Paper accepted for presentation at Academy of Management Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2010
Hypothesis 3: Perceived supervisor support is positively correlated with perceived
organizational support, and perceived organizational support mediates the relationship
between perceived supervisor support and WFC.
METHOD
Sample and procedure
Participants were full-time employees in Taiwanese companies. Our data collection
representative visited each company during work hours to hand-distribute copies of a
questionnaire. After returning completed questionnaires, participants were given cash gifts of
approximately US $1.50 each. Of the 809 distributed questionnaires, 641 (72%) were returned.
The 637 participants who returned usable questionnaires were employed in a variety of positions,
with the majority working in manufacturing (26.9%) and service (26.7%) jobs. Just under half
(49%) of the employees were male, 47.8 percent were married and had at least one child, and
85.2 per cent were married to spouses who also worked. The large majority of participants were
younger than 30 years of age. The mean number of workday hours was 9.39, and the mean
15
number of hours spent daily on family matters was 2.54.
Measures
All of the scales used in this study were originally developed in English. We followed
Brislin’s(1980)recommendation to translatethe originalscalesinto Chineseand to ask two
bilingual scholars to back-translate the scales into English. Incorrectly translated items were
revised, and a consensus was achieved when the two had different opinions on a translation.
Person-organization value congruence on role boundaries was measured using a
three-item person-organization fit scale developed by Cable and DeRue (2002). To emphasize
the work-family domain, we added the following introductory sentences describing different
types of work-family values: “Some people like to distinguish between work and family
activities. For example, theydon’tspend additionaltimedealing with job-related matters when
they leave the workplace. But others like to integrate their work and family lives. For example,
they often talk with coworkersaboutfamily mattersduring work hours.”
Respondents were asked to evaluate their perceptions of degree of value congruence on
work-family boundary between themselves and their employers. Their responses were recorded
using a five-pointscale(1 = “strongly disagree”to 5 = “strongly agree”;thisscalewasused for
allitemsin ourquestionnaire).A sampleitem is,“Based on theabovedescription,thethingsthat
I value in lifearevery similarto the thingsthatmy organization values.” Cronbach’sα forthis
16
scale was 0.839.
Person-supervisor value congruence on role boundaries was modified Cableand DeRue’s
(2002) three-item scale originally designed to assess employee perceptions of
person-organization by replacing theword “organization”with “supervisor.”Respondentswere
asked to evaluate the perceived degree of value congruence between themselves and their
supervisors on role boundaries.A sampleitem is,“Based on theabove description, the things I
valuein lifearevery similarto thethingsmy supervisorvalues.”Cronbach’sα forthisscalewas
0.922.
Perceived organizational support was measured using a four-item scale developed by
Eisenberger et al. (1986). These four items, which were taken from the 36 that originally
appeared in a survey designed to measure perceived organizational support, were selected
because they had the four highest loadings based on an exploratory factor analysis by
Eisenberger et al. (items 9, 21, 23 and 25 with factor loadings of 0.83, 0.82, 0.84 and 0.82,
respectively). Respondents were asked to evaluate the degree of perceived support from their
organizations. A sample item is, “The organization really cares about my well-being.”
Cronbach’sα forthisscalewas0.747.
Perceived supervisor support was measured using a four-item social support scale developed by Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, and Pinneau (1975).A sampleitem is,“To what
17
extent does your supervisor go out of his/her way to help make your work life easier for you?”
Cronbach’sα forthisscalewas0.906.
Work-family conflict was measured using a four-item scale developed by Grzywacz and
Marks(2000)to assessnegativespilloverbetween work and family.A sampleitem is,“Yourjob
reducestheeffortyou can giveto activitiesathome.”Cronbach’sα forthisscalewas0.843.
RESULTS
Mean, standard deviation, and correlation data for the study variables are shown in Table 1.
As expected, positive correlations were identified between (a) person-organization value
congruence and POS (r=0.46, p<0.01), (b) person-supervisor value congruence and PSS (r=0.55,
p<0.01), and (c) POS and PSS (r=0.60, p<0.01). Negative correlations were identified between
POS and WFC (r=-0.15, p<0.01), as well as between PSS and WFC (r=-0.11, p<0.01).
---Insert Table 1 about here ---Data analysis
We used a two-step procedure to test our hypotheses (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Since all
of the study variables came from a single source, we used a series of factor analyses to confirm
distinguishable differences among them before conducting model comparisons.
Confirmatory factor analysis and discriminate validity
18
First, we compared a 5-factor model with two 4-factor models, one 3-factor model, and one
1-factor model. Each construct in the 5-factor model was treated as five independent variables. In
the first four-factor model (no. 1), person-organization value congruence on role boundaries was
merged with person-supervisor value congruence to form a single factor. In the second
four-factor model (no. 2), perceived organizational support was merged with perceived
supervisor support to form a single factor. In the three-factor model (no. 3), person-organization
value congruence was merged with person-supervisor value congruence to form a single factor,
and POS was merged with PSS to form another factor. In the one-factor model (no. 4), all study
variables were loaded into a single factor.
As shown in Table 2, our CFA results indicate that Chi-squared difference tests and all of
the fit indexes support the hypothesized five-factor model, and provide evidence indicating
distinctiveness among the study constructs.
---Insert Table 2 about here ---Hypothesis testing
To address the mediating effects of perceived organizational support and perceived
supervisor support, we performed a series of nested model comparisons; results are shown in
Table 3. The baseline model was fully mediated. In model 1 we specified two direct paths: from
19
person-organization value congruence to WFC, and from person-supervisor value congruence to
WFC. In model 2 we specified a direct path from person-organization value congruence to WFC.
In model 3 we specified a direct path from person-supervisor value congruence to WFC. Our
baseline model was nested within models 1, 2, and 3. As shown in Table 3, all of the fit indices in
the baseline model indicate a good fit. According to a comparison of chi-square values between
the baseline model and models 1, 2, and 3, no statistically significant differences were noted.
Based on the principle of parsimony, we chose the baseline model as the final model, and used it
to examine the study hypotheses.
---Insert Table 3 about here
---As predicted, we found statistically significant relationships between several study variables,
including POS and WFC (β=-0.23, p<0.01); person-organization value congruence and POS
(β=0.32,p<0.01);person-supervisor value congruence and PSS (β=0.58,p<0.01);and POS and
PSS (β=0.58,p<0.01)(Fig 1).No statistically significantpaths were noted between PSS and
WFC.
---Insert Figure 1 about here
---20
These path coefficients do not statistically test for an indirect effect (MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheet, 2002); we therefore used a Sobel test to determine such an
effect. According to our results, person-organization value congruence had a statistically
significant indirect association by POS with WFC (z-value = -2.932, p=0.003), and PSS had a
significant indirect association by POS with WFC (z-value = -3.133, p=0.001). These results
support hypotheses 1 and 3.
DISCUSSION
General results
Our results support the idea that person-organization value congruence, and
person-supervisor value congruence on role boundaries are positively correlated with POS and
PSS, respectively. It appears that POS mediates the person-organization value congruence and
WFC. Even though we failed to find a significant relationship between PSS and WFC, our
results indicate that POS plays a mediating role between those variables. Based on our
integration of employee perceptions of their organizations and supervisors in their daily work
environments, we determined that POS is the most important variable for predicting work-family
conflict.
Contribution
This study makes several contributions to the literature on work family conflict. First, its
21
framework includes organization- and supervisor-related factors that create supportive work
environments (Allen, 2001) in order to determine their simultaneous influences on individual
employees. The results indicate that employee perceptions of their supervisors influence their
perceptions of their organizations. Past POS studies identified PSS as the primary predictor of
employee perception of organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Other
researchers have reported that POS has a full mediating effect on PSS, employee attitude, and
employee behavior (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Lapalme, Tremblay, & Simard,
2009). Our findingsareconsistentwith Allen’s(2001)assertion thatPOS isauniquemechanism
for recognizing a supportive work environment and WFC.
Kelly et al. (2008) and Foley et al. (2006) suggest that despite evidence demonstrating the
influence of organizational and supervisor support on WFC, there is a lack of information on
how organizations can create supportive supervisors and environments. Based on suggestions
made by Kelly et al. (2008) and Foley et al. (2006) from a person-environment fit perspective,
we used person-organization/supervisor value congruence on role boundaries to predict
individual POS/PSS. We believe our data on the mediating effect of POS makes an important
contribution to the literature on the influences of person-environment fit and WFC (c.f. Chen,
Powell, & Greenhaus, 2009; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Kreiner, 2006; Rothbard et al., 2005).
Note also that Cable and DeRue (2002) used overall value congruence to operationalize the
22
concept of person-organizational fit when studying its influence on perceived organizational
support. We used boundary theory to limit the value scope to issues related to work and family,
and found that value congruence in terms of integrating or separating family and work roles can
also serve as a significant predictor of perceived organizational support.
Limitations and direction for future study
This study has three limitations. First, it relied on self-report measures, raising the
possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
However, other researchers on topics tied to supportive work environment and work-family
conflict have also used self-report measures (see, for example, Allen, 2001; Kreiner, 2006;
Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk, 2001; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999). Since
the objectives of these articles are to measure cognition and perception in individuals, self-report
instruments are the only acceptable method for gathering a large amount of valid data (Allen,
2001). In addition, some scholars suggest that the problem of common method variance is not as
seriousasoften described (Spector,2006),especially when variablesrelated to an individual’s
perceptions are the research focus (Spector, 1994). However, since some doubt remains
concerning common method variance,wealso used Harman’sone-factor test. Our results from
an unrotated factor analysis indicate that the variance explained by the first combined factor was
only 37.1%, and that the overall variance was not fully explained. We therefore believe that our
23
results were not affected by common method variance.
Second, researchers have tended to use overall values and to combine multiple dimensions
to measure person-organization fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004;
Kristof, 2000; Meglino et al., 1989); Boxx, Odom, and Dunn (1991) is among the few who have
limited values to specific situations. It is uncertain whether employees can distinguish between
overall values and work-family values in their organizations. Further research is required to
simultaneously examine overall and specific value congruence between person and
organization/supervisor and to compare various effects.
Finally, in an era marked by flat organizational structures, work teams are increasingly
autonomic and empowered, perhaps mitigating the influence of supervisors. We suspect that
besides supportive work environments established by supervisors and organizations, coworkers
may also exert a strong influence on workplace relationships. However, the impact was not
investigated in the current study. This is a potentially rich area for future research.
Practical implications
Since organizations have different work-family values, they provide a broad range of
resources for addressing WFC—there isno “best”principle for constructing a family-friendly
environment. In addition, due to differences in terms of individual values, employees may not
completely utilize all resources provided by their organizations, resulting in different levels of
24
satisfaction. Family-friendly policies provided by organizations must therefore be as flexible as
possible in terms of diverse support opportunities. Second, since perceived organizational
support is a critical predictor of WFC and perceived supervisor support, resources and support
directly provided by supervisors can exert a strong influence on employee WFC. Supervisors
play important roles in terms of establishing department or unit sub-cultures, as well as in
establishing positive work-family values when their organizations do not have concrete or
complete policies or sufficient resources to address employee WFC. As highly visible
representatives of organizations, supervisors are the “faces” of concern and support for
employees. To give the perception of being family-supportive, supervisors need to be aware of
their employees’ family-related pressures and try to determine individual preferences for
work-family boundaries.
25
References
Allen, T. D. 2001. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 411-435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5:
278-308.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. 2002. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28: 787-810.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E. & Fugate, M. 2000.Allin aday’swork:boundariesand micro roletransitions. Academy of Management Review, 25: 472-491.
Ashkanasy,N.M.,& O’Connor,C.1997.Value congruence in leader-member exchange. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137: 647-662.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. 1991. Organizational values and value congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: an empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20: 195-205.
Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. 2003. Work-family conflict: A model of linkages between work and family domain variables and turnover intentions. Journal of Management Issues, 15:
175-190.
Breaugh, J. A. & Frye, N. K. 2007. An examination of the antecedents and consequences of the use of family-friendly benefit. Journal of Managerial Issue, 19: 1, 35-52
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triadis & J. W.
Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-culture psychology, (vol. 2, pp. 394-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.
Journal of applied psychology, 87: 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 67: 294-311.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. 1975. Job demands and worker health: main effects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. 1999. The role of social support in the stress-strain relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25: 513-540.
Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. 2002.Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 99-108.
Chen, Z., Powell, G. N., Greenhaus, J. H. 2009. Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary
26
management: A person-organization fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74: 82-93.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 1999. Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of
person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 77: 85-129.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. 2002. Perceived
supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 565-573.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2004. Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: the compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-332.
Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O’Brien, A. S. 2001. The relationship of women’s role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. National Council on Family Relations, 50: 230-238.
Fisher, C. D. 1985. Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11:
39-53.
Foley, S., Haung-Yue, N., & Lui, S. 2005. The effects of work stressors, perceived organizational support, and gender on work-family conflict in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 237-256.
Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J. H. & Weer, C. H. 2006. The impact of gender similarity, racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision. Group & organization management, 31: 420-441.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1992. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 14: 545-558.
Frye, N.K., & Breaugh, J. A. 2004. Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, and family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 197-220.
Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. 2001. An examination of work and personal life conflict, organizational support, and employee health among international expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25: 261-278.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10: 76-88.
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 non-parents. Personnel
Psychology, 48: 271-288.
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: 111–126.
27
Huang, X. & Iun, J. 2006. The impact of subordinate-supervisor similarity in growth-need strength on work outcomes: The mediating role of perceived similarity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:
1121-1148.
James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. 1978. Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31: 783-813.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational stress. New York:
Wiley.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L. A., & Kaskubar, D. 2008. Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-family initiatives on work-family conflicts and business outcomes. The Academy of Management Annals, 2: 305-349.
Kirchmeyer, C. 1995. Management the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of organizational response.
Human Relations, 48: 515-536.
Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. J. 1999. Work-family role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10: 102-129.
Kreiner, G. E. 2006. Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: a person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organization Behavior, 27: 485-507.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. 2000.Perceived applicantfit:distinguishing between recruiters’perceptionsof person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53: 643-671.
Lambert, S. J. 2000. Added benefits: The link between work-life benefit and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management journal, 43: 801-815.
Lapalme, M. E., Tremblay, M., & Simard, G. 2009. The relationship between career plateauing, employee commitment and psychological distress: The role of organizational and supervisor support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 1132-1145.
Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. 2006. Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of
organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 169-181.
Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 370-390.
MacKinnon, D. M., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C.,& Adkins, C. L. 1989. A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74: 424-432.
Muse, L., Harris, S. G., Giles, W. F., & Field, H. S. 2008. Work-life benefits and positive organizational
28
behavior: Is there a connection? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 171-192..
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: