Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment

Transcription

1 The Journal of Psychology, 2010, 144(1), Copyright C 2010 Heldref Publications Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment LAUREL A. MCNALL The College at Brockport, State University of New York ALINE D. MASUDA EADA, Barcelona, Spain JESSICA M. NICKLIN University of Hartford ABSTRACT. The authors examined the relation between the availability of 2 popular types of flexible work arrangements (i.e., flextime and compressed workweek) and workto-family enrichment and, in turn, the relation between work-to-family enrichment and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover intentions. In a sample of 220 employed working adults, hierarchical regression analyses showed that work-to-family enrichment mediated the relation between flexible work arrangements and both job satisfaction and turnover intentions, even after controlling for gender, age, marital status, education, number of children, and hours worked. Thus, the availability of flexible work arrangements such as flextime and compressed workweek seems to help employees experience greater enrichment from work to home, which, in turn, is associated with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. The authors discuss the implications for research and practice. Keywords: compressed workweek, flexible work arrangements, flextime, work family enrichment BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS in the workforce (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2002), more individuals face the challenge of managing work and family responsibilities. Most research on the work family A version of this paper was presented at the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology 2009 Congress. Address correspondence to Laurel A. McNall, The College at Brockport State University of New York, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport, NY 14420, USA; lmcnall@brockport.edu ( ). 61

2 62 The Journal of Psychology interface has adopted a scarcity perspective, suggesting that involvement in multiple roles leads to interrole conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Yet, sociological theorists (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974) have suggested that multiple-role membership can generate resources that offer benefits to individuals. Consequently, there have been calls to study the positive side of the work family interface (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002), which has been labeled by a variety of terms such as positive spillover (Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006), facilitation (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007), enhancement (Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002), and enrichment (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In the present study, we addressed work family enrichment, defined by Greenhaus and Powell as the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role (p. 73). Carlson et al. recently developed a bidirectional measure of work family enrichment, but more research is needed to understand the antecedents and consequences of enrichment. The purpose of the present study was to extend the knowledge of work family enrichment by examining the availability of flexible work arrangements as a possible antecedent variable. Flexible work arrangements are defined as employer provided benefits that permit employees some level of control over when and where they work outside of the standard workday (Lambert, Marler, & Gueutal, 2008, p. 107). On the basis of Greenhaus and Powell s (2006) model of work family enrichment, we proposed that flexibility is one major driver of the enrichment process. Second, we examined the relation between work family enrichment and two important work outcomes relevant to retention: job satisfaction and turnover intentions. According to Wayne, Randel, and Stevens (2006), more research is needed on how enrichment is related to work-related outcomes to make the case to organizations that enrichment is important and deserves attention. In particular, in the present study, we focused solely on work-to-family enrichment because of recent evidence showing that work-to-family enrichment is more strongly related to work-related variables (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover intentions) than familyto-work enrichment (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, in press; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004; Wayne et al., 2006). Last and most important, we proposed that work-to-family enrichment may be an intervening mechanism in the relation between flexible work arrangements and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover intentions. To our knowledge, the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment has not been explored in the literature. Thus, our research contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, we answered the call to study the positive side of the work family interface (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002), which, at present, is underrepresented compared with work family conflict. Work family enrichment is recognized as conceptually distinct from work family conflict (Frone, 2003), but research on the antecedents and consequences of enrichment remains scarce (Beham, 2008). Thus, we explored how the availability of flexible work arrangements increases enrichment, which,

