Organizational Support Factors and Work - Family Outcomes: Exploring Gender Differences

585809
research-article2015
JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X15585809Journal of Family IssuesClark et al.
Article
Journal of Family Issues
1–26
Organizational Support © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Factors and Work– sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X15585809
Family Outcomes: jfi.sagepub.com
Exploring Gender
Differences
Malissa A. Clark1, Cort W. Rudolph2,

Ludmila Zhdanova3, Jesse S. Michel4,
and Boris B. Baltes5
Abstract
The present study examines the relationship between a variety of
organizational support factors and work–family outcomes, as well as
gender differences in these relationships. A random sample of 229 working
adults completed phone surveys, and multiple regression analysis was used
to test the proposed relationships. Results showed that certain types of
support may differentially benefit women and men, highlighting the value
of having a supervisor and organization supportive of work–family balance.
For example, having a supportive work–family supervisor was related to
lower negative work–family spillover and intent to quit for women, and
higher job satisfaction for men. Telecommuting use, on the other hand, was
more beneficial for men than women in our sample. Given these findings,
organizations should be aware that certain forms of support—particularly
1The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

2SaintLouis University, St. Louis, MO, USA
3Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
4Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
5Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Malissa A. Clark, Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia, Psychology Building,
Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Email: clarkm@uga.edu
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 14, 2015
2 Journal of Family Issues
supervisor work–family support—may benefit men and women through

different mechanisms.
Keywords
gender, work–family spillover, family-supportive organization perceptions,
supervisor support, flextime, telecommuting, compressed workweeks
In recent decades, there has been a dramatic shift in the demographic makeup
of the U.S. workforce. In 2011, women accounted for 47% of all employees
in the workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013), and an increasing
number of employees are in dual-earner households (Eby, Casper, Lockwood,
Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Perhaps,
reflecting these changing workforce demographics, organizations have
become more responsive to work–family issues, offering a wider array of
formal work–family policies as well as fostering a culture supportive of
work–family needs. Research has shown that women may take advantage of
family-friendly policies to a greater degree than men (Hill, Martinson,
Hawkins, & Ferris, 2003), perhaps, because utilizing such resources (e.g.,
flextime) is more socially acceptable for women than men (Blair-Loy &
Wharton, 2004). Furthermore, work resources may serve different purposes
and be differentially effective for women and men (Feldman, Fisher, Ransom,
& Dimiceli, 1995; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Despite these potential
differences in the use and effectiveness of organizational support factors for
men and women, these issues are rarely examined in the literature.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the present
article extends previous studies that have examined only one or two specific
types of support (Kelly, Moen, & Tranby, 2011; Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2010),
or that have combined all formal policies into a composite measure (Baral &
Bhargava, 2010; Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Greene-Shortridge,2012). Second,
the present study answers calls to examine gender differences in the relation-
ship between a variety of organizational support factors and work–family
outcomes (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Kacmar, 2010; Parasuraman & Greenhaus,
2002). Although studies have focused on gender differences in mean levels of
variables (e.g., in usage of policies, in perceptions of supportive supervisor),
few studies have examined gender differences in the relationship between
several organizational support factors and work–family outcomes
(Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). Given recent research findings that
work–life benefits use (as a composite) influences organizational commit-
ment through different mechanisms for men and women (Casper & Harris,
Clark et al. 3
2008), it is clear that more research is needed to further examine the role of
gender in these relationships. Third, this is one of only a handful of studies to
examine the actual utilization of various organizational policies, as most
studies have focused on availability rather than usage (e.g., Baral & Bhargava,
2010; Odle-Dusseau et al.,2012; Wang et al.,2010). Fourth, the majority of
research relating to organizational support factors has focused on their rela-
tion with negative work–family spillover (e.g., work–family conflict; Brough,
O’Driscoll, & Kalliath, 2005), but little is known about how these support
factors influence positive work–family spillover (e.g., work–family facilita-
tion or enrichment). Given that different processes may underlie positive and
negative work–family spillover (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan,2005), it is impor-
tant to examine how organizational resources may relate to both negative and
positive outcomes. Finally, the present study examines these relationships
with a random sample of Michigan residents, which is unlike the majority of
work–family studies that heavily rely on narrowly defined convenience sam-
ples (Frone, 2000).
Organizational Support Factors and Work–Family Outcomes

Organizations may offer a variety of supports for families, composed of both
informal and formal practices and policies. In the present study, we use the
categorization by Hammer, Kossek, Zimmerman, and Daniels (2007) and
examine how gender moderates the relationship between: (a) family-support-
ive organization perceptions (FSOP), which refer to the employees’ percep-
tion that the organization is family-supportive; (b) supervisor work–family
support, or the employees’ perception that their supervisor is family-support-
ive; and (c) organizational policies (i.e., flextime, telecommuting, com-
pressed workweeks); on both negative and positive work–family outcomes.
On a broad level, the relationship between each of these organizational
support factors and work–family outcomes can be explained through conser-
vation of resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) and the principles of fixed resources
and resource drain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). According to COR, indi-
viduals have a finite amount of resources (time, energy, attention), and if
resources are spent in one role (e.g., work), there is a decrease in resources
available for use in another role (e.g., family). Thus, COR theory serves to
explain how people respond to stressors in their environment and how man-
aging those stressors influence outcomes such as negative work–family spill-
over and intent to quit (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). The COR model
proposes that people try to prevent resource loss and seek to attain and sustain
resources that are important to them. By offering employees support for their
work–family needs, the organization might mitigate the amount of resource
drain felt by employees. For example, allowing employees to work flexible

hours may reduce time demands attributable to conflicting work and family
schedules. Similarly, a supervisor who is family-supportive may provide
employees emotional (e.g., serve as a sounding board) or instrumental (e.g.,
offer suggestions for assistance) support, which can help employees cope
more effectively with work or family demands. Empirical research supports
the notion that organizational support factors decrease employees’ negative
work–family spillover and intent to quit (Clark, 2002; Thompson, Beauvais,
& Lyness,1999).
Organizational support factors should be related to positive work–family
spillover and job satisfaction, as these resources can be an important source
of developmental, affective, and capital gains. Working in a family-friendly
environment may engender feelings of positive affect or confidence that car-
ries over and enhances functioning of the family (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson,
& Kacmar, 2007). COR theory and the concept of resource gain spiral would
suggest these individuals are more likely to acquire new resources to help
them perform in their family role because resource acquisition is additive
(Hobfoll, 1989). Furthermore, a supportive work environment can enhance
flexibility, which better enables individuals to integrate their work and family
roles (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Research has also shown links
between organizational support factors and the related concept of work–fam-
ily facilitation (Aryee et al., 2005), as well as with job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Heuman, 1999;
Casper & Harris, 2008). In sum, both theory and research support the idea
that employees can benefit when their organization is supportive of their
work–family needs. However, little attention has been paid to the role of
gender in these relationships.
Examining the Role of Gender

Although there is evidence that a growing number of men espouse egalitarian
values (particularly those with a spouse who is also employed; Parasuraman
& Greenhaus, 2002), societal norms and traditional gender role expectations
that men should be more invested in the work domain, whereas women
should be more invested in the family domain still greatly influence behavior
and attitudes toward managing work and family roles (Bagger, Li, &
Gutek,2008; Blair-Loy, 2003). For example, based on gendered expectations
related to parenting and household duties, women on average continue to
take on more child care and household responsibilities than men (Coltrane,
2000; Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond,2011). Given the greater family role
demands, working women may experience greater resource drain than
Clark et al. 5
working men (Hobfoll, 1989), and as a result may experience greater benefits
from organizational support factors. Furthermore, social identity theory
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989) suggests that individuals are especially concerned
with factors that benefit or threaten their most central identity (e.g., work,
family). To the extent that women view their family identity as more central
to their self-perceptions than their work identity, women will benefit more
than men from informal and formal support factors that allow them to better
attend to family needs and responsibilities. This focus on family is also con-
sistent with sex role theory and gender role prescriptions that women should
be more concerned with family than with work (Blair-Loy, 2003; Pleck,
1977). Indeed, research has shown that women generally invest more into
their family role than their work role (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa,1991), and
women with children were more likely than men with children to report they
were family-centric (Families and Work Institute, 2004).
Women, more so than men, may also place a greater value on informal
forms of organizational support that are of a social nature (e.g., supervisor
support; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Wayneet al., 2007), due to differences
in socialization regarding relationships (Gilligan, 1980). Specifically, women
are socialized to be more dependent on social attachments for their identity,
whereas men are socialized to be more dependent on work and professional
accomplishments (Gallos, 1989). Research has supported this idea, showing
that women tend to utilize social networks at work to increase their pool of
useful information and advice more so than men (Friedman & Greenhaus,
2000). There is empirical evidence to support the idea of gender as a modera-
tor of the relationship between informal organizational support (e.g., FSOP,
supervisor support) and outcomes. For example, Hill (2005) found that the
relationship between a supportive organizational culture and work–family
facilitation was positive for working mothers and negative for working fathers.
Additionally, Batt and Valcour (2003) found that supervisor work–family sup-
port was related to lower work–family conflict for women but not men, and
Raghuram,Luksyte, Avery, and Macoukji (2012) found that men’s overall
stress levels remained constant regardless of the level of general supervisor
support, but women had significantly lower levels of stress when supervisor
support was high. For ease of presentation, we have organized our study
hypotheses by valence: negatively valenced work–family outcomes include
negative spillover and intent to quit, whereas positively valenced work–family
outcomes include positive spillover and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1:The relationship between FSOP and negative work–family

outcomes (i.e., negative spillover and intent to quit) are stronger for
women than men.
Hypothesis 2:The relationship between FSOP and positive work–family

outcomes (i.e., positive spillover and job satisfaction) are stronger for
women than men.
Hypothesis 3:The relationship between supervisor work–family support
and negative work–family outcomes (i.e., negative spillover and intent to
quit) is stronger for women than men.
Hypothesis 4:The relationship between supervisor work–family support
and positive work–family outcomes (i.e., positive spillover and job satis-
faction) is stronger for women than men.
We also predict that the relationship between use of formal policies (e.g.,
flextime, telecommuting) and work–family outcomes may differ for men and
women. Specifically, based on the aforementioned theoretical rationale, we
hypothesize that women will experience greater positive outcomes through
the utilization of formal organizational policies including flextime, telecom-
muting, and compressed workweeks. Empirical evidence also supports the
idea that men and women react to and benefit from various organizational
support policies differently. For example, research has shown that women are
more likely than men to highly value flexible work options (Catalyst, 2001),
which may at least partially explain why flextime has been shown to reduce
work–family conflict (Casper & Harris, 2008) and enhance commitment
(Carlson et al., 2010) and job satisfaction (Scandura & Lankau, 1997) more
effectively for women than for men. Additionally, using percentage of women
employed at a given company as a proxy for gender, Konrad and Mangel
(2000) found that the larger the percentage of women employed at a company,
the stronger the relationship between the organization’s formal work–life pro-
grams and firm productivity. Overall, we hypothesize that women will be
more likely to benefit from formal organizational support factors than men.
Hypothesis 5:The relationship between flextime use and negative work–

family outcomes (i.e., negative spillover and intent to quit) is stronger for
women than men.
Hypothesis 6:The relationship between flextime use and positive work–
family outcomes (i.e., positive spillover and job satisfaction) is stronger
for women than men.
Hypothesis 7:The relationship between telecommuting use and negative
work–family outcomes (i.e., negative spillover and intent to quit) is stron-
ger for women than men.
Hypothesis 8:The relationship between telecommuting use and positive
work–family outcomes (i.e., positive spillover and job satisfaction) is
stronger for women than men.
Clark et al. 7
Hypothesis 9:The relationship between compressed workweek use and

negative work–family outcomes (i.e., negative spillover and intent to quit)
is stronger for women than men.
Hypothesis 10:The relationship between compressed workweek use and
positive work–family outcomes (i.e., positive spillover and job satisfac-
tion) is stronger for women than men.
Although not a main focus of the present study, we also examined the
potential differential relationships between negative and positive spillover
and the outcomes of job satisfaction and intention to quit. Researchers have
speculated that work and family variables are more strongly related to each
other for women than men because men are more likely to mentally separate
work and family roles than women (Andrews & Bailyn, 1993; Rothbard,
2001). There is some empirical evidence to support this idea. For example, in
Kossek and Ozeki’s (1998) meta-analysis, work–family conflict was more
strongly related to job and life satisfaction for women than men. Duxbury and
Higgins (1991) found a stronger relationship between work–family conflict
and quality of work life for women than for men, but the relationship between
work–family conflict and quality of family life was stronger for men than for
women. Ergeneli, Ilsev, and Karapinar(2010) found that work–family con-
flict was more strongly related to women’s job satisfaction than men’s, but
this also depended on employees’ stress-resilient interpretive habits. Due to
the lack of a clear theoretical explanation for these differences, we study
these relationships in an exploratory manner.
Research Question:Do the relationships between work–family spillover

and (a) job satisfaction and (b) intent to quit differ for men and women?
Method
Procedure
The present study was part of a statewide survey of Michigan residents, 18
years and older, conducted annually by the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne
State University. Inclusion into the statewide survey is determined based on
a competitive call for proposals. During the first stage of the statewide sur-
vey, trained telephone interviewers called a random sample of 5,498 active
telephone numbers of Michigan residents. Each number was called up to 8
times over a period of 6 months. Paper copies of surveys were sent to all
nonrespondents for whom the center researchers had a mailing address (n =
2,116). Respondents were also given the option to complete surveys over the
web. A total of 630 surveys were completed (60% via telephone, 3% via web,
and 37% via mail). Using the American Association of Public Opinion
Researchers’ approved response rate calculation, which includes removing a
portion of the unknown numbers from the sample, a total response rate of
25.5% was obtained. Only full-time employees were included in our sample,
which brought the final sample size to 229.
Participants
The sample consisted of 229 working adults employed full-time in a variety
of industries. Based on participants’ self-reported job descriptions, we coded
these into one of 20 possible industry classifications based on the North
American Industry Classification System (www.census.gov). In total, 17
industry sectors were represented in our sample, with the greatest number of
individuals working in administration and support (20%, n = 46), profes-
sional, scientific, and technical services (15%, n = 34), and health care (13%,
n = 29). Forty-one percent (n = 94) indicated that they held supervisory posi-
tions. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 70 years (M = 46 years), of which
60% (n = 138) were women, 78% (n = 179) were parents, and 65% (n = 149)
were married. The majority of our sample was White (85.6%), followed by
Black (7.4%), Hispanic (2%), Asian (2%), and other (3%). We did not limit
our sample to only those who were married or parents, but we did include
marital and parental status as control variables. Examining work–family out-
comes for only those who are married or parents reflects an overly narrow
conceptualization of family (Frone, 2003).
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures used a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indi-
cate higher levels of each construct.
Family-Supportive Organization Perceptions. Perception of the degree to which

the organization is family-friendly was assessed with a single item adapted
from Thompson et al.’s(1999) scale: “In general, this organization is accom-
modating of family-related needs.” Research has supported the use of such
single-item measures if the construct is unidimensional (Loo, 2002). To dem-
onstrate convergent validity evidence for this measure, a separate study was
conducted using a sample of 99 adults working at least 20 hours per week.
Our measure of FSOP was correlated .72 with Thompson et al.’s (1999) scale,
thus supporting the adequacy of our one-item measure.
Clark et al. 9
Supervisor Work–Family Support. A five-item scale developed by Kossek

(1990) was used to measure supervisor work–family support. Response
options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example
item is “My supervisor is supportive of my need to juggle work and family
responsibilities.” Coefficient alpha in the present study was .95.
Use of Flextime,Telecommuting, and Compressed Workweeks. Use of three sepa-

rate family-friendly policies was assessed with a scale adapted from Sinclair,
Hannigan, and Tetrick(1995). Respondents were asked to indicate if their
employer provides, and whether or not they had used, each of the following
benefits: flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and compressed work-
weeks. Because our focus was on utilization, not availability, of policies,
responses were coded as 1 if respondents indicated their organization offered
the support and they had used it; and 0 if they indicated either (a) their orga-
nization did not offer the support or (b) their organization offered the support
but they had not used it.
Negative Work-to-Family Spillover. Negative work-to-family spillover was mea-

sured with a four-item scale developed by Grzywacz and Marks (2000). Par-
ticipants responded on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time). An example
item is “My job reduces the effort I can give to activities at home.” Coeffi-
cient alpha in the present study was .73.
Positive Work-to-Family Spillover. Positive work-to-family spillover was mea-

sured with a three-item scale developed by Grzywacz and Marks (2000). Par-
ticipants responded on a scale of 1 (never)to5 (all of the time). An example
item is “The things I do at work help me deal with personal and practical
issues at home.” Coefficient alpha in the present study was .72.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with two items from Hackman
and Oldham’s (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey. A sample item is “Generally
speaking, I am very satisfied with this job.” Coefficient alpha in the present
study was .75.
Intent to Quit. Intent to quit was assessed with Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,
and Klesh’s(1979) three-item measure. A sample item is “I often think about
quitting.” Coefficient alpha in the present study was .77.
Control Variables. Marital status (single = 0, married or in a committed rela-

tionship = 1) and parental status (no children = 0, children = 1) were included
as control variables.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To provide evidence for the distinctiveness of

each of our study variables, we conducted an overall confirmatory analysis
with each of our support factors (with the three policies loading on to an
overall “policy” factor) and outcome variables. The overall model fit the data
well: χ2(1156) = 308.85, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .06; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = .93; Akaike Information Crite-
rion (AIC) = 14057.47. Additionally, this model fit the data significantly bet-
ter than an alternative one-factor model: χ2(1171) = 1943.97, p < .001;
RMSEA = .19; TLI = .26; AIC = 15662.59; χ2 difference (15, N = 229) =
1635.12, p < .001.
Results
As a first step, the pattern of missing data were examined. Excluding items
clearly not relevant to some participants (e.g., items asking about child care);
there was an average of less than 5% missing data at the item level. Little’s
(1988) missing completely at random test was conducted, and the chi-square
value for this test was nonsignificant (χ2 = 626.93, df = 598, ns), which indi-
cates that no identifiable pattern exists to the missing data. Thus, missing data
were handled via multiple imputations based on the expectation maximiza-
tion algorithm. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions for study variables separately for men and women. There were
significant gender differences in telecommuting usage (t = −2.26, p < .05),
with men reporting significantly higher usage (M = 0.30) than women (M =
0.17). No other gender differences were found for the other study variables.
Multiple regression analyses were run to test our hypotheses.
Turning next to the multiple regression analyses, prior to entering the
interaction terms to investigate the moderating role of gender in the relation-
ship between organizational support factors and work–family outcomes, we
first entered all control variables and each predictor variable. As shown in
Table 2, at this first step, the variables cumulatively explained a significant
amount of variance in negative work–family spillover (R2= .18, p < .001),
positive work–family spillover (R2= .11, p < .01), job satisfaction (R2= .37, p
< .01), and intent to quit (R2= .44, p < .001). FSOP was a significant predictor
of negative work–family spillover (β= −.30, p < .001). Supervisor work–
family support was a significant predictor of positive work–family spillover
(β= .21, p < .05). FSOP (β= .33, p < .001), supervisor work–family support
(β= .18, p < .05), negative work–family spillover (β= −.18, p < .01) and posi-
tive work–family spillover (β= .15, p < .05) were significant predictors of job
satisfaction. FSOP (β= −.15, p < .05), telecommuting use (β= −.13, p < .05),
negative work–family spillover (β= .14, p < .05), positive work–family
Table 1. Study Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.
Men Women Intercorrelations
M SD M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. FSOP 5.59 1.74 5.05 2.12 — .52** .15 .11 .06 −.23* .31** .45** −.37**
2. Supervisor work–family support 3.79 0.99 3.56 1.14 .67** — .06 .15 .04 −.02 .32** .47** −.26*
3. Flextime use 0.45 0.50 0.36 0.48 .23** .16 — .42** .46** .10 .19 .02 −.15
4. Telecommuting use 0.30 0.46 0.16 0.37 .22* .12 .41** — .22* .12 .08 −.03 −.27*
5. Compressed workweek use 0.24 0.43 0.19 0.39 −.03 .06 .37** .21* — .10 .11 −.05 −.10
6. Negative work–family spillover 2.41 0.61 2.57 0.73 −.41** −.42** −.13 −.08 −.11 — .03 −.26* .27*
7. Positive work–family spillover 2.85 0.81 2.85 0.92 .22* .26** .17 .17 .02 −.13 — .26* −.28**
8. Job satisfaction 5.77 1.47 5.66 1.40 .58** .46** .14 .15 .08 −.41** .32** — −.57**
9. Intent to quit 2.29 1.47 2.65 1.70 −.56** −.56** −.11 −.13 .01 .38** −.34** −.58** —
Note. FSOP =family-supportive organization perceptions. n (men) = 87, n (women) = 131 due to listwise deletion. Intercorrelations for women are below the diagonal and
intercorrelations for men are above the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
11
spillover (β= −.12, p < .05), and job satisfaction (β= −.35, p < .001) were
significant predictors of intent to quit.
Moderating Role of Gender

In Step 2, the interaction terms were entered into the regression equation (see
Table 2). Significant interaction effects were examined graphically (see
Figures 1 through 4) and simple slopes are presented in Table 3. The overall
regressions were significant, as the control variables, antecedent variables,
and interaction terms cumulatively explained a significant amount of vari-
ance in negative work–family spillover (R2= .21, p < .001), positive work–
family spillover (R2= .12, p < .05), job satisfaction (R2= .40, p < .001), and
intent to quit (R2= .48, p < .01).
Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that gender would moderate the relationship
between FSOP and work–family outcomes; however,none of the interactions
were significant. In support of Hypothesis 3, gender significantly moderated
the relationship between supervisor work–family support and negative work–
family outcomes (see Figures 1 and 2). The relationship between supervisor
work–family support and intent to quit was negative and significant for
women (b = −0.23, SE = 0.11, p < .05) but not for men. Additionally, the
relationship between supervisor work–family support and negative work–
family spillover was negative and significant for women (b = −0.10, SE =
0.05, p < .05) but not for men. Our Hypothesis 4, which predicted that gender
would moderate the relationship between supervisor work–family support
and positive work–family outcomes, was not supported. Although gender
significantly moderated the relationship between supervisor work–family
support and job satisfaction (see Figure 3), findings were contrary to our
hypothesis. Specifically, the relationship between supervisor work–family
support and job satisfaction was positive and significant for men (b = 0.66,
SE = 0.19, p < .001) but not for women. Gender did not moderate the relation-
ship between supervisor work–family support and positive spillover.
Hypotheses 5 to 10 predicted that gender would moderate the relationship
between policy use (flextime, telecommuting, and compressed workweek)
and the positive and negative outcome variables. These analyses revealed one
significant interaction (Hypothesis 7), but it was in the opposite direction as
hypothesized. Specifically, the effect of use of telecommuting on intent to
quit was negative and significant for men (b = −1.37, SE = 0.47, p < .01) but
not for women. Figure 4 depicts this relationship in terms of conditional
mean-levels of intent to quit. Finally, no gender differences were found relat-
ing to our research question. Specifically, the relationships between negative
and positive work–family spillover and the outcome variables of job
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Results for Covariates, Main Effects, and Moderator Analyses.
Negative work–family Positive work–family
spillover spillover Job satisfaction Intent to quit
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Marital status 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13* −0.05 −0.02
Parental status −0.16* −0.16* −0.02 −0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04
Gender −0.09 −0.09 −0.06 −0.07 −0.07 −0.07 −0.02 −0.03
FSOP −0.30*** −0.27** 0.09 0.07 0.33*** 0.36*** −0.15* −0.13
Supervisor work–family support −0.12 −0.13 0.21* 0.23** 0.18* 0.17* −0.12 −0.12
Flextime use 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.12 −0.03 −0.01 0.03 0.03
Telecommuting use 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 −0.01 −0.02 −0.13* −0.14*
Compressed workweek use −0.04 −0.04 −0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00
Negative work–family spillover — — — — −0.18** −0.19** 0.14* 0.11
Positive work–family spillover — — — — 0.15* 0.15* −0.12* −0.13*
Job satisfaction — — — — — — −0.35*** −0.39***
Gender * FSOP — −0.03 — 0.09 — −0.06 — 0.03
Gender * Supervisor work–family support — 0.17* — 0.01 — 0.17* — 0.18**
Gender *Flextime use — 0.04 — 0.02 — 0.07 — 0.00
Gender *Telecommuting use — 0.03 — −0.09 — −0.08 — −0.12*
Gender *Compressed workweeks use — 0.07 — 0.04 — −0.07 — −0.06
Gender *Negative work–family spillover — — — — — −0.03 — 0.04
Gender * Positive work–family spillover — — — — — −0.05 — 0.00
df (8, 209) (13, 204) (8, 209) (13, 204) (10, 207) (17, 200) (11, 206) (19, 198)
F 5.59*** 4.27*** 3.23** 2.21* 12.34*** 7.89*** 14.94*** 9.76**
R2 .18 .21 .11 .12 .37 .40 .44 .48
Note. FSOP =family-supportive organization perceptions; df = degrees of freedom. N = 229. Gender, 1 = women and 2 = men.
13
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Figure 1. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between supervisor work–

family support and negative work–family spillover.
satisfaction and intent to quit were not significantly moderated by gender (see
Table 2). Thus, the research question was not supported.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to develop a better understanding of how various
organizational support factors influence work–family outcomes and the role
of gender in these experiences. Results obtained from a random sample of
Michigan residents who worked full-time revealed four key findings: (a)
some organizational support factors (e.g., FSOP) appear to be beneficial for
both men and women; (b) some organizational support factors, particularly
supervisor work–family support, may benefit men and women through dif-
ferent underlying mechanisms; (c) supervisor work–family support was the
Clark et al. 15
Table 3. Simple Slopes for Significant Interactions.
Standard
Variable Outcome Simple slope error t Value p Value
Supervisor work– Negative work–family spillover (df = 204)
familysupport Women −0.10* 0.05 −1.96 0.05
Men 0.12 0.10 1.18 0.24
Job satisfaction (df = 200)
Women 0.18 0.10 1.74 0.08
Men 0.66*** 0.19 3.48 0.00
Telecommuting use Intent to quit (df = 198)
Women −0.46 0.23 −1.95 0.05
Men −1.37** 0.47 −2.91 0.00
Supervisor work– Intent to quit (df = 198)
family support Women −0.23* 0.11 −2.15 0.03
Men 0.32 0.21 1.50 0.13
Note.df = degrees of freedom.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
only significant predictor of positive work–family spillover; and (d) contrary

to predictions, men appear to use and benefit more than women from tele-
commuting use. Below, we discuss the implications of these findings on
theory and practice and suggestions for future research.
In the present study, we examined three forms of organizational support
using Hammer et al.’s(2007) categorization: (a) FSOP, (b) supervisor work–
family support, and (c) organizational policies (i.e., flextime, telecommuting,
and compressed workweeks). Our results suggest that employees’ perception
that their organization is family supportive was the most consistent predictor
of work–family outcomes. Specifically, FSOP were related to lower negative
work–family spillover and intent to quit, and higher job satisfaction. Gender
did not emerge as a significant moderator of the FSOP—outcomes relation-
ships. It appears that both men and women benefit when they perceive their
organization as supportive of their desires to balance work and family.
Supervisor work–family support also emerged as an important predictor
of work–family outcomes, as it was significantly related to higher positive
work–family spillover and job satisfaction. Interestingly, though, men and
women appear to benefit in different ways from this form of support.
Specifically, at least in our sample, having a supportive work–family supervi-
sor was related to reduced negative outcomes for women (e.g., decreased
intent to quit), but enhanced positive outcomes (e.g., increased job satisfac-
tion) for men. As Hammer and colleagues point out, supervisors can show

family support and intent to quit.
their support for employees’ work and family needs in many different ways:
(a) emotional support, (b) instrumental support, (c) role-modeling behaviors,
and (d) creative work–family management (Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner,
& Zimmerman, 2011; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009).
Perhaps, men and women may respond differently to each of these specific
forms of supervisor work–family support behaviors. To date, no known stud-
ies have examined the mechanisms through which supervisor work–family
support may influence outcomes separately for men and women, but based
on the results from the present study, this appears to be an area in need of
greater research.
Turning next to organizational policies, we found that not only were men
more likely to utilize telecommuting than women, but the use of telecom-
muting was significantly related to less intent to quit for men but not for
Clark et al. 17

family support and job satisfaction.
women. One possible explanation for the gender difference in usage is that
many companies have a policy of “formalized discretion” in which the man-
ager decides whether or not to offer family-friendly policies to a particular
employee (Kelly & Kalev, 2006). Research has shown that women are less
likely than men to negotiate for themselves (Babcock & Laschever, 2003),
so it is possible that when organizations have a “formalized discretion”
approach to work–family policies, women are less likely than men to ask to
use these work–family benefits. In order to examine this possibility, we per-
formed some post hoc analyses to further examine our telecommuting vari-
able. The option of using telecommuting was made available to 31% of our
participants. However, when breaking this down by gender, we see that
indeed telecommuting was available to a greater percentage of men (39%)
than women (26%) in the present sample (and this difference was
5
Intent to Quit
Moderator
4 Women
Men
1
No Yes
Telecommuting Use
Figure 4. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between telecommuting use

and intention to quit.
statistically significant). Furthermore, more men (76%) than women (65%)

actually used telecommuting when it was made available to them. Though
this difference in usage was not statistically significant in the present sam-
ple, these trends provide initial support to the idea of a gender difference in
either formalized discretion or in the extent to which women and men ask or
negotiate to use such policies.
Another possible explanation for these findings is that women may work
in less family-friendly industries, and this is influencing the extent to which
women choose to use family-friendly policies. To explore this, we examined
the number of policies available (examined as an aggregate) among respon-
dents from the top-eight sectors represented in our data (i.e., Administrative
& Support; Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services; Health & Social
Assistance; Education Services; Retail Trade; Management of Companies &
Enterprises; Transportation & Warehousing; Public Administration). A 2
Clark et al. 19
(men vs. women) × 8 (top-eight NAICS Codes) analysis of variance was run,
F(15, 173) = 1.39, ns; neither main effect nor the gender × industry interac-
tion was significant. Analyses specific to telecommuting availability (as
opposed to an aggregate policy variable) were also nonsignificant. Thus, our
additional analyses suggest these findings are not attributable to the type of
industry sectors participants were employed in.
It is possible that telecommuting may be considered more acceptable for
men to use than other types of work–family policies such as flextime or
compressed workweeks, and that may explain the significant negative rela-
tionship between telecommuting use and intent to quit for men. Further
examination of the data revealed that in our sample, this does not appear to
be the case; 83% of men who were offered flextime used it, compared with
76% for telecommuting, and 65% for compressed workweeks. Interestingly,
women were most likely to take advantage of flextime when it was offered
to them (80%), were slightly less likely to take advantage of compressed
workweeks (71%), and the least likely to take advantage of telecommuting
when it was offered (65%). Given these trends, we recommend that future
research investigate the possible reasons women may be less likely to take
advantage of telecommuting over other workplace policies when made
available.
One key finding of the present study is that, with one exception, the use of
family-friendly policies was not related to work–family outcomes for men or
women in our sample. The current findings support the claim that the use of
organizational policies may be a necessary, but insufficient condition to help
employees balance the demands of work and family (Allen, 2001). We pro-
pose that both men and women may be hesitant to utilize such formal poli-
cies, but for different reasons. On the one hand, men may not take advantage
of policies as much as women due to fears of social stigmatization (Kossek,
Lautsch, & Eaton,2006). Such negative ramifications have been shown in a
laboratory study by Butler and Skattebo (2004), who found evidence that
men who admitted to experiencing family conflicts received lower perfor-
mance ratings. On the other hand, women who take advantage of family-
friendly policies may be subject to the stereotype that working mothers are
less committed to work than men (Konrad & Yang, 2012). Both men and
women may desire to take advantage of such work–life policies, but fear that
using them may hurt their careers (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002). Additionally,
many other contextual constraints may influence all employees’ (not just
women’s) use of these policies, such as the number of women in one’s work
group, opinions, and beliefs from powerful others in the organization, char-
acteristics of one’s supervisor (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002, 2004), as well as
one’s organizational tenure.
This study also advances our understanding of how organizational support

factors relate to positive, in addition to negative, work–family spillover. Our
results support the notion that positive and negative forms of work–family
spillover are unique constructs that operate in different ways (Grzywacz &
Butler, 2005). Thus, if organizations wish to both reduce employees’ negative
work–family spillover and increase their positive work–family spillover, the
organization may want to ensure that they are offering employees several dif-
ferent forms of support (e.g., ensuring the organization is committed to endors-
ing a strong family-friendly culture and also offering formal family-friendly
policies). Future research should examine the mechanisms through which some
of the support factors are related to one form of spillover and not the other.
Limitations and Future Research Directions

A limitation of the present study was the cross-sectional nature of the data.
Therefore, these findings can only be interpreted in a correlational sense.
Another limitation was the use of a single-item measure for FSOP. Even
though FSOP significantly related to three of the four work–family outcomes,
the potentially lower reliability for this one-item measure may have attenu-
ated correlations between this variable and outcomes. However, we found a
high correlation between our one-item measure and a validated multi-item
measure (Thompson et al.,1999), which provides indirect evidence for the
adequacy of our measure. Another limitation of the present study was in the
use of oversimplified categories relating to gender; future research should
move beyond this simple categorization and instead, seek to understand how
psychologically richer variables such as gender role moderate these relation-
ships (Eby et al.,2005).
Additional research is needed to examine the role of culture, region, or
ethnicity on these relationships. The present study only examined these rela-
tionships with Michigan residents, most of whom were White. Researchers
have proposed that in societies (or even different regions within the United
States) that have more traditional gender ideology, women may be more dis-
satisfied with the source of negative work–family spillover (Wang et al.,
2010); thus, organizational support factors may be more likely to benefit
women than men in these cultures or regions. This may also explain why, in
our sample, some organizational support factors appear to be helpful for all
employees, regardless of gender. Future research also should examine how
organizational support factors influence the entire family unit. For example,
only one spouse may utilize family-friendly policies (e.g., flextime), but this
actually provides a benefit to both spouses. To our knowledge, no research has
examined the impact of organizational support factors using couple-level data.
Clark et al. 21
Implications for Practice and Society

On a practical level, if organizations wish to help employees balance the
demands of work and family, these results suggest that the organization
should not employ a “one size fits all” approach. Additionally, the organiza-
tional culture toward work–family balance and the role of a supportive super-
visor seem to be critical factors. Thus, organizations may want to consider
training and rewarding supervisors for excellence in promoting a supportive
work–family culture. This is particularly important in those organizations
that utilize formalized discretion regarding their family-friendly policies.
These issues are important for society because empirical research has shown
that employees who experience less negative work–family spillover and more
positive work–family spillover are less likely to be absent from work, have
greater objective job performance, and have better physical health (Van
Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009). Thus, to the extent that organizations can
implement and support a variety of organizational support factors, this can help
foster a healthier and more productive workforce. Furthermore, by offering for-
mal policies and maintaining a supportive organizational culture toward work–
life balance that encourages their use, organizations can retain top-performing
employees, especially in competitive markets (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2004).
Conclusion
The present study contributes to our understanding of how various formal
and informal organizational support factors affect employee work–family
outcomes, and it also highlights how these relationships may sometimes dif-
fer for men and women. Although some forms of support appear to be benefi-
cial for men and women alike (e.g., FSOP), other forms of support appear to
have more complex relationships with outcomes depending on one’s gender.
These findings suggest that researchers should further examine how these
forms of support benefit different groups of employees (e.g., men vs. women,
parents vs. nonparents). In the present study, informal support factors were
generally more impactful than formal organizational support factors such as
flextime and telecommuting. This suggests that even if an organization can-
not offer formal work–family policies, they may be able to improve employee
well-being through a strategic focus on creating and fostering a supportive
work–family culture or by encouraging supervisors to be supportive of
employee’s work–family concerns.
Our findings regarding gender differences illustrate the positive effects one’s
supervisor can have on work–family outcomes, though supervisor support may
be important in different ways for men and women. For women, having a
supportive work–family supervisor was related to less negative work–family

spillover and lower intent to quit, and for men, having a supportive work–family
supervisor was related to greater job satisfaction. Additionally, telecommuting
use was particularly beneficial for men, resulting in lower intent to quit. Post hoc
analyses revealed that women were less likely than men to have telecommuting
offered as an option, and when it was offered, they were also less likely than
men to use it. These findings have implications for both research and practice,
and highlight the fact that gender cannot be ignored when considering the effects
of various organizational support factors on employee well-being.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational per-
ceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774
Andrews, A., & Bailyn, L. (1993). Segmentation and synergy: Two models linking
work and family. In J. C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 262-275).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender
divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bagger, J., Li, A., & Gutek, B. A. (2008). How much do you value your fam-
ily and does it matter? The joint effects of family identity salience, fam-
ily-interference-with-work, and gender. Human Relations, 61, 187-211.
doi:10.1177/0018726707087784
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Heuman, G. A. (1999).
Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their
effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.496
Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2010). Work-family enrichment as a mediator between
organizational interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 25, 274-300. doi:10.1108/02683941011023749
Clark et al. 23
Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-
family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189-220.
doi:10.1111/1468-232X.00287
Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women execu-
tives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees’ use of work-family policies
and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80, 813-845. doi:10.1353/
sof.2002.0002
Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2004). Organizational commitment and con-
straints on work-family policy use: Corporate flexibility policies in a global firm.
Sociological Perspectives, 47, 243-267. doi:10.1525/sop.2004.47.3.243
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005). The ability of “family friendly”
organizational resources to predict work–family conflict and job and family satis-
faction. Stress & Health, 21, 223-234. doi:10.1002/smi.1059
Butler, A. B., & Skattebo, A. (2004). What is acceptable for women may not be
for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job-performance rat-
ings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 553-564.
doi:10.1348/0963179042596478
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan orga-
nizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Kacmar, K. M. (2010). The relationship of sched-
ule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25, 330-355. doi:10.1108/02683941011035278
Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attach-
ment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72, 95-109. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.015
Catalyst. (2001). The next generation: Today’s professionals, tomorrow’s leaders.
New York, NY: Author.
Clark, S. C. (2002). Employees’ sense of community, sense of control, and work/fam-
ily conflict in native American organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
61, 92-108. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1846
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social
embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
1208-1233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-74. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.60
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 litera-
ture (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2003.11.003
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family:
Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178-199. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791609
Ergeneli, A., Ilsev, A., & Karapinar, P. B. (2010). Work–family conflict and job satis-
faction relationship: The roles of gender and interpretive habits. Gender, Work &
Organization, 17, 679-695. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00487.x
Families and Work Institute.(2004). Generation and gender in the workplace.
Waltham, MA: American Business Collaboration.
Feldman, S. S., Fisher, L., Ransom, D. C., & Dimiceli, S. (1995). Is “what is good for
the goose good for the gander?” Sex differences in relations between adolescent
coping and adult adaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 333-359.
doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0503_3
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—Allies or enemies?
What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders:
The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888-895.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.888
Frone, M. R. (2003).Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),
Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2011). Times are changing: Gender and
generation at work and at home. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Gallos, J. V. (1989). Exploring women’s development: Implications for career theory,
practice, and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.),
Handbook of career theory (pp. 110-132). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Gilligan, C. (1980). Restoring the missing text of women’s development to life cycle
theories. In D. McGuigan (Ed.), Women’s lives: New theory, research, and
policy (pp. 17-33). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Continuing
Education of Women.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender:
Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender
and work (pp. 391-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grzywacz, J. G., & 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, 10, 97-109. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.97
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family inter-
face: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spill-
over between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
111-126. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explana-
tions for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. doi:10.1037/h0076546
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011).
Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict
Clark et al. 25
and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,

