You are on page 1of 19

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.

htm

Work time demands, work time control and supervisor support in the Australian construction industry
An analysis of work-family interaction
Helen Lingard
School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Work time demands

647

Valerie Francis
Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, and

Michelle Turner
School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose This research aims to explore the relationship between work time demands, work time control and supervisor support in the Australian construction industry. Design/methodology/approach A survey was undertaken with waged and salaried construction workers in two construction organizations (n 261). Findings Work time demands were positively correlated with time- and strain-based work interference with family life (WIF) but inversely correlated with time- and strain-based family interference with work (FIW). Work-family enrichment was inversely correlated with work time demands and positively correlated with both work time control and social support from ones supervisor. Respondents with high work time demands and low work time control (or low supervisor support) reported the highest levels of time- and strain-based WIF. The lowest levels of WIF were reported by respondents in low work time demands and high work time control (or high supervisor support) jobs classifications. However, jobs high in both work time demands and work time control reported the highest levels of work-to-family enrichment. Research limitations/implications The results suggest that work-family conflict and workfamily enrichment should be treated as two distinct concepts in work-family research and that the job demands-control theory is helpful in explaining work-family conflict but that alternative theories are needed to explain positive work-family interactions. Practical implications The practical implication of the research is that reducing work time demands may be helpful in reducing work-family conflict but that the provision of work domain resources is probably required to enable positive work-family interactions. Originality/value Previous work-family research has focused on job demands and resources separately, while the job strain literature has focused on the impact of job demands and the key resources of social support. The originality of this research is that it examines the extent to which different configurations of job demand and resource can explain experiences at the work-family interface. Keywords Hours of work, Strain, Work-life balance, Work-family conflict, Work-family enrichment, Job demands, Construction industry, Australia Paper type Research paper

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council under Linkage Project Grant LP08820335.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 19 No. 6, 2012 pp. 647-665 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699981211277559

ECAM 19,6

648

Introduction The work-family interface There is an established link between the experience of conflict between work and family domains and negative outcomes for workers, families and organisations. Recently, researchers have begun to explore the possibility of positive work-family interaction and studies have shown that participation in one domain (e.g. work or family) can positively enhance experiences in the second domain (e.g. family or work) (Carlson et al., 2006). Work-family conflict (WFC) and enrichment are not bi-polar opposites of the same concept and have different antecedents and outcomes (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Powell and Greenhaus, 2006). For example, Voydanoff (2004a) suggests that demands are related to WFC, while resources are related to work-family enrichment. Both WFC and work-family enrichment are also understood to be bi-directional and multi-faceted (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; van Steenbergen et al., 2007). Managing the work-family interface is important because the quality of work-family interaction has been linked with objective measures of workers health and performance (van Steenbergen and Ellemers, 2009). The construction context The construction industry is a high risk industry for work stress associated with excessive workloads, time constraints and deadlines (Sutherland and Davidson 1989; Leung et al., 2007). Work stress has been linked to lower levels of performance in construction project managers (Leung et al., 2008). Ng et al. (2005) identify WFC as one of the least easily managed work stressors experienced by construction professionals. Similarly, Haynes and Love (2004) identify long hours, workload and insufficient time spent with family as the three most significant stressors experienced by construction managers in Australia. Lingard et al. (2010b) report that time- and strain-based work interference with family (WIF) are higher among Australian construction workers than among other occupational groups in international research. Aim The research aim was to examine the usefulness of the job demands control-support ( JDC-S) theory of work stress in explaining workers experiences at the work-family interface in the Australian construction industry. Specific research objectives were: (1) to explore the relationship between work time demands, work time control, and supervisor support and experiences of work-family interaction in the Australian construction context; to position Australian construction workers into theoretical job characteristic types, based upon work time demands (hours) and resources (work time control and supervisor support); and to investigate the extent to which respondents in different job types differ in their experience of positive and negative work-family interaction.

(2)

(3)

Theoretical framework The stressfulness of a job is commonly understood in terms of the demands it places upon an individual and the level of control over the way in which work is performed. Job demands are typically conceptualised as quantitative measures of job

requirements, including time pressure and workload. Control has been operationalised as the extent to which a person can control their work activity in terms of either method or timing of work. The job demand control ( JDC) model of job strain proposes that high job demands, coupled with low job control will evoke the strongest stress reactions (Karasek, 1979) and produce the highest levels of strain and health complaints (De Lange et al., 2004). van der Hulst et al. (2006) classified Dutch workers according to their levels of job demands and control and report that high job demands are associated with more frequent overtime and, where this is coupled with low job control, workers also experience a heightened need for recovery. Research generally supports the ability of the JDC model to predict general psychological well-being, job-related well-being and burnout (Hausser et al., 2010). However, job control is not the only resource available for coping with job demands. Social support is defined as instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and appraisal functions of others in the work (family) domain that are intended to enhance the wellbeing of the recipient (Michel et al., 2010, p. 92). The JDC-S model extends Karaseks original JDC model to suggest that the most adverse health effects will occur in jobs that are high in demands, low in control and low in workplace social support ( Johnson et al., 1989; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Though JDC-S model is not as strongly supported in the empirical research as the JDC model, Hausser et al. (2010) report that both social support and control contributed significantly to health and well-being outcomes in 60 per cent of a total of 83 studies published between 1998 and 2007. Pal and Saaksvik (2008) argue that the JDC-S model is a relevant model in the analysis of WFC, while Allan et al. (2007) report WFC to be negatively correlated with supportive management and worker control. Similarly, Wong and Lin (2007) report time demands to negatively and work schedule flexibility and supervisor support to positively predict work-to-leisure conflict in a sample of service workers. Domain specificity Work-family interaction is understood to be bi-directional, i.e. work can either positively or negatively impact upon family life or vice versa. Frone (2003) argues that the sources of WIF lie in the work domain while sources of family interference with work (FIW) are to be found in the family domain. This domain specificity hypothesis has been supported in meta analyses of the work-family interface (see e.g. Byron, 2005). Similarly, Voydanoff (2004b) demonstrated that demands in the work domain are salient predictors of WIF while resources in the work domain predict family-to-work facilitation (positive interaction). Work time demands and work-family interaction The research focused on work time demands (i.e. work hours), which are widely reported to have a negative impact upon workers health and well-being (see e.g. Hughes and Parkes, 2007). Long hours, particularly hours worked over a standard work week (e.g. overtime), are reported to negatively impact work-life balance ( Jansen et al., 2004; Albertsen et al., 2008; Taris et al., 2006). van Hooff et al. (2006) assert that time engaged in effortful work reduces the time available for family and consumes energy that could otherwise be spent in tasks required at home. Non-standard work hours have been linked to increased work-to-family conflict (Hosking and Western, 2008), lower levels of family functioning, more depressive symptoms and less-effective parenting than those working standard hours (Strazdins et al., 2006). Not only do long hours positively predict work-to-family conflict but organisational time demands are

Work time demands

649

ECAM 19,6

also inversely related to workers experience of work-to-family enrichment (Wayne et al., 2006). The Australian context The working hours of Australians have increased in recent decades (Campbell, 2002). Unlike EU countries, Australia has no statutory limits on the hours that can be worked (van Wanrooy and Wilson, 2006) and most Australian workers have limited control over their work hours (Peetz et al., 2003). van Wanrooy and Wilson (2006) report Australian workers who work long hours (45 hours per week or more) believe their hours are too long and would prefer to work less. Similarly, Reynolds and Aletraris (2007) report that when work hours are perceived to interfere with family life Australian workers express stronger preferences for reduced hours. In Australia the longest average work hours are observed in blue-collar, traditionally male industries, including construction (van Wanrooy, 2007). Lingard and Francis (2004) report that the average number of hours worked each week was 63 among site-based employees in direct construction activity and 56 hours among employees who worked mostly in site office. The number of hours worked per week by Australian construction workers was positively linked to WIF and burnout (Lingard and Francis, 2005). Research hypotheses It was expected that work hours would be positively associated with WFC and negatively associated with work-family enrichment in the present Australian construction sample. Further, because demands are more strongly related to negative interaction than they are to positive work-family interaction between work and family and the impact of demands on work-family outcomes is domain specific, it was expected that: (1) (2) work time demands would be more strongly associated with WFC than with work-family enrichment; and work time demands would be more strongly associated with WIF than with FIW.

650

Work time control and work-family interaction Work-family researchers have investigated the extent to which the degree of control afforded to workers over how (and when) they do their jobs is an antecedent of workfamily interaction (see e.g. Mauno et al., 2006). Work time control refers to an individuals autonomy regarding issues, such as starting and finishing times, breaks, days off, vacations and the number of work hours (Guerts et al., 2009, p. 231). Grzywacz et al. (2008) suggest that control over work time is a resource that helps workers to respond to role-related demands across the work and family domains. Hill et al. (2008) argue that workers choice about how to arrange core aspects of their everyday work is linked to optimal work, family and community outcomes. Moen et al. (2008) report that work time control is associated with lower levels of WIF, while Shockley and Allen (2007) found flexibility in work time to be more strongly (inversely) related to WIF than it was to FIW. Thus it was expected that work time control would be positively associated with work-family enrichment and negatively associated with WFC in the Australian

construction sample. Further, because resources are more strongly related to positive work-family interaction than to WFC and that the impact of demands and resources on work-family outcomes is domain specific (Voydanoff, 2004a), it was expected that: (1) (2) work time control would be more strongly associated with work-family enrichment than WFC; and work time control would be more strongly associated with work-to-family enrichment than family-to-work enrichment.

Work time demands

651

Social support and work-family interaction Social support involves the exchange of resources between at least two persons, with the aim of helping the person who receives the support (van Daalen et al., 2006, p. 464). Social support helps individuals to retain existing resources and obtain new resources (Seiger and Wiese, 2009). For example, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) report that social support from either work or home generates positive affect in the source domain and enhances the quality of life in the other domain. Lu et al. (2009) report workers with family-friendly supervisors and coworkers experience higher levels of work-family facilitation (or positive interaction). Although social support is a resource that positively impacts upon work-family interaction, the absence of support is also associated with WFC. For example, Wadsworth and Owens (2007) report that supervisor support was negatively related to perceptions of WIF as well as positively related to work to family enhancement. Similarly, Janssen et al. (2004) report that the absence of social support predicts negative work-home interference and employee burnout. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of the work-family literature, Michel et al. (2010) found that workers who enjoy strong social support systems have reduced perceptions of stressors in the work and/or family domains and lower levels of WFC. Research also suggests that the impact of social support on work-family interaction depends upon the source of the support. Social support from within the workplace is believed to reduce WIF, while support from the family (e.g. from ones partner) reduces FIW (Seiger and Wiese, 2009; Lapierre and Allen, 2006). In particular, Lapierre and Allen (2006) suggest that supervisors play a key role in helping subordinates to avoid work-to-family conflict. In the construction context, Lingard and Francis (2006) report that social support from coworkers and supervisors provides a protective buffer reducing the extent to which WFC results in employee burnout. However, research also reveals that the relationship between social support and well-being is likely to be influenced by how support is conceptualised and measured (Sarason et al., 1987). Firth et al. (2006) state that support at work can take two forms: organisational support, which is in the form of resources, staff, training, management structure, etc. and interpersonal support, or the support that people get through faceto-face contact with others at work. Much research has examined the relationship between interpersonal social support to experiences of work-family interaction. In this research interpersonal support from ones supervisor was the variable of interest. Given the domain-specific nature of the relationship between social support and work-family interaction the research focused on source of social support located in the workplace, i.e., supervisor support. Thus, it was expected that supervisor support would be positively associated with work-family enrichment and negatively associated with WFC in the Australian construction sample. Further, because resources are more strongly related to positive work-family interaction than to WFC and the impact of