3 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 63 in turn, relates to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Thus, this study expands the conceptual understanding of work-to-family enrichment and offers practical implications for organizations seeking to help employees with work family balance issues. Flexible Work Arrangements Many organizations have begun to offer flexible work arrangements to help employees balance work and family demands (Galinsky, Bond, & Sakai, 2008). In the present study, we focused on two types of flexible work arrangements: flextime schedules (i.e., employees can select work hours given certain restrictions by the organization) and compressed workweek schedules (i.e., employees often work more hours per day but fewer days per week; Lambert et al., 2008). According to the 2008 Employee Benefits Survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (2008), 59% of human resources professionals reported that their organizations offer employees flextime, and 37% reported that their organizations offer a compressed workweek. The rationale for focusing on these two types of flexible work arrangements stems from research in the work family conflict literature that suggests that flextime may be more effective than flexplace (i.e., flexibility in the location where work is completed) in preventing both work interfering with family and family interfering with work (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Shockley & Allen, 2007), and this may also apply to enrichment. Thus, we focused on the two types of flexible work arrangements that pertain to time flexibility (i.e., flextime and compressed workweek) rather than location flexibility to better isolate what specific types of flexible work arrangements influence the positive side of the work family interface. Research has revealed that flexible work arrangements are associated with a variety of important organizational attitudes and outcomes. For example, a metaanalysis of 31 studies by Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) found that flexible and compressed workweek schedules were related to productivity and performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and satisfaction with work schedules. Research has also shown that flexible work arrangements may influence the work family interface. Helping employees with work life balance was the impetus for the creation of flexible work arrangements (Lee, MacDermid, & Buck, 2002). In particular, studies have shown that perceived schedule flexibility is negatively related to work family conflict (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006), but less is known about how flexible work arrangements may influence enrichment (for an exception, see Wayne et al., 2006). To better understand the relation between flexible work arrangements and enrichment, we first explored the theoretical underpinnings of the enrichment process.

4 64 The Journal of Psychology A Model of Work Family Enrichment In the past, one major barrier to work family research has been the lack of an overarching and integrating theoretical framework (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). As previously mentioned, work by Sieber (1974) and Marks (1977) offered some insight into the enrichment process. Sieber s theory of role accumulation argued that people choose to participate in multiple roles for a variety of rewards, such as greater role privileges, lower strain, greater status, and personality enrichment. Furthermore, Marks s expansionist approach argued that some roles may generate resources that increase energy, which can be directed in a second role. More recently, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) expanded these findings and provided a comprehensive theoretical framework of work family enrichment. According to Greenhaus and Powell s model, enrichment occurs when resource gains in one role (e.g., work) promote improved performance in another role (e.g., family). In this model, resource generation enables improved performance in the other role either directly (i.e., instrumental path) or indirectly (i.e., the affective path). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) identified a variety of resources that drive the work family enrichment process, including skills and perspectives (e.g., interpersonal skills, coping skills, respect for individual differences), psychological and physical resources (e.g., self-efficacy, hardiness, optimism), social-capital resources (e.g., networking, information), flexibility (e.g., flexible work arrangement), and material resources (e.g., money, gifts). The resource relevant to the present study is flexibility. Greenhaus and Powell defined flexibility as discretion in determining the timing, pace, and location at which role requirements are met (p. 80). Thus, the resources that an employee gains in his or her work role (e.g., flexibility) may directly improve his or her parenting role or may indirectly produce positive affect (e.g., enthusiasm, alertness, high energy), which, in turn, benefits the employee s interactions with his or her family. Flexible Work Arrangements and Work Family Enrichment Hence, on the basis of Greenhaus and Powell s (2006) model, it is possible that flexible work arrangements may play a key role in the resource generation process, thereby increasing work family enrichment. Past research has shown that flexible scheduling increases perceptions of control over work and family matters, and this, in turn, lowers work family conflict (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). It is also possible that employees generate resources by having flexible work arrangements, making them better equipped to handle work and family demands. To date, only one study has explored how work family enrichment use is related to enrichment. Contrary to expectations, Wayne et al. (2006) found that familyfriendly benefits use did not predict work family enrichment. However, this lack of findings may be related to the fact that their sample did not widely use the available

5 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 65 family-friendly benefits. Moreover, they used a total benefit usage score that was based on a variety of family-supportive benefits (i.e., information and referral services for child care, special care services and resources for caring for elderly parents or handicapped persons, child care subsidy, flextime, job sharing, flexible spending accounts, telecommuting, part-time work) rather than more specific types of flexible work arrangements. Wayne et al. urged researchers to continue to examine the availability and use of various formal policies in isolation and in conjunction with one another to determine their relationship with enrichment (p. 457). Thus, in the present study, we focused on two specific types of time flexibility. The availability of flextime and a compressed workweek schedule may indicate overall organizational support for employees and their families (Allen, 2001). This idea is consistent with signaling theory (Spence, 1973), which suggests that observable actions by the organization (e.g., having flexible, family-friendly policies) may be interpreted as a signal of more unobservable characteristics such as care and concern for employees on behalf of the organization. Wayne et al. (2006) also pointed out that flexible work arrangements may generate more perceptions of control over work family matters, thereby increasing positive attitudes at work that may transfer to more positive affect at home (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Thus, we predicted the following: Hypothesis 1 (H 1 ): The availability of flexible work arrangements (i.e., flextime and compressed workweek) will positively relate to perceptions of work family enrichment. Outcomes of Work Family Enrichment As previously mentioned, to establish the importance of enrichment to organizations, it is necessary to link work-to-family enrichment with work-related outcomes. Thus, we examined the relation of work-to-family enrichment to two outcomes: job satisfaction and turnover intentions. First, job satisfaction is defined as the appraisal and feelings one has toward the job (Locke, 1976). Studies have found that people who report greater work family enrichment were more likely to report higher job satisfaction (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Balmforth & Gardner, 2006). Second, turnover intentions is defined as a conscious and deliberate willingness to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993). The relation between work family enrichment and turnover has been somewhat mixed. For example, Balmforth and Gardner found that greater enrichment was related to lower turnover intentions, but Gordon, Whelan-Berry, and Hamilton (2007) did not find support for this relation, suggesting that more work is needed to clarify this relation. Following Greenhaus and Powell (2006), resources acquired at work (e.g., flexibility) may result in better performance at work, which has the effect of

6 66 The Journal of Psychology creating more positive affect at work, ultimately transferring to more positive affect in the family domain (i.e., work-to-family enrichment). In turn, individuals experiencing more positive emotions about their work should experience higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Going beyond the definition of the term enrichment, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can be used to better understand these relations. According to social exchange theory, when favorable treatment is perceived by one party, the other party feels obliged to reciprocate (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Applying this to the work-to-family interface, when employees perceive that their organizations are helping them manage work and family roles, the norm of reciprocity compels the return of favorable treatment often in the form of favorable attitudes such as more positive feelings about the job and the organization (Aryee et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2006). Thus, we predicted the following: H 2 : Work-to-family enrichment will positively relate to job satisfaction. H 3 : Work-to-family enrichment will negatively relate to turnover intentions. Mediating Role of Work Family Enrichment As previously mentioned, we were also interested in the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment in explaining the relation between flexible work arrangement and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover (see Figure 1). Thus far, we predicted flexible work arrangements to be related to enrichment, which, in turn, we expected to be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions. It is also likely that flexible work arrangements are related to both job satisfaction and turnover intentions. For example, Baltes et al. s (1999) meta-analysis found that both flexible work schedules and compressed workweek schedules had a positive effect on job satisfaction. Allen (2001) also found that flexible benefits were positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions. Similarly, Batt and Valcour (2003) found that access to flexible scheduling practices predicted lower turnover intentions. Signaling theory (Casper & Harris, 2008; Grover & Crooker, 1995) may also explain why flexible work arrangements influence attachment to the organization Flexible work arrangements Flextime Compressed workweek Work family enrichment Organizational outcomes Job satisfaction Turnover intentions FIGURE 1. Relations among flexible work arrangements, work family enrichment, and organizational outcomes.

7 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 67 in the form of increased job satisfaction and decreased turnover intentions. As previously discussed, the availability of flexible work arrangements may signal that the organization cares about the well-being of its employees (Grover & Crooker). Ryan and Kossek (2008) suggested that work-life policies are linked to various organizational outcomes through perceptions of inclusion (i.e., in which an individual feels accepted and valued). Organizations promote inclusion by fulfilling personal needs (e.g., for a flexible schedule) and signaling the organization s values (e.g., family-friendly workplace; Ryan & Kossek). Taken together, it follows that flexible work arrangements will lead to job satisfaction and turnover intentions through perceptions of work-to-family enrichment. Thus, we predicted the following: H 4 : Perceptions of work-to-family enrichment will mediate the positive relation between the availability of flexible work arrangement and job satisfaction. H 5 : Perceptions of work-to-family enrichment will mediate the negative relation between the availability of flexible work arrangement and turnover intentions. Participants and Procedure Method We recruited participants from an Internet database called StudyResponse (Stanton & Weiss, 2002), which is composed of individuals who expressed interest in participating in academic research studies. 1 This database has been used in other work family studies (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Michel & Clark, 2009). In exchange for participation, we entered respondents into a random drawing for gift certificates from an online retailer. We sent invitations to 1,700 database members who indicated that they were at least 18 years old and employed. The final sample included 220 working adults (96 men, 107 women, 17 unreported), providing us with a response rate of approximately 12.9%. This response rate is consistent with other surveys of professionals in the applied psychology field (e.g., Masters, Moye, & Bartol, 2003; Nicklin & Roch, 2009). The mean age of participants was years (SD = years). Regarding marital and parental status, 70% reported living with a spouse or partner. Of participants, 53.6% of participants did not have children, 21.4% had one child, and 24.7% had two or more children. Participants held a broad range of job titles, with 14.5% working 25 hr or fewer per week, 12.2% working hr per week, 37.3% working hr per week, and 35.9% working 41 hr or more per week. Of participants, 116 reported that their company offered flextime, and 66 reported that their organization offered a compressed workweek schedule. Participants completed the survey in approximately 15 min.

8 68 The Journal of Psychology Measure We asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5(strongly agree). Work Family Enrichment We assessed nine items from Carlson et al. s (2006) Work Family Enrichment scale. Carlson et al. s measure instructs participants to assess both the resources gained in Role A and the resulting positive effect in Role B, consistent with Greenhaus and Powell s (2006) definition of enrichment. In other words, participants were instructed that to strongly agree with an item, they need to agree with the full statement (e.g., My involvement in work helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member ). There were three items measuring work-to-family development (e.g., My involvement in work helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member ), three items capturing work-to-family affect (e.g., My involvement in work puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member ), and three items measuring work-to-family capital (e.g., My involvement in work helps me feel personally fulfilled and this helps be a better family member ). We averaged items into an overall measure of work-to-family enrichment, consistent with other researchers (Kwan & Mao, 2008). In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha was.94. Job Satisfaction We used three items from Spector et al. s (2004) study to assess job satisfaction. A sample item was In general, I like my work. In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha was.80. Turnover Intentions We used three items from Colarelli s (1984) study to measure turnover intentions. A sample item was I frequently think about quitting my job. In the present study, the Cronbach s alpha was.80. Flexible Work Arrangement To assess the availability of flexible work arrangements, we asked participants whether a flextime schedule and a compressed workweek were currently available to them. Specifically, participants were asked, Does your company offer flexibility in when you start or end your workday (also known as flextime)? For compressed workweek, participants were asked, Does your company allow you to work four longer days per week instead of 5 regular days (also known as a compressed workweek)? We assigned 1 to participants who answered yes and 0 to participants who answered no. We summed the answers to the two questions into one categorical variable that represented the amount of available flextime

9 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 69 options. Variables ranged from 0 (no flextime available) to 2(2 flextime options available). Consistent with other researchers (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), we measured access to benefits rather than usage because we were interested in the availability of work family programs as a symbol of organizational concern for work and family issues. Control Variables We controlled for a number of variables that have been influential in previous work family research (e.g., Grzywacz & Butler, 2005; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004) including gender, which we coded as 1 for male and 2 for female; age; education, which participants reported on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (less than high school) to 8 (advanced degree); marital status, which we coded as 0 for no partner, 1for partnered; number of children; and number of hours worked, which participants reported on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (15 hours or less) to8(more than 50 hours). Descriptive Statistics Results Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all study variables. Age was positively related to both job satisfaction and workto-family enrichment (p <.05) and negatively related to turnover intentions (p <.01). Gender was also significantly and positively related to job satisfaction (p <.05). The availability of flexible work arrangements was significantly and positively related to both work-to-family enrichment and job satisfaction (p <.01) and negatively related to turnover intentions (p <.05). Testing the Hypotheses To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses with control variables entered in the first step and the independent variables entered in the second step. Tables 2 and 3 show the variables included in each step for job satisfaction and turnover intentions, respectively. In support of H 1,we found that the availability of flexible work arrangements and controls significantly predicted work-to-family enrichment, F(7, 190) = 6.04, p <.001, total R 2 =.18, with flexible work arrangement positively related to and contributing uniquely to work-to-family enrichment, β =.06, p <.01, R 2 =.12, p <.01. H 2 was also supported: Work-to-family enrichment and controls significantly predicted job satisfaction, F(7, 192) = 6.02, p <.001, total R 2 =.40, with work-to-family enrichment positively related to and uniquely predicting job satisfaction, β =.60, p <.01, R 2 =.34, p <.01. Similarly, H 3 was supported, with work-to-family

10 70 The Journal of Psychology TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables Measure M SD Job satisfaction WFE FWA Turnover Age (years) Gender Marital status Education level Children Work hours Note. WFE = work-to-family enrichment; FWA = flexible work arrangement. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female; marital status was coded 0 for no partner and 1 for partnered. Education level was measured on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (less than high school) to 8(advanced degree); working hours was measured on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (15 hours or less) to 8(50 hours or more). p <.05. p <.01.

11 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 71 TABLE 2. Hierarchical Regressions Results for Job Satisfaction Variable B SE B β t R 2 F dfs p Total R 2 Regression 1: FWA predicting WFE Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA Regression 2: WFE predicting job satisfaction Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 WFE ,192 < ,194 < (Continued on next page)

12 72 The Journal of Psychology TABLE 2. Hierarchical Regressions Results for Job Satisfaction (Continued) Variable B SE B β t R 2 F dfs p Total R 2 Regression 3: FWA predicting job satisfaction Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA Regression 4: FWA and WFE predicting job satisfaction Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA WFE ,192 < ,191 < Note. WFE = work-to-family enrichment; FWA = flexible work arrangement.

13 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 73 TABLE 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions Variable B SE B β t R 2 F dfs p Total R 2 Regression 1:FWA predicting WFE Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA Regression 2: WFE predicting turnover Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 WFE ,192 < ,194 < (Continued on next page)

14 74 The Journal of Psychology TABLE 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions (Continued) Variable B SE B β t R 2 F dfs p Total R 2 Regression 3: FWA predicting turnover Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA Regression 4: FWA and WFE predicting turnover Step 1 Age Gender Education Children Marital status Hours worked Step 2 FWA WFE ,192 < ,191 < Note. WFE = work-to-family enrichment; FWA = flexible work arrangement.

15 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 75 enrichment and controls predicting turnover intentions, F(7, 194) = 10.59, p <.001, total R 2 =.28, and work-to-family enrichment negatively relating and contributing uniquely to the variance of turnover intentions, β =.44, p <.01, R 2 =.18, p <.01. Next, we tested our meditational hypotheses using the steps that Baron and Kenny (1986) put forth. According to Baron and Kenny, four conditions should be upheld for mediation to occur. First, the independent variable must be related to the dependent variable. As previously shown, flexible work arrangement was related to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Second, the independent variable must be related to the mediator. Also as previously shown, the availability of flexible work arrangements was related to work-to-family enrichment. Third, the mediator must be related to dependent variable. Our results show that work-to-family enrichment was related to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The last step is that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be nonsignificant when the mediator is included in the model. As Tables 2 and 3 show, all of the conditions were satisfied. To test the indirect effect of flexible work arrangements on job satisfaction and turnover through work-to-family enrichment, we also calculated the Sobel test. The Sobel test multiplies the unstandardized path coefficients and then divides the results by the standard error (Baron & Kenny). The Sobel test produces a test statistic (Z), along with accompanying significance levels. We used Preacher and Leonardelli s (2001) interactive mediation tool to calculate the Sobel test. We found that the availability of flexible work arrangements had a unique indirect relation with job satisfaction (Z = 4.96, p <.01) and turnover intentions (Z = 4.37, p <.01), thus supporting H 4 and H 5. Discussion The study of the positive side of the work family interface is a more recent phenomenon, and thus, less is known about the antecedents and consequences of work-to-family enrichment. An important contribution of the present study is that it adds to the understanding of the work family enrichment process, which begins to provide a more balanced conceptualization of the overall work family interface. In particular, we found that availability of flextime and compressed workweek schedules influences work-to-family enrichment, which in turn relates to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Previous research has found support for the relation between flexible work arrangements and important organizational outcomes (Baltes et al., 1999), consistent with signaling theory (Casper & Harris, 2008; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Spence, 1973), but our study is unique because we explored and found evidence of the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment between flexible work arrangements and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover intentions. These findings make important contributions to the work-to-family enrichment literature. First, we found that flexibility does appear to be a key driver of the enrichment process, in support of Greenhaus and Powell s (2006)

16 76 The Journal of Psychology work-to-family enrichment model. Specifically, the availability of flextime and compressed workweek schedules were related to work-to-family enrichment, perhaps because these arrangements indicate that the organization cares about employees ability to balance work and life outside of work. This is contrary to Wayne et al. s (2006) findings that cumulative family-friendly benefit use was not related to work family enrichment. However, we examined two specific forms of flexible work arrangement rather than a large number of family-friendly benefits. It may be the case that certain benefits are differentially related to enrichment, with flextime and compressed workweek schedules as perhaps more closely related to enrichment than to other types of flexible work arrangements. Flextime is more effective than flexplace in preventing both work interfering with family and family interfering with work (Bryon, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Shockley & Allen, 2007). We offer preliminary evidence that this may be the case with enrichment, but more work is needed on other specific flexible work arrangements. For example, little is known about the relation between telecommuting and enrichment, but more organizations are implementing telecommuting programs (WorldatWork, 2006), and research indicates that this type of flexible work arrangement may be useful in reducing work family conflict (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Unfortunately, we could not examine the relation between telecommuting and enrichment because too few individuals had the option of working from home in our sample. This type of information would be relevant for organizations interested in knowing which specific types of policies allow for the greatest work family enrichment. Furthermore, research is also needed in identifying other important antecedents of work family enrichment besides organizational variables. There is some early indication that personality variables may also play an important role in perceptions of enrichment (Friede & Ryan, 2005). For example, Michel and Clark (2009) found that positive affect was positively related to work family enrichment. Second, both flexible work arrangements and enrichment were related to important organizational outcomes, which is consistent with social exchange theory (Aryee et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2006). Employees may look for evidence that organizations understand and care about how they lead fulfilling lives outside of work. When employees see evidence for this care and concern in the form of flexible policies, they are more likely to reciprocate in the form of more positive attitudes and behaviors such as higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Until recently, the majority of the work family literature has suggested that organizations need to minimize work family conflict to obtain positive outcomes. This study, coupled with the growing body of research on the positive side of the work family interface, suggests that it may be just as important to look for ways to facilitate enrichment, and that by doing so, positive outcomes are likely to ensue. More work is needed to continue to build the case for organizational investments in enrichment. Evidence for a relation between enrichment and more objective

17 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 77 work-related outcomes such as absenteeism and performance (Carlson, Ferguson, Kacmar, Grzywacz, & Whitten, 2009) may be particularly useful. Limitations As with any study, there are limitations in the present study that must be acknowledged. First, our data were correlational in nature and based on a single source, possibly inflating common method bias. In the future, perceptions of work family enrichment should be captured from more than one source. Following the lead of Lyness and Judiesh s (2008) work, collecting perceptions of work family enrichment from coworkers, managers, and family members would be valuable for the development of a comprehensive theory of positive work family interactions. Second, we only measured employee perceptions at one point in time. Thus, future researchers may benefit from more longitudinal data (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Kelly et al., 2008) that examine the antecedents and consequences of enrichment over time, which would assist in pinpointing the direction of causality. Furthermore, our study captured the availability of flexible work arrangements; it may be interesting to further examine how often these policies are used because previous research has shown that the intensity of certain flexible work arrangements (e.g., telecommuting) moderates the relation between use of flexible work arrangements and work outcomes (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Last, although our results are based on a diverse sample of adults employed at different jobs and industries, our sample comprised individuals who signed up to participate in Internet-based research and consequently, future studies are needed to test these hypotheses in different samples. As Dipboye (1990) reminded, replication is key to generalizing any findings. Practical Implications From a practical perspective, this study suggests organizations consider offering specific work policies such as flextime and compressed workweek schedules to facilitate work-to-family enrichment. Employees expect an increasing level of flexibility from employers so they can better meet the demands of their work and personal lives. For example, a recent Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study (n.d.) involving 90,000 employees in 18 countries identified work/life balance as a top driver for considering a job and ability to balance my work and personal life as a driver of retention. Thus, organizations looking to attract and retain top talent should consider how to facilitate work family enrichment by offering specific policies that permit greater schedule flexibility, which may indicate an overall supportive work environment. Our results are consistent with those of previous research showing that individuals enjoy the benefits of autonomy and variety in their work schedules (e.g., Grzywacz & Butler, 2005), which may benefit work-tofamily enrichment and ultimately lead to higher job satisfaction and retention of employees.

18 78 The Journal of Psychology NOTE 1. For more information, visit AUTHOR NOTES Laurel A. McNall is an assistant professor at the College at Brockport, State University of New York. Her research interests include the work family interface, organizational attitudes, and reactions to technology in the workplace. Aline D. Masuda is a professor at EADA in Barcelona, Spain. Her research interests include the work family interface, motivation, organizational attitudes, and cross-cultural management. Jessica M. Nicklin is an assistant professor at the University of Hartford. Her research interests include the work family interface, telecommuting, self-regulated and dual-task motivation, organizational justice, and counterfactual thinking. REFERENCES Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, Anderson, S., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Balmforth, K., & Gardner, D. (2006). Conflict and facilitation between work and family: Realizing the outcomes for organizations. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35(2), Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, Beham, B. (2008, April). Supportive work environments and work family enrichment: Evidence from German hospital workers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bond, J. T., Thompson, C. A., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work family interference and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72,

19 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 79 Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Kacmar, K. M., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2009, April). Pay it forward: The positive crossover effects of supervisor work family enrichment. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work family interface: Development and validation of a work family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, Dipboye, R. L (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1 34). New York: Wiley. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature ( ). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations influence the work family interface. In E. E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work family balance. In J.C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gajendran, R., S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, Galinsky, E., Bond, J., & Sakai, K. (2008) National Study of Employers. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from Gordon, J. R., Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship among work family conflict and enhancement, organizational work family culture, and work outcomes for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and nonparents. Personnel Psychology, 48, Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology, 10, Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, A. (1997). Work family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. V. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work family conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10,

20 80 The Journal of Psychology Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and home. Personnel Psychology, 59, Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., et al. (2008). Getting there from here. Research on the effects of work family initiatives on work family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2, Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, Kwan, H. K., & Mao, Y. (2008, August). Role of citizenship behavior on personal learning and work family enrichment. Paper presented at the 2008 Academy of Management Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Lambert, A. D., Marler, J. H., & Gueutal, H. G. (2008). Individual differences: Factors affecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., & Buck, M. L. (2002). Reduced-load work arrangements: Response to stress or quest for integrity of functioning? In D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health (pp ). Washington: American Psychological Association. Lyness, K. S., & Judiesh, M. K. (2008). Can a manager have a life and a career? International and multisource perspectives on work-life balance and career advancement potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, Locke, E. A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp ). Chicago: Rand. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain some notes on human energy time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 2, Masters, S. S., Moye, N. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2003). Social exchange and justice: Further examining the source of justice. In R. Eisenberger (Chair), Perceived organizational support: Relationships with psychological contracts, fairness, and affectivity. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. McNall,L.A.,Nicklin,J.M.,&Masuda,A.D.(inpress).A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work family enrichment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 4, Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-family and family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2009). Letters of recommendation: Controversy and consensus from expert perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in workfamily research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests [Computer software]. Available from preacher/sobel/sobel.htm

21 McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 81 Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work life policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47, Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, Society for Human Resource Management. (2008) employee benefits survey. Retrieved December 31, 2008, from published/ 2008%20Benefits%20Survey%20Report.pdf Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., O Driscoll, M. P., Sanchez, J. I., et al. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work/family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, Spence, A. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: An introduction of the StudyResponse Project (Tech. Rep. No ). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, Towers Perrin. (n.d.). Global workforce study. Retrieved December 30, 2008, from = global/publications/gws/index.htm &country = global Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work family experience: Relationships of the big five to work family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work family support in work family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, WorldatWork. (2006). Telework trendlines for Retrieved August 22, 2007, from Original manuscript received March 19, 2009 Final version accepted April 15, 2009