Search results

Work–nonwork policies and practices provide support for employee well-being, as well as a competitive advantage that can help differentiate organizations. However, not all work–nonwork policies and practices are effective, utilized, or relevant. In this chapter, the authors introduce “organizational boundary management strategy” as a way to leverage these policies and practices, making them more widely adopted and more effective. Organizational boundary management strategy refers to how an organization as a whole tends to support workers’ work–nonwork boundaries (i.e., via segmentation, integration, or somewhere in between). Although boundary management has historically tended to focus on how individuals navigate distinctions between work and personal life, the authors extend boundary management to the organization to suggest how understanding and aligning the organization’s overall boundary management strategies can support worker well-being. To expound on this, the authors present a model suggesting how organizational boundary management can be used to support worker well-being.

This paper aims to provide and meta-analytically investigate a theoretical framework of work–nonwork conflict and its antecedents and outcomes in hospitality management.

This paper adopts the psychometric meta-analytical methods and meta-structural equation modeling methods to synthesize the relationships between work-to-nonwork conflict (WNC) and nonwork-to-work conflict (NWC) and its antecedents and outcomes.

WNC and NWC are found to be correlated with antecedents including social support; positive affectivity and negative affectivity; work characteristics; and outcomes including job-related well-being, life-related well-being, burnout, performance and turnover intentions.

This paper is the very first meta-analysis in International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. It is also the first meta-analysis on the relationship between overall work–nonwork conflict and its antecedents and outcomes in hospitality and tourism.

In the present chapter, we explore how employee well-being changes over time, both linear and psychological during periods of economic instability. Moreover, we examine how employee job embeddedness (JE) buffers the effects of economic shocks on employee well-being, and how these buffering effects change employee perceptions of time. We theorize that employees with higher levels of JE psychologically experience economic shocks as occurring infrequently with the economically unstable period feeling quick, but employees with lower levels of JE psychologically experience economic shocks as occurring frequently with the economically unstable period feeling slow. Finally, we extend these relationships to account for the spread of employee well-being through social connections, both inside and outside of the work context. Because JE requires strong social connections, we theorize that the links component of embeddedness is responsible for economic shocks and employee well-being crossing over the work/nonwork boundary. We discuss the implications for our theoretical model.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model that investigates work engagement as a mediator of the effect of family support on proclivity to leave work early, in-role performance (IRP), service recovery performance (SRP) and extra-role performance (ERP). The research model also examines work engagement as a mediator of the impact of self-efficacy on the aforesaid outcomes. In addition to these relationships, the study assesses self-efficacy as an underlying mechanism linking family support to work engagement.

The authors employed a time-lagged design. Specifically, data were obtained from frontline bank employees (FBEs) in Russia in three waves, within one week time intervals. FBEs’ performance outcomes were rated by their managers.

As hypothesized, self-efficacy and family support foster FBEs’ work engagement, which in turn reduces proclivity to leave work early and activates IRP, SRP and ERP. In line with the study predictions, the findings highlight the impact of self-efficacy in the intermediate linkage between family support and work engagement.

Management should organize workshops where FBEs’ family members are invited to participate. In such workshops, they can understand the nature of frontline service jobs in the competitive banking environment and are expected to provide support to FBEs. This is significant because family support influences work engagement directly and indirectly through self-efficacy and affects the above-mentioned performance outcomes only via work engagement. Training programs should not only focus on the development of knowledge, skills and abilities for service delivery and complaint handling but also center on the costs arising from nonattendance behaviors/intentions. As a result, these programs should make FBEs minimize such intentions.

Work engagement is still a timely topic and there have been calls for the identification of factors influencing work engagement and its consequences among frontline employees. Therefore, our study uses family support and self-efficacy as the two crucial resources that can influence employees’ positive psychological states and their work performance. Further, using solid theoretical underpinnings such as conservation of resources, social information processing, and job demands-resources theories, our study is the first to link family support and self-efficacy to multiple performance outcomes and nonattendance intentions via work engagement among FBEs.

This study aims to examine senior executives’ work–life (WL) experiences, perceptions and consequences in light of leader gender.

Multi-wave data were collected from 133 executives at a large, global technology company. Time 1 assessed need for and usage of flexibility options (flextime, telework and compressed work week), organizational support and work-to-home interference (WHI); Time 2 yielded supervisor-rated performance; and Time 3 assessed commitment.

Leader gender interacted with childcare and eldercare in predicting organizational support: female leaders perceived less WHI for both types of care demands. Leader gender interacted with eldercare (but not childcare) in predicting the need for flexibility: female leaders reported necessitating less flexibility for eldercare, despite males’ higher perceived interference. Leaders of both genders indicated lower interference when they perceived organizational support, and higher organizational commitment when interference was low and when their employer satisfied their flexibility needs. Hearteningly, performance reviews were not more negative for employees with flexibility needs or using flexibility policies.

This research yields important implications, including empirical justification for WL management initiatives being extended to include men as well as women, and expanded for both genders. This is particularly true for leaders, as high-level employees report especially intense workloads and unclear boundaries between domains.

As gender, work and family roles continue to evolve, research must keep pace with evaluating those trajectories in light of research and practice. This study contributes to filling the gap at that intersection, with a focus on senior executives, a unique but oft-neglected group.

Despite a burgeoning literature on family-supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB), it is unclear whether supervisors view these behaviors as in-role or discretionary. We proposed a new cognitive motivational construct, FSSB role perceptions (FSSB-RP; that is the extent to which supervisors perceive FSSB as an expected part of their job) and evaluated it as a mediator of the relationship between supervisors' own work–family experiences and FSSB.

We used an online survey of 245 US based supervisors.

We find that FSSB role perceptions is a unique but related construct to FSSB, and that approximately half of our sample of 245 supervisors either do not believe that FSSB is a part of their job or are unsure as to whether it is. Path analyses revealed that supervisors' own experiences of work–family conflict and enrichment are related to engaging in FSSB through role perceptions, especially when a reward system is in place that values FSSB.

These results may influence the design, implementation and dissemination of leader family-supportive training programs.

The factors that drive supervisors to engage in FSSB are relatively unknown, yet this study suggests the novel construct of FSSB role perceptions and supervisors' own work–family experiences are important factors.

Changing work/family dynamics and economic developments have made it more likely that an employee might work with a family member or spouse. Such working relationships offer a unique perspective by which to understand the work/family interface; however, relatively little research has explored the implications of working with family for employee stress and well-being. In this chapter, we review the existing research concerning stress associated with working with family. We integrate this research into broader demand/resource perspectives on employee stress and well-being, highlighting the manner in which working with family provides unique demands and resources through differences in work–family linking mechanisms. We conclude with suggestions for future research that might enhance our understanding of the work/family interface by considering the dynamics of working with family.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of superior support, in the presence of a range of work role stressors, on both conflict and enrichment aspects of work-life interface simultaneously. The paper frames the research narrative of superior support by contextualizing it within superior’s dichotomous and opposing roles of organizational performance driver and support provider.

Survey data was collected from Malaysian work adults. Drawing on a sample of 1,051 cases, structural equation modeling technique is used to examine the effect of superior support, with the presence of work role stressors, on individuals’ work-life experience. Three alternate models are compared: superior support as moderator of stressors-strain relationship; both superior support and work stressors as direct antecedents of work-life experience; and superior support as indirect antecedent (mediated by work role stressors) of work-life experience.

Findings evidence the favorable model of superior support as indirect antecedent (mediated by work role stressors) of work-life experience. In addition, superior support has significant impact on work role ambiguity and work-life enrichment, however, its effect on work role conflict, work role overload and work-life conflict is not significant. Findings of the study also demonstrate the distinct effect of work role stressors on work-life experience in terms of direction and strength of impact.

While superior support promotes greater work-life enrichment, its effect on work-life conflict is limited. Therefore, instead of superior support, employers have to identify alternate resources to assist employees to deal with conflict and interference of work-life interface. Distinctiveness of various work role stressors and interaction between these work role stressors offer practical implications to employer that all stressors at workplace should not be treated as identical and common to each other. Distinct effort should be taken to address different forms of work role stressors so that work-life conflict (resource depletion) can be minimized while work-life enrichment (resource gaining) can be enhanced.

The research investigates superior support in relation to work stressor and work-life experience by scrutinizing the role of supervisors from the vantage point of supervisors as performance drivers as well as support providers. This provides a balanced narrative as compared to previous research focussing solely on either the support perspective or the employee effort extraction perspective. In its execution, the research incorporates enrichment aspect of work-life experience, in addition to the conflict and negative effect. Drawing on the Conservation of Resources Theory, the study teases out important implication for employers and researchers to show that superior support and work role stressors come together to shape individuals’ work-life experience by depleting resources (work-life conflict) and gaining resources (work-life enrichment) simultaneously, as well as drawing out the dilemma of supervisors as performance drivers and support providers at the same time.

The paper seeks to examine whether spillover from “nonwork” to work contributes to individuals' well‐being.

An online survey was administered to New Zealand local government employees. Positive (facilitation) and negative (conflict) spillover from two “nonwork” domains (family and personal benefit activities) to work were investigated. The survey also assessed psychological involvement (in work, family and personal benefit activities), time devoted to each domain, and self‐reported well‐being in each area.

Levels of nonwork‐to‐work facilitation were moderate, and significantly higher than nonwork‐to‐work conflict, and well‐being was moderately high (although greater for the family and personal benefit domains than for work). There were significant positive relationships between psychological involvement in the nonwork domains and levels of facilitation from these domains to work, and nonwork‐to‐work facilitation was associated with higher well‐being. Time invested in family and personal activities was not linked with greater nonwork‐to‐work conflict. Mediation analyses indicated that psychological involvement (in family and personal activities) was associated with increased facilitation, which in turn enhanced well‐being.

Engagement in family and personal benefit activities yields positive outcomes for individuals, in terms of their psychological well‐being and facilitation of work‐related outcomes. Encouragement to engage in these areas can therefore be beneficial for both individuals and their employing organizations.

The main contribution of this research is that involvement in personal benefit activities (as another component of the “nonwork” domain, in addition to family activities) can have positive outcomes for individuals, resulting in facilitation of work outcomes and positive well‐being.