Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict and Work-Family Enrichment: A Longitudinal, Multilevel, and Multimethod Study

  • Pedro Hollanda
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


This study investigated predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict and work-family enrichment. Family-supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB), family-supportive colleagues behaviors (FSCB), work events, and family events were tested as predictors of the daily variation of work-family conflict and enrichment (both directions). As outcomes, this study investigated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and mindfulness at work. Fifty-two Brazilian workers responded to app-based daily survey measures during 2 workweeks (10 workdays). Ten participants were also interviewed after these 2 weeks. Multilevel analyses showed that family-supportive behaviors were not associated with the longitudinal variation of conflict nor enrichment. However, work events were related to WFC, and family events were related to FWC. As expected, work-family conflict and enrichment predicted mindfulness at work and OCB. Another significant predictor of OCB was awareness at work, a dimension of mindfulness at work. Interestingly, OCB was related to work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment. Interview results suggested that the event system theory propositions are applicable to the work-family field. Furthermore, the participation on the research affected how participants view and deal with work-family issues. Finally, the results emphasized the importance of data collection strategies.


Daily diary study Mindfulness at work Organizational citizenship behaviors Work-family conflict Work-family enrichment Family-supportive behaviors 


  1. Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A metaanalysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barta, W., Tennen, H., & Litt, M. D. (2012). Measurement reactivity in diary research. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 108–123). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Bolino, M. C., Harvey, J., & Bachrach, D. G. (2012). A self-regulation approach to understanding citizenship behavior in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breaugh, J. A., & Frye, N. K. (2008). Work-family conflict: The importance of family-friendly employment practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(4), 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–165). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Brummelhuis, L., & Bakker, A. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brummelhuis, L., & Lautsch, B. A. (2016). Office or kitchen? Wellbeing consequences of role participation depend on role salience. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantal, C., Borges-Andrade, J. E., & Porto, J. B. (2015). Cooperação, comportamentos proativos ou simplesmente cidadania organizacional? Uma revisão da produção nacional na área. Revista Psicologia Organizações e Trabalho, 15(3), 286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, G. F. (2010). Do theories of organizations progress? Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2017). The buffering role of sportsmanship on the effects of daily negative events. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Den Dulk, L., Peper, B., Kanjuo Mrčela, A., & Ignjatović, M. (2016). Supervisory support in Slovenian and Dutch organizations: A contextualizing approach. Community, Work and Family, 19(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Endsley, M. R. (1997). The role of situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 269–284). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammer, L. B., Ernst Kossek, E., Bodner, T., & Crain, T. (2013). Measurement development and validation of the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Short-Form (FSSB-SF). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., Carlson, D. S., & Smith, S. A. (2010). Linking team resources to work–family enrichment and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 304–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Using diary methods in psychological research. In: H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 277–305).Google Scholar
  33. Kacmar, K. M., Crawford, W. S., Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2014). A short and valid measure of work-family enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(2), 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matthews, R. A., Kath, L. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). A short, valid, predictive measure of work–family conflict: Item selection and scale validation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 and Psychology, 25(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: An event oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nohe, C. (2014). Consequences of work–family conflict. Doctoral dissertation, Heidelberg University. Retrieved from
  40. Nohe, C., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Work–family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poelmans, S., Greenhaus, J., & Maestro, M. L. H. (2013). Expanding the boundaries of workfamily research: A vision for the future. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2010). MLwiN Version 2.20. Centre for Multilevel Modelling. University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  46. Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness, 6(1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  48. Rioux, S., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1303–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Conflict at work, negative emotions, and performance: A diary study. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture: Effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Mayo, M. (2010). Work-family balance and energy: A day-level study on recovery conditions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shrout, P. E., & Lane, S. P. (2013). Psychometrics. In M. R. Mehl & T. A. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 302–320). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  53. Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Straub, C. (2012). Antecedents and organizational consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior: A multilevel conceptual framework for research. Human Resource Management Review, 22(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taris, T. W. (2000). A primer in longitudinal data analysis. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work–family conflict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 462–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Hollanda
    • 1
  1. 1.National Secretariat of Family, Brazilian Ministry of Woman, Family and Human RightsBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations