the role of personality in producing conflict and facilitation, future researchers should also consider other personality factors such as optimism, resiliency, hope, creativity and talent in the relationships between work- family interface (i.e. work-family conflict and facilitation) and consequences.

References

Ahmad, A. (2008). Direct and indirect effect of work-family conflict on job performance. The Journal of International Management Studies, 3, 176-180.

Allan, T. D., Johnson, R. R., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 17-26. doi:10.1016/j. jvb.2011.04.004

Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132-146.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 87 -107. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1796

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.

Barrick, R. M., & Mount, K. M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.xa

Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14(3), 475-491.

Beuregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making a link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk

Boyar, L. S., & Mosley, D. C. Jr. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluation and work and satisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 265-281.

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457-472. doi:10.1016/ S0001-8791(02)00040-4

Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E., (2002). The relation between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: A finger grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336-353.

Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict, and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 155-169.

Carlson, D. S., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four factor conceptualization of work-family interface. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 515-535.

Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in organization: Do life role values make a difference. Journal of Management, 26, 1031-1054.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayane, J. H., & Grazywacz, J G., (2006). Measuring the positive side of work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Ferguson, M. (2015). Do the benefits of family-to-work transitions come at too great a cost? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038279

Choi, H. J., & Kim, Y. T. (2012). Work-family conflict, work-family facilitation, and job outcomes in the Korean hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 1011-1028.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 251-262

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personalitv Inventorv (NEO PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventorv (NEO-FFD professional manual. Odessa, PL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of big five traits and problem appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67, 265-294.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). A twenty year retrospective on work and family research in IO/OB journals: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Monograph, 66, 124-197.

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.

Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations influence the workfamily interface. In E. E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 185-200). : Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp-143-162) Washington, D. C.: 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, 145-67.

Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personal Review, 30, 502-522.

Grandey, A.A., &Cropanzano,R.(1999).Theconservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350-370.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.

Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work-family conflict: The dark side of the work-family interface. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Employee health, coping and methodologies (pp. 61-98). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Grzywacz, J. (2002, November). Toward a theory of workfamily facilitation. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop of the Persons, National Council on Family Relations, Houston.

Hobfoll,S.E.(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337-370.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57-80). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 490-509.

Jennifer, E. J., McDougald, M. S. (2007). Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 32, 747-760.

Kalliath, P., Hughes, M., & Newcombe, P. (2012). When Work and Family are in Conflict: Impact on Psychological Strain Experienced by Social Workers in Australia. Australian Social Work, 65(3), 355-371.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Karatepe, O. M. (2010). The effect of positive and negative work-family interaction on exhaustion: Does work social support make a difference? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(6), 836-856.

Karatepe, O. M., & Bekteshi, L. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 517-528.

Karatepe, O. M., & Sokmen, A. (2006). The effects of work role and family role variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism Management, 27, 255-268.

Kinnunen, U, Feldt, T., Geruts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of work-family interface: Wellbeing correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149-162.

Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its relations to wellbeing: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality & Individual Differences, 35, 1669-1683

Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. J. (1999). Workfamily role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 1044-

Langballe, E. M., Innstrand, S. T., Aasland, O. G., & Falkum, E. (2011). The predictive value of individual factors, work-related factors, and work--home interaction on burnout in female and male physicians: A longitudinal study. Stress and Health, 27, 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1321

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009

Marks, S. P. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921936.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personalitv (2"'' ed., pp. 139-153). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 381-396.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis. Journal of Management, 25, 707-721.4068.

Netemeyer, R., Boles, J., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflicts and family-work conflict scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410.

Netemyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., III, & Pulling, C. (2005). Conflict in the work-family interface: Links to job stress service employee performance, and customer purchase intention. Journal of Marketing, 69, 130-143.

Pestonjee, D. M., & Singh, A. P. (1978). Performance rating scale. Unpublished. Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., & Mossholder, K. W. (2007). Balancing work and family: A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 705-727. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.439

Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2003). Optimism and coping as moderators of the relationship between work resources and burnout in information service workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 235-252.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4), 655-684.

Russo, M., & Buonocore, F. (2012). The relationship between work-family enrichment and nurse turnover. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(3), 216-236.

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578.

Singh, A. P., & Singh, S. (1996). Work-family conflict scale. Unpublished. Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

Srivastava, S., & Srivastava, U. R. (2014). Work and non-work-related outcomes of work-family facilitation. Social Science International, 30, 353-372.

Srivastava, S., & Srivastava, U.R. (2007). Work-family facilitation scale. Unpublished. Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University.

Srivastava, U. R., & Srivastava, S. (2012). Outcomes of Work-family Conflict among Indian Information Technology (IT) Employees. Social Sceince International,28, 137-158.

