journal of management 2011 maertz 68 98

http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/37/1/68The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206310382455 2011 37: 68 originally published online 14 September 2010Journal of Management

Carl P. Maertz, Jr. and Scott L. BoyarApproaches

Work-Family Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under ''Levels'' and ''Episodes''

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/37/1/68.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 14, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Dec 20, 2010Version of Record >>

by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

68

WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under Levels and Episodes Approaches

Carl P. Maertz, Jr.Saint Louis University

Scott L. BoyarUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

In this review, the authors differentiate workfamily (WF) research that conceptualizes and measures conflict as a consolidated level versus as a conflict event or episode. They critique the levels literature in the areas of conflict, enrichment, and balance. They next review the WF episodes literature for the first time. They then introduce a framework that clarifies defini-tional inconsistencies and integrates the key constructs in the WF literature in a new way. This framework proposes that an employees mental conceptualizations relevant to WF roles can be discrepant with actual role enactment or with another mental conceptualization. These discrep-ancies form ones level of WF balance or imbalance. The authors recommend that researchers adopt WF balance as the central levels construct, which changes primarily through the occur-rence of WF conflict episodes and WF enrichment episodes. They finally discuss research and practical implications of this framework.

Keywords: workfamily; episodes; conflict; enrichment; balance

Workfamily (WF) conflict is clearly an important issue for both managers and employ-ees. It has been consistently related to negative outcomes such as low job and life satisfac-tion, emotional exhaustion, poor physical and psychological health, absenteeism, tardiness,

Acknowledgments: We wish to acknowledge and thank Liam Ryan for his important efforts in compiling the mate-rials for this review.

Corresponding author: Carl P. Maertz, Jr., John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, USA

E-mail address: [email protected]

Journal of ManagementVol. 37 No. 1, January 2011 68-98DOI: 10.1177/0149206310382455

The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 69

and turnover intentions (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1996; Boyar, Maertz, & Pearson, 2005; Frone, 2000; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). These harmful effects demand that researchers gain a clear and deep understanding of WF conflict. Yet we argue that there are two general deficiencies that inhibit achieving a fuller understanding. First, there are recently emerging research streams that are closely related to WF conflict, WF enrichment (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and WF balance (e.g., Lyness & Judiesch, 2008). These con-cepts have been reviewed individually (e.g., Byron, 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Kossek & Lambert, 2005) but have rarely been included together in a review (cf. Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Allen, in press). No reviews focus on these three streams to systemati-cally find various deficiencies, suggest directions to fill them, and propose theoretical integra-tion of all these constructs. Second, there are two general approaches to conflict concep tualization and measurement. Most studies focus on levels of conflict; others focus on discrete episodes of conflict. No reviews currently distinguish these approaches or consider their implica-tions. So before presenting our review, we first distinguish levels from episodes approaches.

Distinguishing Levels and Episodes Approaches

Casper, Bordeaux, Eby, Lockwood, and Lambert (2007) found that an overwhelming majority of empirical studies in the area were survey based (85%) and correlational (89%), focusing on peoples levels of work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW) and relationships between these levels and other constructs. However, there is a distinct episodes approach that defines WF conflict as an incident or occurrence. To our knowledge, Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, and Wan (1991: 665) were the first to suggest studying specific episodes of workfamily conflict. This approach can be partly traced to a research focus on the impact of major life events on stress (e.g., Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). More recently, this focus has expanded to include more normal day-to-day events and, in particular, how incidents of stress in the work domain affect families (e.g., Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005). See Table 1 for a summary of each approach.

The predominant levels approach has several notable advantages over an episodes approach. First, WIF and FIW levels can be measured at any time and analyzed using com-mon linear statistics, facilitating easy data collection and analysis (Greenhaus & Allen, in press). This leads to collecting larger, more representative samples that allow more powerful statistical tests and greater generalizability. Episode-related research methods can be more difficult, invasive, and time-consuming. The levels approach allows for efficient testing of predictors and moderators of these relationships. Such levels research is also the best evi-dence to support organization-level interventions to reduce WIF and FIW.

Advantages of an Episodes Approach

Despite these advantages, the levels approach is not conducive to studying WF conflict phenomenology and causal relationships over time (also see Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006) for a number of reasons. First, interrole incompatibilities begin at a specific time and place and


70 Journal of Management / January 2011

often must be addressed in the short term. In terms of phenomenology, conflict levels are imprecise psychological consolidations of past conflict episodes from memory (Williams & Alliger, 1994). To the employee, these conflict events would typically be viewed and stored in memory as discrete episodes (e.g., Siedlecki, 2007).

Second, the current dominant approach implicitly assumes that there is always a discernable direction for conflict (i.e., WIF and FIW). In contrast, WF conflict theory suggests that it can be experienced without immediately recognizing a direction of cause (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Assuming that either work or family is the cause is also unnecessarily limiting and imp recise. An episodes approach allows for studying precise attributions of cause.

Third, the conceptualization and measurement of WF conflict as a level confounds in-process conflicts with memories of past conflicts. It is unclear from a level whether a con-flict is being processed currently or is a memory from the past, with recall prompted by the measurement itself. Moreover, a conflict level conceals different patterns of WF conflicts over time. Modeling episodes leads to a clear temporal distinction between current and past conflicts.

Fourth, a levels approach conceals the effects of attempts to cope with or resolve WF conflicts. A person may have had many incompatibilities occur, but with little or no stressful negative effects, because he or she effectively resolved them as they arose. Modeling epi-sodes decouples the incompatibility perception itself from resolution attempts, providing a more precise picture of how a conflict is processed.

Table 1Summary of Distinctions between the Levels and Episodes

Approaches to WorkFamily Conflict Research

Dimension Levels Approach Episodes Approach

Basic psychological model Attitude Events theoryTheoretical definition Level of work interfering with family

(WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW) carried around in memory or consolidated at time of measure

A discrete workfamily role incompatibility and how the employee reacts to it emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally

Basic theoretical assumption

Actual conflicts can be reliably aggregated into a level, that has reliable meaning across individuals

Conflict is experienced as discrete episodes, the results of which are stored in memory as episodes rather than as a level

Theoretical assumptions regarding time and change in conflict

Level changes occur relatively infrequently and levels can be studied at any time

Episodes and related changes occur at variable frequency and are best studied near their occurrence

Operational definition Extent to which one agrees, at time of measure, that work and family role responsibilities interfere

Contingent on focus of study (e.g., daily emotional spillover, resolution attempt?)

Typical design and measures

Between-person designLikert-type scales assessing FIW and

WIF levels

Within-person designQualitative or quantitative assessment

of a specific episode(s)



In terms of design, the levels approach uses between-subjects designs. An episodes approach uses within-subject longitudinal designs and experience sampling techniques. This design and method has been touted as helping avoid biased self-serving attributions, memory error, and measurement error (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Robinson & Clore, 2002; Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Hackett, Bycio, and Guion (1989: 450) noted, The benefits of the idiographic-longitudinal approach probably come not in the average amount of variance explained, but from the increased understanding of indi-vidual behavior it offers.

In sum, an episodes approach provides a more accurate theoretical reflection and better empirical strategy for understanding how employees psychologically perceive and process WF conflicts. A levels approach is more efficient at discovering basic constructs and rela-tionships in the nomological net and supporting interventions to address the average per-sons WF conflict.

Current Review

Based on these levels and episodes approaches, we present two corresponding major sec-tions followed by a final integrative section. The levels section addresses WF conflict, WF enrichment, and WF balance research. For this predominant levels approach, our purpose is to summarize trends and critique recent research, not to exhaustively review studies in these areas. We focused our search for articles on four databases: Academic Search Elite, Business Source Premier, ABI-INFORM, and PsycLIT. We searched using the following keywords: work and family, work and non-work, work and balance, worklife, and workfamily. We also used these keywords to search titles and abstracts in the following journals: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Review, Industrial Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organization Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, and Research in Organizational Behavior.

Under the emerging episodes approach, there are no reviews and far fewer studies, so in the second main section we reviewed all studies we could find in the refereed management and psychology literatures after 1985. These sections are followed by a final section where we introduce a new framework that integrates the levels and episodes approaches while clarifying disparate and overlapping constructs proliferating within the WF area.

WF Levels-Based Research

To illustrate recent progress and problems within the levels research, we provide sum-maries of trends and conclusions in the areas of WF conflict, enrichment, and balance.



WF Conflict

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) identified three forms of incompatibility that can arise between role responsibilities: time based, strain based, and behavior based. Recent meta-analyses support that WIF and FIW are distinct constructs (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) developed a six-scale measure of WF conflict that captured two directions of the time, strain, and behavior conflict reflecting the pre-dominant measurement model of the levels approach. Work domain variables relate more strongly to WIF whereas family domain variables relate more strongly to FIW (Byron, 2005; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Significant cross-domain effects have been found, but these tend to be weaker (Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009; Ng & Feldman, 2008). In another meta-analysis, Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, and Cooper (2008) found that WF conflict related negatively to self-rated performance but not to super-visor performance ratings. Kelly et al. (2008) found strong support for the relationship between individual factors (e.g., supervisor support, WF culture) and both WF conflict and WF facilitation, but neither WF construct was strongly related to any business outcomes (e.g., ROI, revenue). Other traditionally fruitful streams of research have continued, such as investigating WIF or FIW as mediating constructs (e.g., Hoobler, Wayne, & Lemmon, 2009; Taylor, DelCampo, & Blancero, 2009) for various relationships. One stream that has become more prominent recently involves investigating moderators relating to WF roles for relation-ships involving WF conflict (Bagger, Li, & Gutek, 2008; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carr, Boyar, & Gregory, 2008). The truth confirmed in this stream of research is that the percep-tion of WF conflict is dependent on individual differences such as the traits one possesses and ones specific WF role definitions.

Conclusions for the WF conflict levels research. Researchers should first expand WF models to include family role dimensions (Duxbury, Lyons, & Higgins, 2007) and role con-figurations or profiles (Fournier, Lachance, & Bujold, 2009; Livingston & Judge, 2008). This means researchers should focus explicitly on the contingent nature of WF conflict and its relationships. Overall though, our assessment is that the recent WF conflict levels research has been decidedly incremental. Few if any new types of studies or findings have emerged recently. There has been little new theoretical insight in the past two decades (Byron, 2005). Moreover, surprising findings have emerged that seem to challenge the levels concept itself. For example, Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt, and Pulkkinen (2008) used a cross-lagged longi-tudinal design to discover that WIF and FIW levels were stable over 1 and 6 years, a seem-ingly unlikely and unexpected outcome given that conflict levels purportedly change over time. They explained that respondents may have reported, a general level without attaching it to any specific time period or episode at work or within family (Rantanen et al., 2008: 47). Also, using levels measures, researchers have reported very small correlations between WF conflict and WF facilitation (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2004), but in a within-subject experience sampling study, Butler et al. (2005) found a moderate correlation of .29. These disparate findings may suggest that researchers should look to break out of comfortable routines of using levels scales in between-subjects designs, particularly when the main phenomenon of WF conflict and its immediate effects occur within subject. Given



the huge number of studies (e.g., Casper et al., 2007), the many meta-analyses already con-ducted, and the limitations of the predominant methodology, we tentatively conclude that there are few value-added contributions left to be made using the current levels approach to WF conflict.

WF Enrichment

Most WF research has implicitly assumed depletion of finite resources through increasing role commitments, based on assumptions of limited resources (Rothbard, 2001). Assuming that resources can expand, the enrichment perspective argues that engaging in more role com-mitment can provide more net benefit than less (e.g., Kirchmeyer, 1992; Reitzes & Mutran, 1994). Greenhaus and Powell (2006: 73) proposed a theoretical model of WF enrichment that goes beyond simple buffering against conflict, although this is subsumed. They define enrichment broadly as the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role. WF enrichment occurs where resources (i.e., psychological, physio-logical, KSAs [knowledge, skills, and abilities] developed, social capital, flexibility, and material resources) generated in one role actually improve performance in the other role. They propose both instrumental and affective mechanisms for this. The instrumental mech-anism involves a direct transfer of resources from Role A that improves performance in Role B. The affective mechanism involves positive feelings generated in Role A positively influ-encing performance in Role B by increasing energy, outward focus, and helping behavior (e.g., Rothbard, 2001). Greenhaus and Powell also proposed that the personal fit with Role B and role salience of Role B will strengthen these affective and instrumental transfers.

Based on Greenhaus and Powells (2006) definition, Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz (2006) developed a multidimensional measure of WF enrichment for both direc-tions, work-to-family enrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE), and each consists of three dimensions. WFE includes development (personal development), affect (mood and attitude gains), and capital (psychosocial resources); FWE includes development, affect, and efficiency (resource gains of time and efficiency).

Despite Greenhaus and Powells (2006) prominent theoretical integration of constructs representing the positive, expansion of resources view under the construct of enrichment, other very similar constructs persist in this literature that need to be better defined with respect to enrichment: support (Adams et al., 1996), positive spillover (Crouter, 1984; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), enhancement (Sieber, 1974), and facilitation (Frone, 2003). Some researchers suggest positive spillover, enhancement, and facilitation are identical (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), whereas others suggest they are distinct (Carlson et al., 2006; Grzywacz, Carlson, Kacmar, & Wayne, 2007; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). Nevertheless, having a single clear definition is necessary to determine how these enrichment-related con-cepts relate to WF conflict and WF balance, a necessary goal for the WF research overall.

Conclusions for the WF enrichment levels research. It is undeniable that there is tremendous functional commonality and conceptual overlap among support, facilitation, positive spillover, and enhancement. All have at their core that more rather than less role participation can net



a person gains across roles (Warner & Hausdorf, 2009). However, facilitation has been defined as a group-level construct to differentiate it (i.e., Wayne et al., 2007). Greenhaus and Powells (2006) model encompasses or integrates support, enhancement, and positive spillover. They propose positive emotional spillover and instrumental resources spillover as the two processes by which a higher level of enrichment or enhancement is attained. For these reasons, enrichment seems to be the broadest, most theoretically developed organizing construct at the individual level. Thus, we recommend ending the proliferation of positive WF interface constructs by adopting enrichment as the central construct.

If one considers all the findings under topics of facilitation, enhancement, and positive spillover as relating to enrichment, the primary conclusion is that there are many significant and important correlations with key outcomes (e.g., Carlson et al., 2006; Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). However, some weak or null findings have also emerged for enrichment measures (e.g., Carlson, Witt, Zivnuska, Kacmar, & Grzywacz, 2008). Yet a key theoretical issue to resolve is the seeming discrepancy between support for both the expansion view and the depletion view. It seems that both of these views on the WF interface are sometimes true but in need of reconciliation through deeper integration of enrichment and conflict (e.g., Kirchmeyer, 1992).

WF enrichment researchers should also consider that people may completely underesti-mate or not recognize their ability to expand their resources through WF role enactment for any number of reasons (e.g., low self-efficacy, past punishments for dual engagement, clinical depression, etc.). If an individual truly refuses to believe that his or her personal resources can expand through greater WF role enactment, it would be exceedingly unlikely that such an individual would experience WF enrichment (Andreassi & Thompson, 2007; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, Haslam, & Urlings, 2008). If this is true, a key empirical question is, how many in the workforce actually experience enrichment, apart from responses prompted by WFE measures?

Assuming that WF enrichment experiences are prevalent and important, the key question for the area becomes, how do these experiences causally influence outcomes over time? Also, how do they interact or combine with WF conflict (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006a)? Ultimately though, the same underlying questions arise about meaning and measurement as arose for WF conflict levels. Namely, does everyone have a theoretical WFE and FWE level that they carry around ready to be reported on surveys? Greenhaus and Powell (2006) do mention enrichment episodes, perhaps pointing to the most fruitful path forward for the enrichment research.

WF Balance

WF balance has become a very popular research topic recently (Finegold, Mohrman, & Spreitzer, 2002; Kossek & Lambert, 2005; Sturges, 2008). Despite the prominent interest, as with enrichment, there is some serious ambiguity about the definition of WF balance that must be resolved before research can progress theoretically (Greenhaus & Allen, in press). With enrichment, the problem was construct overlap; the problem with balance is that there are multiple definitions for a supposedly unitary construct.



In their recent review, Greenhaus and Allen (in press) summarized most definitions as being related to high involvement across roles, high satisfaction or effectiveness across roles, and the absence of WF conflict. They seem to agree that all of these are part of WF balance. They also suggest that definitions that require some equal allocation of time or effort in each role are too limiting and do not adequately account for different WF role definitions and priorities.

In contrast, Grzywacz and Carlson (2007: 458) define WF balance as accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or her role-related partners in the work and family domains, suggesting the need to define WF balance as a social construct. Defining a balance-type construct at the group level, such as facilitation is to enrichment, is fine, but the individual level is our focus here.

Finally, there are a number of definitions that take a decidedly broader, more complex view on the concept than other definitions. Lobel (1991) proposed that when identities for work and family roles are similarly central, integration will lead to balance. Alternatively, when individuals work and family roles are dissimilar and identities differentially central, segre-gation should lead to balance. Clark (2000) posited that balance depends on a matching heuristic between the work and family domains including the boundaries between them. Organizations and individuals, known as border crossers, can alter the domain or the bor-der in creating balance. Shepherd and Haynie (2009) suggested that balance can involve joint WF identities. Greenhaus and Allen state (in press: 17), Viewing balance from a fit perspective implies that the distribution of involvement or outcomes in work and family roles has different consequences for feelings of WF balance depending on individuals pri-orities or values, defining WF balance as an overall appraisal of the extent to which indi-viduals effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are consistent with their life values at a given point in time.

Conclusions for the WF balance levels research. These latter balance definitions strongly suggest a complex, contingent fit perspective where the individuals perceived fit among role identities (responsibilities and boundaries), personal values, and environmental inputs or demands. This definition implies that there are multiple relevant aspects of fit or discrep-ancy. This means one must consider different configurations from full integration up to ext remely segmented roles and their fit with preferences. Finally, Greenhaus and Allen (in press) explain that WF balance requires knowledge of the core values and priorities within the self-concept rather than simply relying on imposed social norms such as gender-role stereotypes for relative WF role importance. Here, we adopt this latter complex, contingent fit definition of balance as a starting point for our integrative efforts in the final section.

WF Episode-Based Research

In research on stress management, events-based models and approaches have become well established (e.g., Palmer, 2001), leading to a conceptualization of stressors as episodic. Studies reviewed here focus on episodes either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., a crossover effect within a day implies that some interpersonal crossover episode happened that day,



doing something specific to manage conflict implies a response to a specific episode). We organize studies into sections on (a) mood or affect spillover and crossover effects, (b) methods for managing conflict episodes and/or achieving balance, and (c) episode-related methodology, in addition to a final section on our conclusions for the episodes research.

Mood or Affect Spillover and Crossover Effects

Much of the episodic research concerns the relationships among conflict, affect, and other outcomes using daily diaries or surveys. Most of these studies deal with work family and family work mood or affect or satisfaction spillover across domains, whereas others deal with interpersonal crossover effects or the mechanisms behind these implicitly episodic phenomena. Several early studies laid the groundwork for this stream. Stone (1987) found that negative work events (i.e., pressure, conflict with coworkers) were most related to same-day negative daily mood, whereas positive family leisure events were most related to posi-tive mood. Repetti (1987) found that negative affect experienced at work during the day negatively influenced the nature and quality of interactions with family at night. Hackett et al. (1989) found that daily events related to family (i.e., illness, social function, chores at home) were the most frequently mentioned reasons for being absent from work (26% and 24% in two samples). MacEwen and Barling (1994) found significant within-day and across-day variance in WIF and FIW levels.

In more recent experience-sampling studies, Cropley and Purvis (2003) found that teach-ers experiencing high strain during the work day took longer to unwind, reported less personal control over what they were doing in the evening, and ruminated more about work-related issues than those experiencing low strain. Ilies, Wilson, and Wagner (2009) showed that job satisfaction affected later employee home and martial satisfaction. Furthermore, WF spill-over moderated the links between job satisfaction and both positive and negative affect at home. Poppleton, Briner, and Kiefer (2008) found that some WF interactions were related to the competing demands of two psychologically involving domains, in which intrusive thoughts from one domain made it difficult to concentrate on tasks in the other (i.e., called conflict). Yet, mood carryover (similar to strain-based conflict in Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) emerged as the more important problem, called spillover. Also, work family impact events were significantly more prevalent than family work events in both white-collar and blue-collar samples. Song, Foo, and Uy (2008) found significant daily bidirectional mood spillover effects, both positive and negative, with negative spillover to home being more likely in those high on work orientation.

Together, these studies demonstrate that daily events cause mood or affect spillover influencing attitudes and role behaviors across domains (cf. Van Hooff, Geurtz, Kompier, & Taris, 2006). The pattern seems to be that negative affect spillover from work home is the most likely form of the spillover phenomenon, particularly for those who have a high work role orientation and who experience negative events at work that day. If family work spillover occurs, it is more likely to be positive than negative, especially for older employees (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002). If negative though, family work spillover is more likely to occur in working mothers (Williams & Alliger, 1994) and in



those with high family orientation (Judge et al., 2006). We now address some further sub-topics within this stream.

Role juggling and job demand effects. There were two early studies on the daily influence of role juggling, defined as engaging in activities or demands of work and family simul-taneously. Role juggling is also assumed to be a role performance interruption. Williams et al. (1991) found that task enjoyment was lower and negative mood carryover was elevated by interrole juggling versus no juggling. Contrary to hypotheses, low negative affectivity (NA) and extraverts were more negatively reactive in terms of affect after role juggling than their high NA or introverted counterparts. Williams and Alliger (1994) found that distress ratings were significantly higher and calmness ratings lower during WF role juggling than during all other WF events. Interestingly, Williams (1991: 672) et al. also found that the negative effects of role juggling are made salient by the absence of such conflicts on the preceding days. This means that consistent interruption episodes may actually produce less intense affect than intermittent occurrences, and this finding generally points out that timing and sequencing help determine the effects of interruption episodes.

Researchers have studied other, more generalized stressors such as increased job demands on WF conflict. Based on the demands-control model (Karasek, 1979), Butler et al. (2005) focused on daily WIF and work family facilitation (WFF) experiences and found that both varied from day to day. WIF varied positively with job demands and negatively with perceived control at work. Contrary to demands-control theory though, the demandsWIF link was stronger when control was high rather than low. Furthermore, demand negatively related to WFF, whereas job skill level related positively to WFF. Ilies et al. (2007) found that employees who reported high amounts of WIF on particular days were less likely to interact socially with their families on those days, even controlling for hours spent at home.

Specific emotions. Beyond general negative mood, a few studies have focused on par-ticular negative emotions. For example, Judge et al. (2006) found that FIW related to guilt at work and hostility at work but not to job satisfaction, whereas WIF related to hostility at home and marital satisfaction but not to guilt at home. Furthermore, the relationships between WIF and hostility at home and between FIW and hostility at work were strength-ened by trait guilt. The relationship between WIF and hostility at home was strengthened by trait hostility. Livingston and Judge (2008) found that traditional role orientation strength-ened the FIWguilt link and weakened the WIFguilt link. The positive FIWguilt link was also stronger for trait traditional men than egalitarian women. These studies expand the understanding of emotional content related to WF conflict episodes beyond the focus on general mood, fatigue, and frustration (e.g., Williams et al., 1991) and confirm that traits do moderate daily cognitionemotion relationships.