ECAM 19,6

demands and resources on work-family outcomes is domain specific, it was expected that: (1) (2) supervisor support would be more strongly associated with work-family enrichment than WFC; and supervisor support would be more strongly associated with work-to-family enrichment than family-to-work enrichment. respondents in jobs that have high time demands and low time control would report the highest levels of WIF and lowest levels of work-to-family enrichment; respondents in jobs that have low time demands and high time control would report the lowest levels of WIF and the highest levels of work-to-family enrichment; respondents in jobs that have high time demands and low supervisor support would report the highest levels of WIF and lowest levels of work-to-family enrichment; and respondents in jobs that have low time demands and high supervisor support would report the lowest levels of WIF and the highest levels of work-to-family enrichment.

652
(1)

Finally, building on the JDC and JDC-S theories, it was expected that:

(2)

(3)

(4)

Research methods Data collection Data were collected within two Australian construction organisations. Study 1 was undertaken with workers engaged at a large civil engineering infrastructure construction project in Melbourne. Study 2 was undertaken with workers in a building and civil engineering contracting organisation, also based in Melbourne. Data were collected using a survey administered using the Turning Point automated response system with KeyPad hand-held devices. The use of this system helps to overcome issues of literacy as survey questions are projected onto a screen and read out by the researcher. The response system can be set so that if a respondent presses an out of range value the response is not accepted. The researcher can monitor responses to determine completeness of data as it is being collected. The advantages of this system include the completeness of data and minimisation of human error in data entry. Owing to the fact that all variables were measures using a self-report survey which was administered to individual respondents in the same manner in the same item context at the same time, the risk of common method variance bias was present. To overcome this risk to the validity of the research findings, respondents were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and advised that there were no right or wrong answers to survey questions. Further, the different variables were measured using different scale endpoints and formats, further reducing the likelihood that common method variance would be a significant problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Work hours. These were measured using categorical scale, where 1 less than 35 hours worked per week; 2 35-40 hours; 3 41-45 hours; 4 46-50 hours; 5 51-55

hours; 6 56-60 hours; 7 61-65 hours; and 8 more than 65 hours. The remaining variables were measured using previously developed multi-item scales. Table I shows the scales used to measure each variable. These scales were chosen because of their conceptual relevance to the research hypotheses and their acceptable internal consistency reliability in previous research. WFC. This was measured using a bi-directional and multi-faceted scale developed by Carlson et al. (2000). This scale comprises six subscales. Each direction of WFC (i.e. WIF and FIW) is nested within three dimensions of conflict (i.e. time based, strain based and behaviour based). Carlson et al. (2000) report the internal consistency to exceed the conventional level of acceptance of 0.70. The Cronbachs a for time-based WIF was 0.87, for time-based FIW was 0.79, for strain-based WIF was 0.85, for strainbased FIW was 0.87, for behaviour-based WIF was 0.78 and for behaviour-based FIW was 0.85. Owing to the fact that the sample was heterogeneous, one item was removed from the dataset prior to analysis. The wording of this item suggested that all respondents were partnered with children, which was not the case. Work time control

Work time demands

653

Variable Workfamily conflict

Scale Carlson et al. (2006)

Number of items Example items 18 When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities Due to stress at home, I am often Preoccupied with family matters at work How much choice do you have over when you begin and end each workday or each workweek? To what extent can you choose to do some of your work at home instead of your usual place of employment? My immediate supervisor is concerned about me as a person My immediate supervisor would switch schedules (hours, overtime hours, vacation) to accommodate my family responsibilities The love and respect you get at home makes you feel confident about yourself at work The skills you use on your job are useful for things you have to do at home

Method Five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Control

Thomas and Ganster (1995)

Five-point scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (very great)

Supervisor Items drawn from support Lambert (2000) and Thomas and Ganster (1995)

Five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all of the time)

WorkNational Survey of Midlife family Development in the USA, enrichment as cited in Grzywacz and Marks (2000)

Five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time)

