608527

research-article2015
SAP0010.1177/0081246315608527South African Journal of PsychologyPattusamy and Jacob

South African Journal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 46(2) 218­–231 © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0081246315608527 sap.sagepub.com

Article
Testing the mediation of work–family
balance in the relationship between
work–family conflict and job and family
satisfaction

Murugan Pattusamy and Jayanth Jacob

Abstract
This article attempts to understand the effect of work–family conflict on work–family balance and
in turn, on the satisfaction perceived by individuals in their job and family roles. Using an online
questionnaire, we collected data from 218 participants who were members of teaching faculty
in higher education institutions in the southern part of India. To test the mediating effect of
work–family balance on job and family satisfaction in relation to work–family conflict, we used the
structural equation modeling technique along with the Bollen–Stine bootstrap estimation method.
The structural equation modeling results show that the relationship between work–family conflict
and satisfaction (job and family) is partially mediated by work–family balance. The study shows
that both job and family satisfaction can be enhanced by balancing job and family roles. The
implication and scope for further research are discussed.

Keywords
Family satisfaction, job satisfaction, work–family balance, work–family conflict

Introduction
Balancing work and family is a critical issue among the members of teaching faculty in institutions
of higher education. According to the 2010–2011 Higher Education Institute Faculty Survey, only
32% of faculty in the United States strongly believed that they have a healthy balance between
work and family life. This low percentage shows serious incompatibility between work and family
life among faculty. There remains much scope for improvement in work–family balance (WFB) in
academia (cf. Watanabe & Falci, 2014). In many of the Indian universities, a 40–60 hr week work-
load has become the norm. There is a need to study the perceptions of the members of faculty in

Department of Management Studies, Anna University, India.

Corresponding author:
Murugan Pattusamy, Department of Management Studies, Anna University, Chennai 600025, India.
Email: mugan@live.com
Pattusamy and Jacob 219

higher educational institutions on WFB in Indian context. There have been, to the best of our
knowledge, no studies on the effect of WFB on the job and family satisfaction of academic faculty
in the Indian context. This aspect is studied in this work.
The dramatic changes in composition of the workforce in the past two decades (Eby, Casper,
Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005) have led to changes in the demographic characteristics
such as an increased number of women entering the workforce and working in diverse environ-
mental conditions. These factors have greatly reduced the separation between an individual’s work
and family (Baral & Bhargava, 2010, 2011). Thus, people now experience conflicts between their
work and family, and this has been a topic of interest for scholars around the world (e.g., Aryee,
Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Baltes, Zhdanova, & Clark, 2010; Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009).
To understand this issue, many scholars have studied the antecedents and consequences of work–
family conflict (WFC) and work–family facilitation (WFF) (e.g., Aryee et al., 2005; Proost, De
Witte, De Witte, & Schreurs, 2010; Warner & Hausdorf, 2009).
WFC is defined as “a form of inter role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and
family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77).
Frone (2003) assumed that less WFC and high WFF are equivalent to WFB. However, other
researchers have assumed WFB as the outcome of both directions (work-to-family and family-to-
work) of WFC and WFF. According to Frone (2003), WFB consist of four components (work-to-
family conflict, family-to-work conflict, work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work
facilitation). The inconsistent results seen in a study by Aryee et al. (2005) that used the four
component-based conceptualization on WFB led to the development of a five-item measure on
satisfaction with WFB by Valcour (2007). Valcour (2007) focused on resolving the multiple
demands of work and family. Our work is based on Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) who define the
accomplishment of role-related expectations in work and family domains. Our study, unlike
Greenhaus and Allen (2011) and Valcour (2007), does not consider effectiveness and satisfaction
in work and family domains as a factor of WFB. Instead, it focuses on the outcomes of WFB (job
and family satisfaction). The study also features the roles and responsibilities of individuals in
social domain rather than individual perceptions in psychological domain. Also, the definition by
Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) is valuable as it suggests that WFB is possible despite experiences
of WFC.
The differentiation of WFB from WFC is not yet clear. Recently, Greenhaus, Ziegert, and Allen
(2012) established that WFB is an outcome of WFC; however, the correlation between WFC and
WFB is considerably high (r = −.66), and there were no detailed results for the tests of confirmatory
factor analysis, thus making the tests for discriminant validity essential.
Carlson et al. (2009) showed that WFC and WFB exist as distinct constructs and these con-
structs have separate work and family domain outcomes. Past evidence shows that work-to-family
conflict (WtoFC) and family-to-work conflict (FtoWC) are negatively related to job and family
satisfaction (e.g., Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Carlson et al., 2009). To the best of our knowledge, there
have been no studies reporting the effect of WtoFC and FtoWC on job and family satisfaction
through WFB.
Past studies have tested the direct effect of WFC on job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, family satisfaction, family performance, and turnover intention (Aryee et al., 2005; Carlson
et al., 2009). Very few studies have included WFB as a mediator between WFC and job satisfaction
(Greenhaus et al., 2012; Haar, 2013). On the basis of recent studies on the conceptualization of
WFB (e.g., Brough & Kalliath, 2009; Carlson et al., 2009; Clark, 2000), this study aims to test the
mediating role of WFB between WFC (WtoFC and FtoWC) and satisfaction (job and family). The
mediation model in this work helps in understanding how an antecedent is related to the outcome
variable through a third variable called the mediator.
220 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

Theoretical and empirical backgrounds

WFB is defined as “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared
between an individual and his or her role-related partners in the work and family domains”
(Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007, p. 466). Grounded in this conceptualization is the negotiation and
accomplishment of role-related expectations that embody the concept of WFB which lead to
important outcomes such as job satisfaction, family satisfaction, family performance, marital sat-
isfaction, family functioning, and organizational commitment (Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus
et al., 2012).
This research is based on a few empirical and theoretical foundations. The first foundation is
based on the WFB review conducted by Greenhaus and Allen (2011) and Greenhaus et al. (2012),
who empirically tested and proved that both the directions of WFC (WtoFC and FtoWC) are related
to WFB. The second foundation is based on the study by Carlson et al. (2009), which supports the
existence of a link between WFB and job satisfaction and family satisfaction.
The third foundation of this research is based on the role balance theory, which suggests that
individuals who handle all the role expectations (work or family) with even-handed alertness pro-
duce beneficial consequences, both in job and family satisfaction (Marks & MacDermid, 1996).
We theorize that WFB could be a mediating construct to test the effect of WtoFC and FtoWC on
job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Recently, Haar (2013) used the role balance theory to link
WFC with various psychological outcomes such as emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and depression
through WFB. Based on these theories and empirical support, we have developed a mediation
model on WFB for testing in the Indian context.

Work–family conflict, work–family balance, and outcomes

In this empirical work, we have attempted to link WtoFC and FtoWC with WFB, because very lit-
tle research has been carried out in this domain. Traditionally, researchers on WFC have assumed
that WFC and WFF are equivalent to WFB (Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Bobko, 2011; Post, DiTomaso,
Farris, & Cordero, 2009). Carlson et al. (2009) and Greenhaus et al. (2012) recently established
that these constructs are distinct and there exists a negative relationship between WFC and WFB.
Therefore, lower WFC leads to a better balance between work roles and family roles. Past empiri-
cal studies have reported that high levels of WtoFC and FtoWC have negative consequences (e.g.,
Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011).
Recently, Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, and Baltes (2009) conducted a meta-analysis
to test the WFC models and evaluated critical work–family linkages. Their analysis reported a
negative relationship of WFC on job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Furthermore, many schol-
ars have analyzed the relationships between both directions of conflict (WtoFC and FtoWC) and
job and family satisfaction. A number of studies have shown that WtoFC and FtoWC lead to
reduced job satisfaction (Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Lu, Siu, Spector, & Shi, 2009) and diminishes the
individuals’ family satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2009; Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Karatepe & Baddar,
2006; Rupert, Stevanovic, Hartman, Bryant, & Miller, 2012).
Although WFB helps individuals to be satisfied with their work and family activities, recent
studies conducted by Carlson et al. (2009) and Ferguson, Carlson, Zivnuska, and Whitten (2012)
found a positive relationship between WFB and job satisfaction. Similarly, balanced work and
family activities enhanced family satisfaction of individuals (Carlson et al., 2009). Based on this
notion, it was hypothesized that there is a negative relationship between the two directions of con-
flict (WtoFC and FtoWC) and WFB (Objective 1). Similarly, there is a positive relationship
between WFB and satisfaction (job and family) (Objective 2).
Pattusamy and Jacob 221

Very few studies have tested the mediating effect of WFB on WFC and family and job satisfac-
tion (Greenhaus et al., 2012 (Business college alumni sample from a private university in United
States); Haar, 2013 (Employees sample in New Zealand)). We expect that WFC will be negatively
related to WFB, which in turn, will be positively related to job and family satisfaction. The role
balance theory lends support to include WFB as a mediator between conflict and satisfaction (job
and family). The study by Haar (2013) supports that both directions of conflict (work to life and
life to work) on job and life satisfaction are mediated by work–life balance. Based on these assump-
tions and literature, we expect that WFB may mediate the relationship between conflict (WtoFC &
FtoWC) and satisfaction (job and family) in the context of Indian academic samples as well. It is
hypothesized that WFB may mediate the relationship between both directions of conflict and sat-
isfaction (job and family) (Objective 3).

Method
Participants
The research designed comprised cross-sectional and quantitative data collection methods. The
participants were teaching faculty members, working in government and private institutions of
higher education, and universities in the southern part of India. The criteria for including a partici-
pant in the study were as follows: (1) the teaching faculty member must be married and (2) they
must be full-time employees. The reason for limiting the participants to these criteria is to increase
the likelihood that WFC was a relevant issue to the individual and to increase accuracy of response
to the WFC questions (Rotondo, Carlson, & Kincaid, 2003). Screening of the 466 participants (rate
of response was 3.1%) who had submitted their responses resulted in 218 full-time employees who
were also married. The sample size of 218 participants considered in this study is deemed to be
sufficient to test the proposed hypotheses since it satisfies the minimum requirement criterion of
200 participants recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009) for such analysis. Of
the 218 respondents, 63.3% were men and 36.7% were women. The average age of the participants
was 37.79 years. The average work hours per week was 40 hr, 71.1% worked in private institutions,
and 28.9% in government institutions with average work experience of 13.18 years. 43.6% had a
single child at home and 31.7% had two children, 1.8% had three children, 14% did not have chil-
dren, and 8.7% did not disclose information on the number of children they had.

Instruments
The study reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha value, and the values are presented in
Table 1.

Work–family conflict.  The 10-item WFC scale by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996) was
used to measure WtoFC and FtoWC. This scale was used by Karatepe and Baddar (2006) who
obtained Cronbach’s alpha values of .76 and .75 for WtoFC and FtoWC, respectively. A sample
item for WtoFC is “Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family
activities” and for FtoWC is “The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-
related activities.” Each item was measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree).

Work–family balance.  WFB was measured using the five items used by Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, and
Weitzman (2001). The obtained Cronbach’s alpha value in Hill et al. (2001) study was .83. The
222 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

items were as follows: (1) How easy or difficult is it for you to balance the demands of your work
and your family life? (5-point scale: very difficult to very easy), (2) I have sufficient time away
from my job at this organization to maintain adequate work and family balance (5-point scale:
strongly disagree to strongly agree), (3) When I take a vacation, I am able to separate myself from
work and enjoy myself (5-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree), (4) All in all, how suc-
cessful do you feel in balancing your work and family life? (5-point scale: extremely unsuccessful
to extremely successful), and (5) How often do you feel drained when you go home from work
because of work pressures and problems? (5-point scale: never to almost always).

Job satisfaction.  We used the three-item job satisfaction measure designed by Cammann, Fichman,
Jenkins, and Klesh (1979) to assess the global job satisfaction. This scale was recently used by
Ferguson et al. (2012), who obtained a Cronbach’s alpha value of .88. The sample item is “All in
all I am satisfied with my job” and the scale is anchored with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree.

Family satisfaction.  The three items scale developed by Edwards and Rothbard (1999) was used to
measure family satisfaction. It was earlier used in WFC research by Lu et al. (2010), who obtained
a Cronbach’s alpha value of .97. A sample item is “My family life is very enjoyable” which was
anchored with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Procedure
A self-reported online questionnaire to measure the constructs was e-mailed to the participants
with an invitation for voluntary participation. Fifteen thousand e-mail addresses of teaching faculty
members were collected from the official websites of the institution’s and conference/seminar
advertisements. Purposively, e-mails were sent to the teaching faculty members, working in vari-
ous government and private institutions, and universities across southern India, with a request to
participate in the survey. The total time for completing the questionnaire was estimated to be
approximately 10 min. A total of 466 (3.1%) responses were received.

Ethical considerations
The participants responded out of their free will and were not personally known to the researchers.
This study was a part of the doctoral level research of the first author. Hence, prior ethical approval
was granted by the doctoral committee and the Center for Research, Anna University, India to
pursue this study from the Institution where in the researcher was registered.
The research instruments clearly stated the objectives of the study and provided instructions to
fill the e-questionnaire. The researchers’ ensured anonymity and that no response could be linked
to a specific individual or organization.

Data analysis
In order to test the hypothesized research model, we used structural equation model (SEM) with
Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS version 21) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS version 21) software for the purpose of preliminary analysis. SEM is an extension of the
multiple regression and path analysis that enables us to test a set of regression equations simultane-
ously, with measurement errors of the indicators taken care of. Relationships can be examined with
SEM between or among one or more independent variables and one or more dependent variables,
Pattusamy and Jacob 223

each being either a factor or measured variable (Hair et al., 2009). A recent study by Haar (2013)
on WFC research used SEM as a hypothesis testing technique using AMOS software. To evaluate
the overall model fit, several fit indices were used, viz. χ2 goodness-of-fit statistic, the goodness-
of-fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the root mean residual (RMR). A model is considered to have very good fit if the
χ2 statistic is non-significant, the GFI, and CFI are greater than .90, and the RMSEA and RMR is
below .08 (Hair et al., 2009).

Results
Descriptive, inter-correlation, and reliability analysis results are presented in Table 1. After com-
pletion of the preliminary analysis, principal component analysis was performed by including all
the constructs indicators/items with a varimax rotation. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.  Mean, standard deviation, reliability, and correlations of the study variables.

Variables Mean SD α Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3 4 5

1. Work-to-family conflict 8.35 2.91 .75 .11 −.53 1  
2. Family-to-work conflict 7.43 3.04 .73 .38 −.55 .47** 1  
3. Work–family balance 10.90 2.91 .76 −.55 −.39 −.25** −.11 1  
4. Job satisfaction 12.19 2.42 .71 −1.17 1.95 −.27** −.099 .33** 1  
5. Family satisfaction 12.12 2.72 .88 −1.20 1.49 −.015 −.094 .46** .21** 1

SD: standard deviation; α: Cronbach’s alpha.

**p < .01.

Table 2.  Rotated component matrix.

Items 1 2 3 4 5
FS 2 .884  
FS 1 .877  
FS 3 .847  
FtoWC 3 .767  
FtoWC 2 .755  
FtoWC 4 .730  
FtoWC 1 .687  
WtoFC 4 .814  
WtoFC 3 .793  
WtoFC 2 .710  
WFB 2 .789  
WFB 5 .767  
WFB 1 .742  
JS 3 .804
JS 2 .745
JS 1 .741

FS: family satisfaction; WFB: work–family balance; WtoFC: work-to-family conflict; FtoWC: family-to-work conflict; JS:
job satisfaction.
Results obtained using principal component extraction with a varimax rotation.
224 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

Table 3.  Measurement models result.

Measurement model Df χ2 χ2/df CFI GFI RMSEA

Single-factor modela 104 460.86 4.43 .708 .755 .126
Two-factors modelb 98 324.01 3.30 .815 .889 .103
Three-factors modelc 96 233.72 2.435 .887 .895 .081
Four-factors modeld 95 169.39 1.78 .939 .917 .060
Five-factors modele 94 142.27 1.51 .960 .925 .049

χ2: Chi-square value; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; GFI: goodness of fit index; RMSEA: root mean
square error of approximation.
All the measurement models were estimated using the Asymptotic Distribution Free estimation method.
aAl the variables are considered as single factor.
bWtoFC, FtoWC, and WFB are considered as one factor and job satisfaction and family satisfaction considered as

another factor.
cWtoFC, FtoWC, and WFB are considered as one factor and job satisfaction and family satisfaction considered as

separate factors.
dWtoFC and FtoWC are considered as one factor and WFB, job satisfaction, and family satisfaction considered as

separate factors.
eAll the variables are considered as separate factors.

The total variance explained by the five factors was 69.21. During the principal component
analysis, few items were deleted due to poor loading and cross loaded on another component. In
FtoWC, item number five was given a loading value of .40; in WFB, item number three was cross-
loaded on family satisfaction component and WFB item number four was created as the sixth
(new) component, and in WtoFC, item number five was given a loading value of .41.
The measurement model and structural model tests were then conducted as suggested by
Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first step, the measurement properties of the manifest varia-
bles were tested. The five-factor model was fitted well with the data (refer to Table 3), because all
the fit indices were within the cutoff limit as prescribed by Hair et al. (2009). The multivariate
normality of the data was tested and the multivariate kurtosis critical ratio value which should be
<5 was found to be 15.80 (Byrne, 2009). So it was concluded that the data were non-normal. To
avoid biased estimation of parameters with non-normal data, we used the Bollen–Stine bootstrap
estimation technique. During confirmatory factor analysis, the first item in WtoFC was deleted due
to high error correlation with WFB construct.
There existed a chance of common method bias as the constructs were measured using a self-
reported online survey at a single point of time. To detect common method bias, Harman’s one-
factor test was conducted, which resulted in a single-factor solution. However, the single-factor
solution did not account for larger variances. Hence, it was decided that this study was free from
the common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
To test the unidimensionality of the measures, confirmatory factor analysis was also carried out
with several measurement models such as the one-factor to five-factor models (see Table 3). This
step was performed particularly to find the unidimensionality of the measures. Result shows that
the one-factor model did not fit well with the data and the five-factor model provided a good fit to
the data (GFI = .96, CFI = .92, and RMSEA = .049), thus supporting unidimensionality of the
measures.
Convergent validity was assessed by average variance extracted (AVE) and except for FtoWC, all
the constructs AVE were above the cutoff value of .5 (Straub, Boudreau, & Gefen, 2004). Table 4
shows the AVE, composite reliability (CR), and discriminant validity of the construct and it was
assessed by comparing the square root of AVE with its corresponding construct correlation values.
Pattusamy and Jacob 225

Table 4.  Convergent and discriminant validity.

Variables CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Job satisfaction .70 .56 .75  
2. W
 ork-to-family conflict .76 .51 −.28 .72  
3. F amily-to-work conflict .73 .47 .003 .62 .69  
4. Work–family balance .77 .53 .48 −.30 −.16 .73  
5. Family satisfaction .88 .72 .23 −.04 −.12 .58 .85

AVE: average variance extracted; CR: composite reliability.

Diagonal values representing square root of the AVE.

Table 5.  Standardized direct effects with lower and upper bound limits.

Bootstrap method Bias-corrected percentile method Percentile method

Structural paths b CI p b CI p
WtoFC → WFB −.39 [−.71, −.13] .013 −.39 [−.72, −.14] .012
FtoWC→ WFB .04 [−.24, .37] .845 .04 [−.23, .37] .826
WFB→FS .58 [.41, .74] .000 .58 [.42, .75] .000
WFB→JS .38 [.15, .58] .024 .38 [.16, .58] .022
WtoFC→JS −.35 [−.72, −.10] .015 −.35 [−.70, −.09] .020
FtoFC→JS .20 [−.06, .53] .207 .20 [−.06, .52] .224
WtoFC→FSa .27 [.05, .52] .049 .27 [.07, .56] .032
FtoWC→FS −.16 [−.41, .03] .184 −.16 [−.43, .02] .155

CI: confidence interval; b: unstandardized regression Weight, b-values are computed through bootstrapping procedure
with 218 cases and 5000 bootstrap samples; a: suppression effect.

All the construct correlations were less than the square root of AVE. Hence, all the constructs used in
this study were distinct and theoretically related (Straub et al., 2004).
In the second step, the structural model was tested using the Bollen–Stine bootstrap estimation
method (Byrne, 2009), because this method is appropriate to estimate the parameter values with
the non-normal data. This method of estimation is best suited to the data for the proposed structural
model (Hair et al., 2009). The parameter estimate and its unstandardized regression (b) values
along with the confidence interval (CI) and p are given in Table 5. If the CI included zero between
its upper and lower bound limit, then the direct or indirect effect value is considered to be
insignificant.
In order to establish the direct and indirect effects of WtoFC and FtoWC on job and family
satisfaction and to select the best fit model, the mediation role of WFB was tested using Baron and
Kenny (1986) steps. We have tested two models, a fully mediated model having direct paths from
WtoFC and FtoFC to job and family satisfaction, and a partially mediated model having direct
paths from WtoFC and FtoWC to job and family satisfaction.
Direct and indirect effects were tested using the bootstrapping procedure with 5000 bootstrap
samples. The estimated structural model is presented in Figures 1 and 2.
From the above structural model, it is evident that WtoFC was negatively related to WFB
(b = −.39, p < .05), but FtoWC was not statistically related to WFB (b = .04, p = .84). Thus, objective
one was partially supported. WFB was positively related to job satisfaction (b = .38, p < .05) and
family satisfaction (b = .58, p < .001). Thus, objective two was supported.
226 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

Figure 1.  Partial mediation model.

Model fit: χ2 = 118.80, df = 81, p = .004, χ2/df = 1.47, GFI = .93, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, RMR = .07.
Insignificant paths are shown in dashed lines.

Figure 2.  Full mediation model.

Model fit: χ2 = 133.67, df = 85, p = .001, χ2/df = 1.57, GFI = .92, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, RMR = .08.
Insignificant path is shown in dashed lines.

To assess whether mediation was present in the theoretical model, we used the recommenda-
tions of Preacher and Hayes (2004) and Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) utilizing the bias-corrected
and percentile bootstrap CIs addressing some flaws related to the Sobel test. The bias-corrected
and percentile bootstrap methods can be conducted in AMOS.
The indirect effect values with lower and upper bound limits for bias-corrected and percentile
bootstrap methods are given in Table 6. While testing the partial mediation model, we found a
significant negative relationship between WtoFC and job satisfaction (b = −.35, p <.01). However,
Pattusamy and Jacob 227

Table 6.  Standardized indirect effects with lower and upper bound limits.

Indirect paths Indirect Bootstrap method

effect
  value Bias-corrected Percentile
percentile method method

  CI p CI p
WtoFC→ WFB→ JS −.14 [−.30, −.04] .012 [−.28, −.03] .034
FtoWC→ WFB→ FS .02 [−.14, .22] .837 [−.13, .23] .826
WtoFC→ WFB→ FS −.21 [−.41, −.07] .012 [−.40, −.07] .012
FtoWC→ WFB→ JS .01 [−.09, .15] .792 [−.09, .15] .825

CI: confidence interval.

Indirect effect values are computed through bootstrapping procedure with 218 cases and 5000 bootstrap samples.

the relationship between WtoFC and family satisfaction was significant (b = .27, p <.05), but the
sign was in the opposite direction. This implied the existence of a suppression effect (MacKinnon,
Krull, & Lockwood, 2000).
The mediation test offers partial support for both mediational hypotheses since the indirect
effect does not include zero in the CI for WtoFC to both the satisfactions (job and family)
through WFB. Therefore, there exists a partial support for objective three. The research model
showed a full mediation effect. For the entire research model, the amount of variance that
accounted for endogenous constructs was modest: for WFB, it was 10%, job satisfaction was
33%, and family satisfaction was 39%. A supplementary analysis was also conducted to test the
full mediation effect. The full mediation model does not fit well with the data compared with the
partial mediation model (Partial mediation model: χ2 = 118.80, df = 81, p = .004, χ2/df = 1.47,
GFI = .93, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, RMR = .07; Full mediation model: χ2 = 133.67, df = 85,
p = .001, χ2/df = 1.57, GFI = .92, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, RMR = .08). In the full mediation
model, the link between FtoWC and WFB was insignificant. The corresponding results are pre-
sented in Figure 2. Finally, this study established a partial mediation effect between WtoFC and
satisfaction (job and family) through WFB.

Discussion
This study augments to the growing literature on WFB. Based on the role balance theory, we tested
the effect of WtoFC and FtoWC on job and family satisfaction through WFB. Additionally, the
study also showed the direct effect of WtoFC on WFB and indirect effect on job and family satis-
faction of individuals through a mediating process. Our results also explained the association of
WtoFC and FtoWC on job and family satisfaction. In particular, the indirect effect of WtoFC on
job and family satisfaction through WFB was substantially stronger. In other words, in cases where
WtoFC is lower, the individual’s satisfaction in their job and family responsibilities increased with
the help of balanced work and family roles. Overall, there exists a strong support for WFB influ-
encing job satisfaction and family satisfaction regardless of WtoFC (Aryee et al., 2005; Carlson
et al., 2009; Haar, 2013). An inconsistent finding from this study was the inability to detect the
significant effect of FtoWC on WFB and job and family satisfaction. Previous research has also
reported similar inconsistencies (Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Lu et al., 2009). In the past, few studies
had established significant impact of FtoWC on WFB and some of the psychological outcomes
(Greenhaus et al., 2012; Haar, 2013).
228 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

The findings have also supported the direct effect of WFB on job satisfaction. A balanced work
and family role positively enhances satisfaction in routine jobs done by individuals in an organiza-
tion. Similarly, a balanced work and family environment enhances satisfaction in an individual’s
family activities. Additionally, in the partial and full mediational models, the variance explained in
family satisfaction was considerably higher than job satisfaction. This shows that WFB makes a
relatively less contribution to job satisfaction than family satisfaction. Therefore, balanced work
and family life is more important for individuals to be satisfied with their family responsibilities
than work role responsibilities. Moreover, job satisfaction of the individuals may be determined by
some of the work domain constructs other than WFB. WFB helps individuals to manage their fam-
ily responsibilities effectively by getting adequate time to spend with family. Thus, the WFB
strongly contributes to family satisfaction rather than job satisfaction. Furthermore, the impact of
WtoFC and FtoWC on WFB is low (10%), indicating that other factors may be influencing WFB.
However, some authors include work–family enrichment and family–work enrichment (Carlson
et al., 2009; Haar, 2013) as possible precursors to WFB.
In the mediation analysis, we found partial mediation for both the satisfaction constructs through
WFB from WtoFC (not for FtoWC). Thus, in order to reduce WtoFC and improve job and family
satisfaction, individuals are required to maintain a better balance between their work and family
roles. Furthermore, current literature and this study suggest that WFB is different from WFC
(Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus et al., 2012). This study also produced strong evidence to prove
that WFB is different from WtoFC and FtoWC in the Indian sample. It also found support from
previous literature related to the effect of WFC on WFB (e.g., Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus
et al., 2012; Haar, 2013).
This study result supports the fact that the teaching faculty can enhance their work and family
satisfaction by balancing their work and family roles. Correspondingly, this study validates the fact
that focusing on the maintenance of a balance between work and family roles may be moderately
valuable, due to the partial mediation effect established in this study. Consequently, organizations
must focus on modifying the existing practices so as to improve employee balance between their
work and family roles. Higher educational institutions can implement specific WFB practices such
as flexible schedule benefits, support from the superior, co-workers, and organization, and addi-
tional leave benefits to help the faculty to manage their academic and family responsibilities in an
even-handed way (Haar, 2013). By this, the faculty members may be able to balance their work and
family-related activities effectively, leading to satisfaction in work and family.
Overall, this research provides evidence that individuals with higher WFB are more satisfied
with their job and family than those with lower WFB (Haar, 2013). This study has also partially
replicated Greenhaus et al.’s (2012) research to test the link between WtoFC, FtoWC, and
WFB.
In this study, since the data were collected through self-reporting, there was a possibility of
common method bias. The common method bias was tested by the single-factor (Harman’s) test.
However, common method bias is not a serious concern and it may not inflate the relationship
among the constructs (Spector, 2006). Another limitation of this study with respect to sampling
is the limited availability of the database of faculty members. This study lays the foundation for
specific future research. First, the present research work has proved the relationship between
WtoFC and WFB and has provided evidence to establish that these two constructs are distinct.
Future studies are required to test this effect with different samples. Second, through mediation
analysis, the effect of WtoFC on satisfaction through WFB was partially supported and we did
not obtain any effect of FtoWC on satisfaction through WFB. Further frameworks may be
required to use both the directions of WFC and work–family enrichment to test this effect (Jaga
& Bagraim, 2011).
Pattusamy and Jacob 229

Conclusion
Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this study has provided key insights to the existing work–
family literature. The study linked WFC with WFB by considering that the two constructs are
distinct. The study also provided sufficient evidence for the partial mediating effect of WtoFC on
satisfaction (job and family) through WFB. Finally, it was established that employees can enhance
their satisfaction in both job and family by balancing their work with the family.

Acknowledgements
I sincerely thank Joseph Grzywacz, Florida State University and three anonymous reviewers of the South
African Journal of Psychology for the invaluable help and guidance in drafting the earlier version of this
article. We acknowledge the assistance of www.manuscriptedit.com and www.valardocs.com for English
language editing and proofreading of the article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work-family
conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain rela-
tions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151–169.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132–146.
Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Clark, M. A. (2010). Examining the relationships between personality, cop-
ing strategies, and work–family conflict. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 517–530.
Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2010). Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interven-
tions for work-life balance and job outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 274–300.
Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Examining the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between
work-family antecedents and work-family enrichment. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 26, 122–147.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and fam-
ily satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 71, 265–281.
Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. (2009). Work-family balance: Theoretical and empirical advancements. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 581–585.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and program-
ming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrich-
ment? Human Relations, 62, 1459–1486.
230 South African Journal of Psychology 46(2)

Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53,
747–770.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in
IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
124–197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of per-
son-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 77, 85–129.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Zivnuska, S., & Whitten, D. (2012). Support at work and home: The path to satis-
faction through balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 299–307.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational
health psychology (pp. 13–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict,
family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19, 197–220.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: A review and extension of the literature.
In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 165–183).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Ziegert, J. C., & Allen, T. D. (2012). When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations
between multiple sources of support and work–family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
266–275.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work—Family balance: Implications for practice
and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455–471.
Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees
from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3305–3324.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive
influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50, 49–58.
Jaga, A., & Bagraim, J. (2011). The relationship between work-family enrichment and work-family satisfac-
tion outcomes. South African Journal of Psychology, 41, 52–62.
Karatepe, O. M., & Baddar, L. (2006). An empirical study of the selected consequences of frontline employ-
ees’ work-family conflict and family-work conflict. Tourism Management, 27, 1017–1028.
Lu, J. F., Siu, O. L., Spector, P. E., & Shi, K. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of
work-family balance in Chinese employed parents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14,
182–192.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Chang, T.-T., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., . . . Spector, P. E. (2010). Cross-
cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A Taiwanese-British comparison.
Human Resource Management, 49, 67–85.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and
suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 417–432.
Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test
of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74, 199–218.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict
and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.
Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Bobko, P. (2011). Work–family balance, well-being, and organizational
outcomes: Investigating actual versus desired work/family time discrepancies. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 27, 331–343.
Pattusamy and Jacob 231

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Post, C., DiTomaso, N., Farris, G. F., & Cordero, R. (2009). Work–family conflict and turnover intentions
among scientists and engineers working in R&D. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 19–32.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple media-
tion models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Proost, K., De Witte, H., De Witte, K., & Schreurs, B. (2010). Work–family conflict and facilitation: The
combined influence of the job demand–control model and achievement striving. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 615–628.
Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., & Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family
conflict. Personnel Review, 32, 275–296.
Rupert, P. A., Stevanovic, P., Hartman, E. R. T., Bryant, F. B., & Miller, A. (2012). Predicting work–family
conflict and life satisfaction among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 43, 341–348.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380–427.
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satis-
faction with work-family balance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523.
Warner, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (2009). Understanding work-to-family conflict: The role of organization and
supervisor support for work-life issues. Organization Management Journal, 6, 130–145.
Watanabe, M., & Falci, C. D. (2014). A demands and resources approach to understanding faculty turno-
ver intentions due to work-family balance. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1177/0192513X14530972
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.