THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Many researchers note that WFC negatively influences organizational commitment, job

satisfaction, performance, and other organizational and work-related outcomes, and that

organizations can take active steps to prevent or reduce those negative influences (Allen, 2001;

Allen et al., 2000; Casper et al., 2002; Erdwins, Buffardi, Casper, & O’Brien, 2001; Foley,

Hang-Yue, & Lui, 2005; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999;

Thompson, Jahn, Kopelman, & Prottas, 2004). Specific efforts that have been identified include

instituting family-friendly policies (Breaugh & Frye, 2007) and enhancing worker perceptions of

control in their work lives (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

According to Allen (2001), the three most important factors for creating a family-supportive

environment are family-friendly policies, family-supportive supervisors, and family-supportive

organization perceptions (FSOP). She reports a positive correlation between FSOP and both an

6

organization’s family-friendly policies and employee perceptions of family-supportive

supervisors. FSOP has also been shown to mediate relationships between family-friendly policies

and WFC, and between family-supportive supervisors and WFC. Anderson et al. (2002) present

evidence showing that a supportive supervisor can explain a significant amount of WFC variance

above and beyond that explained by the number of flexible work policies provided by an

organization. In other words, the research indicates that intangible support has more direct

influence than tangible policies on worker WFC (Kelly et al., 2008).

Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as global beliefs concerning the extent to

which an organization values employee contributions and cares about their well-being

(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Some studies suggest that the level of

expressed organizational concern toward work and family issues plus actual support for

employee work-family balance influences the level of perceived organizational support (Foley et

al., 2005; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2001). Others indicate that perceived organizational support

serves an instrumental or affectional purpose in mitigating WFC (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999;

Erdwins et al., 2001). One research team has reported that access to more resources means that

employees are more likely to believe that they have some control over their work situations, thus

improving their ability to handle stress and to deal with subsequent problems (Richardson, Yang,

Vandenberg, DeJoy, & Wilson, 2008).

7

Despite the large number of empirical studies demonstrating that perceived organization

support may reduce WFC, there is insufficient data on how to create supportive work

environments (Kelly et al., 2008). Accordingly, the goals of the present study are to investigate

potential factors leading to employee perceptions of organizational support, and to clarify the

intermediate role that perceived organizational support plays in terms of influencing WFC. Our

primary proposal is that even when organizations officially enact family-friendly policies, there

is no guarantee that employees will recognize or acknowledge their organizations as being

family-supportive. According to the literature, this proposal finds support in differences between

policies as announced by organizations and actual resources made available to employees (Allen,

2001; Thompson et al., 1999), as well as in discrepancies between resources provided by

organizations and actual employee needs (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lambert, 2000).

Regarding the first reason, some organizations discover incompatibilities between enacted

policies and organizational culture. When conflicts arise, organizations may rescind, fail to fully

implement, or fail to actively promote existing policies. In some cases, supervisors fail to enact

or enforce policies in individual situations, and employees therefore ignore family-friendly

resources to avoid being viewed as more concerned about family than work. In other words,

officially sanctioned policies are useless if employees fail to perceive actual support from their

organizations, either wholly or in part (Thompson et al., 1999).

8

Regarding the second reason, discrepancies are sometimes found between employees and

organizations regarding whether or not officially sanctioned policies are in fact family-supportive.

According to Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997), human resource management policies and

practices influence employee perceptions of organizational support. For example, rewards in the

form of salary increases, promotions, or additional benefits are likely to be viewed as positive

indicatorsthatan employee’seffortsarevalued.According to signaltheory,positiveresources

that organizations can provide to their workers include personalized treatment, fair treatment,

supervisor support, and family-friendly policies; all of these practices project images of

organizations that treat their employees well (Grover & Crooker, 1995; Muse, Harris, Giles, &

Field, 2008). However, different employees can react differently to the same resource or benefit

(Muse et al., 2008)—in other words, the same signal can engender different meanings depending

on actual employee needs (James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, 1978). Lambert (2000) suggests that

workers are likely to vary in their perceptions of the usefulness of work/life benefits depending

on how they help resolve WFC. Obviously those who view the benefits as useful are more likely

to feel that their organizations are truly supportive.

Value congruence on role boundaries

Kreiner (2006) and Rothbard et al. (2005) use boundary theory to investigate value

congruency between resources supplied by an organization (integration vs. separation policies)

9

and worker needs (personal preference for integration vs. separation of work and family roles).

When value congruence is achieved between individuals and their organizations, employees

maintain more positive attitudes when interpreting organizational behaviors and intentions, and

perceive higher levels of organizational support (Cable & DeRue, 2002).

The ways that individuals establish boundaries between work and family reflect their role

segmentation or integration values. Using boundary theory, Ashforth et al. (2000) explain how

individuals establish divisions between work and life in order to efficiently manage multiple

roles. Rigid role boundaries, which represent preferences for clear distinctions between work and

family domain activities, allow people to focus more on their salient roles. For example, those

who prefersegmentation don’tlikeansweringpersonal telephone calls during work hours or

talking about family matters with coworkers. Alternatively, blurred role boundaries represent

preferences for dealing with multiple demands, an acceptance of cross-role interruptions, and a

willingness to deal with overlaps between physical location and role sets. Those who prefer

integration may leave the workplace to care for a sick child, or take unfinished work home. As

one might expect, there is variation in the degree to which employees enact segmentation or

integration.

Environments established by organizations and the resources they provide can assist or

hinder the ways that individuals pursue balance between work and family (Kossek et al., 1999;

10

Kreiner, 2006; Rau & Hyland, 2002; Rothbard et al., 2005). Organizations oriented toward

integration are more likely to help their workers perform some familial responsibilities in the

work environment—for instance, providing on-site childcare and allowing employees to

occasionally check on their children. Organizations oriented toward a segmented approach are

more likely to provide opportunities for flextime, so that people can handle all responsibilities

for each role (Ashforth et. al., 2000; Rau & Hyland, 2002; Kirchmeyer, 1995).

Regardless of organizational perspectives and preferences, both approaches share the same

goal of helping employees reduce work-family conflicts. However, perceptions of both kinds of

organizational support may not be equally positive or negative among employees who have

different work-family values (Ashford et al., 2000). Only when congruence is achieved can both

parties negotiate a satisfactory approach to reducing WFC (Kreiner, 2006), and only when

individual preferences for balancing work and family life are maintained or satisfied by the

organization do employees perceive resource value and usefulness, thus reducing WFC. When

individual preferences for balancing work and family lives are not satisfied by an organization,

or when it cannot afford to provide sufficient resources, employees are more likely to feel

underappreciated, ignored, and unsupported. In such cases, any resources that the organization

does provide will be viewed as having little or no value.

Based on this background, the first research hypothesis is expressed as:

11

Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between