14
1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family Conflict and Affective Consequences: Report on Findings from Greece 1 Authors: Dr. Niki Glaveli, Teaching and Research Assistant and Dr. Eleonora Karassavidou, Associate Professor School of Economic and Political Sciences, Department of Economics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Abstract The purpose of the present study is to extend the line of current inquiry related to Family Supportive Work Environments (FSWEs) and their relationships to Work-Family Conflict and affective consequences (Job Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Work- Family Balance). Three facets of a FSWE are examined: Family Supportive Culture, Family Supportive Management and Ideal Worker Model. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey from 618 employees in Greece. The results indicate that the two directions of WFC (although closely related) are independent variables that have different antecedents, even in the same sphere of life (in the present study the work sphere). Further, among the three examined facets of a FSWE, Family Supportive Management appears to better predict WFC (both directions) and Job Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction. Additionally, Family Satisfaction is the factor that has the strongest impact on Satisfaction with Work Family Balance. An intriguing result is that the Ideal Worker Model - manifested via long hours of work, visibility, availability and the dominance of organization's needs over the family ones - was found to be positively related to Job Satisfaction and negatively to Family-to-Work Conflict. Finally, implications for theory and practice are discussed. Keywords: Family Supportive Work Environments; Work-Family Conflict; Ideal Worker; Job Satisfaction; Family Satisfaction, Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance; Greece. Introduction Reconciling work and family life has been considered as an important vehicle in order to: improve the quality of life for everyone in the society, encourage gender equality, pluralism and social inclusion, increase birth rates (related to population structure shifts), prevent 1 The research findings presented in the current report are based on the PhD Thesis entitled "Human Resource Management: Work Family Reconciliation", completed by N. Glaveli and supervised by Dr. Eleonora Karassavidou, Ass. Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. It should be added that to the best of our knowledge this is the first Phd delivered in the specific scientific area in Greece.

Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

1

Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective Consequences: Report on Findings from Greece1

Authors: Dr. Niki Glaveli, Teaching and Research Assistant and Dr. Eleonora Karassavidou, Associate Professor

School of Economic and Political Sciences, Department of Economics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to extend the line of current inquiry related to Family

Supportive Work Environments (FSWEs) and their relationships to Work-Family Conflict and

affective consequences (Job Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Work-

Family Balance). Three facets of a FSWE are examined: Family Supportive Culture, Family

Supportive Management and Ideal Worker Model. Data were collected through a

questionnaire survey from 618 employees in Greece. The results indicate that the two

directions of WFC (although closely related) are independent variables that have different

antecedents, even in the same sphere of life (in the present study the work sphere). Further,

among the three examined facets of a FSWE, Family Supportive Management appears to

better predict WFC (both directions) and Job Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction.

Additionally, Family Satisfaction is the factor that has the strongest impact on Satisfaction

with Work Family Balance. An intriguing result is that the Ideal Worker Model - manifested

via long hours of work, visibility, availability and the dominance of organization's needs over

the family ones - was found to be positively related to Job Satisfaction and negatively to

Family-to-Work Conflict. Finally, implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords: Family Supportive Work Environments; Work-Family Conflict; Ideal Worker; Job

Satisfaction; Family Satisfaction, Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance;

Greece.

Introduction

Reconciling work and family life has been considered as an important vehicle in order to:

improve the quality of life for everyone in the society, encourage gender equality, pluralism

and social inclusion, increase birth rates (related to population structure shifts), prevent

1 The research findings presented in the current report are based on the PhD Thesis entitled "Human Resource

Management: Work – Family Reconciliation", completed by N. Glaveli and supervised by Dr. Eleonora Karassavidou, Ass. Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. It should be added that to the best of our knowledge this is the first Phd delivered in the specific scientific area in Greece.

Page 2: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

2

poverty/boost welfare, promote child and youth well-being and development, reinforce

gender equity and wellbeing in the workplace and have more motivated, satisfied,

committed, productive, creative and innovative workforce (e.g: Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985;

Frone et al., 1992; Adams et. al., 1996; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Allen et. al., 2000;

Williams, 2000; Allen, 2001; Posing and Kickul, 2003; Karassavidou and Glaveli, 2007a,

Glaveli et al., 2013).

However, in contemporary societies, changes in the pattern and demands of work, as

well as in family structure, specifically, globalization of the economy, the fast pace of

technological development and an increasingly ageing population, combined with the

increase in female employment have made it difficult for employees to combine the two

complementary, albeit opposing with diverging interests, spheres of peoples’ life (Lewis and

Cooper, 1995; Gershuny, 2000; Lewis, 2003; 2010; Fu and Shaffer, 2001; Wang and

Walumbwa, 2007; Ayee et al., 2013; Glaveli et al., 2013). Thus, it is not surprising that the

reconciliation of work and family life has emerged as a core concern for policy makers2,

employers, managers and employees themselves.

Focusing on the company level, creating a “family friendly” organization has been put

forward as the way to help employees balance work and family (Thomas and Ganster, 1995;

Thompson et al. 1999; Allen 2001; Cohen and Single, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Cook 2009;

Fiksenbaum, 2013). Family supportive policies have been widely accepted as the

tangible/formal aspect of Family Supportive Work Environments (FSWEs) (Thomas and

Ganster,1995; Allen 2001; Flye et al., 2003; Frone 2003; Karassavidou and Glaveli, 2007b;

Glaveli et al., 2013). These policies are commonly referred to as 'Family Friendly Policies'

(FFPs) and aim to help employees alleviate the difficult task of handling multiple roles.

Family leave, family supportive work arrangements (e.g. flextime, telework, part time), care

services, counseling and financial assistance are the most common work-family services

offered voluntarily by organizations in Europe and in the US (Galinsky et al., 1991; Allen

2001; Glaveli et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, it seems that the availability of FFPs alone does not guarantee neither

their implementation nor the creation of a supportive organizational environment to

employees' effort in search of balance between their work and non-work lives. Indeed,

employees might be discouraged to use FFPs from fear of facing criticism regarding their

lack of commitment to the organization and bottlenecks to their career advancement

(Thompson et al.1999; Allen 2001; Karassavidou and Glaveli, 2007c; Fiksenbaum, 2013).

This situation suggests that offering family-friendly benefits is not effective enough to

2 It is interesting to note that 2014 is nominated by EU as the Year of Reconciling Work and Family Life in Europe.

Page 3: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

3

address employees' concerns unless they are accompanied by a change in intangible

aspects of the organizational environment such as values and norms related to the

interaction between work and family lives (Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al.

1999; Allen 2001; Cook, 2009).

Taken into consideration the above discussion, in the current study we contribute to

the field of Family Supportive Work Environments in three ways. First, our research explores

three facets of FSWEs, namely: Family Supportive Culture, Family Supportive Management

and Ideal Worker Model, and their relationships to WFC (both directions), Job Satisfaction,

Family Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance. Second, we incorporate, for

the first time, the male model of 'Ideal Worker' (Bailyn and Harrington, 2004) as an aspect of

a non-friendly to family work environment. The Ideal Worker model is based on the

hypothesis that employees have no home responsibilities and it shapes the 'way

commitment is defined and valued in the workplace' (Lewis 1997; 2001; 2010). According to

this model commitment is manifested through long work hours and the dominance of

organizational needs over the family ones (Bailyn 1993; Drago, Wooden and Black 2009).

These behaviors are expected to negatively affect employees' ability to bridge the work and

family domains. Third, we investigate the direct and indirect relationship among the three

examined in the present study intangible facets of a FSWE, WFC, Job Satisfaction, Family

Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance.

Presentation of the Theoretical Framework

In order to increase the validity and reliability of the present study, initially and through

extensive literature review in the relevant scientific fields (organizational behavior, HRM,

work and family integration and linking mechanisms, work-family conflict, FSWE, gender

equity; theory triangulation) conclusions were drawn and research gaps were identified, as

follows:

- Although the intangible elements of a FSWE are considered as a key factor in building

a family friendly organization the relevant research is limited.