134-150. doi:10.1037/a0020927
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009).
Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family sup-
portive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837-856.
doi:10.1177/0149206308328510
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying
the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel
perspective. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, 6, 165-204.
doi:10.1016/S1479-3555(06)06005-7
Hill, E. J. (2005). Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers,
work-family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793-819. doi:
10.1177/0192513X05277542
Hill, E. J., Martinson, V., Hawkins, A., & Ferris, M. (2003). Studying “working fathers”:
Comparing fathers’ and mothers’ work-family conflict, fit, and adaptive strategies
in a global high-tech company. Fathering, 1, 239-261. doi:10.3149/fth.0103.239
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Kelly, E. L., & Kalev, A. (2006). Managing flexible work arrangements in US orga-
nizations: Formalized discretion or “a right to ask.” Socio-Economic Review, 4,
379-416. doi:10.1093/ser/mwl001
Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., & Tranby, E. (2011). Changing workplaces to reduce work-
family conflict: Schedule control in a white-collar organization. American
Sociological Review, 76, 265-290. doi:10.1177/0003122411400056
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm
productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1225-1237. doi:10.1002/1097-
0266(200012)21:12<1225::AID-SMJ135>3.0.CO;2-3
Konrad, A. M., & Yang, Y. (2012). Is using work–life interface benefits a career-limiting
move? An examination of women, men, lone parents, and parents with partners.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1095-1119. doi:10.1002/job.1782
Kossek, E. E. (1990). Findings from the June–October 1990 data collection of the
productivity impact of Mercy Health Center’s Child Development Center. East
Lansing: Michigan State University, School of Labor and Industrial Relations.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control,
and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control,
and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347-367.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behav-
ior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data
with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83,1198-
1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 17, 68-75. doi:10.1108/02683940210415933
Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Organizational
work–family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The pro-
cess of work–family conflict and enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 17, 28-40. doi:10.1037/a0026428
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps
in work–family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12,299-312.
doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417-427.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800135?uid=3738256&
uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106544558103
Raghuram, A., Luksyte, A., Avery, D. R., & Macoukji, F. (2012). Does your supervisor
stress you out? How support influences sex differences in stress among immigrants.
Journal of Career Development, 39, 99-117. doi:10.1177/0894845310377499
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684. doi:10.2307/3094827
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibil-
ity and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377-391. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199707)18:4<377::AID-JOB807>3.0.CO;2-1
Sinclair, R. R., Hannigan, M. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1995). Benefit coverage and
employees’ attitudes: A social exchange perspective. In L. E. Tetrick & J. Barling
(Eds.), Changing employment relations: Behavioral and social perspectives
(pp. 163-185).Washington, DC: APA Books.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–
home interface. American Psychologist, 67, 545-556. doi:10.1037/a0027974
Thompson, C., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family ben-
efits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utiliza-
tion, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54, 392-415. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1681
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Women in the labor force: A databook (Report
No. 1040). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
Van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work–family inter-
face worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 617-642. doi:10.1002/job.569
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2010). Work–family conflict, self-efficacy,
job satisfaction, and gender: Evidences from Asia. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 17, 298-308. doi:10.1177/1548051810368546
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family
facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and
consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63-76. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2007.01.002

Organizational Support Factors and Work - Family Outcomes: Exploring Gender Differences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Support Factors and Work - Family Outcomes: Exploring Gender Differences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

585809

Malissa A. Clark1, Cort W. Rudolph2,

1The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

supervisor work–family support—may benefit men and women through

Organizational Support Factors and Work–Family Outcomes

drain felt by employees. For example, allowing employees to work flexible

Examining the Role of Gender

Hypothesis 1:The relationship between FSOP and negative work–family

Hypothesis 2:The relationship between FSOP and positive work–family

Hypothesis 5:The relationship between flextime use and negative work–

Hypothesis 9:The relationship between compressed workweek use and

Research Question:Do the relationships between work–family spillover

Family-Supportive Organization Perceptions. Perception of the degree to which

Supervisor Work–Family Support. A five-item scale developed by Kossek

Use of Flextime,Telecommuting, and Compressed Workweeks. Use of three sepa-

Negative Work-to-Family Spillover. Negative work-to-family spillover was mea-

Positive Work-to-Family Spillover. Positive work-to-family spillover was mea-

Control Variables. Marital status (single = 0, married or in a committed rela-

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To provide evidence for the distinctiveness of

Moderating Role of Gender

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Figure 1. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between supervisor work–

Table 3. Simple Slopes for Significant Interactions.

Note.df = degrees of freedom.

only significant predictor of positive work–family spillover; and (d) contrary

Figure 2. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between supervisor work–

Figure 3. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between supervisor work–

Figure 4. Gender as a moderator of the relationship between telecommuting use

statistically significant). Furthermore, more men (76%) than women (65%)

This study also advances our understanding of how organizational support

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Implications for Practice and Society

supportive work–family supervisor was related to less negative work–family

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,

Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of

You might also like