Mechanisms of spillover. A positive development in this area is that some research has focused on the causal mechanisms by which spillover episodes occur. In this vein, Repetti, Wang, and Saxbe (2009) recently proposed that spillover effects include mood or affect, cognition, and physiology. First, mood or emotion carryover across time has been the primary vehicle discussed. As Judge et al. (2006: 802) state, Emotions serve as mediators between



environmental changes (events) and attitudinal reactions. In support, Heller and Watson (2005) found that positive affect mediated the relationship between job satisfaction and marital satisfaction. Studies have also supported that negative mood carried through time mediates the relationships between workload and home negative affect for employee (Ilies et al., 2007) and spouse (Story & Repetti, 2006).

Second, according to stress researchers ruminative thoughts are a cognitive mechanism of spillover from stressful events (Cropley & Purvis, 2003; Palmer, 2001). Ruminations may be future oriented or retrospective (e.g., Cropley & Purvis, 2003). These thoughts can inter-rupt when one wants to focus on other concerns and thereby may carry across settings (Williams et al., 1991), particularly when one is alone at home (Cropley & Purvis, 2003). Another cognitive spillover mechanism might be that people learn behavioral techniques or strategies for success that can be applied successfully (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) or that fail (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) in the other domain. Finally, stressful events in one domain can cause reduced cognitive control striving, which can carry across domains and reduce role performance (Poulin & Heckhausen, 2007).

Third, Repetti et al. (2009) reported that elevated cortisol after stressful events could act as a physiological spillover mechanism across domains. Besides elevated cortisol, Poppleton et al. (2008) included depletion in one domain causing fatigue wherein one lacks the mini-mum physical energy needed to participate in activities in the other domain.

Finally, in a sample of Indian men with eighth-grade children, Larson, Verma, and Dworkin (2001) found that there was little emotional or strain spillover across domains, unlike men in most U.S. samples (cf. McDonald & Almeida, 2004). This perhaps indicates that spillover findings and/or mechanisms may be hard to generalize across cultures. Researchers should study whether the extent or salience of these three types of spillover mechanisms varies across cultures.

Spillover overnight or across days. Another key spillover issue is the nature of spillover across days, after a nights sleep. Williams et al. (1991) and Williams and Alliger (1994) did not find negative spillover of affect across days. Yet Heller and Watson (2005) found mari-tal satisfaction at night predicted next day job satisfaction in the afternoon, mediated by positive mood but not by negative mood. Likewise, Ilies et al. (2007) found that positive affect spillover over days was stronger than negative. These studies generally indicate that although most moods do not carry over across days, positive mood is more likely to do so than negative. Obviously, this conclusion needs to be confirmed, taking into account key individual difference moderators. Two other mechanisms to investigate as possible drivers of overnight spillover are the use of evening recovery experiences and sleep quality (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008).

Crossover effects. A crossover effect is defined as a bi-directional transmission of posi-tive and negative emotions, mood, and dispositions between intimately connected individu-als such as spouses or organizational team members (Westman, Brough, & Kalliath, 2009: 589). The phenomenon of interpersonal crossover effects evidently requires close relation-ships, such as marriage, because one partner has the likely capacity to readily influence affect, cognition, and behavior of the other (Westman et al., 2009). But how does this happen?



First, social or emotional contagion, whereby an individual catches the affect of another person, is one explanation (Westman, 2001; Westman & Etzion, 2005). Emotional contagion occurs when observation of another persons facial, postural, or vocal expressions elicits congruent feelings within the observer (e.g., Barsade, 2002). Processes of unconscious imi-tation or social or emotional contagion play a key role in mood crossover effects (e.g., Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Lazarova, Westman, & Shaffer, 2010). Song et al. (2008) found significant positive and negative mood crossover effects for spouses, but only when the spouses were physically together and effects dissipated quickly, within 10 minutes after they parted. This suggests that even among those who are close, mood crossover effects may be fleeting.

Second, in a more indirect cognitive-behavioral mechanism, Bakker, Demerouti, and Dollard (2008) supported a between-subjects fully mediated model that proposes: The employee who experiences the WIF is likely to engage in social undermining behavior toward Person B. In turn, this raises Person Bs home demands and, thereby, FIW and exhaustion. Other between-subjects studies also support bidirectional crossover effects between signifi-cant others (Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Matthews, Del Priore, Acitelli, & Janet, 2006; Westman & Etzion, 2005). Bakker, Westman, and Van Emmerik (2009) further sug-gested that crossover research should incorporate role theory in assessing effects on other role constituents besides just significant others, emphasizing reciprocal crossover effects. In this vein, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2009) examined positive crossover effects within the work domain based on work engagement. They found that an engagement subdimension of vigor crossed over within day to the work partner, especially when communication between partners was high. In contrast, other results indicate that reduced social interaction or respon-siveness can itself act as a behavioral mechanism for crossover effects (e.g., Ilies et al., 2007; Story & Repetti, 2006), depending on how this behavior is interpreted by the other person (e.g., Mom is ignoring me vs. Mom is really busy and needs to be left alone). Whether distancing from others is a mechanism for or an inhibitor of crossover is an empirical ques-tion worthy of future study. We suspect that distancing would apply only as a crossover mechanism where a close relationship already exists or where the other person otherwise expects regular communication.

Finally, Bakker et al. (2009) specifically argued for episodic models in conceptualizing and studying crossover effects. This implies that episodic declarative memory (e.g., Tulving, 1983) is activated after a crossover episode. Thus, future studies should also focus on the role of episodic memory storage and recall of each person involved as a key mediating mechanism through which crossover episodes exert influence on outcomes over time.

Methods for Managing Conflict Episodes and/or Achieving Balance

Jennings and McDougald (2007) recently characterized the WF interface research as dealing either with WF experiences or with strategies for managing these experiences. The latter topic has received far less research attention. Yet as Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (2009: 705) put it, Clearly, individuals play a crucial role in affecting workhome outcomes; they are not mere automatons reacting helplessly to the pressures around them. The need



for recovery in achieving health and well-being has also been emphasized in a number of models (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Poulin & Heckhausen, 2007). With the importance of active stress management in mind, we attempt to summarize and organize the many different methods of coping with WF conflict and achieving WF balance.

Frameworks of responses to WF conflict. More generally in the stress research, Folkman and Lazarus (1980) identified problem-focused coping, attempting to modify the stressful situation directly. In contrast, emotion-focused coping consists of attempts to control the emotional response to the problem and lessen distress. Both have been negatively related to WF conflict in the levels-based research (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Rotondo, Carlson, & Kincaid, 2002). Wiersma (1994) catalogued behavioral strategies for resolving WF conflict: hire outside help, divide chores, set priorities, cognitive reappraisal, sharing friends and activities, plan recreational time, plan time to be alone with family, plan time to be apart from family, negotiated deals on role cycling or job mobility plans, avoidance, mutual sharing, and discussing new norms with others. Jennings and McDougald (2007) included segmentation, compensation, accommodation (limiting ones involvement in one domain to meet responsibilities in the other), structural role definition (i.e., others), personal role defi-nition (revising ones own role), and purely reactive role behavior. Kreiner et al.s (2009) emergent behavioral tactics included using other people, leveraging technology, invoking triage (choosing one domain in an emergency), and allowing differential permeability (e.g., emotional boundary from work, but letting work correspondence through). Their temporal tactics include controlling work time, finding respite, managing physical boundaries, setting role expectations, and confronting violators.

Despite these laudable frameworks, all leave out at least one construct expressed in another model. Also, because some constructs overlap within and across frameworks and because many represent different levels of specificity, they cannot be easily collapsed and synthe-sized. Most important, some categories represent multiple distinct effects. For example, with compensation, in response to a conflict the person retreats to and directs more effort to his or her more central domain. There is potentially a dual effect to this tactic. First is the escape or distraction that comes with emersion in one role. Second is the affirmation and reappraisal possible (i.e., at least I do an exceptional job in this one role, even if I neglect the other) as a way to protect and maintain integrity in the self-concept (Reitzes & Mutran, 1994). Thus, compensation and some other categories in the framework confound multiple conflict response types. For these reasons, we formed our own synthesis to provide clarity and parsimony.

Choosing one role over the other or compromise. In some time-based WF conflict epi-sodes one can choose one role responsibility over another or choose to partially meet both responsibilities. In either case, at least one role responsibility goes at least partially unful-filled. Greenhaus and Powell (2003) asked MBAs to choose between a fictitious overtime team work session and a family birthday party, neither of which could be rescheduled. Differential situational role sender pressure typically led to the high pressure and high salience role being chosen. When work role salience was low, the family role was chosen no matter what the family role salience, and to a lesser extent, family was chosen when a man-ager was unsupportive of the family role.



Cognitive affirmation and reappraisal. Furthermore, leaving one responsibility unfulfilled may produce guilt (Judge et al., 2006) that must be alleviated somehow. Affirmation is a likely as a counter measure to reduce such guilt (Steele, 1988). Cognitive reappraisal (e.g., Wiersma, 1994) minimizing the importance of the incompatibility may also be used. Future research should test whether affirmation and/or reappraisal is used in concert with the previ-ous category.

Enlist support. Powell and Greenhaus (2006b) cite several types of support as relevant: (a) emotional or affective support that enhances self-esteem and brightens appraisal of life events, (b) informational support about available resources or options, (c) companionship support that meets needs for affiliation, and (d) social comparison support. Seiger and Wiese (2009) found that support was a negative antecedent of WIF and FIW. Burchielli, Bartram, and Thanacoody (2008) concluded that individuals utilize both personal resources and avail-able social support to accomplish work and family demands. A key conceptual issue though is where the help comes from and its estimated cost to the focal person. Calling a cab or hiring a nanny has financial costs but no residual role costs or expectations. In contrast, enlisting help from important others with whom one has interdependent relations may create role expectations of reciprocity from the person approached (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989), a less tangible type of cost. Thus, in the latter case, we consider the response to be a form of changing anothers role in the short term, rather than enlisting support.

Changing others roles. Changing anothers role or role sending may be undertaken for the short term (e.g., one episode) or permanently (Jennings & McDougald, 2007; Wiersma, 1994). It may range from a command to a request to an open negotiation. For a more perma-nent change in roles, Shepherd and Haynie (2009) emphasized the importance of negotiating responsibilities. As we mentioned, any success in changing anothers role may awaken some anxiety about a reduced capacity to role send to that person in the future and/or a require-ment to change ones own role going forward.

Changing ones own role responsibilities. An employee can use different methods to change aspects of his or her role responsibilities in one or both domains, in anticipation of or in response to WF conflict. This change can be perpetrated in ones own mind or, more importantly, in the minds of others. Rescheduling a responsibility is one obvious example of this, although Powell and Greenhaus (2006b) would categorize it as enlisting support. They found that when both activities were important, rescheduling was chosen by a majority of respondents. Rescheduling of the family activity was also more likely when family support was high.

Role boundary management. Nippert-Eng (1996) described changing boundaries through segmentation or integration attempts (e.g., maintaining two home work calendars vs. one integrated calendar) as boundary work. Research has also confirmed that employees have preferences for more or less segmentation (e.g., Michel & Hargis, 2008; Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005). Based on role boundary theory (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000), boundaries delimit a given domain in ones mind along a continuum from thinweak to



thickstrong. Thinweak boundaries are permeable and promote or result from integration, whereas thickstrong boundaries are impermeable and promote or result from segmenta-tion (Kreiner et al., 2009). Hecht and Allen (2009: 840-841) defined permeability as the extent to which an individual might be psychologically and/or behaviorally engaged in one domain, while physically located in another, or at times that are traditionally devoted to the other.

In a qualitative study, Pratt and Rosa (2003) found support for transforming WF conflict into higher levels of commitment and motivation by utilizing policies that integrate family and work by encouraging employees to focus on ones desire to do better at work for the benefit of family. In their interview study, Golden and Geisler (2007) identified four distinct interpretive repertoires of boundary management. Containing work and protecting the pri-vate are highly segmented. Integrating life is obviously reflecting a preference for integra-tion. Transitioning work is having a permeable boundary where work flows across a traditional work boundary. Kreiner et al. (2009: 710) assessed the boundary congruence of preferred and actual workhome boundaries for Episcopal priests using qualitative method-ologies and inductively developed a model that asserts that

(1) individual preferences for workhome segmentation or integration combine with environ-mental influences (such as work and home climates and other individual preferences) to create multiple dimensions of boundary (in)congruence; (2) workhome boundary incongruence leads to boundary violations (episodes of breaching the preferred workhome boundary) and workhome conflict; (3) boundary violations also lead to workhome conflict; and (4) individuals invoke boundary work tactics to reduce and manage incongruence, violations, and conflict.

Kreiner et al. (2009) along with Thompson and Bunderson (2001) proposed that the fit of personal preference for integration versus segmentation with the environment is key to avoiding or alleviating WF conflicts (Chen, Powell, & Greenhaus, 2009; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006).

From these studies we learn that neither integration nor segmentation is a panacea for preventing or coping with WF conflict episodes. In fact, it seems that excessive segmenta-tion and excessive integration have both been related positively to WF conflict (Poppleton et al., 2008; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009; Voydanoff, 2005). Recognizing that it is the fit between actual and preferred boundary arrangements that is important represents a major insight. Nevertheless, a key challenge remains for empirical research. Boundary preferences can be for a complex mix of work and home responsibilities that are more or less segmented or integrated based on the situation and can even change regularly (Hecht & Allen, 2009). For example, a certain aspect of work (e.g., research writing) may be fully integrated with home life whereas others (e.g., classes, committee meetings) are completely segmented from home; this mix may change during the summer or even over the weekend. Models and mea-sures must account for such complex preferences to validly test boundary work and the main fit hypothesis.

Psychological or physical avoidance or withdrawal. A final category of individual response involves psychologically or physically avoiding or withdrawing from one or both domains. This may take many forms, from planning time to be apart from family (Wiersma, 1994) to



choosing distractions and disengagement from a goal (Martin & Tesser, 1989), social with-drawal from others (Repetti et al., 2009; Story & Repetti, 2006) or from certain roles, and relaxation and leisure-time mastery experiences (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Psychologically, this could mean denying the conflict (e.g., getting lost in work, refusing to think about it). Behaviorally, the person may engage in dysfunctional alcohol or drug use or reflexively avoiding the setting where current demands are greatest, up to and including job turnover and divorce.

Dyadic or group-level approaches. Perlow (1998) found that employees and spouses used combinations of tactics as employee acceptors/resistors paired with either spouse acceptors or resistors. Kellas and Trees (2006) showed that stress reduction often involves family sense-making narratives or conversations. Jennings and McDougald (2007) summa-rized dyadic strategies as traditional (i.e., one-income household), one-job/one-career, or, when both want careers, postponing children. Future research should continue investi-gating whether systematic combinations of responsibilities and boundaries predict dual-domain satisfaction (Golden, 2009).

Three approaches as an organizing framework. In reviewing these method categories, we came up with an organizing framework based on three dimensions. First, some individual methods are preventative of WF conflict episodes, whereas others are in-the-moment responses. Second, Individuals and couples often develop routines in advance for how they will respond to workfamily conflict that arises on an everyday basis (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b: 1180). These conflict incidents typically represent easier choices and would more likely be handled by preestablished routines or automatic scripted processing (e.g., Beach & Mitchell, 1996). Finally, some methods (i.e., role changes, boundary management) imply at least some dyadic communication. In our framework, the methods that rely on anothers consent cannot be considered truly scripted, automatic information processing; thus, these cases are denoted as NA (see Table 2). Hopefully future researchers can use this frame-work to help study all aspects of WF conflict episode responses and their relative effective-ness in various environments and for various subgroups (e.g., different WF role priorities).

Episode-Related Methodology

Although commonalities exist across episode-related studies, there are still many varia-tions in methodology employed. Next, we briefly discuss these methods and their use.

Measures. Williams and Alliger (1994) identified three levels of analysis in measuring the quality of episodic experiences. These are (Level 1) immediate experience (reactions at that specific time), (Level 2) primary consolidation (end of day consolidation), and (Level 3) secondary consolidation (global assessment, focusing across many days). Level 1 is superior to Levels 2 and 3 because these latter levels rely on retrospective recollection, they tend to miss the subtle, often idiosyncratic, and sometimes even contradictory dimensions of immediate experience (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989: 815). Nevertheless, some studies reviewed used Level 3 measures (e.g., Grzywacz et al., 2002) or adapted Level 3 measures



(traditional levels measures) to be Level 2 measures by adding the word today (e.g., Butler et al., 2005; Judge et al., 2006). Some have focused on capturing estimated event frequency (Maybery, Neale, Arentz, & Jones-Ellis, 2007). Very few use Level 1 measurement. Most either induce or assume WF conflict (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Williams et al., 1991) or qualitatively capture episodes (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009). Only two quantitative studies to our knowledge directly examine naturally occurring WF conflict episodes (i.e., Poppleton et al., 2008; Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b). These weaknesses can be partially mitigated through better data collection.

Data collection. Notably, Song et al. (2008) used cell phones with data collection software. This represents the future of data collection in within-subject experience sampling, allowing focus on specific episodes and use of Level 1 measures. The pervasiveness of cell phones combined with wireless connectivity to powerful computers greatly expands the potential

Table 2Examples of Three Temporal or Psychological Approaches to

Reduce WorkFamily (WF) Conflicts

Method TypePreemption of WF

ConflictReactive Controlled

ResponsesReactive Automatic

Responses

Choosing one role or compromise + affirmation or reappraisal

Choose activity based on negotiated plan; Ill choose the other domain next time

Ive got to work now, but will go to the next game; I am really doing well at work though

Engage script: When this happens, I alternate nights in choices of work or family

Enlist support Hire a full-time nanny or personal assistant

Rent apartment near the train station

Hire cab to provide family transportation

Hire a secretarial service

Engage script: When this happens, I tell my assistant to handle the problem at home

Changing relevant others role(s)

Ask for a bigger or renegotiate a new role for others

Ask a coworker, friend, or family member to cover for you

NA

Changing ones own role

Renegotiate a more flexible role with others in one or both domains

Make up an excuse at the last minute

Initiate impromptu role negotiation with coworkers, friends, or family

NA

Reschedule an activity in advance

Role boundary management

IntegrationSegmentationNegotiate boundaries

Change permeability of a boundary

Erect new temporary boundary

NA

Psychological or physical avoidance or withdrawal

TurnoverDivorce

Psychological withdrawal Engage script: When I get this fed up, I go to Moes bar



depth and breadth of empirical studies, making these typically small-sample within-subject techniques (N = 20-50 in most studies reviewed here) possible for thousands of respondents, each giving dozens of responses over short and long periods. It seems that the key data col-lection challenge will be designing incentives to elicit this many reliable responses. In most studies, respondents are all paid (e.g., $50), an expensive proposition for a large sample. However, if large-scale online recruitment could be used, less expensive inducements such as prize drawings could potentially be effective.

Design and analyses. Designs consistent with the episode approach have included lab studies (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003), random or scheduled experience sampling checklists or diaries (e.g., Poppleton et al., 2008; Williams & Alliger, 1994), the critical incident tech-nique (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b; Wiersma, 1994), and qualitative interviews (Kreiner et al., 2009). Most daily studies have used hierarchical multilevel modeling to analyze data from these quantitative designs (e.g., Heller & Watson, 2005; Van Hooff et al., 2006), but some have relied on pooled time series analyses (e.g., Williams & Alliger, 1994), repeated measures ANOVA (Cropley & Purvis, 2003), or Cox regression to predict probability of whether a certain enrichment or conflict episode will happen (e.g., Budig, 2006). Haviland, Nagin, Rosenbaum, and Tremblay (2008) also recently touted trajectory-group modeling to look at the impact of episodes on developmental trajectories.

Conclusions

From this episode-related research we conclude that although utilizing varied and effec-tive methodologies, existing studies have not yet taken full advantage of the episode approach. We offer several suggestions to do this better. First and foremost, researchers should focus on the actual conflict episode and utilize Level 1 measurement (Williams & Alliger, 1994) rather than inferring that conflict occurs (e.g., Williams et al., 1991) or capturing consoli-dated conflict levels based on traditional measures (e.g., Ilies et al., 2007). Researchers should ideally prompt people to report about WF episodes as they occur during the day. A researcher could survey by phone or do daily follow-up interviews about what event caused the incompatibility to be realized, the nature of the conflict, the type and intensity of affect associated with it, and its direction, if any.

Second, on this point, most all traditional survey measures of WF conflict are bidirec-tional measures (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000; Carlson et al., 2006; Netemeyer et al., 1996). These scales assume through item wording, not only that causal attribution has taken place, but also that its result is obvious to the focal person, such that WIF and FIW levels can both be quickly consolidated and reliably reported on demand. They further assume that this attribution has been made to a general domain such as work rather than any other more specific cause. To what people attribute WF conflicts and how they make such attributions must be studied rather than assumed. Current studies suggest some hypotheses. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) proposed that selection of a work activity results in WIF, whereas selection of a family activity results in FIW, implying that attribution must occur after choice of cop-ing method. We ask whether the attributed cause may actually precede and help determine



the choice of coping method (i.e., addressing the perceived cause of the conflict). Others suggest that the domain blamed would be where one is not when a trigger event occurs (Judge et al., 2006), where one is when a trigger event occurs (Butler et al., 2005), the domain to which the trigger event relates most closely (e.g., Stone, 1987), or the domain that is least central and/or most permeable (e.g., Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b). To test which of these explanations is most valid or under which circumstances each may apply, episode stud-ies should measure the cues used and thought processes behind such attributions as well as the attributions themselves. Researchers must also confirm that people assign direction or blame for a WF conflict episode without the typical prompting of WF conflict levels scales.

Third, researchers could attempt to confirm and expand the framework of methods in our Table 2. How a response category or individual response to a WF conflict episode is chosen and the relative success of different methods for different groups is a major blind spot in the area of WF conflict that demands future research. Based on Powell and Greenhaus (2006b), we would predict that role salience or centrality to self-concept, salience of the responsibil-ity to the role, role-sender cues on importance or urgency, support available in the domain, and specific activity cues (e.g., Can it be rescheduled or held without me?) can all have a part in choosing methods to cope with conflict. Future research should test these determi-nants of method choice as well as their relative effectiveness. Researchers should then attempt to predict such choices.

Fourth, although under a levels conceptualization, there have been proposals of how enrichment and conflict relate (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006a). Enrichment episodes have been recognized though (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), and we contend that they are key to theo-retical integration of these concepts. However, episodes-based research to date has neglected enrichment. In fact, we found no empirical studies on WF enrichment episodes per se. Researchers need to try to confirm the existence of enrichment episodes and then investigate the characteristics and relationships within and across such episodes. We expect that some people are likely to experience significant enrichment episodes, whereas others are very unlikely to experience them or their benefits because they simply do not believe that such episodes are a possibility. This is important to test. Future research should determine how many employees actually experience WF enrichment episodes, the determinants of these episodes, and how such episodes interact with WF conflict episodes.