Table I. Variables measured in the study and scales by which they were measured

ECAM 19,6

654

was measured using seven items from Thomas and Ganster (1995). Thomas and Ganster (1995) report a Cronbachs a coefficient of 0.75 in the previous use of the 14item scale from which our seven items were drawn. The internal consistency of the reduced seven-item scale we used was also tested in the analysis and found to be acceptable. Supervisor support. This was measured using four items taken from Lambert (2000) and Thomas and Ganster (1995). Lambert (2000) does not report on the internal consistency reliability of the original eight-item scale from which two of our items were drawn. Thomas and Ganster (1995) report a Cronbachs a coefficient of 0.83 for their original nine-item support scale, from which two items used in the present study were drawn. Owing to the fact that supervisor support items were drawn from two separate sources, the internal consistency reliability of the composite scale was examined and found to be acceptable. Work-family enrichment. This was measured using six items drawn from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the USA, as cited in Grzywacz and Marks (2000). This scale has been widely used to measure positive work-family interaction (Wayne et al., 2004; Innstrand et al., 2008; Grzywacz and Butler, 2005). The items imply a transfer of energy or behaviours that also improve performance in the other role (Hanson et al., 2006). Grzywacz and Marks (2000) report Cronbachs a coefficients of 0.73 and 0.70; Wayne et al. (2004) report Cronbachs a coefficients of 0.72 and 0.68; and Innstrand et al. (2008) report Cronbachs a coefficients of 0.72 and 0.69 for work-tofamily and family-to-work enrichment, respectively. Grzywacz and Butler (2005) used the scale to measure work-to-family enrichment only and report a Cronbachs a of 0.73 for this subscale. Data analysis The internal consistency reliability of the subscales was assessed using Cronbachs a. Pearson correlations were conducted to explore the relationship between job characteristics and work-family interaction. A median-split method was used to position groups in hypothetical quadrants according to: their reported work time demands and work time control; and their reported work time demands and supervisor support. In accordance with Kareseks (1979) terminology, in the time demands-time control analysis the groups were labelled: low strain (low time demands, high time control); passive (low time demands, low time control); active (high time demands, high time control); and high strain (high time demands, low time control). In the time demandssupervisor support analysis, quadrants were not ascribed labels and were just classified as follows: low time demands-low supervisor support; low time demandshigh supervisor support; high time demands-high supervisor support; and high time demands-low supervisor support. Owing to the fact that the scores of respondents assigned to the four quadrants were not normally distributed, non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis) tests were conducted to ascertain whether significant differences exist between the WFC and work-family facilitation of participants in the hypothetical job types. Results The sample A total of 261 participants completed the survey, 169 (64.8 per cent) from the civil engineering project and 92 (35.2 per cent) from the building/civil engineering

construction contractor. The majority of respondents were male (n 235, 90.0 per cent), ten respondents (10.0 per cent) were female. The proportion of males and females in the sample generally reflected the gender breakdown in the Australian construction industry. For 2009, the Australian Bureau of Statistics identified that the construction workforce was represented by 88 per cent of males and 12 per cent of females. A total of 82 respondents (31.4 per cent) were aged 30 or younger, 80 respondents (30.7 per cent) were between the ages of 31 and 40, while 61 respondents (23.4 per cent) were between 41 and 50. A total of 27 respondents (10.3 per cent) were between 51 and 60, and eight respondents (3.1 per cent) were over 60. A total of 147 respondents (56.3 per cent) indicated that they were parents, while 113 (43.3 per cent) were child-free. The majority of respondents (n 197, 75.5 per cent) were partnered and 63 (24.1 per cent) were single. A total of 141 respondents (54.0 per cent) indicated they work on site, and a further 103 (41.0 per cent) indicated they are based in a site office. Factor structure of work-family interaction variables The principal components analysis (PCA) yielded a three-factor structure for WFC. Time- and strain-based WIF items loaded together on the first factor, which explained 30.7 per cent of the variance. Time- and strain-based FIW items loaded on the second factor, which explained 14.25 per cent of the variance. All of the behaviour-based WFC items (i.e. those describing behaviour-based WIF and FIW) loaded on the third factor, which explained 11.36 per cent of the variance. The a coefficients were 0.865 for Factor 1; 0.825 for Factor 2; and 0.705 for Factor 3. The PCA yielded a two-factor structure for enrichment. Family-to-work enrichment items loaded together on the first factor, which explained 37.38 per cent of the variance. Work-to-family enrichment items loaded on the second factor, which explained 19.72 per cent of the variance. The two-factor solution explained 57.1 per cent of the variance. The a coefficients were 0.664 for Factor 1 and 0.542 for Factor 2. Pallant (2007) notes that it is common to find low Cronbach values with short scales (scales with fewer than ten items) and suggests it is appropriate to report the mean inter-item correlation as an alternative measure of internal consistency reliability. The optimal range for the inter-item correlation is from 0.2 to 0.4 (Pallant, 2007).The mean inter-item correlations were 0.392 for Factor 1 and 0.287 for Factor 2. Full details of the PCA, including a complete list of survey items and their factor loadings can be found in Lingard et al. (2010a b), for WFC and work-family enrichment, respectively. Bivariate correlations Table II shows the bivariate correlations between job characteristics and the various dimensions of WFC and work-family enrichment. For the purposes of this analysis a probability of 0.05 or less was deemed to be significant. Work hours were significantly and positively correlated with time- and strain-based WIF (r 0.252, p 0.000), and significantly and negatively correlated with time- and strain-based FIW (r 0.170, p 0.006). No significant relationship was found between work hours and either workto-family enrichment or family-to-work enrichment. Work hours were not significantly associated with work-family enrichment, but were significantly correlated with WFC. The correlation between work hours and WIF was stronger than that between work hours and FIW. It is also noteworthy that the negative relationship between work hours and time- and strain-based FIW was in the opposite direction to that expected.

Work time demands

655

ECAM 19,6

656

Work time control was significantly (negatively) correlated with time- and strainbased WIF (r 0.367, p 0.000) and behaviour-based WFC (r 0.127, p 0.040). No significant relationship was found between work time control and FIW. Work time control was also significantly (positively) correlated with both family-to-work enrichment (r 0.338, p 0.000) and work-to-family enrichment (r 0.167, p 0.007). The strongest correlation between work time control and any of the work-family interaction variables was found for time- and strain-based WIF (a conflict variable). The relationship between work time control and work-to-family enrichment was not stronger than that between work time control and family-to-work enrichment. Supervisor support was significantly and positively correlated family-to-work enrichment (r 0.302, p 0.000) and work-to-family enrichment (r 0.179, p 0.004). Supervisor support was also significantly negatively correlated with time- and strainbased WIF (r 0.298, p 0.000) and behaviour-based WFC (r 0.127, p 0.040). No significant correlation was found between supervisor support and time- and strainbased FIW. The strongest correlation between supervisor support and any of the workfamily interaction variables was found for family-to-work enrichment. The relationship between supervisor support and family-to-work enrichment was stronger than that between supervisor support and work-to-family enrichment. Comparison of work-family interaction between job types Table III reports the hours worked per week and the level of work time control for the four work time demand-work time control job types. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for significant differences in mean rank between respondents
1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Table II. Bivariate correlations between work time demands (hours), supervisor support, work time control and work-family interactions

Work time demands (hours) Supervisor support 0.108 0.799 Work time control 0.103 0.399** 0.659 Time- and strain-based WIF 0.252** 0.298** 0.367** 0.865 Time- and strain-based FIW 0.170** 0.094 0.094 0.000 0.825 Behaviour-based WFC 0.062 0.127* 0.141* 0.000 0.000 0.705 Family-to-work enrichment 0.009 0.302** 0.338** 0.136* 0.185** 0.208** 0.392 Work-to-family enrichment 0.029 0.179** 0.167** 0.145* 0.137* 0.132* 0.000 0.287

Notes: *, **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively (two-tailed). NB: Cronbachs a coefficients on the diagonal

n Passive Low strain Active High strain 49 68 76 68

% 18.8 26.1 29.1 26.1

Work hours SD 0.83 0.84 0.92 1.15

Work time control M SD 1.19 1.97 1.93 1.17 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.21

Table III. Work schedule demands and control for the four job types based on the work time demands-work time control model

3.20 3.16 5.76 6.06

Notes: Work hours were measured using a scale ranging from 1 less than 35 hours worked per week; 2 35-40 hours; 3 41-45 hours; 4 46-50 hours; 5 51-55 hours; 6 56-60 hours; 7 61-65 hours; and 8 more than 65 hours

occupying the four job type quadrants are presented in Table IV. A probability of 0.05 or less was deemed to be significant. Significant differences between job types were found for time- and strain-based WIF (w2 34.61, p 0.000), time- and strain-based FIW (w2 7.92, p 0.048) and workto-family enrichment (w2 21.13, p 0.000). High strain jobs had the highest mean rank score for time- and strain-based WIF. However, the lowest mean rank score for work-to-family enrichment was reported among passive job holders, i.e. those whose jobs are low in time demands and also low in time control. Low strain jobs had the lowest mean rank score for time- and strain-based WIF. However, the highest work-tofamily enrichment score was reported among active job holders, i.e. those that have high time demands and high time control. Table V reports the hours worked per week and supervisor support for the four work time demand-supervisor support job types. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for significant differences in mean rank between respondents occupying the four job type quadrants are presented in Table VI. A probability of 0.05 or less was deemed to be significant. Significant differences between job types were found for time- and strain-based WIF (w2 33.47, p 0.000) and work-to-family enrichment (w2 14.84, p 0.000). Jobs that are high in time demands and low in supervisor support exhibited the highest mean rank score for time- and strain-based WIF. The high time demand-low supervisor support job category also exhibited the lowest mean rank score for work-to-family enrichment. Jobs that are low in time demands and high in supervisor support

Work time demands

657

Work time WorkFamilydemands- Time- and strain- Time- and strainBehaviourto-family to-work work time based WIF based FIW based WFC enrichment enrichment control type n Mean rank n Mean rank n Mean rank n Mean rank n Mean rank Passive Low strain Active High strain 50 68 76 67 126.52 100.00 123.38 174.45 w2 34.61 df 3 p 0.000 50 68 76 67 154.42 136.00 120.14 120.76 w2 7.92 df 3 p 0.048 50 68 76 67 153.24 119.66 126.93 130.52 w2 6.10 df 3 p 0.107 50 68 76 67 104.34 144.54 154.84 110.11 w2 21.13 df 3 p 0.000 50 68 76 67 126.92 139.13 140.01 115.57 w2 4.82 df 3 p 0.186

Table IV. Work-family interaction comparison between respondents in different job demandscontrol types

n Low demands-low support Low demands-high support High demands-high support High demands-low support 63 54 76 68

% 24.1 20.7 29.1 26.1

Work hours M SD 3.17 3.18 5.93 5.87 0.79 0.88 1.11 0.96

Supervisor support M SD 2.27 3.80 4.04 2.31 0.67 0.46 0.50 0.68 Table V. Work schedule demands and control for the four job types based on a work time demands-supervisor support model

Notes: Work hours were measured using a scale ranging from 1 less than 35 hours worked per week; 2 35-40 hours; 3 41-45 hours; 4 46-50 hours; 5 51-55 hours; 6 56-60 hours; 7 61-65 hours; and 8 more than 65 hours

ECAM 19,6
Job demands-support type

Time- and Time- and strain-based strain-based BehaviourWIF FIW based WFC Mean Mean Mean n rank n rank n rank

Work-tofamily enrichment Mean n rank

Family-towork enrichment Mean n rank

658

Table VI. Work-family interaction comparison between respondents in different job demands-support types

Low demands-low support Low demands-high support High demands-high support High demands-low support

63 54 76

123.79 97.07 123.36

63 54 76 68

144.29 141.56 117.66 125.22 w2 5.78 df 3 p 0.123

63 54 76 68

138.11 130.43 121.97 134.96 w2 1.84 df 3 p 0.607

63 54 76

114.03 143.70 152.43

63 54 76

126.83 140.85 135.90

68 173.16 w2 33.47 df 3 p 0.000

68 112.68 w2 14.84 df 3 p 0.002

68 121.57 w2 22.50 df 3 p 0.476

exhibited the lowest levels of time- and strain-based WIF. However, the highest mean rank score for work-to-family enrichment was found for jobs that are high in both time demands and supervisor support. Discussion Correlates of work-family conflict and enrichment The results support the notion that WFC and work-family enrichment should be treated as distinct concepts. Work time demands, work time control and supervisor support were related to work-family conflict and enrichment in different ways. Work time demands were significant correlates of time- and strain-based WFC but were not significantly related to work-family enrichment. The relationship between work time demands and time-based work-family conflict is unsurprising because time-based work-family conflict which occurs when time spent on activities in one role prohibits the fulfilment of responsibilities in another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). However, strain-based WFC occurs when pressures from one role interfere with fulfilling the requirements of another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). The significant correlation between strain-based WFC and work time demands suggests the negative spillover associated with long work hours is multi-faceted. The fact that work time demands were not correlated with work-family enrichment supports theories that position demands as an antecedent of conflict but not of positive workfamily interaction. Work time demands were positively correlated with time- and strain-based WIF but were unexpectedly negatively correlated with time- and strainbased FIW. Thus, as work hours increase, respondents experienced increased time- and strain-based WIF but decreased time- and strain-based FIW. The strong and positive relationship between work time demands and time- and strain-based WIF is consistent with previous research (van Hooff et al., 2006). However, it is not clear why work hours would be negatively correlated with time- and strain-based FIW. The respondents to the survey were predominantly male and generally reported working very long hours. The modal number of hours worked was between 51 and 55 per week (n 66, 25.3 per cent) and only 25 respondents (9.6 per cent) reported working under 40 hours per week. It is possible that those working longer hours either have fewer family demands or

have these demands met by others, for example, a domestic partner. It is possible that respondents who have extensive family demands, or who cannot rely on the help of a domestic partner or others to meet their family demands, are forced to work fewer hours and experience higher levels of FIW. The cross-sectional nature of the survey does not permit any analysis of the direction of relationships between the variables and longitudinal research is recommended to further investigate this possibility. Work time control and supervisor support were unrelated to time- and strain-based FIW but were significantly (inversely) correlated with time- and strain-based WIF and behaviour-based WFC. Work time control and supervisor support were also both positively correlated with family-to-work enrichment and work-to-family enrichment. The domain specificity hypothesis was not supported by the bivariate correlations because work domain resources of work time control and supervisor support were more strongly (inversely) related to family-to-work enrichment than they were to work-to-family enrichment. One possible explanation for this could relate to the importance of recovering from work in the home domain. According to the effort-recovery model advanced by Meijman and Mulder (1998), the negative health effects associated with working long hours depend upon the opportunity to recover from work. Peeters et al. (2005) suggest that when negative effects associated with work demands build up and spill over into family life, the opportunity for recovery in the home domain is reduced. It is possible that work time control and supervisor support are work domain resources that enable workers to better align the effort they invest in work with their non-work commitments and need for recovery. Opportunities for recovery in the home domain may be higher for workers who enjoy high levels of work time control and supervisor support, resulting in higher levels of family-to-work enrichment. The fact that work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment were not significantly correlated with work hours but were significantly (positively) correlated with supervisor support and work time control suggests that, while reducing time demands may help to alleviate WFC, the provision of resources (like work time control and supervisor support) may also be required to achieve positive interaction between work and family in the Australian construction context. Job types and work-family interaction Time- and strain-based WIF was highest among respondents who reported high work time demands and low work time control (i.e. high strain) jobs and lowest among respondents who reported low work time demands and high work time control (i.e. low strain) jobs. Taris et al. (2006) propose that workers in jobs that afford them a high level of control can maximise the opportunity for recovery by taking rest breaks when they need them and alternating tasks if necessary, resulting in lower levels of time- and strain-based WIF than workers whose jobs are low in control. Occupants of high strain jobs did not experience the highest levels of time- and strain-based FIW, nor did occupants of low strain jobs experience the lowest levels of time- and strainbased FIW. This may be explained by the domain-specificity hypothesis, which suggests that demands and resources in the work role are more influential in reducing conflicts that originate at work (Shockley and Allen, 2007). The highest levels of work-to-family enrichment were not reported among respondents in low strain jobs, but among those who reported high levels of both work time demands and work time control (i.e. those in active jobs). The lowest levels of work-to-family enrichment were reported among respondents who reported low

Work time demands

659

ECAM 19,6

660

work time demands and low work time control (i.e. who were in passive jobs). Although the JDC job strain model appears to explain the experience of timeand strain-based WIF quite well, it does not adequately explain the experience of work-family enrichment. A similar pattern of results was found when work time demands and supervisor support were combined. The highest level of time- and strain-based WIF were reported by respondents who fell within the high work time demands low supervisory support job type, while the lowest levels were found in the low work time demands high supervisor support job type. However, the highest levels of work-to-family enrichment were found in the high work time demands high supervisor support job type. Occupants of high work time demands low supervisor support jobs reported the lowest levels of work-to-family enrichment. It is possible that some workers choose to work long hours because they are engaged in their work and derive satisfaction or other benefits from their work (see also van der Hulst et al. 2006). The resource-gain-development model suggested by Wayne et al. (2007) may help to explain this phenomenon. This model posits that workfamily enrichment is enabled by environmental resources (objects, conditions, energies and support) that contribute to the development of new skills and perspectives (developmental gains), positive emotion (affective gains), economic, social, or health assets (capital gains), and greater efficiency (efficiency gains) in one system, which enhance functioning of the other system (Wayne et al., 2007, p. 66). Conclusions The strong correlation between work time demands and conflict and time- and strainbased WIF suggests that the long hours culture of the Australian construction industry presents a high risk environment for work-to-family conflict and the undesirable health effects associated with WIF. Long hours may be addressed through improved attention to work scheduling and resourcing in construction project programmes, as well as work hours monitoring and managerial interventions to ensure that workers do not work excessive hours. However, although work time demands were positively correlated with WIF, work domain resources of work time control and supervisor support were inversely related to WIF to a similar degree of magnitude. Thus, reductions in WIF may be achieved through a reduction in work time demands coupled with strategies to increase work time control and/or supervisor support. Work time demands were unrelated to work-family enrichment. While it is desirable to reduce WFC, there is a growing recognition that optimal outcomes occur when participation in one domain enhances the quality of experience in the other domain. The results suggest that a reduction in work time demands is an important but insufficient development to promote work-family enrichment, which is likely to require the provision of resources, such as work time control and supervisor support. Strategies, such as the provision of training to supervisors in the importance of being sensitive to the family needs of workers and/or the provision of greater work hours flexibility, for example through self-rostering, could be useful. However, the effectiveness of any work-family support strategies implemented must be carefully evaluated. From a research perspective the results highlight the need to include WFC and work-family enrichment as distinct variables in future work-family research in the construction context. The results also raise a number of issues that require further investigation. First, the unexpected finding that work time control and supervisor

support have a stronger positive relationship with family-to-work enrichment than work-to-family enrichment and warrants further research. Also, the JDC and job demands-support models failed to explain experiences of FIW or work-family enrichment. Alternative theories to explain the positive side of the work-family interface need to be explored. Limitations and future research The research was limited in scope to salaried and waged workers engaged in two organisations in Australia, one of which was a major infrastructure construction project. The results provide preliminary evidence that job demands, control and support shape workers experiences of work-family interaction and that job characteristics are differentially related to positive and negative work-family experiences. However, due to sampling limitations, the findings cannot be generalised to the Australian construction industry as a whole and further research with larger, more representative samples is recommended. The research utilised a cross-sectional in design. It is therefore impossible to make causal inferences. Future research using longitudinal designs to is recommended to establish causation. In particular, it would be very helpful to investigate why work hours were negatively correlated with FIW in the construction sample. Another important avenue for future research is to examine how work domain demands and resources are related to WIF. There are two competing hypotheses. First, that work domain demands and resources are antecedents to WIF (the additive hypothesis) and, second, that work domain resources act as a buffer, protecting workers against the ill-effects of long hours (the interactive hypothesis). If the buffer hypothesis is supported, it may be enough to increase resource availability to counteract high strain. However, if the additive hypothesis is supported, increasing control or support will not be particularly helpful as long as work domain demands remain high. No attempt was made in this research to explore the experiences of work stress among construction workers in different occupational groups or trades. Future research should compare the work stress experiences of different occupational groups or trades in the construction industry. In this research we also did not distinguish between formal (or contractually required hours) of work and hours worked informally in excess of those required by an individuals employment contract, neither did we distinguish between standard work hours and overtime. Future research should adopt a more fine-grained analysis of the impact of work time demands on work-family interaction to ascertain whether substantive difference in experiences arising from formal and informal hours and/or standard hours and overtime.
References Albertsen, K., Rafnsdottir, G.L., Grimsmo, A., Tomasson, K. and Kauppinen, K. (2008), Workhours and worklife balance, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 34 No. S5, pp. 14-21. Allan, C., Loudoun, R. and Peetz, D. (2007), Influences on work/non-work conflict, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 219-39. Byron, K. (2005), A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-98. Campbell, I. (2002), Extended working hours in Australia, Labour and Industry, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 91-110.

Work time demands

661

ECAM 19,6

662

Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M. and Williams, L.J. (2000), Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work family conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 249-76. Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H. and Grzywacz, J.G. (2006), Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 131-64. De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, A.J., Houtmans, I.L.D. and Bongers, P.A. (2004), The relationship between work characteristics and mental health: examining normal, reversed and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study, Work and Stress, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 149-66. Firth, H., McIntee, J., McKeown, P. and Britton, P. (2006), Interpersonal support amongst nurses at work, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 273-82. Frone, M.R. (2003), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, Washington, pp. 143-62. Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), Sources of conflict between work and family roles, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88. Grzywacz, J.G. and Butler, A.B. (2005), The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: testing a theory and distinguishing a construct, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-109. Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000), Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 111-26. Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Shulkin, S. (2008), Schedule flexibility and stress: linking formal flexible arrangements and perceived flexibility to employee health, Community, Work & Family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 199-214. Guerts, A.A.E., Beckers, D.G.J., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J. and Smulders, P.G.W. (2009), Worktime demands and work-family interference: does worktime control buffer the adverse effects of high demands?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 229-41. Hausser, J.A., Mojzisch, A., Neal, M. and Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010), Ten years on: a review of recent research on the job demand-control (-support) model and psychological wellbeing, Work & Stress, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-35. Hanson, G.C., Hammer, L.B. and Colton, C.L. (2006), Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 249-65. Haynes, N.S. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), Psychological adjustment and coping among construction project managers, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 25, pp. 129-40. Hill, E.J., Grzywacz, J.G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V.L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S. and Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008), Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility, Community, Work & Family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 149-63. Hosking, A. and Western, M. (2008), The effects of non-standard employment on work-family conflict, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-27. Hughes, E.L. and Parkes, K.R. (2007), Work hours and well-being: the roles of work-time control and work-family interference, Work & Stress, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 264-78. Innstrand, S.T., Langballe, E.M., Espnes, G.A., Falkum, E. and Aasland, O.G. (2008), Positive and negative work-family interaction and burnout: a longitudinal study of reciprocal relations, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Jansen, N.W.H., Kant, I., Nijhuis, F.J.N., Swaen, G.M.H. and Kristensen, T.S. (2004), Impact of worktime arrangements on work-home interference among Dutch employees, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 139-48.

Janssen, P.P.M., Peeters, M.C.W., ce Jonge, J., Houkes, I. and Tummers, G.E.R. (2004), Specific relationships between job demands, job resources and psychological outcomes and the mediating role of negative work home interference, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 411-29. Johnson, J.V., Hall, E.M. and Theorell, T. (1989), Combined effects of job strain and social isolation on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in a random sample of the Swedish male working population, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 271-9. Karasek, R.A. Jr (1979), Job demands, decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job design, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308. Lambert, S.J. (2000), Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behaviour, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 801-15. Lapierre, L.M. and Allen, T.D. (2006), Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 169-81. Leung, M.-Y., Chan, Y.S. and Olomolaiye, P. (2008), Impact of stress on the performance of construction project managers, ASCE, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 8, pp. 644-52. Leung, M.-Y., Skitmore, M. and Chan, Y.S. (2007), Subjective and objective stress in construction cost estimation, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1063-75. Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2004), A comparative study of the work-life experiences of men and women working in office and site-based roles in the Australian construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 991-1002. Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2005), Does work-family conflict mediate the relationship between job schedule demands and burnout in male construction professionals and managers?, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 733-45. Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2006), Does a supportive work environment moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among construction professionals?, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 185-94. Lingard, H., Francis., V. and Turner, M. (2010a), Work-family conflict in construction: case for a finer-grained analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 11, pp. 1196-206. Lingard, H., Francis, V. and Turner, M. (2010b), Work-family enrichment in the Australian construction industry: implications for job design, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 467-80. Lu, J.-F, Siu, O.-L., Spector, P.E. and Shi, K. (2009), Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of work-family balance in Chinese employed parents, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 182-92. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. and Ruokolainen, M. (2006), Exploring work- and organization-based resources as moderators between work-family conflict, well-being and job attitudes, Work & Stress, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 210-33. Meijman, T.F. and Mulder, G. (1998), Psychological aspects of workload, in Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C.J. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Psychology Press/Erlbaum, Hove, pp. 5-33. Michel, J.S., Mitchelson, J.K., Pichler, S. and Cullen, K.L. (2010), Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors and work-family conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 91-104.

Work time demands

663

ECAM 19,6

664

Moen, P., Kelly, E. and Huang, Q. (2008), Work, family and life-course fit: does control over work time matter?, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 414-25. Ng, T.S., Skitmore, M.R. and Leung, T.K.C. (2005), Manageability of stress among construction project participants, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 264-82. Pal, S. and Saaksvik, P.O. (2008), Work-family conflict and psychosocial work environment stressors as predictors of job stress in a cross-cultural study, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 22-42. Pallant, J. (2007), SPSS Survival Manual, 3rd ed., Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest. Peeters, M.C.W., Montgomery, A.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), Balancing work and home: how job and home demands are related to burnout, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-61. Peetz, D., Townsend, K., Russell, B., Houghton, C., Fox, A. and Allan, C. (2003), Race against time: extended hours in Australia, Australian Bulletin of Labour, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 126-42. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Powell, G.N. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2006), Managing incidents of work-family conflict: a decision-making perspective, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 1179-212. Reynolds, J. and Aletraris, L. (2007), Work-family conflict, children, and hour mismatches in Australia, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 749-72. Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Shearin, E.N. and Pierce, G.R. (1987), A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-510. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315. Seiger, C.P. and Wiese, B.S. (2009), Social support from work and family domains as an antecedent or moderator of work-family conflicts, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 26-37. Shockley, K.M. and Allen, T.D. (2007), When flexibility helps: another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 479-93. Strazdins, L., Clements, M.S., Korda, R.J., Broom, D.H. and DSouza, R.M. (2006), Unsociable work? Nonstandard work schedules, family relationships and childrens wellbeing, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 394-410. Sutherland, V.J. and Davidson, M.J. (1989), Stress among construction site managers: a preliminary study, Stress Medicine, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 221-35. Taris, T.W., Beckers, D.G.J., Verhoeven, L.C., Geurts, S.A.E., Kompier, M.A.J. and van der Linden, D. (2006), Recovery opportunities, work-home interference, and well-being among managers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-57. Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995), Impact of family-supportive work variables on workfamily conflict and strain: a control perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15. van Daalen, G., Willemsen, T.M. and Sanders, K. (2006), Reducing work-family conflict through different sources of social support, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 462-76.

van der Hulst, M., van Veldhoven, M. and Beckers, D. (2006), Overtime and need for recovery in relation to job demands and job control, Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 11-19. van Hooff, M.L.M., Geurts, S.A.E., Kompier, M.A.J. and Taris, T.W. (2006), Work-home interference: how does it manifest itself from day to day?, Work & Stress, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 145-62. van Steenbergen, E.F. and Ellemers, N. (2009), Is managing the work-family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 617-42. van Steenbergen, E.F., Ellemers, N. and Mooijaart, A. (2007), How work and family can facilitate each other: distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for men and women, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 279-300. van Wanrooy, B. (2007), A desire for 9 to 5: Australians preference for a standard working week, Labour & Industry, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 71-95. van Wanrooy, B. and Wilson, S. (2006), Convincing the toilers? Dilemmas of long working hours in Australia, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 349-68. Voydanoff, P. (2004a), The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 398-412. Voydanoff, P. (2004b), Implications of work and community demands and resources for workto-family conflict and facilitation, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 275-85. Wadsworth, L.L. and Owens, B.P. (2007), The effects of social support on work-family enhancement and work-family conflict in the public sector, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 75-86. Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N. and Fleeson, W. (2004), Considering the role of personality in the workfamily experience: relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 108-30. Wayne, J.H., Randel, A.E. and Stevens, J. (2006), The role of identity and work-family support in work-family enrichment and its work-related consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 445-6. Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2007), Work family facilitation: a theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-76. Wong, J.-Y. and Lin, J.-H. (2007), The role of job control and job support in adjusting service employees work-to-leisure conflict, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 726-35. Corresponding author Helen Lingard can be contacted at: Helen.lingard@rmit.edu.au

Work time demands

665

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints