Upload
phungtram
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
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.
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.
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
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
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
- -
-
-
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).
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)