This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Beutell Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 76-88 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258214 Accessed: 17/10/2010 00:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.
conceptually similar to work and family roles . Richard E. & Hunt. 1980). and a series of research propositions is presented. Abraham K. none of these reviews has systematically evaluated the empirical research on conflict between work and nonwork roles. 1977. 1980). Boundaries and Organization of the Review The present paper examines sources of conflict between the work role and the family role. Rice. 1972. Wolfe. The relationship between employees' work lives and their nonwork pursuits has undergone recent scrutiny (Kanter. the majority of the literature has examined interference between work and family responsibilities. Kabanoff. Staines. Voydanoff. 1980. 1980) or between work and "self" (Holahan &Gilbert. Korman. (b) strain from participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another. Kanter. conflict between the work role and the "leisure" role is excluded from the review. However. Vol. 1980. research on married women. 1. Recent literature reviews have examined work and nonwork roles from a number of different perspectives (Burke & Bradshaw. Consistent with Kanter's (1977) observations. Sources of and Conflict Family Between Roles1 Work JEFFREY H. Schuler. A model of work-family conflict is proposed. Johnson. and changing expectations regarding self-fulfillment (Yankelovich. Randall S. The review is generally limited to studies in which work-family conflict is directly assessed 76 . 1985. 1978) continued to devote little attention to the dynamics underlying interrole conflict. a heightened concern for employees' quality of work life (Walton. Although several studies have addressed the possibility of conflict between work and leisure (Staines & O'Connor.? Academv of Management Review. One element of the work-nonwork interface is the conflict a person may experience between the work role and other life roles. 1981. 1973). and Graham L. 1973). Voydanoff. GREENHAUS Drexel University NICHOLASJ. Snoek. Yet the bulk of their pioneering research focused on conflict within the work role. No. Staines for their substantial and constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. possible changes in the meaning of success (Tarnowieski. (The one exception to this rule is the inclusion of conflict between nonhome and home roles . 76-88. Brief. Kopelman. Near. it is proposed here that rising numbers of two-income households (Gordon & Kam'The authors express their deep appreciation to Arthur P.) In addition. Therefore. 1977. and (c) specific behaviors required by one role make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another. interrole conflict that does not directly involve the work role is omitted from the review. Quinin. and Rosenthal (1964) identified such interrole conflict as a significant source of strain for nearly one third of the men in their national sample. 10. 1980. 1979b). meyer. 1980. 1981) suggest the need to review and integrate this steadily growing body of literature. BEUTELL Seton Hall University An examination of the literature on conflict between work and family roles suggests that work-family conflict exists when: (a) time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another.that was identified in Hall's. and later writings (Katz & Kahn. Kahn. 1980). 1979a.
Although the impact of work-family conflict on coping strategies (Gilbert & Holahan.and empirical data are presented. work and family roles still have distinct norms and requirements that may be incompatible with one another. Moreover. despite the blurring of work and family activities in some situations. Staines. an extensive treatment of this literature is beyond the scope of this paper.. Figure 1 presents a model of the sources of work-family conflict. Note again that role pressure incompatibility exists when participation in one role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in another role. social alienation) are occasionally included to highlight convergences with the more directly relevant research on work-family conflict. The model also proposes that role pressures (and hence work-family conflict) are intensified when the work and family roles are salient or central to the person's self-concept and when there are strong negative sanctions for noncompliance with role demands. 20). In such cases of interrole conflict. (1964) described a specific instance of interrole conflict in this passage. have defined role conflict as the "simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with the other" (1964. participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role. (1964). Interrole Conflict Interrole conflict is a form of role conflict in which the sets of opposing pressures arise from participation in different roles. The focus here on sources of conflict between work and family domains does not imply that work and family cannot be mutually supportive. They identified different types of conflict within the work role: intrasender. p. and person-role conflict. strain. That is. 1964. the analytical separation of work and family is maintained in this review. 19). The review is concerned with sources or antecedents of work-family conflict. The model proposes that any role characteristic that affects a person's time involvement. Nevertheless. Work-Family Conflict Based on the work of Kahn et al.g. one set of role pressures is in some sense incompatible with the other set of pressures. The Meaning of Work-Family Conflict Role Conflict Kahn et al. intersender. the following definition of work-family conflict is offered: a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. In each form of conflict. and (c) behavior-based conflict. Time-Based Conflict Multiple roles may compete for a person's time. the role pressures associated with membership in one organization are in conflict with pressures stemming from membership in other groups. 1982. or behavior within a role can produce conflict between that role and another role. 1980) is unquestionably important. the opportunities for interference between these domains need to be examined and understood more thoroughly. Time-based conflict is consistent with the excessive work time and schedule conflict dimensions identified by Pleck et al. (1980) and role overload identified by Kahn et al. (b) strain-based conflict. (1964). Time- . Hall. Time spent on activities within one role generally cannot be devoted to activities within another role. to give attention to family affairs during evening hours. Nonempirical research and studies that measure related phenomena (e. The conflict arises between the role of the focal person as worker and his role as husband and father (Kahnet al. & Lang. interrole conflict is experienced when pressures arising in one role are incompatible with pressures arising in another role. Demands from role senders on the job for overtime or take-home work may conflict with pressures from one's wife 77 An Integration of the Research on Work-Family Conflict Studies that have investigated work-family conflict are presented in Table 1. Thus. In a more general sense. p. Kahn et al. An examination of the literature suggests three major forms of work-family conflict: (a) time-based conflict. marital satisfaction. 1972) and psychological well-being (Pleck..
Thus. 1981). In their thorough investigation of a flexitime program in a government agency.. Thus an employee's personal orientation may affect work-family conflict by virtue of its influence on time commitment to the work role. These relationships may reflect the tendency of extreme Type A employees to work the longest hours and travel the most extensively (Howard. such as employed mothers. (2) pressures also may produce a preoccupation with one role even when one is physically attempting to meet the demands of another role (Bartolome & Evans.. Keith & Schafer. work schedule control was used by Herman and Gyllstrom (1977) to explain why more severe work-family tension was experienced by university professional staff members than by faculty members. Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) concluded that the "modest" schedule flexibility in the agency they examined may have been insufficient to reduce the conflict of those with primary childcare responsibility. Several studies have revealed positive relationships between an employee's Type A behavior and work-family conflict (Burke et al. the inflexibility of the work schedule can produce work-family conflict (Pleck et al.. 1980. Indeed. Pleck et al. 1980a. Work-family conflict is positively relate to the number of hours worked per week (Burke et al.Figure 1 Work-Family Role Pressure Incompatibility Work Domain _Illustrative Pressures Role Pressure Incompatibility Family Domain Illustrative Pressures HIours Worked Inflexible Work - Time -. Strain produced by one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another role. 1979. Behavior- Expectations for Warmth and Openness _~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ I L Negative Sanctions for Noncompliance Role Salience based conflict can take two forms: (1) time pressures associated with membership in one role may make it physically impossible to comply with expectations arising from another role. However. 1980) as well as the nulmber of hours worked/commuted per week (Bohen & Viveros-Long. Time devoted to one role makes it difficult to fulfill Time Schedule Shiftwork C Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Boundary-Spanning Activities Expectations for Secretiveness and Objectivity Strain = l Young Children Spouse Employment requirementsof another role. it cannot be assumed that flexible working hours will inevitably reduce the workfamily conflict of all employees. 1980b. Work Related Sources of Conflict. Werbel. & Rechnitzer.. IIi addition to the sheer number of hours worked per week. 1977). I . the degree of flexibility permitted and the needs of the employees may jointly affect the prevalence of work-family conflict. The faculty members worked 78 more hours than the staff members but presumably had more control over their schedules. . I I Strain Largefamilies Family Conflict Low Spouse Support > -_ Behavior Behavior required in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another role. 1978). Cunningham. Work-family conflict also has been associated with the amount and frequency of overtime and the presence and irregularity of shiftwork (Pleck et al. 1980). 1979). 1980).
CE = closed-ended items. Hall & Gordon (1973) HIerman& Gyllstrom (1977) Sample Married female college students Employees of two federal agencies Male Canadian administrators and/or wives Female physicians Male alumni of technological college Male school superintendents Female college graduates Type of Conflict' Home-nonhomeb Job-family role strain Impact of husband's job on home/family (assessed by wife) Work-family role harmony Work-familyb Time allocation of after-office hours Home-nonhomeb No... . Weir.. & McEachern (1958) Gordon & H-fall (1974).S. 1980a. 1983) Bohen & Viveros-Long (1981) Burke. G0E= open-ended items. Dual-career couples Employed married women Married male U. the conflict types presented in this table are. & Connolly (1983) Study 1 .. 79 . 1980b) Cartwright (1978) Greenhaus & Kopelman (1981) Gross. Male alumni of technological college Employed college students Males and females from national survey data base Employees from 1977 Quality of employment survey Interrole conflict Interrole conflict Work-marriage interference Work-family: excessive worktime schedule conflicts fatigue/irritability Interrole conflict between work and family Work-family/homeb Preoccupation with work at home 4 CE 8 CE 1 CE 1 CE/OE Werbel (1978) Willmott (1971) Employees (96% male) of 9 companies Male employees of two companies in Great Britain 4 CE 1 CE 1 CE "Altliougli niot all of the researchers used the term "work-family conflict" to describe their variables.. (1980) ..Table 1 Characteristics of Studies Investigating Work-Family Conflict Author Beutell & Greenhaus (1980../Type of Itemsc 3 OE/CE 19 CE 50 CE 1 CE 1 OE/CE 1 CE/OE 1 OE University employees Holahan & Gilbert (1979a) Holalhan & Gilbert (1979b) Jones & Butler (1980) Keith & Schafer (1980) Kopelman. & Duwors (1979. G'Other forms of interrole conflict not relevant to this review were also assessed in the study. 1975). .. consistent with our definition of work-family conflict. . 1982. in our view. Study 2 ... Locksley (1980) Pleck et al... Hall (1972. Mason. . Greenihaus. sailors Dual-career couples Work-home maintenanceb Work-family conflict Work-family tension Professional-spouseb Professional-parent See Holahan and Gilbert (1979a) Family/work role incompatibility Work-family role strain 1 CE 1 CE 1 CE 3 CE 4 CE See Holahan and Gilbert (1979a) 2 CE 4 CE .....
apathy. 1980.. For example. Herman and Gyllstrom (1977) found that married persons experienced more work-family conflict than unmarriedpersons. A husband's level of work-family conflict does not seem to be affected by whether his wife is employed outside the home (Greenhaus& Kopelman. However. As Figure 1 illustrates. Family role pressures that impinge on women also may be a function of the number of hours that they work outside the home. . exists when strain in one role affects one's performancein another role. In a similar vein. Therefore. 80 The effects of a woman's work pattern on her husband's conflict is less clear-cut. 1983). Pleck et al. in turn. marriage. thereby increasing the already heavy time demands placed on his wife by a large family. 1980). Beutell and Greenhaus (1982) reportedthat large families produce conflict primarily for women whose husbands are highly involved in their own work careers. Ivancevich & Matteson.Family-Related Sources of Conflict. and irritability (Brief. work orientation. the model illustrated in Figure 1 proposes that any work or family role characteristic that produces strain can contribute to work-family conflict. Strain-Based Conflict A second form of work-familyconflict involves role-produced strain. It may be that part-timeemployment (forwomen at least) -doesnot necessarily lighten family time demands and might even increase the total array of pressures to which the person is exposed. 1980). 1980. but they may be full-time housewives as well. It is possible that women who are employed in managerialor professional positions work sufficiently longer hours to produce intense pressures on the husband to participate more heavily in family activities which. anxiety. 1981. also have been associated with high levels of work-family conflict (Cartwright. fatigue. which are likely to be more time demanding than small families.. Hall and Gordon observed that women with part-timejobs may be spread very thin and experience role overload. children. it might be expected that parents would experience more work-family conflict than nonparents. 1979a. husbands of managerial/professional women have been found to experience more intense work-family conflict than husbands of nonmanagerial/nonprofessional women (Greenhaus&Kopelman. Keithand Schafer (1980) reportedthat a woman's level of work-familyconflict is directly related to the numberof hours her husband works per week. for exception. (1980). Conflict is experienced when these time pressures are incompatible with the demands of the other role domain.) In addition. not only do they work outside the home. may conflict with his work responsibilities. Strain-basedconflict. Hall and Gordon(1973)found thatmarriedwomen who are employed part time were more likely to experience home-related conflicts than women who are employed full time. depression. Work schedules. 1981). Consistent with this proposition. Kopelman et al. Work-RelatedSources of Conflict. It is plausible that a highly career-involved man devotes little time to his family. 1980). Sununary. The findings of the empirical research are generally consistent with the notion of time-based conflict. Pleck et al. 1981). 1980b. 1980). 1980). Furthermore. having the majorresponsibility for child rearing may be the significant contributorto work-family conflict (Bohen & Viveros-Long. Although support for this expectation has been mixed (Holahan & Gilbert. (See Burke et al. family role characteristics that require a person to spend large amounts of time in family activities can produce work-family conflict. consistent with the fatigue/ irritability dimension identified by Pleck et al. low levels of leader support and interaction facilitation appear to produce work-family conflict (Jones & Butler. Pleck et al. Consistent with this notion. and spouse employment patterns may all produicepressures to participate extensively in the work role or the family role. Greenhaus & Kopelman. There is considerable evidence that work stressors can produce strain symptoms such as tension. 1981. 1980. 1980). 1981. Schuler... Several studies have found that parents of younger children (who are likely to be particularly demanding of their parents' time) experience more conflict than do parents of older children (Beutell & Greenhaus. Locksley. & Van Sell. Ambiguity and/or conflict within the work role have been found to be positively related to work-familyconflict (Jones&Butler.1978. Large families. The roles are incompatible in the sense that the strain created by one makes it difficult to comply with the demands of another. Keith & Schafer.
especially because autonomy in their study was related to such positive outcomes as satisfaction with the job and the organization. or the absence of support in the family unit may contribute to work-family conflict. In addition. 1981) that in turn may produce workfamily conflict. it is likely that time-based and strain-based conflict share several comnion sources within the work domain. Family-Related Sources of Conflict. and mental concentration required at work. as the dotted arrow in Figure 1 implies. Additional studies finding a negative job scope-conflict relationship would provide further support for the idea of strain-based conflict. Although conceptually distinct. Albrecht.. however. because some employees who work on nonchallenging. Jones and Butler (1980) found that work-family conflict was negatively related to task challenge. & Kunz.g. spouse dissimilarity in fundamental beliefs can weaken the mutual support system and produce stress. Kanter (1977) has observed that employees who experience "interaction fatigue" at work may withdraw from personal contact at home. coping with a new job. it is important to note that extensive time involvement in a particular role also can produce strain symptoms. It might be noted that Bartolome and Evans' (1980) observations also are consistent with the concept of strain-based conflict. Conflict within the family has been associated with high levels of work-family conflict (Kopelman et al. 1978) also can contribute to family tension. Therefore. tension. It has been suggested. (1980b). conflict. . 1977). variety. Referring to the "negative enmotional spillover" from work to nonwork. Gove & Geerken. poor job-person fit. Beutell and Greenhaus (1982) found that women whose career orientations are dissimilar from those of their husbands experience relatively intense conflict between home and nonhome roles. routine. for example. found no relationship between several job scope variables and conflict. these findings suggest that strain. that the male. Taken as a whole. (1980b) found that the following work stressors were related to workfamily conflict: rate of work environment changes.. 1983. Furthermore. In addition. In a similar vein. 81 In short. long and inflexible work hours. 1976) and husband-wife dissimilarity in attitudes toward a wife's employment status (Eiswirth-Neems & Handal. Additional indirect evidence is provided by the finding that job burnout can have a debilitating effect on the quality of an employee's family life (Jackson & Maslach. However. whereas supportive spouses may protect each other from experiencing high levels of work-fainily conflict (Holahan &Gilbert. Although it could be that excessively high levels of autonomy can produce qualitative overload and strain (and therefore conflict). Bartolome and Evans suggest that certain stressful events at work (specifically. participation in boundary-spanning activities.Pleck et al. and disappointment due to unfulfilled expectations) produce fatigue. The positive relationship between autonomy and conflict reported by Jones and Butler is more difficult to explain. stress in communications. then. a variety of work stressors have been associated with work-family conflict. and importance and was positively related to task autonomy. a determination of the impact of autonomy and discretion on strain and conflict awaits additional research. 1979a). 1982). Behavior-Based Conflict Specific patterns of in-role behavior may be incompatible with expectations regarding behavior in another role. managerial stereotype emphasizes self-reliance. Presumably. Burke et al. extensive travel. worry. or frustration that make it difficult to pursue a satisfying nonwork life. As with the work domain. Burke et al. Furthermore. and overtime may indirectly produce strain-based conflict as well as time-based conflict. Husband-wife disagreement about family roles (Chadwick. unimportant tasks experience high levels of strain (Brief et al. the presence of young children. family role characteristics that produce extensive time commitment also may directly or indirectly produce strain (e.. (1980) reported that physical and psychological work demands were positively related to several types of work-family conflict. Study 1). Beutell and Greenhaus (1983) found that a husband with profeminist attitudes (and presumably supportive behaviors) may buffer his wife from the conflict associated with extensive involvement outside the home. emotional stability.
home pressures and work pressures (variables that other studies did not jointly assess) tended to increase at later stages. (1980b) reported nonsignificant relationships among similar variables. In an objective sense. It is noteworthy that for Hall's sample (female college graduates). First. Hall (1975) found that the presence of conflict increased at more advanced family stages. A recognition of the interactive effects of work and family role pressures may help explain some of the inconsistencies in research results. differences among samples in unmeasuredrole pressures can strengthen or attenuate relationships between measured role pressures and conflict. Rarely. In a similar vein. there is no empirical researchthat directly assesses the prevalence of behavior-based conflict. logic. To the authors' knowledge. Family members. Self-senderor reflexive expectations are important in two respects. the person is not likely to experience conflict between work and family roles. 1981) have proposed that the behavioral styles that males exhibit at work (impersonality. if there is no strong pressure to participate in family activities. role ambiguity/role conflict). It is the presence of two strong opposing role pressures (in this case. Bartolome (1972) has suggested that many youing male managers feel caughtbetween two incompatible behavior/value systems: the emotional restrictedness presumably reinforcedat work and the openness expected by family members. In other words. It is likely that the combined effect of rising work and home pressures produced the increased prevalence of conflict. authority) may be incompatible with behaviors desired by their children within the family domain. Burke and Weir (cited in Burke and Bradshaw. There seems to be a fundamental discrepancy between the conceptual definition of interrole conflict proposed by Kahn et al. variety. Burke et al. on the other hand. Steiner (1972). although several studies have reported declining levels of conflict at later family stages. 1973). and objectivity (Schein.S. Additional research is needed to determine the specific role pressurevariablesin each of two or more domains that combine to produce high levels of conflict. However. In a similar vein. the opposing pressures may become equally strong and conflict may be experienced.aggressiveness. from the work and the family domains) that produces interrole conflict. Proposition 1: Simultaneous pressuresfrom both work and family roles are necessary to arouse work-familyconflict. lie or she is likely to experience conflict between the roles. a number of research propositions are presented. Proposition 2: Self-perceptions of role requirements are significant sources of pressures within a given domain. Directions for Future Research In the interest of stimulating future research activities. that Jones and Butler's respondents (U. may expect a person to be warm. however. For example. importance. power. although Jones and Butler (1980) found relationships between work-family conflict and several job-related variables (challenge. (1964) and the empirical investigations regarding the antecedents of work-family conflict. have the joint effects of specific work and family pressures been studied. emotional. However. the existing researchtypically has investigated the impact of either work pressures or family pressures on work-family conflict. Imagine an employee who puts in long and stressful hours in his or her job. Similar conclusions have been reachedby Greiffand Munter(1980). nurturant. As pressures to engage in family activities from other role senders and/or from self-sender expectations grow stronger. It is possible.'s subjects (administrators of Canadian correctional facilities) and that these additional family strains exacerbatedthe impact of the specific job characteristics on work-family conflict. and vulnerable in his or her interactions with them. and Walker (1976). the person's work activities may interfere with his or her participation in family activities. sailors on deployment) experienced greater family stress than did Burke et al. Although the propositions vary somewhat in specificity. a person's expecta- . 82 However. If a person is unable to adjust behavior to comply with the expectations of different roles. Multivariate analyses are necessary to identify the relative importance of different sources of conflict within a particular domain and to determine the joint impactof workand family pressures on work-family conflict. they are all intended to pose broadresearchquestions that currentlyappearto be unaddressed in the empirical literature. if at all.
discrepancies between self-expectations and others' expectations within a given domain can produce strain (Kahn et al. in turn. 1979. It seems reasonable to expect that an expanded family subidentity would produce similar consequences within the family domain. This proposition is based on the assumption that persons for whom a role is highly salient are particularly responsive to environmental pressures because success and rewards in the domain are so important. 1983) do not experience much work-family conflict: they may not be responsive to pressures in the family domain. to individual differences in a focal person's beliefs and values. and the perception of work as a career versus a job (Holahan & Gilbert. other related concepts such as career aspirations and career commitment (Holahan & Gilbert. Although relationships between personality/attitudinal variables and conflict have been somewhat inconclusive (Beutell & Greenhaus. Proposition 3B: Role salience moderates the relationship between externally-produced role pressures and work-family conflict. Werbel. role pressures. one source of self-expectations is a person's beliefs. & Preston. at least in part. 1982) than are Type B persons. 1979a). Therefore. and personality traits. The resultant ego-involxvement and motivation.g.g. There is some evidence of a positive relationship between the salience of the work role and work-family conflict (Greenhaus & Kopelman. it seems clear that role pressures are not produced exclusively by other role senders but rather are due. pleas that your family gives you are not so clear and obvious. One implication of Propositions 3A and 3B is that all other things equal. However.. 1978. there should be stronger relationships between role demands (e. strain. environmental characteristics (e. Research that tests the linkages among role salience. 1983. Schuler... "Work makes clear. . 1980). has been consistently associated with high levels of work-family conflict (Burke et al. self-sender expectations. and the penalties if you don't meet them are explicit and obvious.tions and values can shape his or her role behavior (Graen. 1979b) have not shown consistently positive relationships with work-family conflict. 1980a. Cartwright. 1978). 1958). Type A persons may work longer hours.. objective calls on you. Matteson. union contract. Therefore. It is likely that the salience of a role has a direct impact on pressures within the particular domain. Gordon & Hall. and behavior. 1972). Type A characteristics. pressure from a boss to complete a project. In addition. requests. 1964) that may result in workfamily conflict. Proposition 4: Work-familyconflict is strongest when there are negative sanctions for noncompliance with role demands. Proposition3A: Role salience is positively related to the level of work-family conflict.. one interesting variable. level of interest in work (Locksley. or place greater importance on work than Type B persons. More research is needed to determine the impact of specific personal characteristics on role attitudes/behaviors that affect the arousal of workfamily conflict. As one male employee observed. The demands. academic tenure) that reduce the sanctions for noncompliance are likely to attenuate the impact of role pressures on time. 83 1981). Presumably. Hall. and work-family conflict would be most helpful. 1976. he or she becomes more ego-involved in the role and mnavexhibit higher levels of motivation. In any event. may increase time commitment and/or produce strain that may interfere with another role. 1974). Alternatively. Hall's (1976) model of psychological success suggests that as a person's career subidentity grows. pressure from a spouse to clean the house) and time commitment and/or strain when the role is highly salient than when the role is not central to the person's self-concept. This line of reasoning suggests that employees who use work as an escape from family (Bartolome. values. It is possible that persons who exhibit Type A behavior are more susceptible to work-related strain (Ivancevich. Men traditionally have experienced stronger sanctions for noncompliance with work role demands than for noncompliance with family demands. persons for whom work and family are both highly salient would be particularly susceptible to work-family conflict. The absence of strong sanctions for noncompliance may reduce pressures to comply with role demands (Gross et al. 1982. In effect. role salience influences self-sender expectations that can affect role behavior and ultimately role pressures and conflict. 1982. demand more of themselves.
" It is often imagined that the hard-driving. 1980) the perceived source of the conflict and whether the consequences of conflict vary as a function of this attribution. all other things equal. The actor is prone to make situational attributions. For example. This notion is consistent with the model presented here to the extent that career success requires extensive time commitment to the work role and/or produces . This raises the interesting question of whether employees "blame" (Beehr & Love.. In order to address these issues. Research on attribution theory suggests that the actor (focal person) and the observer (role sender) may make differential attributions regarding the causes of the focal person's behavior (Jones & Nisbett.g.And the penalties aren't quite so immediate" (Bohen & Viveros-Long. In the context of workfamily conflict. the direction of role interference may vary by gender. the focal person may attribute role attitude or performance changes to workfamily interference. No causal direction of role interference is implied in this definition. this expectation is not unequivocably supported in the literature. a person who responds to simultaneous role pressures by devoting more time to work at the expense of family is likely to perceive that work interfered with family. persons who are exposed to strong sanctions in both work and family roles would be most susceptible to workfamily conflict. because of structural expectations. 1981. It is proposed that an individual must respond to the conflict (or anticipate a response) before an attribution of directional interference can be made. The boundaries between work and family roles are. Proposition 6A: Work-fanmily conflict is related to a person's level of "career success. Proposition 5B: Role senders attributethe effects of work-family conflict to the internal dispositions of the focal person in a domain-specific fashion. role senders typically observe the focal person's performance within one domain (i. on the other hand. p. attending a family picnic rather than a Saturday morning work meeting). If sanctions do strengthen the impact of role pressures. Women. guilt). motivation) of the focal person. Rosen and Jerdee (1974) found that when faced with competing demands at work and at home. 159). Although this might suggest that women experience higher levels of work-family conflict than men. whereas the role sender may attribute performance deficits to the qualities (ability. 1971). whereas the observer is likely to attribute the behavior to the internal dispositions of the focal person. The impact of such differential attributions on the performance appraisal process seems worthy of future research. Attempts of the focal person to explain poor (work/family) performance in terms of extra-domain variables (family/work) are likely to be met with a good deal of skepticism. The definition of work-family conflict used here specifies the existence of mutually incompatible role pressures.. Thus. successful employee is most susceptible to conflict between work and family roles. it is necessary to develop conflict scales that contain a balance of items that reflect the different directions of role interference. Furthermore. research that spans a significant portion of time before and after the conflict response is elicited also is required to investigate questions regarding attributions of causality to conflict episodes.e.e. work or family). it would be expected that. Furthermore. the person would be more likely to attribute the conflict to the family domain.. It is not yet clear whether societal sanctions regarding work and family role performance by women are changing. Hall (1972) has argued that men enact their roles sequentially (work then family) whereas 84 women. However. traditionally may have been exposed to stronger sanctions for noncompliance with family demands. based on the earlier discussion of a possible gender difference in sanctions. the attributions of role senders tend to be domain specific. in effect. Thus. Had the response to the conflict been different (e. asymmetrically permeable for women and men (Pleck. Proposition5A: The directionality of work-family confict is perceived only after a response to the conflict situation is made. are faced with simultaneous (work and family) demands. less commitment to the job is expected for women than for men. 1977). Yet a directional assumption of role interference (usually work interfering with family) often is implicit in the theory and the measurement of conflict and may be perceived by the focal person as well. Sanctions for noncompliance may arise not only from other role senders but from the focal person as well (i.
it is possible that workfamily conflict is strongest during the midcareer stage. Darrow. Thus. 1981). and Grant (1974) revealed that "successful" Bell System managers (those who reached middle management) exhibited increasing involvement in both work and (to a lesser extent) marital family. Although it is proposed that conflict is associated with career stage. it is possible that work-family conflict is strongest at the earlier stages of a person's career. The increasing importance of nonwork during midcareer may produce strong pressures within the family domain that conflict with work role pressures. The present authors feel that the relationship between the level of career success and the independent variables in Korman's model needs to be established by future research. On the other hand. It is interesting to note that a decline in marital happiness has been traced to a husband's upward mobility (Dizard. an appropriate research strategy would seek to identify the work and family pressures (induced by others and self) that are associated with different career stages. the specific nature of the relationship is open to question. the model proposes that the strength of opposing role pressures arouses conflict. Bartolome and Evans (1979) concluded that managers in midcareer (ages 35-42) are likely to turn toward their family lives and to question their earlier preoccupation with work. recent research indicates that emotional support is important for women and men (Holahan & Gilbert. Such qualities as a strong family orientation (Bailyn. & Lang. . Whether and how career success lays the foundation for future conflict. Rapoport and Rapoport (1971) have identified the "facilitating husband" as a critical element in promoting marital well-being. Campbell. Although there is no empirical research that directly tests this assertion. Again. This notion is consistent with the negative relationships obtained between family stage and conflict. 1970) and profeminist sex-role attitudes (Beutell & Greenhaus. The emergence of the two-career couple has highlighted the importance of supportive relationships within the family (Hall & Hall. and marital discord is a critical question that needs considerably more research. Further. alienation. Additional research is needed to clarify the impact of career stage on work-family conflict.. Proposition 6B: Work-familyconflict is related to the stage of a person's career. On the one hand. especially in light of Vaillant's (1977) conclusion that the most successful business executives in his sample had the healthiest family lives. Moreover. one major task of an employee's socialization period may be to manage the conflict between work and family roles (Feldman. Indeed. and McKee's (1978) portrait of the midlife transition as a time for questioning of life-style seems consistent witlh Bartolome and Evans' observations. 1979a). 1981). Research by Bray. 1968). several research programs are clearly relevant. on the other hand. a condition that may arouse work-family conflict. Osmond. and Hicks (1979) have proposed an inverted U relationship between husband's occupational success and the couple's marital satisfaction. Levinsorn. Korman and his colleagues have asked why so many "successful" managers are apparently alienated from themselves and/or others (Korman & Korman. Proposition 7: Support from significant others is related to work-family conflict. Furthermore. Korman. 1983) may enable a husband to provide support to his wife. Wittig-Berman. the strongest opposing pressures may come during midcareer when the family is becoming more important and work remains a significant (if not central) component of their lives. 1980. Klein. Their data suggest that the inability to meet personal needs (because of disconfirmed expectations and contradictory role demands) and the loss of affiliative satisfaction (perhaps due to an extensive commitment to work at the expense of family) produce social and personal alienation (Korman et al. it is possible that the early career is particularly conflictual for women who have to contend with strong pressures to establish themselves at work and equally strong family demands produced by spouse and/or children. 1981). For example. For men. Bailyn's (1980) "slow burn" model of career development also seems to be based on the assumption that the early career years are characterized by strong pressures from both the work 85 and the family domains. it is reasonable to expect that the impact of career stage on conflict may not be identical for males and females. Aldous. 1979).strain or a rigid adherence to behavioral expectations. Levinson.
