Family-friendly policies, supervisor support and job satisfaction: mediating effect of work-family conflict

Varsha Yadav (Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, India)
Himani Sharma (Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, India)

Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management

ISSN: 0973-1954

Article publication date: 13 August 2021

Issue publication date: 2 February 2023

5595

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of perceived support from family-friendly policies and supervisors on job satisfaction of employees by incorporating work-family conflict as a mediator.

Design/methodology/approach

Primary data were collected from 369 employees working in different organizations from the service sector in India. Smart PLS software was used to perform partial least square structural equational modeling.

Findings

The result confirms that both family-friendly policies and supervisor support negatively influences the work-family conflict. Also, work-family conflict partially mediates between family-friendly policies and job satisfaction as well as between supervisor support and job satisfaction. Also, supervisor support directly influences the job satisfaction of the employees.

Research limitations/implications

Management needs to know the relevance of work-life policies and supervisor support to increase job satisfaction and reduce employees’ work-family conflict. Results will be useful for implementing family-friendly policies and designing training courses for the supervisors. This will make the workplace more family-friendly.

Originality/value

This study creates value for the employees in meeting their family obligations by reducing their work-family conflict. Organizations are benefited by attracting positive outcomes like satisfied employees, which will, in turn, lead to a more productive and happier workforce. Studies examining the influence of these policies and supervisory support on job satisfaction with work-family conflict as the mediating variable are difficult to find in the Indian context.

Keywords

Citation

Yadav, V. and Sharma, H. (2023), "Family-friendly policies, supervisor support and job satisfaction: mediating effect of work-family conflict", Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-02-2021-0050

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Varsha Yadav and Himani Sharma.

License

Published in Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Today, we live in a continually changing environment, with high professionalism, increased technology usage, pressure and stress (Saxena, 2018). Responsibilities for both females and males have increased due to the changing nature of the workforce and family composition like dual-career couples, increasing trends of nuclear families and increasing number of working mothers (Galinsky and Bond, 1998). People spend each day performing various roles, such as a spouse, employee and caregivers (Higgins et al., 2014). Therefore, drawing boundaries between work and family has become very difficult due to the increased use of portable computers, mobile phones and e-mails (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2006). Advancement in technology and the internet enables communication from any corner of the globe seamless and highly efficient (Ozcelik and Paprika, 2010). All these circumstances contribute to the rising work-family conflict. Also, there are many empirical proofs that link work-family conflict to adverse outcomes that involve poor mental and physical health, lower organizational commitment, job dissatisfaction, lower marital happiness and quality of family life (Higgins et al., 2014).

An organization's prosperity depends on its employees, and a satisfied workforce is the most critical asset of any organization. An organization needs employees who can contribute to company value (Dhir and Dutta, 2020). Satisfied employees at work are productive, takes less leave, show organizational commitment and stay happier in their lives (Lease, 1998). Maintaining a high level of job satisfaction will ultimately affect the whole economy’s performance and commitment (Shrivastava and Purang, 2009). With need-based family-friendly policies and support from supervisors, jobs will be more motivating and satisfying. Family-friendly policies like flexible work arrangements are nowadays implemented by more and more organizations (Beigi et al., 2018).

This study is essential in the Indian context as people in India see work as an origin of income and status. Family is a social establishment that gives psychological support and helps in times of need. In a family-centric society like India establishing a balance between work and home has become more vital for the employees. Modernization, education and change in society have increased the number of working women at workplaces (Baral and Bhargava, 2011). India has a collectivist culture where employees expect to benefit from their organizations as a token of reward for their loyal behavior. Given such benefits or arrangements, they may feel more obliged for their employers (Baral and Bhargava, 2010). Job satisfaction is a critical issue to pay attention to as it is associated with many other important outcomes. Job satisfaction is also among the most famous and widely research topics in organizational psychology (Spector, 1997).

Flexible work arrangements help in gaining loyalty from employees and thus improve performance (Altindag and Siller, 2014). Organizations may have separate motives for employing family-friendly policies and supportive supervisors to expand female participation and use their potential, to motivate employees, to achieve higher performance, improve the organization’s attractiveness among employees and have better corporate citizenship (Lazar et al., 2010). Human resource professionals provide a strategic competitive advantage to the organization with better workplace practices in such a competitive corporate sector. Thus, they try to accomplish their goals by building a workforce that adds to company value (Dhir and Dutta, 2020). Literature shows that job satisfaction increases company value (Aziri, 2011). It is commonly known that there exists a need for a supportive work environment that assists in reducing the frustrating circumstances and promotes positive functioning (Gupta and Srivastava, 2020).

2. Literature review

Family-friendly policies include flexible work arrangements like flexible timing, job sharing, part-time work, childcare help (daycare center, referral service) and family-leave policies (Grover and Crooker, 1995). Flexible/alternative work schedules permit work to be performed outside the traditional settings related to time and place (Baltes et al., 1999). Most common examples of flexible work arrangements include flexible working hours (flexitime), compressed workweek, part-time and telecommuting (Baltes et al., 1999; Higgins et al., 2014). Supervisors who care for the employees’ needs and help them maintain their family and work responsibilities are considered supportive by employees (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Supervisor support creates a feeling of worthiness to the employee and builds a strong relationship between employee and organization (Dhir and Dutta, 2020). Work-family conflict occurs when:

  • it becomes tough to meet the needs of two distinct roles due to time shortage;

  • it becomes hard to fulfill the needs of one role due to strain caused by involvement in another role; and

  • behaviors needed in work makes it tough to fulfill the needs of family roles (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).

Work-family conflict takes off most of the energy and time to constructively perform other life roles (Gupta and Srivastava, 2020).

Job satisfaction as an outcome variable is defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job (Locke, 1976, p. 1304)”. It is evaluative judgment (positive or negative) that someone forms about their job or job situation (Weiss, 2002). Literature has number of theories which shows the significance of the concept of job satisfaction (Singh et al., 2020). For researchers and managers, causes of work satisfaction are an area of interest, as satisfied workers would be more fruitful and remain with the company for longer and dissatisfied employees are less productive with high turnover intention.

2.1 Theoretical framework and hypothesis

Social exchange theory explains that obligations are created using exchange between two or more parties who are in the state of reciprocity (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Similarly, when employees have the belief of getting extra benefits such as supervisor support and family-friendly policies, they may feel the need to put extra effort to compensate for it. In this way, they may reciprocate it is through higher job satisfaction. Therefore, it helps in explaining how feeling at the workplace influence job performance and job satisfaction. Work-family conflict has emerged from role theory, which represents job and family in a role arrangement and interference of job and family role creates work-family conflict (Kahn et al., 1964). Compliance with one type of role makes it hard to fulfill the additional role requirement at the same time Figure 1.

2.2 Family-friendly policies and work-family conflict

Results show that those employees using work-family policies are more satisfied at work and have a low conflict (Sanchez, 2018). Work-family conflict was found negatively associated with the availability of policies for work and family (Anderson et al., 2002; Breaugh and Frye, 2008). Furthermore, the research found that employed parents who derive benefits from flexible policies were found to be more committed to the organization and it also lowered their level of work-family conflict (Aryee et al., 1998). Another study states that out of Kenya, Thailand, China and India, flexible schedule policies reduced work-life conflict for the nations that consider these policies crucial for them and their family (Wang et al., 2011). Employees at all levels of the organization have to face work-family strain and conflict when family-friendly policies are not made responsive (Galinsky and Stein, 1990). However, there were some interesting and contradictory findings like people who are getting more flexible policies such as flexitime and telecommuting had high work-family conflict than employees who are working under standard or traditional ways of working (Higgins et al., 2014). Similarly, findings showed a positive relationship between the use of a flexible work arrangement and family-work conflict (Hammer et al., 2005). As work from home leads to the greater intrusion of work at home, it is associated with increased levels of work interference with family (Russell et al., 2009; Grice et al., 2008). On these premises, we hypothesize that:

H1.

Family-friendly policies have a negative direct effect on work-family conflict.

2.3 Family-friendly policies and job satisfaction

Family-friendly policies might create a remarkable advantage by influencing employee attitudes like satisfaction (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Family-friendly policies may form an effective management tool in balancing work and family policies by enabling them to focus more on their work and mitigating work-family conflict (Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2018). Flexibility at the workplace gives the worker’s capability to decide when, for how long and where to engage in job-related duties (Jeffrey Hill et al., 2008). Results showed that policies for family have a positive and significant relationship with job satisfaction (Bae and Yang, 2017). Furthermore, family-friendly policies like paid leave, leave for child needs, housing support and job satisfaction are positively related (Kang, 2013). Similarly, access to flexitime is associated with increased job satisfaction (Possenriede and Plantenga, 2011; Frye and Breaugh, 2004). Another study also proved that people having flexible work arrangements reported more job satisfaction than those on standard arrangements (Almer and Kaplan, 2002). There was a positive and significant impact of flexible work arrangements on job satisfaction (Rawashdeh et al., 2016). A study reported that family-friendly policies (flexitime and compressed workweek) help in experiencing greater work-family enrichment, which then leads to more job satisfaction (Mcnall et al., 2010). Thus, we may hypothesize that:

H2.

Family-friendly policies have a positive direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.4 Work-family conflict and job satisfaction

Due to long working hours, employees experience increased work-family conflict and feel dissatisfied in their family and job life (Brough et al., 2005). Results revealed that work-family conflict negatively influences job satisfaction (Ru Hsu, 2011; Bruck et al., 2002). Moreover, result showed that work-life conflict act like a relevant predictor of job satisfaction (Karatepe and Kilic, 2007). Many studies report that work-family conflict and job satisfaction are negatively related to each other (Anderson et al., 2002; Ernst Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Yildirim and Aycan, 2008). As previously discussed, a reduction in work-family conflict will enhance employee attitudes such as job satisfaction (Namasivayam and Zhao, 2007). Adverse outcomes such as depression, job burnout, turnover, job dissatisfaction, marital dissatisfaction were found to be increasing due to excess conflict between work and family (Frone et al., 1992; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). We may hypothesize that:

H3.

Work-family conflict has a negative direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.5 Support from supervisor and work-family conflict

Results found that providing supportive practices such as flexible scheduling and managerial support has positive effects on control perceptions of employees, which were negatively related to work-family conflict (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Similarly, studies revealed that supervisor support assisted in decreasing work-family conflict (Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Anderson et al., 2002; Gordon et al., 2007). Karatepe and Kilic (2007) concluded that supervisor assistance decreases the work–life conflict of frontline staff and increased their job satisfaction. Perception of a supportive family environment influenced the work-life conflict experiences, job satisfaction, commitment (Allen, 2001). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H4.

Supervisor support has a negative direct effect on work-family conflict.

2.6 Supervisor support and job satisfaction

Supervisors can increase the job satisfaction of their employees by rescheduling jobs shifts with their coworkers (Ru Hsu, 2011). Thomas and Ganster, (1995) performed a study on health care workers and found that more supervisor support attracted low work-family interference and higher satisfaction at work. Similarly, studies showed that if supervisor support was more, then the job satisfaction level of employees also increases (Kula and Guler, 2014; Ru Hsu, 2011; Gok et al., 2015; Griffin et al., 2001). Some studies reported that supervisor support was correlated with a lower degree of work stress, which contributed to more job satisfaction (Steinhardt et al., 2003). Similarly, Qureshi et al. (2018) performed a study on nurses and found that a significant impact of supervisor support was found on job satisfaction. Therefore, employees who consider their supervisor as supportive experience more job satisfaction. So, we may hypothesize that:

H5.

Supervisor support has a positive direct effect on job satisfaction.

2.7 Work–family conflict as a mediator

Results show that those employees using work-family policies are more satisfied at work and have a low conflict (Sanchez, 2018). According to the previous results support from supervisor cause to reduce work-life conflict, which further leads to an increase in job satisfaction (Ngah et al., 2010). Family-friendly policies and work-family conflict are negatively associated (Anderson et al., 2002; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Aryee et al., 1998). Flextime was especially found beneficial to the employees suffering from work–family conflict, as it reduced their role conflict and increased their satisfaction (Rau and Hyland, 2002). Support from the organization and supervisor was negatively correlated with work-family conflict (Gordon et al., 2007). Furthermore, work family conflict negatively influences job satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2002; Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Ernst Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Yildirim and Aycan, 2008). Supervisor support had both direct and indirect effects on job satisfaction through perceived control and work-family conflict. A supervisor who was supportive of the family demands of employees had a steady positive influence on job satisfaction and health outcomes (Thomas and Ganster, 1995).

H6.

Work-family conflict mediates the relationship between family-friendly policies and job satisfaction.

H7.

Work-family conflict mediates the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction.

3. Research methodology

3.1 Sample and data collection

Respondents involved in the study were service sector employees working in different industries like banking and finance, information technology, business process outsourcing firms, education, hospitality, retail, telecommunication and health care. To validate the model and assess its application, survey method was used. To conduct a large-scale survey and that too during Covid 19 lockdown restrictions, the questionnaire was prepared using Google Form. To collect data, URL/link of the same was circulated using mail and social media. The purpose of the survey was made clear using a cover letter and sent as an attachment. It was mentioned that responses would be kept confidential and used only for education purpose. While collecting responses total of 710 questionnaires were distributed, out of which the participants filled only 426 questionnaires. Of 426 filled questionnaires, 57 were incomplete or incorrectly filled. Therefore, the total sample of 369 employees was retained for further analysis. In this way received response rate was 51.97%. Data were collected from employees working in the NCR of Delhi. The age group of the respondents varied from 25–55 years.

3.2 Measurement

This study used already available scales to measure all the constructs. Six items related to supervisor support were adapted from Anderson et al. (2002). A sample item was “My supervisor is supportive when I have a work problem.” Two statements related to family-friendly policies were adapted from Frye and Breaugh (2004). A sample item was “My organization provides family-friendly policies that assist in balancing my work and family responsibilities.” Five items to measure work-family conflict, were adapted from Netemeyer et al. (1996). A sample item was “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life.” Nine statements related to job satisfaction were adapted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951). A sample item was “My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored.” Five-point Likert scale showing 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) were used in all scales.

3.3 Statistical analysis

Structural equational modeling using Smart PLS software version (3.3.2) was used in the study. PLS-SEM uses all variance from the independent variable to check the variance in dependent variable. Also, PLS-SEM is referred to as the next generation of multivariate technique and another covariance-based option (Vinzi et al., 2010). Both confirmatory and exploratory research can be performed using PLS-SEM (Dhir and Dutta, 2020). In social sciences, the real-life truth of research is described by limited sample size and initial conceptual development, making it tough to meet the requirements of covariance-based SEM (Evermann and Tate, 2010). PLS-SEM has the privilege to achieve greater statistical power due to its causal predictive technique. Also, it works well with non-normal distributions. Therefore, the proposed model was tested using PLS-SEM. Unlike researchers in various fields had recognized PLS-SEM as a well-known and well-established technique (Hair et al., 2012).

3.4 Common Method bias

There was a probability of occurrence of common method bias because respondents themselves filled the questionnaire, which is prevalent in questionnaire-based studies and self-report measures. Harman single factor test was performed, and procedural integrity was ensured at the time of data collection to deal with common method bias. Participation was voluntary, and the purpose of the survey was conveyed well to each participant with the promise that the identity of the respondents will be retained anonymous and responses would be used for educational purposes only. Employees in the survey were told about the options briefly by mentioning that there were no correct or incorrect answers. The items of the questionnaire were brief and asked section-wise to break the monotony. Harman single factor test clarified that common method bias was not a subject of concern as the first factor explained 39.11% variance, lesser than the maximum limit of 50%. For any of the used constructs, no substantial difference was observed between early and late responses.

4. Results

PLS-SEM approach was applied to assess the effect of perceived support from family-friendly policies and supervisors on job satisfaction using work-family conflict as mediator. It performs an analytical procedure using two levels. The first step involves measurement model assessment, and the second step checks for the structural model.

4.1 Measurement model assessment

In measurement model assessment, the validity and reliability of the model were assessed. The measurement model checks the relation between the constructs and indicators. Measures such as Rho A, Cronbach’s alpha, and CR were used for checking the reliability of the data. All values of Cronbach’s alpha, Rho A and composite reliability were found more than the minimum threshold limit of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019; Hair et al., 2017) presented in Table 1. Indicator reliability was assessed using factor loading. All factor loadings value were more than 0.70 except for two statements of job satisfaction which were 0.657 and 0.684 shown in Table 1, but AVE of the construct had good value. Assessment of convergent validity was performed using AVE scores. All AVE scores range between 0.596 and 0.877 presented in Table 1. Hence, all AVE scores were more than the minimum threshold limit of 0.50, hence acceptable convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019).

Fornell and Larcker criterion 1981 and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation methods were used to check discriminant validity. All the square roots of AVE of the constructs were found to be more than the inter-item correlation values presented in Table 2. This study fulfills the requirement for Fornell and Larcker (1981). Also, all HTMT ratio of correlation has value less than the maximum threshold limit of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015) presented in Table 3. HTMT value and Fornell and Larcker criterion 1981 showed that the discriminant validity of the model was acceptable Fig 2.

4.2 Structural model assessment

Now, the structural model and hypothesis testing are represented in Table 4. For checking significance, bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was performed as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). The standardized beta for FFP and JS was 0.049, for FFP and WFC was −0.241, for SS and JS was 0.292, for SS and WFC was −0.351, for WFC and JS were −0.401 and the indirect effect between FFP and JS having WFC as mediator was 0.097, indirect effect between SS and JS having WFC as mediator was 0.141 presented in Table 4. Results of hypothesis testing indicate that all hypotheses except H2 were supported. The significance of the path coefficients has been investigated through t-values and P-value. There is a significant effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction. By comparing all path coefficients, it was found that there exists a significant and negative influence of both supervisor support and family-friendly policies on work-family conflict and which in turn leads to more job satisfaction.

Amount of variance in the model is explained using R2 presented in Table 5. It determines the explanatory power of exogeneous variables. The results showed that the model explains 37.1% of the variation in job satisfaction. 23.4% of the variation in work-family conflict is explained through the Independent variable. An R2 value of 0.2 in the case of behavioral studies is regarded as high (Hair et al., 2017). Hence, the R2 value is sufficient and acceptable.

Variance inflation factor (VIF) values range from 1.104 to 1.305 and thus having values lesser than the maximum threshold limit of 5 (Sarstedt et al., 2014). Hence there is no collinearity issue in the model. SRMR, a global model fit index, is important to report (Hair et al., 2020). SRMR value was 0.041, which is below the maximum limit of 0.08. Hence, the model shows good explanatory power (Henseler et al., 2016). Also, Stone–Geissers Q2 is calculated. Limits provided for examining the change in R2 due to the impact of an independent variable on the dependent variable are 0.02 for small effect, 0.15 depicts moderate and 0.35 for large effect (Cohen, 1988). This study has a Q2 value of 0.218 for Job satisfaction and 0.18 for work-family conflict, which is showing moderate relevance. Hence, the independent constructs are significant and the generalization of results is possible in different contexts in future. Work–life conflict discloses a moderate effect size for job satisfaction with F2 value of 0.196. Hence, Work-family conflict is most important in explaining job satisfaction in this model. In contrast, supervisor support shows weak effect size with F2 value of 0.108 on job satisfaction. However, in case of support from family-friendly policies, no effect size was found having F2 value of 0.003 only. Hence, both work-family conflict and supervisor support are essential in explaining the endogenous variable job satisfaction.

4.3 Mediation analysis

Results of bootstrapping show that there exists a significant and indirect effect of both supervisor support and family-friendly policies on the job satisfaction of employees shown in Table 4. Also, variance accounted for (VAF) was used to check mediation (Table 6).

Table 7 represents the significance of the mediating effect using the VAF. The finding showed that work-family conflict act as mediator between the relationship of family-friendly policies and job satisfaction. Also, the mediation result is significant for the supervisor support and job satisfaction relationship. Partial mediation exists in both cases as VAF values falls in the middle range of 0.2 <= VAF <= 0.8.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Results reveal that more job satisfaction can be attracted by lowering the work-family conflict of employees with the help of increasing the perception of support among employees using family-friendly policies and supervisor support. Family-friendly policies also significantly influence work-family conflict, but they do not directly influence job satisfaction. However, both the direct and indirect effect of supervisor support exists on job satisfaction. Work–family conflict acts as a mediator between family-friendly policies and job satisfaction as well as between supervisor support and job satisfaction. Results showing supervisor support has a positive effect on job satisfaction are consistent with previous studies' results (Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Ru Hsu, 2011; Griffin et al., 2001; Kula and Guler, 2014; Gok et al., 2015). Another finding that family-friendly policies have a negative influence on work-family conflict is consistent with previous literature (Anderson et al., 2002; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Aryee et al., 1998; Breaugh and Frye, 2008). Also, the finding that supervisor support negatively influences work-family conflict is consistent with past research results (Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Anderson et al., 2002; Gordon et al., 2007; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007). Thus, the overall result shows that both support from family-friendly policies and supervisor significantly influence work-family conflict, which in turn significantly influence job satisfaction. This implies that employees having low work-family conflict feel more satisfied at work. Hence, special attention is needed to reduce the work-family conflict to make the workforce more satisfied with the job. Supervisors are not only to check the performance of their employees but they have an important role in reducing work-family conflict of employees as well as ensuring more satisfaction at the job for their subordinates. Supervisors act as a link between management and subordinates. Therefore, the supervisor should provide for more voices of subordinates while making decisions for them. Supervisors should provide valuable feedback to their subordinates, and they need to be more approachable to the employees. An organization can let the employees feel more relaxed by reducing their work-family conflict using family-friendly policies and supportive supervisors, and such employees will be more satisfied with their jobs. It is important to provide need-based policies and required support from supervisor to help employees in dealing with their family issues simultaneously with their work.

6. Implications

In today’s highly turbulent business environment organization with the satisfied workforce has a competitive advantage. Management should take utmost care while selecting managers and supervisors. Also, managers should be provided with sensitivity training to understand the work-family needs of their subordinates. This research can help policymakers and researchers with further options for research. Such support will inculcate the feeling of supportiveness in the organization and it will help in reducing the turnover intention among the employees and attracting a talented pool of employees. Also, such results will help management in the formulation of need-based policies to reduce work-family conflict.

7. Limitation and future research avenues

This study has measured the perception regarding family-friendly policies and not the realistic usability of such programs. Effect of moderating variables such as gender and age can also be explored. Also, a longitudinal study can be performed to draw the causal inference. Future research can focus on other important variables like coworker support and spousal support that can help in creating a more family-supportive environment. It may be possible that needs of employees differ across different countries or geographical areas.

Figures

Conceptual framework

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework

Measurement model assessment

Figure 2.

Measurement model assessment

Results for the assessment of the measurement model

Construct Items Loadings CR Cronbach’s alpha Rho A AVE
Family-friendly policies 0.934 0.859 0.863 0.877
FFP1 0.941
FFP2 0.931
Supervisor support 0.931 0.911 0.92 0.692
SS1 0.884
SS2 0.811
SS3 0.762
SS4 0.83
SS5 0.825
SS6 0.873
Work-family Conflict 0.946 0.929 0.931 0.780
WFC1 0.89
WFC2 0.896
WFC3 0.879
WFC4 0.859
WFC5 0.889
Job satisfaction 0.914 0.922 0.93 0.596
JS1 0.835
JS2 0.745
JS3 0.806
JS4 0.657
JS5 0.824
JS6 0.827
JS7 0.684
JS8 0.825
JS9 0.723
Notes:

CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; FFP = family-friendly policies; SS = supervisor support; WFC = work-family conflict; and JS = job satisfaction

Source: Research data

Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion)

Constructs FFP JS SS WFC
FFP 0.936
JS 0.279 0.772
SS 0.307 0.478 0.832
WFC −0.349 −0.543 −0.426 0.883
Notes:

FFP = family-friendly policies; SS = supervisor support; WFC = work-family conflict; and JS = job satisfaction

Source: Research data

Discriminant validity (HTMT ratios)

Constructs FFP JS SS WFC
FFP
JS 0.309
SS 0.345 0.517
WFC 0.389 0.584 0.455
Notes:

FFP = family-friendly policies; SS = supervisor support; WFC = work-family conflict; JS = job satisfaction

Source: Research data

Hypothesis testing (direct and indirect effects)

Hypotheses Standardized coefficient Sample Mean (M) T-Statistics p-Value Decision
FFP → JS 0.049 0.049 1.091 0.275 Not supported
FFP → WFC −0.241** −0.242 5.039 0 Supported
SS → JS 0.292** 0.296 5.668 0 Supported
SS → WFC −0.351** −0.354 7.439 0 Supported
WFC → JS −0.401** −0.401 7.461 0 Supported
FFP → WFC → JS 0.097** 0.097 4.270 0 Supported
SS → WFC → JS 0.141** 0.142 5.511 0 Supported
Notes:

Parameter is significant at p < 0.001.

**

FFP = family-friendly policies; SS = supervisor support; WFC = work-family conflict; JS = job satisfaction

Source: Research data

Coefficient of determination (R2) and Q2

Endogenous variable R square Adjusted R square Q square
JS 0.371 0.366 0.218
WFC 0.234 0.23 0.18
Notes:

WFC = work-family conflict; JS = job satisfaction

Source: Research data

Size of indirect effects using VAF

Situation No Partial Full
VAF = indirect effect/total effect 0 < VAF 0.2 <= VAF <= 0.8 VAF > 0.8

Source: Hair et al. (2014)

Results of the mediation analysis (VAF)

Exogenous variable Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect VAF Mediation
Family-friendly policies 0.102 0.1778 0.2798 0.6354 Partial
Supervisor Support 0.302 0.1763 0.4783 0.3685 Partial

Source: Research data

References

Allen, T.D. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 414-435, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.

Almer, E.D. and Kaplan, S.E. (2002), “The effects of flexible work arrangements on stressors, burnout, and behavioral job outcomes in public accounting”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.2308/bria.2002.14.1.1.

Altindag, E. and Siller, F. (2014), “Effects of flexible working method on employee performance: an empirical study in Turkey”, Business and Economics Journal, Vol. 05 No. 3, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.4172/2151-6219.1000104.

Anderson, S.E., Coffey, B.S. and Byerly, R.T. (2002), “Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 787-810, doi: 10.1177/014920630202800605.

Aryee, S., Luk, V. and Stone, R. (1998), “Family-responsive variables and retention-relevant outcomes among employed parents”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 73-87, doi: 10.1023/A:1016953900821.

Aziri, B. (2011), “Job satisfaction: a literature review”, Management Research and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 77-86.

Bae, K.B. and Yang, G. (2017), “The effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a panel study conducted on South Korea’s public institutions”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-40, doi: 10.1177/0091026016689669.

Baltes, B.B., Briggs, T.E., Huff, J.W., Wright, J.A. and Neuman, G.A. (1999), “Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: a Meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 4, p. 496, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.496.

Baral, R. and Bhargava, S. (2010), “Work‐family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interventions for work‐life balance and job outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 274-300., doi: 10.1108/02683941011023749.

Baral, R. and Bhargava, S. (2011), “Predictors of work‐family enrichment: moderating effect of core self‐evaluations”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 220-243, doi: 10.1108/17554191111180573.

Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M. and Stewart, J. (2018), “Flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies among academics”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 314-336, doi: 10.1177/1534484318787628.

Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), “An index of job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 307-311, doi: 10.1037/h0055617.

Breaugh, J.A. and Frye, N.K. (2008), “Work-family conflict: the importance of family-friendly employment practices and family-supportive supervisors”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 345-353, doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9081-1.

Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M.P. and Kalliath, T.J. (2005), “The ability of'family-friendly' organizational resources to predict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction”, Stress and Health, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 223-234, doi: 10.1002/smi.1059.

Bruck, C.S., Allen, T.D. and Spector, P.E. (2002), “The relation between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: a finer-grained analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 336-353, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1836.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900, doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602.

Dhir, S. and Dutta, T. (2020), “Linking supervisor-support, person-job fit and person-organization fit to company value”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 549-561, doi: 10.1108/JIBR-04-2019-0124.

Ernst Kossek, E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-149, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139.

Evermann, J. and Tate, M. (2010), “Testing models or fitting models? Identifying model misspecification in PLS”, ICIS proceeding, p. 21.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65.

Frye, N.K. and Breaugh, J.A. (2004), “Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: a test of a conceptual model”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197-220, doi: 10.1007/s10869-004-0548-4.

Galinsky, E. and Bond, J.T. (1998), The Business Work-Life Study, a Sourcebook, Families and Work Institute, Seventh Avenue, New York, NY.

Galinsky, E. and Stein, P.J. (1990), “The impact of human resource policies on employees: Balancing work/family life”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 368-383, doi: 10.1177/019251390011004002.

Gok, S., Karatuna, I. and Karaca, P.O. (2015), “The role of perceived supervisor support and organizational identification in job satisfaction”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 177 No. 1, pp. 38-42, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.328.

Gordon, J.R., Whelan-Berry, K.S. and Hamilton, E.A. (2007), “The relationship among work-family conflict and enhancement, organizational work-family culture, and work outcomes for older working women”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 350-364, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.350.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88, doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4277352.

Grice, M.M., McGovern, P.M. and Alexander, B.H. (2008), “Flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict after childbirth”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 468-474, doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqn090.

Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G. and West, M.A. (2001), “Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 537-550, doi: 10.1002/job.101.

Grover, S.L. and Crooker, K.J. (1995), “Who appreciates family‐responsive human resource policies: the impact of family‐friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non‐parents”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 271-288, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01757.x.

Gupta, P. and Srivastava, S. (2020), “Work–life conflict and burnout among working women: a mediated moderated model of support and resilience”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 29 No. 3, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2019-1993.

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), (2nd ed), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hair, J.F., Jr, Howard, M.C. and Nitzl, C. (2020), “Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 101-110, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.

Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications.

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “Rethinking some of the rethinkings of partial least squares”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 566-584, doi: 10.1108/EJM-10-2018- 0665.

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2012), “The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 320-340, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008.

Hammer, L.B., Neal, M.B., Newsom, J.T., Brockwood, K.J. and Colton, C.L. (2005), “A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples' utilization of family-friendly workplace support on work and family outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 799-810, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.799.

Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

Higgins, C., Duxbury, L. and Julien, M. (2014), “The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict”, Work, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-81, doi: 10.3233/WOR-141859. inPLS”.In ICIS (p.21).

Jeffrey Hill, E., Grzywacz, J.G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V.L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S. and Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008), “Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 149-163, doi: 10.1080/13668800802024678.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley.

Kang, Y.H. (2013), “Is family-friendly policy (FFP) working in the private sector of South Korea?”, SpringerPlus, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 561-572, doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-561.

Karatepe, O.M. and Kilic, H. (2007), “Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work-family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 238-252, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.019.

Kula, S. and Guler, A. (2014), “Influence of supervisor support on job satisfaction levels: an evaluation of Turkish national police (TNP) officers in the Istanbul police department”, International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 209-224.

Lazar, I., Osoian, C. and Ratiu, P. (2010), “The role of work-life balance practices in order to improve organizational performance”, European Research Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 201-214.

Lease, S.H. (1998), “Annual review, 1993–1997: work attitudes and outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 154-183, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1662.

Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, RandMc Narlly, Chicago, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 360-580.

McNall, L.A., Nicklin, J.M. and Masuda, A.D. (2010), “A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 381-396, doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1.

Martinez-Sanchez, A., Perez-Perez, M., Vela-Jimenez, M.J. and Abella-Garces, S. (2018), “Job satisfaction and work-family policies through work-family enrichment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5, pp. 386-402, doi: 10.1108/JMP-10-2017-0376.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and Viswesvaran, C. (2006), “How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: a meta-analytic examination”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 555-574, doi: 10.1007/s12122-006-1020-1.

Namasivayam, K. and Zhao, X. (2007), “An investigation of the moderating effects of organizational commitment on the relationships between work-family conflict and job satisfaction among hospitality employees in India”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1212-1223, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.021.

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-410., doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400.

Ngah, N., Ahmad, A., Hamid, T.A. and Ismail, A. (2010), “The mediating role of work-family conflict in the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction”, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 187-197.

Ozcelik, H. and Paprika, Z.Z. (2010), “Developing emotional awareness in cross-cultural communication: a video conferencing approach”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 671-699, doi: 10.1177/1052562910362664.

Possenriede, D.S. and Plantenga, J. (2011), “Access to flexible work arrangements, working-time fit and job satisfaction”, Discussion Paper Series/Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, Vol. 11 No. 22.

Qureshi, M.A., Ab Hamid, K.B., Jeihoony, P., Ali, R., Brohi, N.A., Magsi, R. and Shah, S.M.M. (2018), “Is supervisor support matter in job satisfaction? A moderating role of fairness perception among nurses in Pakistan”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1-10.

Rau, B.L. and Hyland, M.A.M. (2002), “Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: the effects on applicant attraction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 111-136, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00105.x.

Rawashdeh, A.M., Almasarweh, M.S. and Jaber, J. (2016), “Do flexible work arrangements affect job satisfaction and work-life balance in Jordanian private airlines?”, International Journal of Information, Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 172-184.

Ru Hsu, Y. (2011), “Work‐family conflict and job satisfaction in stressful working environments: the moderating roles of perceived supervisor support and internal locus of control”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 233-248, doi: 10.1108/01437721111130224.

Russell, H., O'Connell, P.J. and McGinnity, F. (2009), “The impact of flexible working arrangements on work-life conflict and work pressure in Ireland”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 73-97, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00431.x.

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair, J.F. Jr, (2014), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 105-115, doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.

Saxena, R. (2018), “Achieving work-life balance through flexible work schedule: a conceptual study”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 307-312, doi: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00046.X.

Shrivastava, A. and Purang, P. (2009), “Employee perceptions of job satisfaction: a comparative study on Indian banks”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 65-78.

Singh, S., Singh, S.K. and Srivastava, S. (2020), “Relational exploration of the effect of work-related scheme on job satisfaction”, Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 111-128.

Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, (Vol. 3), Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Steinhardt, M.A., Dolbier, C.L., Gottlieb, N.H. and McCalister, K.T. (2003), “The relationship between hardiness, supervisor support, group cohesion, and job stress as predictors of job satisfaction”, American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 382-389, doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-17.6.382.

Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6.

Vinzi, V.E., Trinchera, L. and Amato, S. (2010), “PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 47-82.

Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2011), “Implementing family‐friendly employment practices in banking industry: evidences from some African and Asian countries”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 493-517, doi: 10.1348/096317910 X525363.

Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-194, doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1.

Yildirim, D. and Aycan, Z. (2008), “Nurses' work demands and work-family conflict: a questionnaire survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1366-1378, doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.10.010.

Corresponding author

Varsha Yadav can be contacted at: varshayadav.ubs@gmail.com

Related articles