Fifth, there are several areas of conceptual confusion that have been revealed by focusing on individual WF episodes. For example, there is conceptual overlap between Greenhaus and Beutells broad conceptualization of conflict and negative daily spillover events (see Poppleton et al., 2008). Similarly, the prevailing notion of balance as a state or outcome must be recon-ciled with definitions of balancing as a personal action or strategy (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009; Nippert-Eng, 1996). With respect to balance, key theoretical questions remain to be answered. What does balance mean under an episodes conceptualization? Are conflicts resolved in favor of family in one episode and work in the next? What ratio of enrichment and conflict episodes would define balance? And how does this definition of balance relate to segmentation and integration? Future research requires that many interrelated concepts in the area be fully dis-tinguished and clarified, given that WF conflict and enrichment are manifested as episodes.

Finally, although there are useful general heuristics related to WF conflict episodes (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009; Repetti et al., 2009; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009), there is no model of how



an episode unfolds, how its results may carry forward to subsequent episodes, or how these accumulate over time to influence role performance and satisfaction. As Heller and Watson (2005: 1278) said, It is important that future research examines comprehensive models that include events both at work and not at work, mood, and attitudes. Thus, a most pressing need in the WF episodes research may be for such an overarching theoretical framework.

Implications and New Directions for the WF Area

In summarizing many research findings and trends across the WF literature, we draw three overall conclusions. First, there are two theoretically and empirically distinct research approaches to the WF interface (levels vs. episodes). Neither approach is inherently superior, but researchers must match their approach to their research objective. Ilies et al. (2007) illustrated through differential spillover effects how using a between-subjects levels app roach to investigate a within-individual phenomenon can lead to inaccurate estimates and conclusions. To explain or predict variance across subjects and to design organization-wide interventions to avoid or mitigate WF conflict, the levels approach is probably most appro-priate. To understand the causal processes and phenomenology of WF conflict and enrich-ment over time, the episodes approach is superior. Future WF researchers should specify which approach they are adopting and why.

Second, there is clearly construct proliferation with several highly conceptually overlap-ping constructs around enrichment (e.g., enhancement), whereas balance has varying mean-ings and measurements under a purportedly single construct. Both problems create theoretical ambiguity in the area. For example, what exactly does high or good WF balance mean across employees who have very different family roles (e.g., sole breadwinner, primary caregiver) and work roles, and perhaps very different priorities in these roles. Thus, a com-plex multifaceted definition such as Greenhaus and Allens (in press) balance model must be embraced. More generally, the nomological net around the WF interface must be clarified through precise construct definitions with valid measures and no further construct proliferation.

Third, it seems that levels and episodes conceptualizations must be reconciled and inte-grated in some systematic way and not simply accepted as completely independent ways of looking at conflict, enrichment, and balance. Researchers should be studying both psycho-logical states related to the WF interface along with episodes (Kreiner et al., 2009), hope-fully leading to a fuller, more coherent understanding in the area across approaches.

A New Direction for the WF Interface Research

Based on these conclusions, we offer an adjustment in direction for WF research. We began our efforts at integration with the premise that most empirical WF research has been implicitly or explicitly measuring some form of perceived discrepancy and the associated negative feelings and/or some form of WF-related positive evaluations and feelings. It is also implied in this literature that the latter positive feelings are either caused by or allowed by the absence of such discrepancy. In this way, most levels research related to WF balance,



conflict, and enrichment has as a central theme or precondition freedom from perceived discrepancy or lack of fit between aspects of work and family domains at that time. An employees mental conceptualizations regarding work and family roles and their interrela-tionships are very complex, and all combinations of potential WF discrepancies have not been systematically considered under WF conflict. This failure is largely a function of not recognizing that the fit, both within the focal person and with behaviors in the environment, is contingent on the individuals personal WF role values and priorities. In this vein, we support the claim of other researchers that WF balance defined in this broader way is the key construct describing well-being concerning WF roles and domains (Greenhaus & Allen, in press; Thompson & Bunderson, 2001). We recommend that WF balance should be the main focus for levels-based research rather than WF conflict and enrichment, which are appropri-ately studied using an episodes approach.

Because there are different types of discrepancy that can infringe on and reduce ones assessment of balance level, we propose a formative construct where a state of full balance is defined by the lack of any such discrepancies when one consciously considers the WF domains. Ones level of balance could be measured as a snapshot global assessment of fit and discrepancy within WF domains using perfect to very bad fit as possible scale anchors. Alternatively, balance could be measured as a snapshot of multiple discrepancy dimensions, where the low end of each scale is anchored by no current discernable discrepancy. Balance level would then be a summation of these dimension scales.

This definition and measurement strategy suggests that WF balance has a logical ceiling effect. Becoming more and more balanced beyond the point of no discernable discrepancy has dubious linguistic, theoretical, and practical meaning (see Greenhaus & Allen, in press). Yet having excellent fit and no discrepancies with none of the associated ill feelings should in itself produce considerable satisfaction and perceptions of role effectiveness. Moreover, recognizing this ceiling does not mean that employees cannot acquire additional positive emotional experiences that promote greater satisfaction or acquire additional skills and resources that promote WF role effectiveness. Such increases can occur because of enrich-ment, mediated through positive affective and instrumental spillover (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), but not mediated through increased WF balance. Before introducing the discrepancy dimensions of imbalance, we propose a broader representation regarding WF roles and their priority in the self-concept.

WF role conceptualizations. In Figure 1 there are three distinct but interrelated mental conceptualizations related to (a) the focal persons own WF roles (i.e., Venn diagram), (b) the focal persons conceptions about others normative WF role expectations for him or her (i.e., left box), and (c) the focal persons expectations regarding salient others WF roles (i.e., right box). Thus, Figure 1 may be thought of as a representation of a focal persons WF role cognitions at a given point in time. These three mental pictures can potentially be dis-crepant with each other or discrepant with the focal persons perception of actual behavior in the situation. We next discuss parts of Figure 1 in more detail.



Venn diagram. This diagram represents how the focal persons work role and family roles are defined in terms of responsibilities and boundaries. Each roles definition includes differ-ent types of responsibilities (e.g., family breadwinning and caregiving duties). The total absolute level of these responsibilities in each role is represented by the size or circumference of the circle for that role. Within any absolute level, there still may be many small scattered responsibilities, a few regular time-consuming responsibilities, or any combination.

Each role definition also contains some idea of boundaries, marking where these role responsibilities or obligations end, indicating what domain responsibilities are not in their role. In the employees mind, boundaries manifest themselves as how easily and clearly he or she can distinguish work and home responsibilities and activities. Also, other thoughts about the WF domains provide context for responsibilities (e.g., when certain responsibili-ties are relevant). These boundaries in WF roles jointly determine whether we describe work and family roles as being more segmented or more integrated.

Segmentation or integration of roles is portrayed in Figure 1 by the amount of overlap between the two large circles, and secondarily, by the thickness (i.e., permeability) of the circles and the domain boundary lines. Segmentation would be shown as little or no overlap between domain circles and thick boundaries, manifested as doing work only in one location

Figure 1Representation of an Individuals Work and

Family Mental Role Conceptualizations

Mental Conceptualization

Segmentation/Integration(reflected as overlap)

Depends Partly on Permeability(reflected as thickness of circle)

Work Role Content

- Task Responsibilities- OCBs Responsibilities- Social Responsibilities

Family/Home RoleContent

- Financial Responsibilities- Caregiving Responsibilities- Leisure Responsibilities

Core ValuesIn the Self-concept

Focal Persons Expectations of Others at Work X Closeness of Relationship Responsibilities or Boundaries Focal Persons Expectations of Others at Home X Closeness of Relationship Responsibilities or Boundaries

Others Expectations in Work Role X Motivation to comply w/Person

Responsibilities or Boundaries Others Expectations in Family Role X

Motivation to comply w/Person Responsibilities or Boundaries

Mental Conceptualization

Role Centrality (as overlap)Mental Conceptualization

- Co-Location

-

- Integrated

Task Activities

WF Identity?

Tech Links



and family activities only in another, and in the extreme, as having completely separate home and work roles and identities. More integration is shown as more overlap and/or thin boundaries and manifested through colocated WF role enactment or technology links allow-ing both roles to be enacted in all locations. In extreme cases, people may engage in inte-grated role enactment where WF responsibilities are both fulfilled though common tasks and a joint WF role identity could be formed (Ashforth et al., 2000; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009). This would be represented by no internal boundary lines or completely overlapping circles. Practically, this is most likely to happen for proprietors of family businesses or for those doing all work and family activities at home.

Finally in the Venn diagram the focal persons relative WF role centrality is portrayed as the relative (work vs. family or home) overlap of the role domains with the lower smaller circle representing core values. However, it is possible that neither the work nor family role is highly central to the persons overall self-concept, shown as very little overlap with either role circle. This is the configuration that is actually depicted in Figure 1.

The smaller boxes. The two smaller boxes in Figure 1 represent socially based conceptu-alizations regarding WF roles. The current literature has generally failed to explicitly recog-nize their potential to produce WF discrepancy. In the left box, we represent that the focal employee knows that other people in each domain have role expectations in mind (i.e., responsibilities and boundaries) for him or her. These conceptions of what others expect from him or her may be clear or vague. As we indicate by the interaction, it is unlikely that these expectations would be salient or produce meaningful discrepancies if these other people are not valued by the focal person because there would be little motivation to comply (Ajzen, 1991).

In the right box, we depict that the focal employee has role expectations or definitions in mind for others in their work and family domains. This is what responsibilities the focal person believes that a coworker or family member should be doing in his or her work or family role. Again, if the focal person does not have close relationship with these people, then it is unlikely that the conceptualization would be very clear in the focal persons mind or salient enough to create noticeable discrepancy.

Types of discrepancies. Considering these three mental conceptualizations in Figure 1, along with perceptions of enacted role behavior in the current situation, allows researchers to specify the many individual types of discrepancies that can occur within a focal persons cog-nition relevant to WF roles. It is quite probable that within-domain responsibilities conflict with each other, also contributing to stressful imbalance, although intrarole conflict is not our focus here. Here, we distilled six generic types of discrepancies that contribute to ones WF interrole balance or imbalance level at a given point in time. These are detailed in Table 3.

With this new vision of the central multifaceted levels construct of WF balance, we had to integrate episodes. The first three discrepancies are between enacted behaviors and the role conceptualizations. By definition these occur surrounding a behavior that occurs at a particular point in time. This suggests discrete WF conflict episodes likely responded to near the time of occurrence. The last three discrepancy types involve inconsistencies between two mental role conceptualizations. They are not as bound to a time and place, although they



certainly originate in some episode. These discrepancies may be carried in memory and accessed as a structural discrepancy for a long time after the last episode occurs. Thus, the latter three types of discrepancy are more likely to be reflected in WF balance level measures (and traditional WF conflict levels measures) collected when no WF conflict episodes have occurred recently.

Changes in balance level over time. We propose that ones level of balance or imbalance changes over time and that WF conflict and WF enrichment episodes are the primary causes of these changes. We further propose that ones level of balance is relatively stable over time, until changed by conflict or enrichment episodes. See an illustration of the proposed change process in Figure 2. We recognize that recently past WF conflict and enrichment episode(s) or persistent structural discrepancies determine ones level of balance at Time 1. The discrepancy brought on by a conflict episode is then processed and some coping or resolution method attempted. Alternatively, an enrichment episode can cause positive affec-tive and/or instrumental spillover. Depending on the outputs of the episode, a new level of WF balance is created at Time 2.

Future research under this framework. For empirical researchers to follow the implica-tions of our integrative framework, they must first address the considerable measurement

Table 3Summary of Discrepancy Types Constituting WorkFamily (WF) Imbalance

Discrepancy Type Description and Example

1. Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal persons conceptualization of his or her WF roles

Not acting consistently with ones own identity and understanding of ones WF role (e.g., behavior-based conflict; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)Letting oneself down

1a. Enacted behaviorEnacted behavior A special case of the first type of internal dissonance, when enacting one role behavior literally prevents another role behavior from being enacted in a classic time-based conflict

2. Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal persons conceptualization of others expectations of his or her WF roles

Not acting consistently with others expectations, which may be the same or different from ones own expectationsLetting others down

3. Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal persons expectations of others WF roles

Perception that others are not acting consistently with their WF rolesI am upset that _______ isnt fulfilling his role!

4. Focal persons conceptualization of his or her WF rolesFocal persons conceptualization of his or her WF roles

A discrepancy between the focal persons WF role conceptualizations; problem of integration, segmentation, or role definitionMy work/family and family/work roles as I see them just dont work or fit together.

5. Focal persons conceptualization of his or her WF rolesFocal persons conceptualization of others expectations of his or her WF roles

A discrepancy between the focal person and others views on the focal persons work roles; this is a problem of integration vs. segmentation or role definitionI just dont agree with your definition of my role.

6. Focal persons conceptualization of his or her WF rolesFocal persons expectations of others WF roles

A discrepancy between what the focal person expects from himself or herself and what he or she expects from others; problem of integration vs. segmentation or role definitionThere is some serious imbalance between our roles; I expect a lot from myself, but so little is expected of you. What is wrong here?



challenges brought on by the increased complexity of the fit or discrepancy-based balance construct and by reconciling levels and episodes approaches. First, elements in Figure 1 must be measured, including multiple types of responsibilities within roles, integration or segmen-tation or boundary permeability, absolute and relative centrality of both WF roles to core values in the self-concept, and the two social conceptualizations regarding WF roles. Second, assessing balance requires either a new global WF fit or discrepancy measure or measures of the six discrepancy dimensions. The first three discrepancy types involve a cognitive-behavioral discrepancy that may need to be measured based on frequency or intensity of recent occurrences, whereas the latter three types can actually be measured as a true level of discrepancy. Third, there are measurement challenges, discussed earlier, for the WF episodes approach that must also be met.

If such measurement challenges can be successfully met though, the scope of empirical research questions and studies possible in the WF area could expand tremendously. For example, is a global or summative dimensional measure of balance better at predicting role satisfaction and role performance over time? How does integration versus segmentation of roles work along with WF role centrality to influence the nature and importance of the six discrepancies? Which discrepancy dimension creates the strongest mood effect, most resists resolution methods, most determines a persons balance level, or most determines the aver-age balance level within different groups? How do different intrarole responsibility configu-rations and discrepancies affect overall balance level? How do intrarole discrepancies compare to interrole discrepancies in their effect on balance level, satisfaction, and role performance levels? Are there certain types of conflict or enrichment episodes that affect balance level (or dimensions of discrepancy) more than other types of episodes? Are there certain systematic sequences or combinations of conflict or enrichment episodes that pro-duce particularly high or low balance levels? Are there methods of WF conflict episode resolution or types of enrichment episodes that inoculate one against future conflict episodes or make them less likely to occur?

Figure 2Representation of How Balance Level Changes over Time

Outputs of Past WFConflict or

Enrichment Episode

Level of WF Balance(Snapshot Measure at

Time 1)

Life Event TriggersWF Conflict Episodeby Drawing Attentionto or Creating One orMore Discrepancies/or Event Triggers anEnrichment Episode

Conflict orEnrichment

Episode Processingand Outputs

New Level of WFBalance (SnapshotMeasure at Time 2)



Furthermore, there are many other research questions focused on uncovering more detail about the content and processes of conflict or enrichment episodes generally. Beyond this, researchers must systematically investigate the relationship between balance level changes and the progression of conflict or enrichment episodes as a major new direc-tion. Here, we cannot fully enumerate the scores of research implications of our integrated framework. This is the major challenge we wish to pose to researchers wanting to innovate in the WF area.

Practical Implications

As Judge et al. (2006: 807) state, If organizations turn a deaf ear to episodes of workfamily conflict, they may unwittingly encourage employees to vent the ensuing negative emotions toward undesired outlets. We agree and recommend three management strategies to prevent this. First, managers can help employees prevent or avoid conflict episod

journal of management 2011 maertz 68 98

Documents