1. Kailasapathy Et Al. (2014) the Interactive Effects of LMX, Gender and Spouse's Gender

8/12/2019 1. Kailasapathy Et Al. (2014) the Interactive Effects of LMX, Gender and Spouse's Gender

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-kailasapathy-et-al-2014-the-interactive-effects-of-lmx-gender-and-spouses 1/23

This article was downloaded by: [Australian Catholic University]On: 05 March 2014, At: 00:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of Human

Resource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The interactive effects of

leader–member exchange, gender and

spouse's gender role orientation on

work interference with family conflictPavithra Kailasapathy

a, Maria L. Kraimer

b & Isabel Metz

c

a Department of Human Resources Management, Faculty of

Management & Finance, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri

Lankab Department of Management & Organizations, University of Iowa,

Iowa City, IA, USAc Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Carlton,

VIC, AustraliaPublished online: 28 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Pavithra Kailasapathy, Maria L. Kraimer & Isabel Metz (2014): The interactive

effects of leader–member exchange, gender and spouse's gender role orientation on work

interference with family conflict, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:

10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09585192.2014.891637


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09585192.2014.891637




This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions



The interactive effects of leader–member exchange, gender

and spouse’s gender role orientation on work interferencewith family conflict

Pavithra Kailasapathya*, Maria L. Kraimerb and Isabel Metzc

a Department of Human Resources Management, Faculty of Management & Finance, University of

Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka; b

Department of Management & Organizations, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;

c Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia

Based on social support and gender role theories, we examined the direct andinteractive effects of leader– member exchange, gender and spouse’s gender roleorientation on work–family conflict. Survey data were collected from matched dyadsfrom 185 dual-earner couples in Sri Lanka. The results show that leader–memberexchange is negatively related to work interference with family. There is also supportfor crossover effects among couples such that individuals with spouses who have atraditional gender role orientation experience greater work interference with familyconflict. Finally, there is a three-way interaction such that a spouse’s gender roleorientation moderates the relationship between leader–member exchange and work interference with family conflict differently for men and women.

Keywords: gender role orientation; leader–member exchange; social support theory;work–family conflict

Introduction

In the last several decades, work– family conflict (WFC) emerged as an issue for families

as more women entered the workforce, resulting in more dual-earner and single, working-

parent families (Aryee, Srinivas and Tan 2005). WFC occurs when the time demands,

strain and behaviour of one domain (e.g. work) are incompatible with the time demands,

strain and behaviour in the other domain (e.g. family) (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).

Examples are a meeting at work that prevents an individual from picking up her/his child

from school, or a child’s sickness that prevents an individual from attending work. WFC

has been shown to have negative effects on individuals (e.g. life dissatisfaction,

depression, substance abuse, guilt), families (e.g. marital dissatisfaction, crossover stress)

and organisations (e.g. absenteeism, turnover, burnout, job dissatisfaction) (Carlson,

Kacmar and Williams 2000; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux and Brinley 2005).

Consequently, a better understanding of how to reduce WFC has become an important

issue for individuals, families and organisations.

To that end, a number of studies have been conducted to identify antecedents of WFC.

These antecedents can be categorised into family characteristics (e.g. marital status and

number of children), background characteristics (e.g. demographics such as sex and age),

work attitudes and job attributes (e.g. hours, characteristics of the job) (for reviews, see

Carlson et al. 2000; Eby et al. 2005; Shaffer, Joplin and Hsu 2011). These studies have

provided important insights to better understand drivers of WFC, yet relatively littleresearch has examined the simultaneous effects of supervisor and spousal factors on WFC.

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

http://-/?-

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.891637

mailto:[email protected]

http://-/?-



This is a surprising oversight in the literature because supervisors may play particularly

important roles in helping individuals better balance their work and family demands due to

the power structure inherent in supervisory relationships at work (Major, Fletcher, Davis

and Germano 2008). In family relationships, spouse’s behaviours and attitudes have an

influence on the other spouse (for a review, see Eby et al. 2005). Thus, the overall purpose

of our study is to extend the research on antecedents to WFC by examining (a) when andhow the quality of the relationship with one’s supervisor relates to WFC, and (b) whether

spouse’s gender role orientation relates directly or indirectly to WFC. We examine these

issues from a social support theoretical perspective and with Sri Lankan dual-earner

couples who are employed full-time. Dual-earner couples are defined as couples in which

both the partners are employed, or one partner holds a career and the other a job (Hammer,

Allen and Grigsby 1997). In addition, we examine WFC in terms of the domain-specific

conflict of work interfering with family (WIF). We focus on WIF conflict, and not family

interfering with work (FIW) conflict, because supervisors are more likely to be in a

position to help employees minimise the work spilling over into the family, than vice

versa.More specifically, we examine the relationship between leader–member exchange

(LMX) with one’s supervisor and WIF conflict. By focusing on the quality of the

relationship that an individual has with an important person in the work role, the current

study goes beyond past studies that have examined other aspects of work roles, such as role

commitment and role overload, as predictors of WIF conflict (Eby et al. 2005). We also

extend Major et al.’s (2008) finding that LMX negatively relates to WIF conflict by

examining this relationship in the context of the spousal relationship. Like Major et al., we

focus on LMX rather than family supportive supervisor behaviour (FSSB; e.g. Breaugh

and Frye 2008) because of the broader work-based support provided by LMX. FSSB is

concerned only with the supervisor’s support for the family, whereas a high-quality LMXrelationship provides the employee with resources and support for many work-related

issues. For example, LMX is associated with greater decision latitude, growth

opportunities, and friendship and personal respect (Dienesch and Liden 1986).

In addition, we examine whether spouse’s gender role orientation is related to one’s

feelings of WIF conflict, and whether spouse’s gender role orientation moderates the

effects of LMX on WIF conflict. Gender role orientation reflects an individual’s beliefs

about women’s and men’s roles in paid labour, in the household and in childcare

(Firestone, Harris and Lambert 1999). Livingston and Judge (2008) proposed that gender

role orientation may help explain the mixed, and somewhat weak, effects of gender on

WFC (e.g. Byron 2005). Livingston and Judge (2008) found that one’s own gender role

orientation moderated the effects of WFC on experienced guilt. Somech and Drach-

Zahavy (2007) found gender role ideology moderated the coping strategy– WFC

relationship. Our study contributes to this research by examining whether the spouse’s

gender role orientation relates to one’s WFC either directly or indirectly as a moderator of

other antecedents to WFC. We examine spouse’s gender role orientation because it is

likely to influence how much help or support an individual gets from his/her spouse with

house and child responsibilities.

Finally, our study extends the generalisability of the WIF conflict construct and theory

to an Eastern country. To date, most WFC studies utilise samples from Western cultures,

especially the USA (for a review, see Shaffer et al. 2011). Due to globalisation and

movement of labour across nations, studies are needed to understand what influences WFCin Eastern cultures (Yang, Chen, Choi and Zou 2000). On the one hand, by conducting our

study in Sri Lanka, we provide generalisability of some previous research findings on the

P. Kailasapathy et al.2



antecedents of WFC (some of which are included as control variables in our study), the

validity of a common measure of WFC to this Eastern culture and a culturally sensitive

view of WIF conflict by considering Eastern cultural values in developing the hypotheses

(Powell, Francesco and Ling 2009). On the other hand, a Sri Lankan-based study does not

necessarily expand what we already know about Western societies.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

We draw on both social support and gender role theories to develop hypotheses regarding

how LMX, gender role orientation and gender relate to WIF conflict. LMX quality and

spouse’s gender role orientation are both expected to be related to WIF conflict because

both supervisors and spouses can provide social support to the focal employee that can

help him/her reduce WIF.

Leader– member exchange and social support theorySocial support has been defined as ‘the availability of helping relationships and the quality

of those relationships’ (Leavy 1983, p. 5). Kahn and Quinn (1976) argue that social

support entails giving another person instrumental aid and emotional support such as

affection and affirmation. LMX represents a form of social support in that it provides

individuals with varying levels of instrumental and emotional support (Kraimer, Wayne

and Jaworski 2001). Thus, LMX quality should help individuals reduce WIF conflict

(Frone 2000).

More specifically, LMX is defined as the quality of the relationship shared by a

supervisor and a subordinate (Dienesch and Liden 1986). A high-quality exchange

relationship is defined as one in which leaders and members show mutual affection,express public support for one another, contribute efforts to help one another achieve work

goals and demonstrate respect for each other’s professional accomplishments (Liden and

Maslyn 1998). According to LMX theory, supervisors treat their employees differently in

line with the quality of their relationship (Dienesch and Liden 1986). This differential

treatment might include instrumental support such as providing flexible work schedules or

changes to work priorities to help balance work and family (Dienesch and Liden 1986;

Carlson and Perrewe 1999). Further, employees in high LMX relationships enjoy greater

trust, respect and liking from their supervisors, thus providing them with emotional

support and potential latitude to negotiate work demands (Major et al. 2008). Such

instrumental and emotional support should allow employees to reduce the likelihood that

work will interfere with family demands. Indeed, in a USA sample of information

technology workers, Major et al. (2008) found that LMX was negatively related to WIF

conflict. As we found no equivalent studies conducted in a non-Western country, we

believe that the LMX–WIF conflict relationship should be tested using a sample of dual

earners from Sri Lanka.

In general, women in many non-Western societies are constrained in pursuing work

interests outside the home by cultural norms, legislation and government policies (e.g.

Ahmad 2011; Chao 2011; Fernando and Cohen 2011; Icheku 2011). In the absence of a

cultural and legislative framework supportive of equal opportunity, it is less likely that

organisations operating in Eastern societies have work–family friendly policies (e.g. offer

paid or unpaid parental leave to employees). As a result, we expect supervisor’s support(or LMX) to be critical in reducing the WFC that employees with family responsibilities

may feel in Eastern societies.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3



Sri Lanka is an example of an Eastern society where organisations are not required to

have family-friendly work policies. Further, Sri Lanka’s power distance is relatively high

compared to Western countries such as the USA and Australia, which are both relatively

low on power distance. This can be seen in the power distance scores for India (77), a

country culturally similar to Sri Lanka, compared to the scores for USA (40), Great Britain

(35) and Australia (36) (Hofstede 2001; see also Javidan, House and Dorfman 2004). Webelieve that employees in a high power distance country may find that high-quality LMX

is especially important to helping them manage WIF conflict. Within a higher power

distance context, employees may feel more compelled to please their leaders and follow

their advice. Thus, having a supportive leader who provides resources for managing work

and family is likely to be especially critical in this context.

Hypothesis 1: Quality of leader–member exchange negatively relates to work

interference with family conflict.

Gender role orientation and gender role theory

Gender encompasses the behavioural, cultural and psychological traits associated with

one’s sex (Deaux 1985; Hawkesworth 1997). Gender role theory explains how these sex-

based traits have implications for societal expectations for men and women. Gender role

orientation is defined in terms of how strongly a person believes in the traditional gender

roles that exist in his/her society (Livingston and Judge 2008). A traditional gender role

orientation identifies specific and distinct roles for men and women in marriage, such that

the husband should be the head of the family and income earner, and the wife should be

submissive and take care of the household and children (Denton 2004). A society low on

traditional gender role orientation is one that values equality across genders (Javidan et al.2004). These traditional gender role norms have implications for how men and women

experience WFC in that there are ‘asymmetrically permeable boundaries’ between work

and family roles for men and women (Pleck 1977). That is, for women, the demands of the

family role intrude into work more than vice versa. In contrast, for men, the demands of

the work role intrude into family more than vice versa (Pleck 1977). Based on Pleck’s

(1977) gender role norms reasoning, it has been argued that men will experience more

WIF conflict than women (e.g. Powell et al. 2009).

Compared to the USA and other Anglo countries, Southern Asian societies more

strongly value a traditional gender role orientation that is male dominated and tolerate

gender inequality (Javidan et al. 2004). As such, women who do enter the workforce in

countries such as Sri Lanka may be particularly challenged to balance work and family

since the culture as a whole tends towards a traditional gender role orientation

(Wickramasinghe and Jayatilaka 2006). In comparison, for men, society expectations are

that their spouses, whether working or not, will take the responsibility for household work

and childcare (Wickramasinghe and Jayatilaka 2006). Thus, the degree to which one’s

spouse personally values traditional gender roles may be particularly important to

managing WFC in a country such as Sri Lanka. We expect spouse’s gender role orientation

to be related to one’s WIF conflict because spouses will provide more or less social support

in the home depending on the spouse’s gender role orientation and one’s gender.

Specifically, for a male, we expect a negative relationship between his spouse’s gender

role orientation and his WIF conflict. A female spouse that highly values traditional genderroles will perform the traditional wife and mother roles at home (i.e. take responsibility for

household work and childcare) providing her husband with greater emotional and




instrumental support at home (Denton 2004). This creates fewer home-based

responsibilities for the male employee and allows him to focus more on work

responsibilities. At the opposite end, if a female spouse has low traditional gender role

beliefs, she will expect her partner to share the household and childcare responsibilities,

thereby increasing his home-based responsibilities and potential for WIF conflict. Thus,

for males, there should be a negative relationship between spouse’s gender role orientationand WIF conflict.

In comparison, females with spouses low on gender role orientation will receive more

instrumental and emotional support in the home compared to those with spouses high on

traditional gender role orientation. By definition, as a male spouse’s gender role

orientation moves from low (non-traditional) to high (traditional), he will increasingly do

less of the household work and expect his working wife to do more of the household work

(Denton 2004). Thus, there should be a positive relationship between spouse’s traditional

gender role orientation and WIF conflict, among females.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between the spouse’s traditional gender role orientation

and the focal person’s WIF conflict is moderated by the focal person’s

gender such that (a) men have a negative relationship and (b) women

have a positive relationship.

Leader– member exchange and spouse’s gender role orientation

Because WFC is affected by what happens at home and work, we expect there to be a

three-way interaction between the focal person’s gender, LMX and spouse’s gender role

orientation in predicting the focal person’s WIF conflict. In particular, we expect that the

nature of the negative relationship between the focal person’s LMX and WIF conflict willdepend on both the person’s gender and their spouse’s gender role orientation. For men,

LMX is expected to be more strongly negatively related to WIF conflict when their female

spouses have lower (non-traditional) gender role orientation, compared to when their

spouses have higher gender role orientation. As discussed above, when the working wife

has a non-traditional gender role orientation, she may be more likely to expect her spouse

to contribute to household work (Greenstein 1996) and may be less likely to provide

instrumental support to her husband at home. As such, male employees with non-

traditional working wives may experience greater demands at home. A more supportive

leader may thus be especially critical to helping the male employee better manage their

work against their responsibilities at home. When the female spouse is high on gender role

orientation, she will not expect her husband, the male employee, to contribute as much to

the household work. Thus, LMX will be less important to managing WIF conflict for such

men. In sum, among males, high-quality LMX should be more negatively related to WIF

conflict when his spouse is lower, rather than higher, on gender-role orientation.

For women, we expect LMX to also be negatively related to WIF conflict when their

male partners are higher on gender role orientation, but positively related to WIF conflict

when their male partners are lower on gender role orientation. Specifically, male spouses

who are high on gender role orientation expect their working wives to assume most of the

household work responsibilities. In this case, having a supportive supervisor at work can

help female employees keep work from interfering with their family responsibilities. Thus,

among females with spouses high on gender role orientation, LMX should be negativelyrelated to WIF conflict. However, when women have a spouse with low gender role

orientation (i.e. a husband with non-traditional gender role views), their husbands are more




likely to provide household help. A non-traditional husband may also be likely to

encourage and support his wife’s decision to pursue a career. As such, the female

employee will have more time to devote to work. Ironically, though, LMX may positively

relate to feelings of WIF conflict among such women. This is because women may feel a

need to reciprocate LMX by working more hours. This may be especially true in a high

power distance, masculine society, such as Sri Lanka, where female employees may beeager to show respect for authority figures and ‘prove’ to be as valuable as their male

counterparts (Hofstede 2001). As such, women might feel an obligation, and not

necessarily a desire, to spend more time at work in response to supervisors’ requests.

Further, their male partners low gender role orientation may facilitate such actions as

spending more time at work. Spending this extra time at work, however, may actually

increase women’s perceived WIF conflict as they are spending more time at work than

they desire. Thus, we expect a positive relationship between LMX and WIF conflict for

women with male partners lower on gender role orientation.

Hypothesis 3: There will be a three-way interaction between the focal person’s gender

and spouse’s gender role orientation in the relationship between leader–

member exchange and work interference with family conflict such that (a)

among men, the negative relationship between LMX and WIF conflict

will be stronger when their female partners are lower, compared to higher,

on traditional gender role orientation; (b) among women, there is a

negative relationship between LMX and WIF conflict when their male

partners are high on traditional gender role orientation, and (c) among

women, there is a positive relationship between LMX and WIF conflict

when their male partners are low on traditional gender role orientation.

Methods

Research site: Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is rich in its diversity of culture, race, language and religion. It has a recorded

history spanning over 2500 years, which explains how Sri Lankan society and culture have

been influenced by the traditional Indian civilisation and culture, by the British and

European colonial heritage and development policies, and by the strategies of post-

independence governments. Sri Lankans display many Eastern characteristics in their

family and social interactions (Chandrakumara 2007), but are starting to demonstrate

some Western influence in urban areas (Nanayakkara 1992). For example, it is becomingacceptable for married women to work outside their homes as evidenced by the 32.6%

labour force participation among women in Sri Lanka (Department of Census and

Statistics 2010). In comparison, women’s labour force participation rate is 68% in the

USA and 70% in Australia (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi 2010).

Data collection procedure and sample

The data used in the current paper were part of a study that comprised a quantitative and a

qualitative component. Quantitative data were collected by surveying a large sample of

dual-earner couples who are employed full-time in Sri Lanka. A total of 709 surveypackets containing two questionnaires (one for the focal person and the other for her/his

spouse) were distributed. Of these, 636 survey packets were distributed among managerial




level employees and professionals in 42 private sector organisations in Colombo, Sri

Lanka. Each organisation’s HR manager distributed the questionnaire among the

managerial and professional staff who were married. In addition, 73 survey packets were

distributed in three MBA classes to students who worked full-time. Surveys were

distributed only to employees and MBA students with a working spouse/partner. In both

samples, participating employees/students were asked to provide the spousal survey totheir spouses, who were instructed to complete their questionnaire independently of the

focal person. Gender role orientation was obtained from the spouse’s survey; all other

variables were measured on the focal employee’s survey. The surveys were in English as

managers and professionals are expected to be proficient in English in Sri Lanka. Efforts

were made to collect data from a sample that varied in age to encompass different career

and family life cycle stages. The surveys were pre-coded to help match the focal person’s

and his/her spouse’s surveys upon return.

Of the 709 surveys packets delivered, 226 (or 32%) were completed and returned. Of

these 226 respondents, we obtained the matched spouse survey for 205 of them. The final

sample size was 185 (for a 26.1% final response rate) employee–spouse dyads afterdeleting cases with missing data in relevant variables. Of these 185 respondents, 174 were

recruited from the private organisations (for a 27.4% response rate) and 11 were recruited

from the MBA student pool (for a 15% response rate). The majority of the respondents

(61%) were male. On average, they aged 36.5 years (ranging from 23 to 65 years) and had

been married for 8 years (ranging from 2 months to 31 years). In terms of education, 14%

had up to Grade 12 education, 2% had vocational training, 28% had a Bachelor’s degree,

33% had Master’s degrees and 23% had professional qualifications (e.g. professional

certifications in accounting, marketing). Two per cent of respondents were first-line

supervisors, 21% were in entry-level management, 54% in middle management, 8% were

professionals and 15% in top management positions. The focal employees worked infinance and insurance (28%), manufacturing (20%), services (17%), communications

(10%) and other (25%). The participants’ family income levels fell into the following

categories: 8.8% earned less than Rupees 60,000 (approximately US$461); 33.5% earned

between Rupees 60,000 and 99,999 (US$461– 769); 30.8% earned between Rupees

100,000 and 149,999 (US$769–1153); and 26.9% earned more than Rupees 150,000 (US

$1153) per month. The respondents had, on average, been working for the current manager

for approximately 3.5 years.

The majority of the spouses (61%) were female. Their mean age was 35.86 years with

a range of 24–64 years. Further, 14% had up to Grade 12 education, 3% had vocational

training, 29% had a Bachelor’s degree, 29% had Master’s degrees, 23% had professional

qualifications and 2% had a PhD. Four per cent of the spouses were first-line supervisors,

19% were in entry-level management, 38% in middle management, 11% in top

management and 28% were in professional services. Twenty-one per cent of the spouses

worked in services, 19% in finance and insurance, 20% in communication, 17% in

education, 11% in manufacturing and other (12%).

To further explore the findings of our study, we also conducted interviews with a

subset of the respondents (n ¼ 25) between one and two months after they completed the

surveys. We selected couples who (a) agreed to be interviewed and (b) were amongst the

dual-earner couples with the highest scores on the WFC scale. Each spouse was

interviewed separately so that one spouse did not influence the other’s answers. The first

author conducted all interviews, which took place in their offices or public place and lastedapproximately 30– 60 minutes. Most of the interviews were tape-recorded and then

transcribed by the first author word-for-word. In this study, we use a small subset of this




qualitative data to interpret some of our findings in the Discussion (note: qualitative data

was reported in Kailasapathy and Metz 2012).

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, all scale items were measured on a response scale ranging from1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).

Leader– member exchange

We used the 12-item LMX-MDM four-dimensional scale developed by Liden and Maslyn

(1998) to measure LMX. An example item is ‘My supervisor would defend me to others in

the organisation if I made an honest mistake’. A second-order confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) specifying four latent factors loading on a single higher-order LMX factor fit the

data well (CFI ¼ 0.96, TLI ¼ 0.94 and RMSEA ¼ 0.07). The 12 items were averaged to

create a single score (a¼

0.90).

Gender

Consistent with previous researchers (Martins, Eddleston and Veiga 2002; Kinnunen,

Geurts and Mauno 2004; Livingston and Judge 2008), gender was a self-report measure of

one’s sex, and coded 1 for females and 0 for males.

Spouse’s gender role orientation

Gender role orientation was measured using Firestone et al. (1999) index on the spouse’s

survey. This index has eight items such as ‘A working mother can establish just as warmand secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work’ and ‘It is much

better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman

takes care of the home and family’. A high index score represents traditional gender role

ideology and a low score represents non-traditional or egalitarian orientation. The eight

items were averaged to create a single score (a ¼ 0.74).

Work interference with family conflict

The nine-item scale developed by Carlson et al. (2000) was used to measure the three types

(time, strain and behaviour) of WFC. Example item is ‘My work keeps me from my family

activities more than I would like’. A second-order CFA was performed specifying WIF

conflict as the first-order factor, and strain, time and behaviour as the second-order factors.

The fit indices for this higher-order three-factor model indicated poor model fit: x 2 ¼ 78,

df ¼ 25, p , 0.01, RMSEA ¼ 0.10, CFI ¼ 0.89 and TLI ¼ 0.80. Given the poor fit, a

principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was then performed, as advised by

Hurley et al. (1997). The principal axis factor analysis revealed that there were two

components. The first component consisted of six strain- and time-based WIF conflict

items. The second component consisted of three items designed to measure the behaviour-

based WIF conflict. As the behaviour-based items loaded onto a separate factor, all the

behaviour-based items were removed from further analyses. The revised WIF conflict

scale consisted of six items, which were made up of three time-based and three strain-based items. A subsequent second-order CFA including these six items was performed,

specifying one higher-order latent construct (WIF conflict) and two second-order factors




(time and strain). The fit indices (x 2 ¼ 14.22, df ¼ 8, p , 0.1, RMSEA¼ 0.06,

CFI ¼ 0.98 and TLI ¼ 0.95) indicated good fit. Therefore, in line with what Powell and

Greenhaus (2010) have done, we averaged the six WIF time- and strain-based items to

measure WIF conflict (a ¼ 0.78).

Control variables

Five variables (negative affect, work role overload, number of hours in paid work, income

and gender role orientation) were included as controls in the analyses in this study due to

their significant correlations with the independent and dependent variables in previous

research (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz and Beutell 1989). ‘Impotent’

variables or variables that were not significantly correlated to WIF conflict (e.g. age,

education, dyad tenure, number of years with spouse and extended family support) were

not included, because an increase in the parameters being estimated results in loss of

power (Becker 2005). Negative affect was measured with a five-item scale (Watson, Clark

and Tellegen 1988; a ¼ 0.72). We used Greenhaus et al.’s (1989) four items to measurework role overload (a ¼ 0.71). For income, respondents were asked to check the one

category (out of six) that best described their monthly family income such that higher

categories were associated with higher income levels. Respondents self-reported the

number of hours a week (on average) they spent on paid work using an open-ended

question. Finally, respondents rated their own gender role orientation with the same eight-

item scale (a ¼ 0.73) we used to measure spouses’ gender role orientation (e.g. Firestone

et al. 1999).

Analyses and results

The means, standard deviations, correlations and scale reliabilities for the study’s

variables are reported in Table 1. As all correlation coefficients were 0.42 or less, multi-

collinearity among the independent variables was not a problem (Tabachnick and Fidell

2007). Note that men reported statistically significantly higher WIF conflict (mean of 3.13)

and gender role orientation (mean of 2.81) than women (mean of 2.88 and 2.49,

respectively). This result is similar to those found in a few Western studies (e.g. Fallon

1997; Rotondo, Carlson and Kincaid 2003; Noor 2004; Hoobler, Wayne and Lemmon

2009). We later discuss this finding in the light of social gender roles in Sri Lanka.

A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test the hypotheses. In this

equation, the control variables were entered in step 1, LMX was entered in step 2 (to test

Hypothesis 1), and spouse’s gender role orientation and gender were entered in step 3. The

interaction term for spouse’s gender role orientation £ gender was entered in step 4 (to

test Hypothesis 2). The other two-way interactions were entered in step 5. Finally, to test

Hypothesis 3, the three-way interaction was entered in step 6. The scores for LMX and

spouse’s gender role orientation were centred using their means (Aiken and West 1991).

The interaction terms were obtained by multiplying the centred predictor variable (LMX)

by the centred spouse’s gender role orientation variable and by gender.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that quality of LMX would be negatively related to work

interference with family conflict. The regression results in Table 2 (Model 2) show that

LMX negatively related to WIF conflict and accounted for an additional 2% of the

variance in WIF conflict over and above the 30.5% explained by the five control variables(negative affect, work role overload, hours per week in paid work, income and gender role

orientation). Although 2% is a small effect size, we believe it is substantive given the




T a b l e 1 .

M e a n s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a n d

c o r r e l a t i o n s .

V a r i a b l e s

M e a n

S D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 . W o r k i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h f a m i l y c o n fl i c t

3 . 0 3

0 . 7 4

( 0 . 7 8 )

2 . L e a d e r

– m e m b e r e x c h a n g e ( L M X )

3 . 5 8

0 . 6 4

2 0 . 1 6 * *

( 0 . 9 0 )

3 . G e n d e r a

0 . 3 9

0 . 4 9

2 0 . 1 7 * *

0 . 0 5

4 . S p o u s e

’ s g e n d e r r o l e i d e o l o g y

2 . 7 0

0 . 6 2

0 . 2 2 * * *

0 . 0 1

0 . 0 6

( 0 . 7 4 )

5 . N e g a t i v e a f f e c t

2 . 4 3

0 . 6 8

0 . 2 8 * * *

2 0 . 0 8

2 0 . 0 4

0 . 1 2

( 0 . 7 2 )

6 . W o r k r o l e o v e r l o a d

3 . 7 2

0 . 6 1

0 . 4 2 * * *

0 . 0 4

2 0 . 0 5

0 . 0 4

0 . 2 6 * * *

( 0 . 7 0 )

7 . P a i d h o u r s p e r w e e k

4 7 . 5 0

8 . 6 4

0 . 2 7 * * *

2 0 . 0 9

2 0 . 2 3 * *

2 0 . 0 3

2 0 . 0 2

2 5 * * *

8 . I n c o m e b

3 . 9 3

1 . 6 5

2 0 . 2 0 * * *

0 . 0 4

0 . 1 9 * *

2 0 . 2 8 * *

2 0 . 1 1

2 0 . 0 3

2 0 . 0 3

9 . G e n d e r r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n

2 . 6 8

0 . 6 4

0 . 2 2 * * *

0 . 0 3

2 0 . 2 4 * * *

0 . 3 9 * * *

0 . 2 9 * * *

0 . 0 5

0 . 0 8

2 0

. 3 0 * * *

( 0 . 7 3 )

1 0 . A g e

3 6 . 5 3

7 . 0

2 0 . 0 1

0 . 0 9

2 0 . 0 9

2 0 . 0 6

2 0 . 0 9

0 . 0 6

0 . 0 6

0

. 0 9

0 . 0 2

1 1 . E d u c a t i o n c

3 . 6 4

1 . 3 4

2 0 . 0 2

2 0 . 0 6

2 0 . 0 1

2 0 . 0 8

2 0 . 0 7

0 . 0 3

2 0 . 1 1

0

. 2 7 * * *

2 0 . 2 6 * * *

2 0 . 1 2

1 2 . E x t e n d

e d f a m i l y s u p p o r t

d

1 . 3 9

0 . 4 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 6

0 . 0 4

2 0 . 1 1

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 5

0 . 0 9

0

. 1 0

2 0 . 0 8

0 . 1 0

2 0 . 0 6

1 3 . N u m b e

r o f y e a r s w i t h s p o u s e

8 . 2 0

6 . 4 7

2 0 . 0 5

0 . 0 8

0 . 0 7

2 0 . 0 3

2 0 . 0 6

0 . 0 7

0 . 0 7

0

. 1 3

0 . 0 1

0 . 8 7 * * *

2 0 . 2 0 * *

*

0 . 1 6 * *

1 4 . D y a d t e n u r e

4 1 . 4 2 4 5 . 3 4

0 . 1 1

0 . 1 3

2 0 . 0 6

0 . 1 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 7

0 . 1 2

2 0

. 1 0

0 . 0 6

0 . 3 2 * * *

2 0 . 0 5

0 . 0 3

0 . 2 7 * * *

N o t e : S c a

l e r e l i a b i l i t i e s ( C r o n b a c h ’ s a l p h a s ) a p p e a r o n t h e d i a g o n a l . * * p ,

0 . 0 5 ; * * *

p ,

0 . 0 1 .

a

1 ¼

f e m

a l e ; 0 ¼

m a l e .

b

1 ¼

5 9 , 9 9 9 o r l e s s , 2 ¼

6 0 , 0 0 0 – 7 9 , 9 9 9 , 3 ¼ 8

0 , 0 0 0 – 9 9 , 9 9 9 , 4 ¼

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 – 1 2 4 , 9 9 9 , 5 ¼

1 2 5 , 0 0 0 – 1 4 9 , 9 9 9 , 6 ¼

1 5 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e .

c

1 ¼

u p t o G C E A / L , 2 ¼

v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g , 3 ¼

p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i fi c a t i o n , 4 ¼

b a c

h e l o r ’ s d e g r e e , 5 ¼

p o s t g r a d u a t e , 6 ¼

P h D .

d

1 ¼

y e s , 2 ¼

n o .




T a b l e 2 .

I n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s o f L M X , g e n

d e r a n d s p o u s e ’ s g e n d e r r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n o n W I F c o n fl i c t .

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 3

M o d e l 4

M o d e l 5

M o d e l 6

V a r i a b l e s

b

t

b

t

b

t

b

t

b

t

b

t

C o n t r o l s N e g a t i v e a f f e c t

0 . 1 4

1 . 8 6 *

0 . 1 2

1 . 5 8

0 . 1 2

1 . 6 4

0 . 1 2

1 . 5 8

0 . 1 0

1 . 3 3

0 . 1 2

1 . 5 8

W o r k

r o l e o v e r l o a d

0 . 3 3

4 . 6 9 * * *

0 . 3 5

4 . 8 9 * * *

0 . 3 5

4 . 8 8 * * *

0 . 3 5

4 . 8 9 * * *

0 . 3 4

4 . 7 8 * * *

0 . 3 4

4 . 7 0 * * *

H o u r s

i n p a i d w o r k

0 . 2 0

2 . 9 2 * * *

0 . 1 9

2 . 7 3 * * *

0 . 1 8

2 . 6 0 * *

0 . 1 8

2 . 5 8 * *

0 . 1 8

2 . 5 7 * *

0 . 1 9

2 . 6 9 * * *

I n c o m

e

2 0 . 1 5 2 2 . 1 8 * *

2 0 . 1 4 2 2 . 0 5 * *

2 0 . 1 1 2 1 . 5 3

2 0 . 1 0 2

1 . 4 8

2 0 . 0 8 2 1 . 1 6

2 0 . 0 8 2 1 . 1 2

G e n d e

r r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n

0 . 1 1

1 . 4 4

0 . 1 2

1 . 6 5

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 6

0 . 0 6

0 . 6 9

0 . 0 6

0 . 7 4

0 . 0 4

0 . 4 3

I n d e p e n d e n t

L M X

( c e n t r e d )

2 0 . 1 3 2 1 . 9 6 * *

2 0 . 1 3 2 1 . 9 5 *

2 0 . 1 3 2

1 . 9 2 *

2 0 . 2 2 2 2 . 3 9 * *

2 0 . 2 1 2 2 . 2 6 * *

M o d e r a t o r s

S p o u s e ’ s G R O ( c e n t r e d )

0 . 1 6

2 . 1 3 * *

0 . 1 2

1 . 3 5

0 . 1 3

1 . 4 6

0 . 1 4

1 . 6 0

G e n d e

r ( o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n )

2 0 . 0 7 2 0 . 9 7

2 0 . 0 7 2

0 . 9 8

2 0 . 0 8 2 1 . 0 9

2 0 . 0 9 2 1 . 2 1

T w o - w a y i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s

S p o u s e ’ s G R O

£

g e n d e r

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 2

0 . 0 5

0 . 5 8

0 . 0 9

1 . 0 4

L M X

£

s p o u s e ’ s G R O

0 . 0 2

0 . 2 9

0 . 1 0

1 . 2 3

L M X

£

g e n d e r

0 . 1 3

1 . 4 3

0 . 1 4

1 . 5 7

T h r e e - w a y i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t

L M X

£

s p o u s e ’ s G R O

£

g e n d e r

2 0 . 1 6 2 1 . 7 5 *

D R 2

0 . 3 1 * * *

0 . 0 2 * *

0 . 0 2 *

0 . 0

0

0 . 0 1

0 . 0 1 *

D F

1 4 . 1 4 * * *

3 . 8 5 * *

2 . 4 5 *

0 . 3

9

1 . 1 3

3 . 0 7 *

A d j u s t e d

R 2

0 . 2 8

0 . 3 0

0 . 3 1

0 . 3

1

0 . 3 1

0 . 3 2

F

1 4 . 1 4 * * *

1 2 . 6 3 * * *

1 0 . 2 6 * * *

9 . 1 3 * * *

7 . 6 9 * * *

7 . 4 0 * * *

f 2

0 . 0 2

N o t e : G R

O ¼

g e n d e r r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n . * p ,

0 . 1

0 ; * * p ,

0 . 0 5 ; * * * p ,

0 . 0 1 .




number of control variables included in the analysis/model. It is also similar and/or larger

compared to other effect sizes found in the WFC literature (cf. Fu and Shaffer 2001;

Voydanoff 2005; Day and Chamberlain 2006). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposed an interaction between gender and spouse’s gender role

orientation. As can be seen in Model 4 of Table 2, the regression coefficient for the

interaction term was not statistically significant. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.However, the results indicated that spouse’s gender role orientation had a significant,

positive relationship to WIF conflict, explaining 2% of the variance (see Model 3 in

Table 2) over and above the control variables and LMX. Hence, there is evidence of a

crossover effect such that spouse’s gender role orientation positively relates to the focal

person’s WIF conflict among dual-earner couples.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that there would be a three-way interaction between gender of

the focal person and spouse’s gender role orientation in the relationship between the focal

person’s LMX and WIF conflict. As can be seen in Model 6 of Table 2, the regression

coefficient for the three-way interaction term was statistically significant at p , 0.10.

Although the observed effect size was small ( f 2¼ 0.02), this is larger than the median

observed effect size of 0.002 reported in Aguinis, Beaty, Boik and Pierce’s (2005) review

of categorical moderators and is notable for a three-way interaction given the number of

control variables included in the model. Thus, there is evidence of a three-way interaction

among LMX, spouse’s gender role orientation and gender in predicting WIF conflict. The

nature of this interaction was examined by plotting the simple regression lines separately

for women and men (Aiken and West 1991; see Figure 1). As can be seen in Figure 1(a),

for men, there was a negative relationship between LMX and WIF conflict only when their

spouses had ‘low’ gender role orientation (one standard deviation below the mean; ‘low’

represents an egalitarian gender role orientation). LMX is not related to WIF conflict

among men whose spouses are ‘high’ in traditional gender role orientation (one standarddeviation above the mean) (i.e. the slope for ‘high spouse’s gender role orientation’ line

was not significantly different from zero). This finding is consistent with Hypothesis 3a.

For women (see Figure 1b), there was a negative relationship between LMX and WIF

conflict when spouse’s gender role orientation was ‘high’, which is consistent with

Hypothesis 3b, and a positive relationship when the spouse’s gender role orientation was

‘low’, consistent with Hypothesis 3c.

As per the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, supplementary analyses for

Hypotheses 1 and 3 were conducted using the dimensions of LMX as separate variables.

Due to the moderately high correlations among the LMX dimensions (correlations range

from 0.46 to 0.63), multi-collinearity would have been introduced in the regression

equation if all four dimensions were entered in a single equation. We therefore examined

each of the LMX dimensions in four separate regression equations, entering the control

variables in step 1 and the LMX dimension in step 2. The results indicated that affect,

professional respect and contribution each predicted WIF conflict when entered in step 2

( p , 0.05); loyalty, however, was not statistically significant (b ¼ 20.09, p ¼ 0.15). We

also then tested Hypothesis 3 at the dimension level with four regression equations that

correspond to Model 6 in Table 2, where each regression equation differed only by the

LMX dimension used in the interaction terms. These results indicated that the

hypothesised three-way interaction was significant only with the contribution dimension

of LMX (contribution £ gender £ spouse’s gender role orientation; b ¼ 20.85,

p ¼ 0.06); the three-way interaction term using the other three dimensions of LMX wasnot statistically significant at p , 0.10. We thank the reviewer for suggesting these

additional analyses.




Finally, although we did not expect LMX to be related to FIW conflict, we ran the

same regression equations used to test our hypotheses using FIW conflict as the dependent

variable. In this analysis, spouse’s GRO was significant (and positive), but LMX was notsignificant, nor were the hypothesised interaction effects. This supports our contention that

supervisors are less likely to have influence on FIW conflict.

Discussion

The primary contribution of our study is that we integrate social support theory and gender

role orientation theory to examine the interactive effects of LMX, spouses’ gender role

orientation and gender on WIF conflict. First, consistent with social support theory, we

found that LMX negatively related to WIF conflict. This finding supports our theoretical

argument that a high-quality supervisor exchange relationship helps the individual better

balance work and family demands. However, our results for the three-way interactionsuggest that gender role theory provides boundary conditions to the efficacy of LMX in

reducing WIF conflict.

Figure 1. Three-way interaction between LMX, spouse’s gender role orientation and gender. (a)Men (Hypothesis 3a). (b) Women (Hypothesis 3b and 3c).




In particular, we found that the nature of the relationship between LMX and WIF

conflict depended on both the person’s gender and their spouse’s gender role orientation.

Although there was generally a negative relationship between LMX and WIF conflict, we

found a condition in which this relationship was positive: when women’s spouses had non-

traditional gender role orientations. Our theoretical explanation was that women may feel

obligated to reciprocate high LMX by working more hours than they desire, and theirspouses non-traditional gender views facilitated this action. This may be especially true in

a high power distance culture such as Sri Lanka where employees show respect and

obedience to authority figures. In follow-up interviews conducted with a subset of the

respondents, a female employee supported this rationale:

My father met with an accident . . . I always want to see my father every day after theaccident, and to be with him at least for one hour. So, I asked her [the executive I work with]whether the manager could give me around 2 to 3 hours for me to see my father and then comeback to work . . . my manager called me to his office and said you can always use my driverand the car if you have a problem, not to worry about that . . . I couldn’t express my happinessin words . . . Now, if he asks me to come on Sunday to work I can’t, I can’t tell no. Because Ifeel that I am dedicated. I also have a responsibility to respect him, to show my gratitude.I always feel that I should . . . if he is in a difficult situation if he [interviewee’s emphasis] askshelp I think that I must [interviewee’s emphasis] do it.

In further support of the value of understanding LMX relationships in the context of

spouse’s gender role orientation, the three-way interaction revealed the opposite effect for

women with partners who are high on gender role orientation. In particular, when women

had male spouses with traditional gender role orientations (i.e. expect the female employee

to take care of family responsibilities), LMX negatively related to WIF conflict. In this

instance, high LMX provided women with more work-based support, enabling them to

better fulfil their (high levels of) family responsibility and, thus, reduce their WIF conflict.

This is consistent with another female subject’s comments about the importance of LMXto helping her manage her childcare responsibilities:

My boss knows my situation . . . If my kid is sick or if my domestic has gone away, I can andhave left at 4.30 pm. I have worked for my boss for 8 years so he knows me well.

In comparison, for the men, LMX negatively related to WIF conflict only when their

spouses had low (non-traditional) gender role orientation. When the working wife has a

non-traditional gender role orientation, she is likely to expect her spouse to contribute to

the household and childcare responsibilities (Greenstein 1996). Thus, a supportive leader

is crucial to the man in order to keep work from interfering with family responsibilities. In

the follow-up interviews, a comment from a male subject who did help his spouse with

childcare supports our reasoning.

It’s because of the family pressure [even during weekends I could not be with the family dueto work], I had to approach the supervisor and explain to him . . . in emergencies working latehours and working Saturday Sunday is fine but not regularly and then the supervisor also wasvery understanding . . . he was very supportive.

Overall, it appears that LMX is important to reducing WIF conflict for both women and

men, as their family responsibilities increase. This increase occurs for women with

husbands who value traditional gender roles, and for men with wives who value non-

traditional gender roles. However, the results of the supplementary analyses conducted

with each of the LMX dimensions separately suggest that some features of the LMX

relationship are more helpful than others. Specifically, the dimensions of professionalrespect, affect and contribution, but not loyalty, appear to be sources of emotional and

instrumental support that can reduce employee’s WIF conflict. Further, the contribution




dimension of LMX is the dimension that interacts with one’s gender and spouse’s gender

role orientation in predicting WIF conflict. Employees’ perceptions that they and their

leaders do things to help each other meet work goals (contributory behaviours) is

especially important to reducing WIF conflict among women whose husbands have a

traditional gender role orientation (high GRO), and among men whose wives have a non-

traditional gender role orientation (low GRO). At the same time, the three-way interactionshows that the contributory behaviours positively relate to WIF conflict among women

whose husbands have a non-traditional gender role orientation. This is consistent with our

theoretical rationale that such women (who have husbands that share the household work)

will experience more WIF conflict because they may be motivated and able to spend more

time at work in response to supervisors’ requests. The contribution dimension specifically

reflects employees working extra hard for their supervisor (an example item is: ‘I am

willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s

work goals’).

Although not directly hypothesised, we also found that a spouse’s gender role

orientation had crossover effects among couples. When an individual values a traditionalgender role orientation, it seems to increase his/her spouse’s WIF conflict, regardless of

whether the spouse is male or female. We were surprised to find that spouse’s gender role

orientation had a positive relationship to WIF conflict among men. One possible

explanation for this finding may be that such men (whose wives have traditional gender

role views) feel pressure to spend more time at work than desired in order to earn money

and promotions to support the family. The excessive work hours may lead them to

perceive WIF conflict as they would prefer to spend more time at home. Crossover effects

among couples have also been found in past studies (e.g. Greenhaus et al. 1989;

Parasuraman, Greenhaus and Granrose 1992; Jones and Fletcher 1993; Hammer et al.

1997; Hammer, Bauer and Grandey 2003; Westman, Etzion and Chen 2009). This study’sfinding, however, is new because it shows that an individual’s WFC is influenced not only

by that individual’s factors, such as her/his own gender role orientation and relationship

with her/his spouse/supervisor, but also by the values held by people who are important in

that individual’s life, such as a spouse’s gender role orientation. To our knowledge there is

no previous research on the crossover effect of gender role orientation in Western

countries. Given that Sri Lanka is a country that more strongly values traditional gender

roles, high power distance, collectivism and patriarchy (Fernando and Cohen 2011), this

relationship should be examined in Western countries to determine whether spouse’s

gender role orientation is related to the individual’s WFC in other cultural contexts, before

we can draw conclusions about the universality or cultural specificity of this finding (e.g.

Powell et al. 2009).

We also found that gender had a main effect on WFC such that women reported less

WIF conflict. Sri Lanka is a society where gender role norms are still valued and adhered

to in many homes. Women are socialised to feel and be responsible for household and

childcare work (Gunawardena, Lekamge, Bulumulle and Dissanayake 2004; Wickra-

masinghe and Jayatilaka 2006). It is possible that because of this socialisation, Sri

Lankan men are slow to adapt to having a working spouse, and to helping with the

household and childcare responsibilities. A few studies in the USA and the Netherlands

(e.g. Fallon 1997; Rotondo et al. 2003; Noor 2004; Hoobler et al. 2009) have also found

that women reported less WIF conflict than men, suggesting that our finding is not

unique to Sri Lanka.Gender differences in reported WIF conflict aside, this sample of Sri Lankan couples

reported only moderate levels of WIF conflict, and lower levels than those typically




reported in studies using Western samples (e.g. Loerch, Russell and Rush 1989;

Greenhaus, Collins, Singh and Parasuraman 1997; Major, Klein and Ehrhart 2002). This

could possibly be explained by the fact that it is common for Sri Lankan families to have

paid and/or unpaid home help; in our sample, approximately 70% of the respondents with

children and 50% of the respondents without children had regular help at home. The lower

levels of perceived WIF conflict may also be a function of the collectivistic societal valuesin Sri Lanka as there tends to be greater social support available in such societies (Javidan

et al. 2004; Powell et al. 2009).

Managerial implications

This study shows that there is generally a negative relationship between LMX and WIF

conflict. The practical implication of this finding for organisations is that high-quality

exchange relationships with supervisors can help employees experience less WIF conflict.

Hence, organisations should train and advise managers and employees to build and

maintain high-quality relationships (i.e. LMX) to reduce employees’ WFC. To do so,

managers should show professional respect and affect towards their employees by taking a

(reasonable) interest in their personal lives. For example, managers should know whether

an employee has children or a spouse. Additionally, organisations should encourage

managers to be family-supportive, as such support is appreciated by employees (Carlson

and Perrewe 1999). Thus, employees may be more loyal and committed to such

supervisors; loyalty is an important dimension of LMX.

Our findings regarding gender differences in WIF conflict also have important

managerial implications. That men reported more WIF conflict than women means that, at

least in Sri Lanka, WFC is not a women’s problem. Sri Lankan organisations thus need to

develop and implement family-friendly programmes that appeal to both men and women.In addition, Sri Lankan organisations need to create a culture in which men and women

who use the various family-friendly programmes are not penalised. Studies have shown

that, rather than the mere existence of family-friendly programmes, it is the use of such

programmes that helps to reduce individuals’ WFC (for a review, see Kelly et al. 2008).

Implications for individuals

The negative relationship between LMX and WIF conflict indicates that individuals

should devote time and energy to building and maintaining high-quality exchange

relationships with their supervisors. Because many studies have identified negative

outcomes (e.g. burnout, absenteeism, marital dissatisfaction, depression) of WFC (e.g.

Allen, Herst, Bruck and Sutton 2000; Carlson et al. 2000), high-quality LMX might help

individuals reduce the WFC, and the subsequent negative outcomes, they experience.

High-quality LMX could be built and maintained by showing the supervisor professional

respect, affect and loyalty, and by appropriately helping the supervisor achieve the work

unit’s goals (i.e. making contributions).

This study also found that one’s spouse’s gender role ideology has an impact on the

other’s WFC, such that a spouse with a traditional gender role ideology increased the WFC

experienced by the other spouse. Our results also suggest that it is easier for women in dual-

earner couples to share the household and childcare work with their husbands if thehusbands value an egalitarian or non-traditional gender role ideology. Hence, Sri Lankan

women married to men who value an egalitarian or less traditional gender role ideology are




more likely to enjoy an equitable division of family responsibilities and, thus, lower WFC

than Sri Lankan women married to men who value a traditional gender role ideology.

Strengths, limitations and future research

A strength of this study was that the sample included matched couple dyads, reducing

common method bias concerns. The sample of Sri Lankan dual-earner couples alsoextends the validity of the scales used in this study to an Eastern, developing country. As

with all studies, though, there are some limitations. First, the study was framed such that

LMX was a predictor of WIF conflict. Yet, similar to much of the existing research in this

field, this study is based on cross-sectional data. As such, we cannot conclusively say that

LMX is an antecedent to WFC. Second, both LMX and WIF conflict were measured from

the same source; thus, there might be some same source bias in that relationship. However,

we did control for negative affect in our analyses (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and

Podsakoff 2003; Spector 2006). We also had conducted a ‘measurement model plus

methods factor’ CFA and found that the common method factor explained a fairly small

per cent of the variance in our data (14%; details are available from the authors uponrequest). Third, as with most studies, this study’s results might not be generalisable to

other countries because of the single-country data. In particular, that our results

demonstrated fairly small effects (2%) may be due to the cultural context of the study

(Powell et al. 2009). As noted earlier, Sri Lanka has a very traditional gender role

orientation, as a society, but at the same time, extended family or paid help in the home is

quite common.

As a research field advances, theoretical sophistication is achieved by examining

moderators (Aguinis 2004). We thus encourage future research to continue to investigate

moderators that might influence the relationship between various antecedents and WFC,

such as individuals’ personality traits and values. For example, individuals higher onemotional stability may have a weaker relationship between work stressors and WFC.

Future research could also consider supervisor’s gender role orientation as a moderator

between LMX and WFC. Similar to how spouse’s gender role orientation had an impact on

an individual’s WIF conflict, a supervisor’s values may also have an impact on employee’s

WIF conflict. Future research could also consider moderators that explain when WFC has

a weaker, or stronger, effect on various work and personal outcomes. For example,

individual’s gender role orientation may moderate the relationship between WFC and

turnover intentions as such ideologies may impact the extent to which WFC is tolerated by

the individual.

In addition, future research could focus on identifying additional spousal factors, such as

personality (e.g. emotional stability, introvert/extrovert) and career attitudes, that have

crossover effects on individual’s WIF conflict. As pointed out by Parasuraman and

Greenhaus (2002), ‘each partner’s work and family experiences and outcomes are

influenced by his or her own work and family variables, as well as those of the partner’

(p. 306). Research is therefore needed to continue to examine crossover effects of work and

family variables within the family system, to better understand the factors that contribute to

WFC (Hammer et al. 1997). In doing so, research could continue to focus on the couple level

rather than the individual level of analysis (Parasuraman and Greenhaus 2002).

ConclusionBy drawing on literature on social support theory and gender role orientation, the

hypotheses tested in this study extend our theoretical and empirical understanding of the




antecedents to WFC. Our results highlight the importance of LMX to reducing WIF

conflict. Further, spouse’s traditional gender role orientation had both a significant direct

effect on WIF conflict and a moderator effect interacting with LMX and gender in

explaining WIF conflict. Finally, our sample and results extend WFC research to a non-

Western country.

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Management & Marketing at the University of Melbourne [through general funds provided for Ph.D. student support].

References

Aguinis, H. (2004), Regression Analysis for Categorical Moderators, NewYork: TheGuildford Press.Aguinis, H., Beaty, J.C., Boik, R.J., and Pierce, C.A. (2005), ‘Effect Size and Power in Assessing

Moderating Effects of Categorical Variables Using Multiple Regression: A 30-Year Review,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94– 107. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.1.94.Ahmad, S.Z. (2011), ‘Businesswomen in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Characteristic, Growth

Patterns and Progression in a Regional Context,’ Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30, 610–614.

Aiken, L.S., and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., and Sutton, M. (2000), ‘Consequences Associated withWork-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research,’ Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 5, 278– 308.Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S., and Tan, H.H. (2005), ‘Rhythms of Life: Antecedents and Outcomes of

Work-Family Balance in Employed Parents,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132–146.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132.

Becker, T.E. (2005), ‘Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in OrganizationalResearch: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations,’ Organizational Research Methods,8, 274–289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021.

Breaugh, J.A., and Frye, N.K. (2008), ‘Work-Family Conflict: The Importance of Family-FriendlyEmployment Practices and Family-Supportive Supervisors,’ Journal of Business Psychology,22, 345–353. doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9081-1.

Byron, K. (2005), ‘A Meta-Analytic Review of Work-Family Conflict and Its Antecedents,’ Journalof Vocational Behavior , 67, 169–198. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009.

Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., and Williams, L.J. (2000), ‘Construction and Initial Validation of aMultidimensional Measure of Work-Family Conflict,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior , 56,249–276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713.

Carlson, D.S., and Perrewe, P.L. (1999), ‘The Role of Social Support in the Stressor-Strain

Relationship: An Examination of Work-Family Conflict,’ Journal of Management , 25,513–540.

Chandrakumara, A. (2007), ‘Does HRM Fit Really Matter to Citizenship and Task Performance? SriLankan Manufacturing Sector Experience,’ Employee Relations, 29, 611–639.

Chao, C.-C. (2011), ‘Climbing the Himalayas: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Female Leadership andGlass Ceiling Effects in Non-Profit Organizations,’ Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 32, 720–781.Day, A.L., and Chamberlain, T.C. (2006), ‘Committing to Your Work, Spouse, and Children:

Implications for Work-Family Conflict,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior , 68, 116–130.Deaux, K. (1985), ‘Sex and Gender,’ Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.Denton, M.L. (2004), ‘Gender and Marital Decision Making: Negotiating Religious Ideology and

Practice,’ Social Forces, 82, 1151–1180. doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0034.

Department of Census and Statistics (2010), Sri Lanka Labour Force Survey: Quarterly Report – 2010, Colombo: Author.Dienesch, R.M., and Liden, R.C. (1986), ‘Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A

Critique and Further Development,’ Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.


http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/0021-9010.1.94

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1094428105278021


http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9081-1

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009


http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0034


















Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., and Brinley, A. (2005), ‘Work and FamilyResearch in IO/OB: Content Analysis and Review of the Literature (1980–2002),’ Journal of

Vocational Behavior , 66, 124–197. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003.Fallon, B.J. (1997), ‘The Balance Between Paid Work and Home Responsibilities: Personal Problem

or Corporate Concern?’ Australian Psychologist , 32, 1–9.Fernando, W.D.A., and Cohen, L. (2011), ‘Exploring the Interplay Between Gender, Organizational

Context and Career: A Sri Lankan Perspective,’ Career Development International, 16,553–571.

Firestone, J.M., Harris, R.J., and Lambert, L.C. (1999), ‘Gender Role Ideology and the Gender BasedDifferences in Earnings,’ Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20, 191–215.

Frone, M.R. (2000), ‘Work-Family Conflict and Employee Psychiatric Disorders: The NationalComorbidity Survey,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895.

Fu, C.K., and Shaffer, M.A. (2001), ‘The Tug of Work and Family: Direct and Indirect Domain-Specific Determinants of Work-Family Conflict,’ Personnel Review, 30, 5, 502–522.

Greenhaus, J.H., and Beutell, N.J. (1985), ‘Source of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles,’ Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M., Singh, R., and Parasuraman, S. (1997), ‘Work and Family Influenceson Departure from Public Accounting,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior , 50, 249–270.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C.S., Rabinowitz, S., and Beutell, N.J. (1989), ‘Sourcesof Work-Family Conflict Among Two-Career Couples,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior , 34,133–153.

Greenstein, T.N. (1996), ‘Husbands’ Participation in Domestic Labor: Interactive Effects of Wives’and Husbands’ Gender Ideologies,’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–595.

Gunawardena, C., Lekamge, D., Bulumulle, K., and Dissanayake, S. (2004), ‘A Study of ChildRearing Practices and Gender Role Socialization Prevalent in Selected Communities in SriLanka – A Pilot Study,’ Paper presented at the Ninth National Convention on Women’s Studies,CENWOR, Colombo.

Hammer, L.B., Allen, E., and Grigsby, T.D. (1997), ‘Work-Family Conflict in Dual-Earner Couples:Within-Individual and Crossover Effects of Work and Family,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior ,50, 185–203.

Hammer, L.B., Bauer, T.N., and Grandey, A.A. (2003), ‘Work-Family Conflict and Work-RelatedWithdrawal Behaviors,’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 3, 419–436.

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., and Zahidi, S. (2010), The Global Gender Gap Report 2010,Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Hawkesworth, M. (1997), ‘Confounding Gender,’ Signs, 22, 649–685.Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and

Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J., and Lemmon, G. (2009), ‘Bosses’ Perceptions of Family-Work Conflict

and Women’s Promotability: Glass Ceiling Effects,’ Academy of Management Journal, 52,939–957.

Hurley, A.E., Scandura, T.A., Schriesheim, C.A., Brannick, M.T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R.J., andWilliams, L.J. (1997), ‘Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Guidelines, Issues, andAlternatives,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18, 667–683.

Icheku, V. (2011), ‘Post-Taliban Measures to Eliminate Gender Discrimination in Employment,’Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30, 563–571.

Javidan, M., House, R.J., and Dorfman, P.W. (2004), ‘A Nontechnical Summary of GLOBEFindings,’ in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies,eds. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, pp. 29–48.

Jones, F., and Fletcher, B.C. (1993), ‘An Empirical Study of Occupational Stress Transmission inWorking Couples,’ Human Relations, 46, 881–903.

Kahn, R.L., and Quinn, R.P. (1976), ‘Mental Health, Social Support and Metropolitan Problems,’Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.

Kailasapathy, P., and Metz, I. (2012), ‘Work-Family Conflict in Sri Lanka: Negotiations of Exchange Relationships in Family and at Work,’ Journal of Social Issues, 68, 790–813.

Kelly, E.L., Kossek, E.E., Hammer, L.B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L.A., andKaskubar, D. (2008), ‘Getting There From Here: Research on the Effects of Work-Family








Initiatives on Work-Family Conflict and Business Outcomes,’ The Academy of Management

Annals, 2, 1, 305–349. doi:10.1080/19416520802211610.Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S., and Mauno, S. (2004), ‘Work-to-Family Conflict and Its Relationship With

Satisfaction and Well-Being: A One-Year Longitudinal Study on Gender Differences,’ Work &

Stress, 18, 1–22. doi:10.1080/02678370410001682005.Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., and Jaworski, R.A. (2001), ‘Sources of Support and Expatriate

Performance: The Mediating Role of Expatriate Adjustment,’ Personnel Psychology, 54, 71–99.Leavy, R.L. (1983), ‘Social Support and Psychological Disorder: A Review,’ Journal of Community

Psychology, 11, 3–21.Liden, R.C., and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), ‘Multidimensionality of Leader-Member Exchange: An

Empirical Assessment Through Scale Development,’ Journal of Management , 24, 43–72.Livingston, B.A., and Judge, T.A. (2008), ‘Emotional Responses to Work-Family Conflict: An

Examination of Gender Role Orientation Among Working Men and Women,’ Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 207–216. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.207.Loerch, K.J., Russell, J.E.A., and Rush, M.C. (1989), ‘The Relationships Among Family Domain

Variables and Work-Family Conflict for Men and Women,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior , 35,288–308.

Major, D.A., Fletcher, T.D., Davis, D.D., and Germano, L.M. (2008), ‘The Influence of Work-Family Culture and Workplace Relationships on Work Interference With Family: A MultilevelModel,’ Journal of Organisational Behavior , 29, 881–897. doi:10.1002/job.502.

Major, V.S., Klein, K.J., and Ehrhart, M.G. (2002), ‘Work Time, Work Interference With Family,and Psychological Distress,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427–436. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.427.

Martins, L.L., Eddleston, K.A., and Veiga, J.F. (2002), ‘Moderators of the Relationship BetweenWork-Family Conflict and Career Satisfaction,’ Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399– 409.

Nanayakkara, G. (1992), Culture and Management in Sri Lanka, Colombo: Postgraduate Institute of Management.

Noor, N.M. (2004), ‘Work-Family Conflict, Work- and Family-Role Salience, and Women’s Well-Being,’ Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389–405.

Parasuraman, S., and Greenhaus, J.H. (2002), ‘Toward Reducing Some Critical Gaps in Work-Family Research,’ Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J.H., and Granrose, C.S. (1992), ‘Role Stressors, Social Support, andWell-Being Among Two-Career Couples,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior , 13, 339–356.

Pleck, J.H. (1977), ‘The Work-Family Role System,’ Social Problems, 24, 417–427.Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), ‘Common Method Biases

in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Powell, G.N., Francesco, A.M., andLing, Y. (2009), ‘Toward Culture-Sensitive Theories of the Work-Family Interface,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30, 5, 597– 616. doi:10.1002/job.568.

Powell, G.N., and Greenhaus, J.H. (2010), ‘Sex, Gender, and the Work-Family Interface: ExploringNegative and Positive Interdependencies,’ Academy of Management Journal, 53, 513–534.doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468647.

Rotondo, D.M., Carlson, D.S., and Kincaid, J.F. (2003), ‘Coping With Multiple Dimensions of Work-Family Conflict,’ Personnel Review, 32, 275–296. doi:10.1108/00483480310467606.

Shaffer, M.A., Joplin, J.R.W., and Hsu, Y.-S. (2011), ‘Expanding the Boundaries of Work-FamilyResearch: A Review and Agenda for Future Research,’ International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management , 11, 2, 221–268. doi:10.1177/1470595811398800.Somech, A., and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007), ‘Strategies for Coping With Work-Family Conflict: The

Distinctive Relationships of Gender Role Ideology,’ Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 1, 1–19.Spector, P.E. (2006), ‘Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?’

Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221– 232. doi:1010.1177/1094428105284955.Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.), Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.Voydanoff, P. (2005), ‘Work Demands and Work-to-Family and Family-to-Work Conflict: Direct

and Indirect Relationships,’ Journal of Family Issues, 26, 6, 707–726.





http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/job.502


http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.427



http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1





http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468647

































Watson, D., Clark, L.A., and Tellegen, A. (1988), ‘Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales,’ Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., and Chen, S. (2009), ‘Crossover of Positive Experiences from BusinessTravelers to Their Spouses,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 269–284. doi:10.1108/ 02683940910939340.

Wickramasinghe, M., and Jayatilaka, W. (2006), Beyond Glass Ceilings and Brick Walls: Gender at the Workplace, Sri Lanka: International Labour Organisation.

Yang, N., Chen, C.C., Choi, J., and Zou, Y. (2000), ‘Sources of Work-Family Conflict: A Sino-U.S.Comparison of the Effects of Work and Family Demands,’ Academy of Management Journal,43, 113–123.







Documents

1. Kailasapathy Et Al. (2014) the Interactive Effects of LMX, Gender and Spouse's Gender