- WFC (work-famly linking mechanism) is a two-direction (Work-to-Family and Family-to-

Work Conflict) and multi-dimensional variable (time, strain, behavior) (see: Greenhaus

and Beautell, 1985 and Carlson et al., 2000). Thus, a holistic model of WFC should

incorporate both directions, permitting the investigation of specific predictors and

consequences (for each direction), as well as the relationship between them.

Page 4: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

4

- The Domain Specificity Approach with regard to predictors and consequences of WFC,

which was comprehensively articulated by Frone et al., (1992) and extended by Frone

et al. (1997) and Frone (2003), posits that Work Interference with Family (WIF) and

Family Interference with Work (FIW) act as mediators between the work and family

domains. Specifically, work domain stressors affect WIF with negative consequences

in the family domain (e.g: Low Family Satisfaction). Although this approach has been

incorporated in various models of WFC and supported by several studies in the field,

there is evidence that it may not hold true for affective (e.g. Job Satisfaction and

Family Satisfaction) consequences (see for example Shockley and Singla, 2011). In

that case, the Source Attribution Perspective, which predicts that the relationship

between Work-to-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction should be stronger than that of

Work-to-Family Conflict to Family Satisfaction and that Family-to-Work Conflict should

be stronger related to Family Satisfaction than to Job Satisfaction, may be more

predictive than the Domain Specificity Approach. In order to test the validity of these

two perspectives (Source Attribution and Domain Specificity) they are both integrated

in the proposed in the present research model.

- Research in the field is mainly conducted in South America (primarily USA).

- The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique has been mostly applied to test the

validity and reliability of the proposed models in the field.

Further, the suggested framework (see Figure 1) is based on the soft approach to

human resource management (Guest, 1987; Legge, 1995; Truss, 1999), the theory of social

exchange (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), as well as on the work

psychological contract (e.g. Herriot, 1995; Rousseau, 1995) and thus it could be argued that

it has a strong theoretical background. As presented in Figure 1, the proposed Theoretical

Framework underlines three intangible/informal characteristics of a work environment that

can help employees reconcile and manage work and family life: Family Supportive Culture,

Family Supportive Management and low validity of the Ideal Worker Model. It is

hypothesized that such an environment will reduce WFC (both directions) and will increase

the level of Job Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction. These positive attitudes will be also

boosted indirectly through the reduction of the level of Work-Family Conflict. Also, it is

supported that Job Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction will determine the level of

Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance.

Emphasis should be placed to the fact that the Ideal Worker is included for the first

time in a holistic WFC model as a specific element of a FSWE. Ideal worker is an

anachronistic, male stereotype related to working policies and practices and separate

Page 5: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

5

gendered sphere assumptions (Acker, 1990; Rapoport et al., 1997; Lewis, 1997; 2001;

Bailyn, 2004; Lewis and Humbert, 2010). According to this model, ideal worker is someone

who can work as though he/she has no social or caring obligations outside work, e.g.:

prioritize work over family, work long hours, be visible and available when requested. It is

considered as pivotal to gendered organizations, since it affects how commitment is defined

and valued in workplaces and is often blamed for gender related inequalities in

organizations.

Figure 1: The proposed Theoretical Framework

Additionally, it should be added that in the current model are hypothesized and tested

direct relationships amongst the study variables, which although suggested by meta-analytic

reviews in the relevant scientific field they have never before been incorporated and tested in

a holistic WFC model, providing thus empirical reinforcement for alternative processes e.g:

Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Higgins et al., 1992; Frone et al.,1992; 1997; Adams et al., 1996;

Carlson and Perrewe,1999; Carlson and Kacmar, 2000; Allen, et al., 2000; Eby, et al., 2005;

Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2009; Michel, et al., 2010; Amstad, et al., 2011). These

relationships are:

Direct relationships between work antecedents of WFC (3 elements of a FSWE) and

Family-to-Work-Conflict (in contrast to Domain Specificity Approach).

Work-to-

Family

Conflict

+

(Non) Family

Supportive

Culture

Job

Satisfaction

- - + Satisfaction

with Work-

Family

Balance + +

Family

Supportive

Management

+

+ - +

Family

Satisfaction Family-to-Work Conflict

-

Ideal Worker

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

- -

-

-

Page 6: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

6

Direct relationships between Work-to-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction and Family-

to-Work Conflict and Family Satisfaction (in line with Source Attribution Perspective).

Direct relationships between work antecedents of WFC (3 elements of a FSWE) and

Job Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction.

Research design

The survey, as in the case of other similar studies (e.g. Higgins et al., 1992; Frone et

al.,1992; 1997; Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Adams et al., 1996; Carlson and Perrewe,1999;

Thompson et al. 1999; Carlson and Kacmar, 2000; Allen 2001; Michel et al., 2009; Lapierre

et al., 2008), was applied as a research strategy. To create an heterogeneous sample,

snowball (non-probability) sampling technique was employed (see e.g. Robson, 1993;

Schofield and Katics, 2006; Lapierre et al., 2008). Although generalizing the results to a

larger population is not possible with non-probability sampling, in our cases was considered

appropriate because it permitted us to test cause-effect relationships. In details, 50

respondents who differed in age, gender, income and place of residence were initially

approached by the researchers. In an attempt to approximate random selection,

respondents were asked to distribute the questionnaire to five other people of different sex,

age, income and place of residence and so on. In total, 1200 questionnaires were estimated

as being distributed. From these, 618 usable questionnaires were returned. This number

was considered satisfactory since it overcomes the minimum required number3 to apply

SEM technique.

The designed questionnaire consisted of two sections: the first included questions on

demographics, whilst the second aimed at collecting information about employees’

perceptions and attitudes related to the study variables (41 items/questions).

All measurement scales, besides the WFC one (Carlson et al., 2000), were developed

by the authors based on extensive literature review and feedback from experts in the field

(content validity). Since the measurement scales that were employed were either newly

developed or used for the first time in the Greek reality, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

was initially applied. After, refinement (based on factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha values)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used. Initially, the measurement model was tested.

Following purification, based again on factor loadings and indicators values (e.g. NFI, CFI,

3 The number of questions of the measurement scales totaled 41, whilst 15 cases per item/question

(strict criterion; Zafiropoulos, 2012) are considered necessary in order to get reliable results when SEM technique is applied. Thus, 614 cases was the minimum requirement (41 x 15 = 614).

Page 7: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

7

GFI, AGFI, AVE, CR), the measurement scales/model proved to be valid and reliable. Then,

the structural model was tested and (partially) validated.

Due to the hypothesized reciprocity between the mediators (Work-to-Family and

Family-to-Work Conflict) and the fact that the 3 exogenous variables (aspects of a FSWE)

are hypothesized to affect them both, two models were applied in order to test the

relationship between the two directions of WFC.

The overall sample (618 individuals) was comprised of 330 females and 288 males.

Nearly 55% of the respondents were under the age of 40. Slightly over 64% were parents.

The respondents were private employees (58%) or public servants (42%) and around 78 %

were working more than 8 hours per day.

Validity and reliability of the study measures, data collection procedure and results was

assured through a series of actions:

To improve face validity, the questionnaire was piloted through personal interviews

with a sample of 20 individuals (managers), participating in a post-graduate executive

course. Critics of the instrument were received and incorporated. The items that were

reported to be difficult, ambiguous or inconsistent were revised.

Content validity of the research measurement scales was achieved via extensive

literature review and feedback from experts in the field.

Construct validity was tested by applying EFA and CFA (Nunnely, 1978; Zafiropoulos,

2012). Further, convergent validity was checked through the use of 4 criteria (Chin,

2001): i) factor loadings (CFA) > 0.6, ii) Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7, iii) Composite

Reliability (CR) > 0.7 and iv) Average Variance Extracted (AVE) > 0.5.

Discriminant validity was checked via: i) AVE value calculation (> 0.5 for each

measurement scale), ii) the calculation of correlation coefficients (< 0.9) between the

study variables and iii) the relationship between correlation coefficients squares (r2)

and AVE values (r2 > AVE).

Finally, Cronbach’s alpha (> 0.7) and AVE (>.0.5) values confirmed internal

consistency.

Research findings

It was confirmed that the two directions of WFC have different antecedents. More precisely:

Work-to-Family Conflict seems to be mainly affected by a non Supportive to Family Culture

(positive relationship), whilst Family-to-Work Conflict is primarily determined by Family

Page 8: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

8

Supportive Management (negative relationship) and Ideal Worker (negative relationship).

These results, highlight the assumption that the two directions of WFC (although closely

related) are independent variables that have different antecedents, even in the same sphere

of life (in the present study the work sphere). This evidence confronts the Domain Specificity

Approach as far WFC predictors are concerned.

Unexpectedly, the results indicated that Ideal Worker is positively related to Job

Satisfaction and negatively to Family-to-Work Conflict, implying that the strongest the

examined stereotype in a working place the higher the Job Satisfaction and the lower the

Family-to-Work Conflict. At a first glance, this finding can be viewed as a paradox since the

strong presence of the ideal worker stereotype implies a rather hostile to family life work

environment that is expected to increase WFC, whilst at the same time decrease job

satisfaction. The latest is expected due to the fact that work will be considered as

threatening to self-relevant roles in the family sphere (Lazarus, 1991; Schockley and Singla,

2011). An explanation for this outcome could be that when the Ideal Worker stereotype is

strong in a workplace, the primacy of work life is taken as the norm and thus not challenged.

In addition, the strong bordered work context pushes individuals, in the search for balance

between the work and family domains, to become active in developing strategies and using

resources (e.g. seek out for partner’s - mainly wife’s - contribution or social support) in order

to protect themselves and their families from negative spillovers to the family sphere. This is

particular true in a national context such that of the current study. More precisely, the Greek

specificities related to the national culture (strong gender stereotypes, collectivistic, short-

term oriented and uncertainty avoidance society), as well as the current economic situation

(severe economic crisis) and the high unemployment rate lead people to prioritize the work

sphere (over the family one) and take for granted the ideal worker model in order to keep

their job (job insecurity). The aforementioned finding affirms that WFC is indeed a

complicated phenomenon and designates alternative patterns of thinking. Nevertheless,

further in-depth investigation is required to interpret this evidence.

Further, it is confirmed that Family Supportive Management is probably the most

important element of a FSWE in helping people achieve better work and family fit and be

happier and more effective in meeting role demands both in the work and family domains.

Last but not least, Family Satisfaction is the factor that has the strongest impact on

Satisfaction with Work Family Balance.

Implications

The present research has implications both for theory and for practice. More precisely:

Page 9: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

9

At theoretical level:

- Through extensive literature review in the relevant scientific fields/subjects

(organizational behavior, HRM, work and family integration and linking mechanisms,

work-family conflict, FSWE, gender equity) conclusions were drawn and research gaps

were identified.

- A holistic framework/model (see Figure 1) was proposed that specifies three major

intangible/informal elements of a FSWE and the direct and indirect relationships

between these three elements, WFC (both directions) and employee attitudes (Job

Satisfaction and Family Satisfaction).

- For the first time, the Ideal Worker stereotype (model) was integrated as a distinctive

element of a non FSWE. Further, a reliable and valid measurement scale was

developed to operationalize this variable.

- In order to test the validity of two main perspectives related to antecedents and/or

consequences of WFC Source Attribution and Domain Specificity, they are both

incorporated in the proposed in the present research model and tested.

- Direct relationships amongst the study variables were incorporated and tested in the

proposed model. These relationships although suggested by meta-analytic reviews in

the relevant scientific field have never before been presented in a holistic model and

tested, providing thus empirical reinforcement for alternative processes.

- The proposed Theoretical Framework was tested and validated in a South-East

European context (Greece), where research is the specific subject is limited, shedding

thus light to the study of WFC in a national context with specificities related to cultural

and economic environment.

At practical level:

- The value of a FSWE is confirmed. As a result, managers are encouraged to adopt a

family supportive attitude and behaviors towards their subordinates.

- Three intangible elements/facets of a FSWE and their impact on WFC (both directions)

and employee attitudes are specified, so HRM managers and practitioners can

develop policies and practices to facilitate work and family fit.

- The measurements scales can be used by employers/managers in order to measure

and understand the current situation in their organization and get feedback related to

their interventions.

Page 10: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

10

- Academics could transplant this knowledge to students who as Future businesspeople

and leaders could understand the value of a FSWE and cultivate a genuine interest in

creating a friendly to family work environment.

In general the result of the current research could be utilized by organizations in their

attempt to become genuinely Family – Friendly institutions with beneficial results for

themselves (e.g. positive employee attitudes, productivity, innovation, gender equity and

equality) their employees (e.g. balanced lives, better parents, child wellbeing) and society as

a whole (e.g. prevent poverty, boost social inclusion).

References

Acker, J. (1990), “Hierarchies, Jobs and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations”,

Gender and Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 139-158.

Adams, G.A., King, L.A., King, D.W. (1996), “Relationships of Job and Family Involvement,

Family Social Support and Work-Family Conflict with Job and Life Satisfaction”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 411-442

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated

with work-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research”, Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 2, 278-308.

Allen, T.D. (2001), ‘‘Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational

perceptions’', Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, No. 3, 414-435.

Amstad F. T., Meier L.L., Fasel U., Elfering A. and Semmer N. K. (2011), “A Meta-Analysis

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.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors. Interrole conflict, and well

being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behavious among

employed parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp.

259-278.

Bailyn, L. and Harrington, M. (2004), “Redesigning work for work–family integration”, Work,

Family & Community, Vol. 7, pp. 199-211

Blau, M.P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York,

NY.

Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”,

Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67, pp. 169-198.

Page 11: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

11

Carlson, D. S., and Kacmar, K. M. (2000), “Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life

role values make a difference?” Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 1031-1054.

Carlson, D. S., and Perrewé, P. L. (1999), “The role of social support in the stressor-strain

relationship: An examination of work-family conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25,

No. 4, p. 513.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., and Williams, L. J. (2000), “Construction and initial validation

of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,

Vol. 56, pp. 249–276.

Chin, DN, (2001), “Empirical evaluation of user models and user-adaptive systems”. User

Modeling and User-adaptive Interaction, Vol. 11, No. 1/2, pp. 181–194

Cohen, J. R., and Single, L. E. (2001), “An examination of the perceived impact of flexible

work arrangements on professional opportunities in public accounting”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 32, pp. 317-328.

Cook, A. (2009), “Connecting Work-Family Policies to Supportive Work Environments”,

Organization Eaton, S. C. (2003), “If you can use them: Flexibility policies,

organizational commitment, and perceived performance”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42,

No. 2, pp. 145-167.

Eby, L. Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family

research in IO/ OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980 - 2002)”,

Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66, pp. 124-197.

Fiksenbaum (2013), “Supportive work–family environments: implications for work–family

conflict and well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 653-672.

Flye, L.P., Agars, M.D., and Kottke, J.L. (2003), Organizational approaches to work-family

conflict: testing an integrative model, Paper presented at the meeting of the Society

of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Frone, M. R. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),

Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.

Frone, M. R. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of

work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 65–78.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., and Markel, K. S. (1997), “Developing and testing an

integrative model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50,

pp. 145-167.

Page 12: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

12

Fu, K. C., and Shaffer, M.A., (2001), “The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-

specific determinants of work-family conflict”, Personnel Review, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.

502-522.

Galinsky, E., Friedman, D.A. and Hernandez, C.A. (1991). The Corporate Reference Guide

to Work Family Programs. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Gershuny, J. (2000), Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Postindustrial Society, Oxford

University Press, Oxford and New York.

Glaveli, N., Karassavidou E. and Zafiropoulos, K. (2013), “Relationships among three facets

of family-supportive work environments, work–family conflict and job satisfaction: a

research in Greece”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24,

No. 20, pp. 3757-3771.

Gouldner, A. (1960), "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement'', American

Sociological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-78

Greenhaus, J. H., and Beutell, N. J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family

roles”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, p.p. 76-88.

Guest, D. (1987), “Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations”, Journal of

Management Studies, Vol. 24, No. 5., pp.

Herriot, P (1995). Psychological contracts. in Encyclopaedic dictionary of organisational

behaviour (Nicholson, N), (Ed) . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Higgins, C., Duxbury, L. and Lee, C. (1992). Balancing work and family: A study of Canadian

private sector employees. London, Ontario: National Centre for Management,

Researchand Development, University of Western Ontario.

Karassavidou, E. and Glaveli, N (2007c) “Collaborative Interactive Action Research: A step

in creating a family – friendly workplace. The case of Kleemann”, Community, Work

and Family II International Conference, Making the Connections in a Global Context,

CIES (Centre for research and studies in Sociology) – ISCTE,12th-14th April, Lisbon,

Portugal.

Karassavidou, E. and Glaveli, N. (2007a). “Work organisation, attitudes and leadership:

Work-domain “border-keepers”? : The case of a company driving on the fast lane”,

WES 2007 Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Karassavidou, E. and Glaveli, N. (2007b) Work and Family Life Reconciliation and Gender

Equity. Application of CIAR in Kleemann: Report on Research Results. Program

Pythagoras.

Kossek, E. E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and job-life satisfaction

relationship: A review and directions of organizational behavior human resources

research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 139-149.

Page 13: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

13

Lapierre, L.M., Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll, M.P.,

Sanchez, J.I., Brough, P., and Kinnunen, U. (2008), “Family-supportive organization

perceptions, multiple dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A

test of a model across five samples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73, pp. 92–

106

Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Realities, Macmillan,

London

Lewis, S and Humbert, A (2010), “Discourse or reality? “Work-life balance”, flexible working

policies and gendered organizations”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 29, No. 3,

pp. 239-254.

Lewis, S. (1997), “Family Friendly' Employment Policies: A Route to Changing

Organizational Culture or Playing About at the Margins?”, Gender, Work and

Organization, Vol. 4 , No. 1, pp. 13-23.

Lewis, S. (2001), “Restructuring workplace cultures: the ultimate work-family challenge?”,

Women In Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 21 – 29.

Lewis, S. (2003), “The integration of work and personal life. Is post industrial work the new

leisure?”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 343-355

Lewis, S. (2010), “Reflecting on impact, changes and continuities. Restructuring workplace

cultures: the ultimate work-family challenge?” Gender in Management Issue, Vol. 25,

No. 5, pp. 348-355.

Lewis, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1995), “Balancing the work/home interface: A European

Perspective”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 801-815.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., and Baltes, B. B. (2009), “A

comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family

linkages”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 199-218.

Michel, J.S., Kortba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K. Clark, M.A. and Baltes, B.B. (2011),

“Antecedents of work family conflict: A meta analytic review”, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 689-725

Nunnely, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory , 2nd ed. \new York: McGraw Hill.

Posig, M. and Kickul, J. (2003), “ Extending Our Understanding of Burnout: Test of an

Integrated Model in Non-service occupations”, Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, J.K. Fletcher, J.K. and B.H. Pruitt (2002). Beyond Work-Family

Balance: Advancing gender equity and workplace performance. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Page 14: Family Supportive Work Environments, Work Family …repo.library.upenn.edu/storage/content/2/ge4gv7c64vz5of6...1 Family Supportive Work Environments, Work – Family Conflict and Affective

14

Robson, C., 1993. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner

researchers. Blakewell, Cambridge, USA,

Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Schofield, P. and Katics, N. (2006), “Swedish hotel service quality and loyalty dimensions”,

Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 2, pp. 123-57.

Shockley, K.M., anf Singla, N. (2011), “Reconsidering work-family interactions and

satisfaction: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 861 – 886.

Thomas, L. T., and Ganster, D. C. (1995), 'Impact of family-supportive work variables on

work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective', Journal of Applied Psychology,

80(1), 6–15.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., and Lyness, K. S. (1999), “When work-family benefits are

not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational

attachment, and work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V. McGoven, P. and Stiles, P. (1997), ''Soft and hard

models of Human Resource Management: A reappraisal'', Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan), pp. 53-73.

Wang, P. and Walumbwa, F. O. (2007), “Family-friendly programs, organizational

commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership”,

Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 397-427.

Williams, J. (2000), Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it,

New York: Oxford University Press.

Zafiropoulos, K. (2012). Quantitative Research and Statistical Model Specification, Kritiki,

Thessaloniki (in Greek)