1983. Human Relations. Nye. p.Although it may take different forms. A. 67-74. L. 50(6). 1980. W.. L. The psychometric limitations of the open-ended and one. Despite this progress. an examination of the nature and effectiveness of support provided by alternative sources within a person's role set(s) is needed. New York: Praeger. F. Organizational Dynamics.1977) is surely eroding. Harvard Business Review. - Concluding Comments The growing literatureon work-family conflict undoubtedly reflects the belief that work and family lives are interdependent. Osmund. & Greenhaus. Reiss fEds. As House has aptly summarized the issue.). F. 97-113. social support may moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and psychological well-being (the "buffering" effect). New York: Free Press. In C. Bartolome. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management. Barr. as Beehr and Love (1980) have suggested. Professional lives versus private lives-Shifting patterns of managerial commitment. G. Harvard Business Review. 1972. 1980. 7(4). 58(2). family. & Love. 1970. Executives as human beings. L. Men's work and men's families. and the career. brief scales may not capturethe subtletyof a complex variable. F. Beehr. 1981) mains. It is the authors' view that scales designed to assess work-familyconflict should tap the different forms of role pressure (e. 1983). 22). As a startingpoint. "Who gives what to whom regarding which problems?" (1981. Some sources and consequences of interrole conflict among married women. Contemporary theories of the family (Vol. 3-29. If different forms of incompatibility and different directions of role interference have unique antecedents and consequences. strain. & Evans. A. J. The myth of separate worlds of work and family (Kanter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Management. N. 17..or two-item scales so characteristic of research in this area (see Table 1) are obvious. Career and family orientations of husbands and wives in relation to marital happiness. L. 137-148. 62-69. J. & I. This need is particularlyurgentin researchon the work-family interface. 61(2). considerably more research testing more complete models of work-family conflict is required. Bailyn. informational (House. Bartolome.. A. However. emotional. it is likely that spouse support is important for one-career households as well as two-career households. Certainly the need for sound measuring devices cuts across all areas of scientific inquiry. Bartolome. 1980. & Evans. thereby producingfewer time demands. R. References Aldous. B. F. Detroit. supportive members of a person's role set(s) may directly reduce certain role pressures.. First. Work. existing models of social support (House. P. 227-256. Despite the acknowledged importanceof social support. Basic to any additional researchis the development of reliable scales for the assessment of work-family conflict (Kopelmanet al.and/or more flexible expectations for in-role behavior. In W. 23.. on time.a more thoroughspecification of the support process is required. Differentrole senders may be capable of providing support under differentcircumstances. 86 . behavior) incompatibility and should contain items that reflect both work's interference with family and family's interference with work. time.. The work alibi: When it's harder to go home. and behav- ioral pressures within the work and family doAlso... public policy decisions must rest on a solid foundation of accumulated knowledge. F.g. strain. 94-105. I. The slow-burn way to the top: Some thoughts on the early years of organizational careers. 1979. H. Beutell. P. Hill. K. W. 1). M. 2-6. Derr (Ed. & Hicks. Social stressors on the job: A review and recommended new directions. 1981) can be applied to work-family conflict by investigating the impact of specific dimensions of support for example. less strain. L. futureresearchneeds to go beyond general statements of social support to validate empirically the utility of specific behaviors in particularsituations.It is suggested that social support is related to conflict in two ways. 1979. R. 1980. global assessments of conflict may not reveal these relationships. M. Bailyn. T. instrumental. In addition to reliability problems.). Second. Must success cost so much? Harvard Business Review. J. Bartolome.
1974.. & Gordon. 1982... Stress and work. A. S. Holahan. H. N. Beutell. J. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Women ancl men in dual-career couples.Beutell. Formative years in business. Chadwick. Interrole conflict for working women: Career versus jobs. F1. R. R. & Kopelman. B. 99-110. 1982. 1974. D. J. W. 1978.. The two career couple: Reading. 309318. 319-333. Conflict between work and nonwork roles: Implications for the career planning process. A. 139-150. E. 4(1). 25. Herman. R. & Gilbert. A. N. Greiff. Academy of Management journal. Greenhaus. Self-image and stereotypes of femininiity: Their relationships to women's role conflicts an(l copinlg. Eiswirth-Neems. & McEachern. Explorations in role analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. T. Interrole conflict among married women: The influence of husband and wife characteristics on conflict and coping behavior. 1980.. Conflicts between student! professional. W. 12.. Weir. S. R.. T. Weir. H. 66-76. 431-440. l. A.and initra-role conflict. Cartwright. and home in the life stages of married women. R. 1981. E. & Hall. Perceived type A behavior of husbands and wives' satisfaction and well-being. J. Human Relations. Burke. 1975. E. 168172. Weir. Conflict between major life roles. & Kunz.. 30. The multiple socialization of organization members. 1981.. & Van Sell. A. & Duwors. 57-65. Hall. M. Jackson. Career choices of married women: Effects on conflict. W. 21... 1980. E. 451-467. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Ivancevich.W.. A. 241243.. Gordoi. Human Relations.. Spouse's attitudes toward maternal occupational status and effects on family climate. 1983.. M. Career satisfaction and role harmony in a sample of young women physicians. In M. D. Human Relations. Hall.. M. 1977. Boston: Little. J. M. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Hall. S. Matteson. 1976. The effect of childreni and employment on the mental health of married men anid women. & Munter. Burke. 373-391. & CGyllstrom. R. 32. P. 1973. P. Careers in organizations. R. A. Journal of Occupational Behavior. Graen. Journal of Applied Psychology. P. R. Human Relations. and self-development roles: A comparison of high and low effective copers. D. self. Holahan. 6. Howard. New York: New American Library. S. Burke. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58. 59. 33. Chicago: Community adndFamily Study Center. 1. 1958. Integration of home and nonroles: Women's conflict and coping behavior. Foresman. Pressures from work. M. Administrative Science Quarterly. D.. T. L. & Kammeyer. Social Forces. 825-836. L. and satisfaction. H. 1979. 1-10. & Matteson.. D. L. J. R. 87 . A. 1. The gainful employment of women with small children. 329-375. & Maslach. journal honmef of Applied Psychology. 64.. 1201-1245. IL: Scott. 1981. S. S. K.. M. Working men and women: Inter. R. Foresman. C. 635-648.. Work patterns associated with type A behavior: A managerial population. & Greenhaus. 1. C. & Duwors. 1968.E. P. 17. 253-278. C. Journal of Vocational Behavior. D. & Cilbert. S. B. 35. IL: Scott.. D. Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple University Press. D. J. 1980. E. D. T. P. N. Campbell.. K. Bray. Albrecht. E. type A behavior. 12. Academy of Management Review. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 6. (Cunningham. 1977. J. role behavior. K. B3ohen. H. 1980a. 1981. Occupational and life stress and the family. Mason. 1979b. Brown. After-effects of job-related stress: Families as victims. F. parental.. 327-336.. K. 1972. T. 42. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. J. T. Type A behavior of administrators and wives' reports of marital satisfaction and well-being. & Holahan. & Geerkein. Journal of Community Psychology 1978. 184-196. Journal of Applied Psychology. G. 1980b. J. 1977. 56. & Preston. 86-90. T.. B. 1979a. N. Gove. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. T'radeoffs: Executive.. University of Chicago. J. Ivancevich. Gross. Dunnette (Ed.. Reading. Journal of Occupational Behavior.H. MA: Addison-Wesley. Brief. Hall. New York: Wiley. Work stress and social support. & Bradshaw. 1981. Clenview. T. C. Burke. & Hall.. K. Feldman. 1979. 68. Occupational stress. 1982.. journal of Applied Psychology. A. S.. 121-132. T.C. & Grant. MA: Addison-Wesley. 38.. Gilbert. K. D. Human Resource Planning. 43-48. Work demands on administrators and spouse well-being. 471-489.K. C. family and organizational life. & Rechlnitzer. New York: Wiley. & Duwors. P. K. House. J. 42-48. R. F. & Viveros-Long. W. Glenview. & Greenhaus. 1982. Marital and family role satisfaction. 1981. Role-making processes within complex organizations. 63-77. R. Social change in the family.. L. Schuler.). 1976. T.. & Handal. J. 1976. A. C. T. A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college-educated women. 1. and physical well-being. Managing job stress. H. l. L. 64. J.. 6. 3. L. Hall. D. Dizard. R. Small Group Behavior. Gordon.
L. 103(8). G. Career success personal failure. 483-488. R. Drexel University.. J. 103(4). Locksley. Staines. P. New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. 24. 3. Wolfe. Pleck. New York: Wiley. Academy of Management Review. 5-19. E. 1971. Schein.. 1971. Family.. L. Keith. Boston. C... D. J. leisure. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. N. R. P. G. 1980. NY: Work in America Institute. 575-584. E. Connolly. 1982. Role strain and depression in two job families. MA: Little. 367-376. 1973. On the effects of wives' employment on marital adjustment and companionship. Rapoport. What price success? Harvard Business Review. & Lang. J. A. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.. 29-32. B. Korman. 1972. 1973. The social psychology of organizations. The relationship between work and nonwork domains: A review of empirical research. A. Katz. Work and nonwork: A review of models. M. 24.. Kabanoff. A. 2nd ed. 417-427. E. Adaptation to life. 24. B. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Sex stereotypes in the executive suite. Staines. V. R. Yankelovich. R. Tarnowieski. 1977. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Journal of Occupational Behavior. Darrow. R. A role transition approach to the stresses of organizationally-induced family role disruption. 11-21.. 60-77. S. A model of work. J. Harvard Business Review. & Korman.. 94-101. Morristown. 1981. Marital and family characteristics of the labor force. Human Relations. and findings. Work and physical health. Psychological Bulletin. J. & McKee. E. P. R. D. P. B.. New York: Random House. 42. &Jerdee. E. U. E. W. R.. 1980. New York: Knopf. 1978. Brown. & Nisbett. The changing success ethic. L. G. Conflicts between work and family life. The implications of work-family relationships for productivity. G. Jones. M. 57. Greenhaus is Professor of Management and Organizational Sciences in the College of Business and Administration. R. New York: Wiley. T. 1971. Levinson. 519-533. Career success and personal failure: Alienation in professionals and managers. Spillover versus compensation: a review of the literature on the relationships between work and nonwork. R. K. methods. Staines. Paul Stillman School of Business. Jones. 5. and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. E. family. 1977. New York. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Levinson. H. J. 1980. N. & O'Connor. H. G. M. 1981. and family roles. 111-129. New York: AMACOM. L. Further considerations on the dual career family. J. 95-100. A. Family Relations. T. Pleck. Monthly Labor Review. Jeffrey H. Seton Hall University. 1964. 45-58... Conflicts among work. M. 1980. K.. 1980.. 32.. R. 88. Steiner. Snoek. H. Social Problems. B. Management Alienation. & Kahn. Willmott. R. J. NJ: General Learning Press. & Rosenthal.Johnson.. Wittig-Berman... 1980. L. Scarsdale. Englewood Cliffs. Human Relations. Beutell is Associate Professor of Management in the W. L.42. Monthly Labor Review. Werbel. & Butler. Organizational stress. Near. Schuler. Walton. 52(2). The work-family role system. D. R. Voydanoff. D. K. M. 1976. P. 50(2). 342-360. D. Kanter. 69-74. Kopelman. 198-215. L.. Korman (Chair). In A. Quality of working life: What is it? Sloan Management Review. Walker. 33. 48-52. 1980. Quinn. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 337-346. D. work and leisure conflicts among male employees. J. B. R. D. Vaillant. 415-429. & Hunt. An integrative transactional process model of stress in organizations. D. T'he seasons of a man's life. Human Relations. 'Til business do us part? Harvard Business Review.. Kahn. 1983. Rice. R. 1978. 1980. Korman. & Lang. H. 1980.. & Rapoport. B. & Schafer. C. 29. Greenhaus. 3539.. Klein. 15(1). 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Academy of Management Journal. Rosen. A. Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and policy. Monthly Labor Review. P. 103(3). Nicholas J. 88 . 1977. 1978. 54(1). 24. E. 1974.. W. F. H. 1980. 1980. Journal of Applied Psychology. R.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.