Tsionou, T., & Konstantopoulos, N. (2015). The complications and challenges of work-family interface: A review paper. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 593-600.

Van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work-family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 617-642.

Vanderpool, C., & Way, S. A. (2013). Investigating work-family balance, job anxiety, and turnover intentions as predictors of health care and senior services customer-contact employee voluntary turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 149-160.

Vollrath, M. E., & Torgersen, S. (2008). Personality types and risky behaviors in Norwegian students. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 287-292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00631.x.

Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effect of work demands and resources on work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398-412.

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson D. S., & Kacmar, M. K. (2007). Work-family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63-76.

Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationship of big-five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108-130.

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, D. (2004). When conscientiousness isn't enough: Emotional exhaustion and call volume performance among call center customer service representatives. Journal of Management, 30, 149-160.

Witt, L.A., & Carlson, D.S. (2006), "The work-family interface and job performance: moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.343-57.

Yu, Y, Wang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2017). Relationship between work-family balance and job satisfaction among employees in China: A moderated mediation model. PsyCh Journal. DOI:10.1002/pchj.174.

Zaman, S., Anis-ul-Haque, M., & Nawaj, S. (2014). Work-family interface and its relationship with job performance: the moderating role of conscientiousness and agreeableness. South African Journal of Psychology, 44, 528-538.

Zhao, X. R., Qu, H., Ghiselli, R. (2011). Examining the relationship of work-family conflict to job and life satisfaction: A case of hotel sales managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 46-54.

Shamini Srivastava (*)

(*) Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Psychology,Feroze Gandhi College, Raebareli, India

Received : February 03, 2018

Revised : March 09, 2018

Accepted : May 01, 2018
Table 1: Correlation Table

              Criterion  Job Performance variable
Predictor
Variables
FWC                      -0.39 (**)
FWF                       0.24 (**)
Conscientiousness         0.43 (**)

(*) p<0.05 (**) p<0.01

Table: 2 Results of Moderated hierarchical regression analyses for
predicting job performance from FWC

Variables                 Dependent variable
                          Job performance

Control variables         Step1            Step2          Step3
Age                        .132               202 (*)       .183 (*)
Gender                      000             -.026          -.002
Education                  .205 (***)        .134 (*)       .122 (*)
Income                     .167 (**)         .130 (*)       .138 (*)
Experience                -.005             -.078          -.082
Working hour              -.045             -.005          -.011
Spouse employment         -.086             -.035          -.027
Family members             .008              .025           .014
Predictor variables
F WC                                        -.247 (***)    -.273 (***)
Conscientiousness                            .316 (***)     .313 (***)
Interaction term
FWC X Conscientiousness                                    -.201 (***)
Overall [R.sup.2]          .126              .322           .359
[R.sup.2] change           .126              .196           .038
F change                   4.36 (***)      34.64 (***)    13.95 (***)

(*) p<0.05 (**) p<0.01 (***) p<0.001

df step 1= 8, 241 df step 2= 10, 239 df step 3= 11, 238

Table 3: Results of Moderated hierarchical regression analyses for
predicting job performance from FWF

Variables                   Dependent variable
                            Job performance

Control variables           Step1               Step2
Age                          .132                 .183
Gender                        000                -.018
Education                    .205 (***)           .137 (*)
Income                       .167 (**)            .164 (*)
Experience                  -.005                -.066
Working hour                -.045                -.007
Spouse employment           -.086                -.061
Family members               .008                 .035
Predictor variables
F WF                                              .196 (***)
Conscientiousness                                 .316 (***)
Interaction term
FWF X Conscientiousness
Overall R2                   .126                 .279
R2 change                    .126                 .180
F change                    4.36 (***)          25.34 (***)

Variables                Dependent variable
                         Job performance

Control variables        Step3
Age                        .163
Gender                    -.002
Education                  .122 (*)
Income                     .138 (*)
Experience                -.082
Working hour              -.011
Spouse employment         -.027
Family members             .014
Predictor variables
F WF                       .191 (***)
Conscientiousness          .355 (***)
Interaction term
FWF X Conscientiousness    .196 (***)
Overall R2                 .286
R2 change                  .030
F change                 15.70 (***)

(*) p<0.05 (**) p<0.01 (***) p<0.001

df step 1= 8, 241 df step 2= 10, 239 df step 3= 11, 238
COPYRIGHT 2018 Community Psychology Association of India
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Srivastava, Shamini
Publication:Indian Journal of Community Psychology
Date:Sep 1, 2018
Words:6324
Previous Article:A study of gender differences among invulnerable children.
Next Article:Depression and death anxiety among HIV positive persons in relation to self efficacy.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters