Individual, Organizational and Social Level Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment: Does Gender Acts As A Moderator?

Individual, organizational and social level
antecedents of work-family enrichment:

Does gender acts as a moderator?
Pavitra Mishra and Jyotsna Bhatnagar
Pavitra Mishra is based at Abstract

the Indian Institute of Purpose – This study aims to fulfill the need to explore positive side of work–family interface, especially in
Management Rohtak, emerging economies like India. The authors assessed the relationships of individual (family role
Rohtak, India. salience), organizational (work–family culture) and social (community support) antecedents to work-to-
Jyotsna Bhatnagar is based family enrichment. They also examined whether gender moderated the relationship between the three
antecedents and work-to-family enrichment.
at the Management
Development Institute, Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected on a questionnaire scale from 487 employees.
Gurgaon, India. Findings – It has been found that family role salience, supportive work-family culture and community
support were directly related to work-to-family enrichment. Gender did not influence the relationship
between work-family culture and work-to-family enrichment. However, relationships between family role
salience and work-to-family enrichment, and between community support and work-to-family enrichment,
were stronger in case of the male employees. The evolving nature of gender and integration of work-
family-community domain provide insights into managers and policymakers about the importance of
family and community in the organizations.
Practical implications – The study builds a business case for facilitating a positive work-family culture in
India for both male and female employees. The results point to the transitioning socio-cultural scenario of
India, which advocates more similarities than differences in modern gender role expectations and
identity. The current study emphasizes that while formulating policy, managers and policymakers should
keep in mind evolving preferences of both the genders.
Originality/value – The research provides a holistic view of how individual-, organizational- and social-
level factors may affect employees’ work–family enrichment in India. It also highlights the changing role of
gender. Theoretical and practical limitations are also discussed.
Keywords Gender, India, Work-family enrichment, Community support
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The work–family interface is a culture-sensitive phenomenon (Powell et al., 2009) which calls
for work–family studies in different cultural contexts. Only sparse studies are present on
work–family interface in emerging economies, especially in the Indian context (Shaffer et al.,
2011). One of the positive outcomes of the work–family interface is work-to-family
enrichment. There are limited studies on work–family enrichment particularly in Indian
context (Aryee et al., 2005; Mishra et al., 2014).
India is witnessing fast changing work–family interface, owing to several factors such as
advancements in technologies which keep individuals active beyond usual working hours, a
Received 17 October 2017 shift from joint to nuclear family system, an increase of dual career couples, increased
Revised 18 April 2018
28 June 2018
career aspirations and desire of better lifestyle. These factors are well-known to complicate
Accepted 11 October 2018 the work–family interface (Lyness and Erkovan, 2016; Gajendran and Harrison, 2007).
PAGE 104 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019, pp. 104-128, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1558-7894 DOI 10.1108/JABS-10-2017-0186
Besides, past studies have pointed that a troublesome work–family interface can lead to
stress, depression, deterioration in physical health and poor job performance (Greenhaus,
Allen, and Spector, 2006; O’Driscoll et al., 2004; Frone, 2003; Grzywacz and Marks, 2000).
Therefore, in a quest for positive work–family interface, it is significant to identify factors that
may enable a more balanced and enriching life.
This study aims to explore the relationships between work-to-family enrichment with
contextual (work–family culture and community resources) and individual-level (family role
salience) factors. Further, the moderating role of gender was also studied for all the direct
relationships. Gender is a characteristic that male and female members of the society adopt
and identify themselves with as they undergo societal exposure and cultural manifestations.
To mention here, a classification of gender roles in India is important because of its
patriarchal culture (Gneezy et al., 2009). Females are primarily expected to take care of
family responsibilities, whereas males are looked upon for financial support and security
(Andersen et al., 2013). Constrained with such cultural and societal classification, females
find less representation in economic development and finds difficult to adjust their
professional aspirations with family responsibilities. However, times are changing, and
multiple initiatives are being taken by the Indian Government for promoting education and
participation of women in the workforce (Lenka and Agarwal, 2017). Thus, it is important to
study how gender and its evolving nature may impact work–family dynamics of a society.
Further, though gender plays a pivotal role in management, as it is the primary source of
personality differences and can affect policymaking (Neubert and Taggar, 2004), there is
limited research on moderating impact of gender (Brush and Cooper, 2012; Lee, 2009;
Barbuto et al., 2007). Therefore, this study also aims to contribute to “gender in
management” by exploring its links with work-to-family enrichment.
Work-to-family enrichment is linked with several organizational- and individual-level
outcomes, such as organizational commitment (Wayne et al., 2004; Van Steenbergen and
Ellemers, 2009), career satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2006), marital satisfaction (Hakanen
et al., 2011), family satisfaction (Jaga and Bagrain, 2011), job satisfaction (Daniel and
Sonnentag, 2016), well-being, psychological capital (Mishra et al., 2017), physical and
mental health (McNall et al., 2010) and reduced turnover intentions (Wayne et al., 2006).
Work-to-family enrichment occurs when resources generated from involvement in
occupational roles help improve the quality of family life (Carlson et al., 2014). Researchers
(Boixados et al., 2010; De Klerk et al., 2013) suggest that an employee’s work and family life
can provide reciprocal enrichment through the resources and rewards inherent in each role.
Role accumulation theory (Sieber, 1974; Marks, 1977) provides support for work-to-family
enrichment. According to role accumulation theory, when people participate in multiple
roles, they are benefited in a number of ways such as follows:
䊏 greater role privileges;
䊏 lower strain in one role because of a buffering effect of other roles;
䊏 higher or enhanced status; and
䊏 personality enrichment.
The role enhancement theory also provides theoretical support for the notion that the
employees use resources/experiences of one role in the improvement of another role
(Barnett and Hyde, 2001). Positive transmission of resources can be through positive
emotional arousal, inter-personal availability, energy creation and gratification (Mitchell
et al., 2015; Rothbard, 2001), leading to work-to-family enrichment.
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) gave a theoretical framework to explain how resources
obtained from work, such as encouragement, financial compensation, information, security,
work-family benefits and advice can enhance employees’ functioning in the family role.
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 105

They explained that the privileges/resources generated in a domain (say, work) leads to
better performance or quality of life in another domain (family) either through the
instrumental path or affective path. Instrumental path is referred as direct transformation of
skills from one role to another role. For example, an individual may acquire certain skills
(such as multi-tasking) in hihe/sher job, which can also be used while dealing with various
family responsibilities. Thus, resource from one role (say, work) has a direct instrumental
effect on performance in another role (family). On the other hand, the affective path refers to
the following:
䊏 when resource generated in a role (say, work) can directly lead to feeling of positive
affect in another role (family); or
䊏 resource generated in a role (say, work) causes high performance, which enhances
positive affect within that role (work); subsequently, this in-role experience of positive
affect can be transferred to another domain (family) and hence leading to better
performance in another domain (family).
To illustrate, a positive mood because of recognition in a job, or a pay hike, not only helps
better manage expenses but also makes one feel happy, confident and optimistic thus also
giving more strength to deal with family responsibilities.
Carlson et al. (2006) have explained three dimensions of work-to-family enrichment which
helps an individual to be a better family member:
1. Work-to-family capital, i.e. when involvement in work promotes various levels of

psychosocial resources, such as sense of security, self-esteem, confidence,
accomplishment or self-fulfillment.
2. Work-to-family affect, i.e. when involvement in work results in a positive emotional state
or attitude.
3. Work-to-family development, i.e. when involvement in work leads to the acquisition or
refinement of skills, knowledge, behaviour or ways of viewing things.
One of the critical determinants of work-to-family enrichment is work–family culture
(Rothbard, 2001). Work–family culture defined as “the shared assumptions, beliefs, and
values regarding the extent to which an organization supports and values the integration of
employees’ work and family lives” (Thompson et al., 1999, p. 394). The workplace support
may provide financial, emotional, instrumental, psychological resources or social-capital
(Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2004; Demerouti et al., 2014). Evidently, it is
crucial to study the impact of a supportive work–family culture on work-to-family enrichment.
Besides the work–family culture, it is also essential to study the role of individual differences
on work-to-family enrichment as the work–family interface may differ from individual to
individual. Hence, to bring out such individual differences, in this study, we have explored
the impact of individual’s role salience on work-to-family enrichment. Role salience reflects
aspects of an individual’s self-concept (Carlson and Kacmar, 2000) and has not been
thoroughly examined in the extant literature. Individual plays various roles in hihe/sher life,
and closer a particular role to individual’s self-definition, higher is the need to perform better
in that role (Aryee and Luk, 1996; Stoner et al., 2011).
This study explores family role salience with a focus to understand enrichment in family life
from the utilization of resources that were generated and transferred from work domain.
Family role salience is explained as the importance and commitment that an individual
demonstrates toward hihe/sher family role (Kneževic et al., 2016). As suggested by Wolfram
and Gratton (2014), higher the importance an individual attached to a particular role, more
the effort he/she will make to improve the performance in that role. Thus, it is likely that
transferability and usability of the resources generated in work domain to family domain
PAGE 106 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

depend upon the importance that individual gives to family life. Therefore, it is essential to
test the impact of family role salience on work-to-family enrichment empirically.
Further, researchers have expressed the need to extend work–family literature to work-
family-community (Turner and Lingard, 2016; Marks and Leslie, 2000), as a community is
also an important domain in an individuals’ life. For a better understanding of work-to-family
interface, it is imperative to integrate community (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2006). Our study
has addressed this need by exploring the role of community resources with regard to work-
to-family enrichment.
To encapsulate, this study aims to empirically test the relationships between:
䊏 family role salience and work-to-family enrichment;
䊏 work-family culture and work-to-family enrichment;
䊏 community resources and work-to-family enrichment; and
䊏 extend understanding of these direct relationships by examining moderating role of
gender.
Theory and hypotheses

Work-family culture and family-to-work enrichment
A positive work–family culture can be created through different means such as supervisor’s
support, co-worker’s support, organizational time demands, no negative career
consequences and no gender biasedness (Dikkers et al., 2007). Behson (2005) found that
informal means (job autonomy, managerial support and career consequences associated
with availing family-friendly benefits) of organizational work–family support explained
considerably more variances in employee outcomes (job satisfaction, work to family conflict,
stress, turnover intentions and absenteeism) than formal means (work schedule flexibility
and work–family benefit availability) of organizational work–family support.
Supervisor support in balancing work and family demands is especially significant in India
where there are not many formal policies in place to support the integration of work and
family (Poster and Prasad, 2005; Wang et al., 2008). In a work–family friendly culture, the
manager is sensitive toward family responsibilities of the employees. Employees in positive
work–family culture are less expected to face antagonistic time demands that can create
difficulties in living a balanced life. In positive work–family culture, management is not
stereotypical toward the employees who have family obligations and do not use power to
impact concerned employee’s career growth adversely. As in such culture, it is believed
that work–family balance is an essential component of satisfaction, employees are less
apprehensive of negative career consequences of using family-friendly policies (Kossek
et al., 1999). Organizational support can also be provided in the socio-emotional form.
Supervisor’s sympathy toward a particular family need of an individual can provide him/her
with confidence and hope to deal with it. Co-workers may also be helpful by taking out time
to empathize with fellow employee’s problems as well as respond by providing advice and
assistance whenever needed (Wadsworth and Owens, 2007).
Family supportive work environment is positively related to life and job satisfaction (Allen,
2001; Dixon and Sagas, 2007), employee performance (Wang et al., 2013), organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Bragger et al., 2005) and well-being
(Fiksenbaum, 2014), in contrast to negatively being related to work stress (Odle-Dusseau
et al., 2013). Further, work–family culture has also been reported to positively related with
other variables that are linked to work-to-family enrichment, such as family-to-work
facilitation (Wayne et al., 2007), work–family balance (Greenhaus et al., 2012; Clark, 2001)
and avoiding work–family conflict (Kossek et al., 2011). In keeping with recent theorizing

(Wayne et al., 2006; Karatepe and Bekteshi, 2008), it is expected that work–family culture is
positively related to work-to-family enrichment:
H1. Work–family culture will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment.
Family role salience and work-to-family enrichment

Roles provide the individuals with a framework to develop a sense of meaning, purpose and
agency (Vinkenburg et al., 2013). Role salience refers to the importance that an individual
attaches to a particular role (Martire et al., 2000) and reflects one’s self-concept (Carlson
and Kacmar, 2000). Family role salience refers to the extent to which one assigns
importance to the family role (marital, parental and household) and demonstrates a
willingness to apply resources to ensure success in it (Aryee and Luk, 1996; Amatea et al.,
1986). There is limited literature that has studied the impact of role salience on resource
generation in one domain to resource transfer in the other domain (Wayne et al., 2006).
Individuals purposely and intentionally tend to apply resources to roles which they value
relatively more because there is a high need to perform well in a role that is central to self-
concept (Lieke and Lautsch, 2016). As work-to-family enrichment is not limited to a spillover
or transfer of resources from work to the family domain but also measures utilization of
transferred resources, it is important to explore the role of family role salience. Expectedly,
higher the family role salience, more efforts will be made to transfer and utilize resources
generated from the work domain, thereby experiencing greater work-to-family enrichment:
H2. Family role salience will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment.
Community support and work-to-family enrichment

Community refers to two aspects: territory and social relationships. Territorial definition
focuses on a community as a group of people living in a shared territory who share a
history, values, activities and essential amenities. On the other hand, the relational definition
emphasizes on social relationship independent of territory that is characterized by
consensus, shared norms, common goals and sense of identity, belonging and trust (Fu
et al., 2015; Mans, 2014). An individual may receive community support in the form of socio-
emotional or instrumental resources. Skinner and Ichii (2015) and Fellin (2001, p. 49)
explained community as a “group of people who form a social unit based on common
location, interest, and/or identification.” The crux of community support is largely based on
human relationships and interactions among the group members (Small and Supple, 2001).
Blau (2017, p. 296) suggested: “Community ties are so important because they provide
individuals with a network to help with schooling decisions, getting a job, and personal
problems that may arise.”
In a poll conducted on 12,000 employees across 54 different organizations, it was reported
that 73 per cent of the participants either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that communities
play a role in addressing work–family issues (Litchfield and Bankert, 1998; DeBord et al.,
2000). The outcome of the poll explained that the community resources could be of great
help in managing family responsibilities, as most of the activities that individuals conduct to
take care of their family responsibilities either occur in the home or residential community
setting. The authors further reported that this is particularly true for families where
individuals have demanding and stressful jobs. Thus, community support is another
important source of support and may have a buffering effect in facilitating work-to-family
enrichment.
Community support in the form of advice and information sharing from friends can be
helpful to individuals as they can discuss official issues, get information on a job opening,
get technical advice and emotional support. Such support in professional life may positively
influence work-to-family enrichment. It has been found that managers with strong

community ties are more satisfied in life, less impatient and frustrated with their careers (Oh
et al., 2014). Further, it is likely that community resources such as congenial neighborhood,
accessibility to a good children daycare, will help them concentrate better at the workplace
thus lessening their pressure. Research has also suggested that community factors may
have a direct or indirect impact on elderly care and in raising children with regard to value
formation, socializing influence and academic performance (Spier et al., 2016; Lee, 2001;
Sampson, 2001; Furstenberg and Hughes, 1997). As past studies have pointed importance
and dependency on community resources for enriching life experiences, it is expected that
community resources would be positively related to work-to-family enrichment:
H3. Community support will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment.
Gender
The term “gender” has usually been seen as “psychological, social and cultural aspects of
maleness and femaleness” (Stein, 1999). Specifically, gender role theory explains that men
and women adopt social and cultural norms and expectations about their gender and are
socialized to enact gendered behaviors (Eagly et al., 1995). Indian society has defined
men’s primary responsibility as providing financial security to the family. In India, men’s
respect in the society is determined by their job-position and financial status. In contrast, for
Indian women, prime responsibility is defined regarding family rearing and household
responsibilities (Punia, 2005). As society has broadly considered work–family issues as
women issues, managers are also likely to be lenient toward female and feel that they are
more in need of work–family support than male employees (Mueller, 2004; Felstead et al.,
2002).
Primarily, the beliefs that women are usually more focused on balancing work and family,
while men are more motivated to gain wealth (Buttner and Moore, 1997; De Martino and
Barbato, 2003), and hence, family-friendly benefits are required more by females than
males. Moreover, it has been found that the traditional male gender role emphasizes self-
reliance, invulnerability and independence (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2012; Olson and
Shultz, 1994). As such, probably suggesting, why men consider seeking help as
demeaning their self-esteem and are reluctant to ask for support, especially for meeting
family responsibilities. Men probably feel that if they will avail benefits like flexi-time, they will
be looked down upon and may lead to adverse career consequences (Thompson et al.,
1999). Thus, if an organization has a positive work–family culture (supervisor support,
colleagues support, reasonable time expectations and career consequences), it is
expected that more female employees will feel comfortable in making use of it.
Consequentially, we posit:
H4. There will be the significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment such that:
H4a. The relationship between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment will be
stronger for women than men.
Further, it has been observed that individuals differ in their interpersonal relationships,
communications and behaviors because of gender differences (Coates, 2015; Eagly,
2013; Reevy and Maslach, 2001). Gender differences impact how individuals consider,
observe, acquire and utilize various resources. These differences may impact the level
of work-to-family enrichment, which one may experience. Gender role socialization
literature points out that from the very beginning a male child is socialized to give
precedence to the breadwinner role, whereas a female child is socialized to give
precedence to the homemaker and motherhood roles (Ezzedeen and Ritchey, 2009;
Gutek et al., 1991; Rothbard, 2001). Research shows that while balancing their work
and family roles, women tend to assign higher priorities and spend more time in their
family responsibilities (Aditya and Sen, 1993; Aryee et al., 2005; Desai, 1996;

Narayana, 1982), while men try to trade-off family responsibilities against work
responsibilities (Milkie and Peltola, 1999). It was also found that when compared to men
it is the women who use more resources to assist their families (Clark, 2001; Friedman
and Greenhaus, 2000). In India, gender role socialization is more prevalent
(Rajadhyaksha and Smita, 2004; Westman, 2005). As women are raised such that they
are expected to deal with the family responsibilities it is expected that they will have
higher family role salience.
A study on Indian women indicated that despite joining the workforce, their salience
toward family role remains undiminished and central to their being (Bhatnagar and
Rajadhyaksha, 2001). This study further reported that unlike Western societies, it is
considered the duty of Indian women, especially those staying in the extended family,
to care for elderly relatives. Further, as Asian societies primarily relate females with
the role of homemaker, it is expected that women will be more interested to avail
benefits of positive work–family culture and supportive community to ease their
pressure of work–family responsibilities. It may be especially implied in countries,
such as India, where it was found that only 22 per cent of husbands occasionally
extended help to their wives for conducting domestic chores (Rajadhyaksha and
Smita, 2004). On the basis of above literature which indicates that family roles are
probably considered as a priority by Indian females than males, it is hypothesized
that:
H5. There will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
family role salience and work-to-family enrichment such that:
H5a. The relationship between family role salience and work-to-family enrichment will be
As stated, “gender” is a set of socially constructed characteristics and in Indian
society, the difference lies in the fact that it is a patriarchal society (Mohan, 1973)
where males are considered as protectors, and “Karta” (head) of the family (Bharat,
2003) and females are primarily expected to maintain the household (Razvi and Roth,
2004). It is acceptable for a female to work, but her real essence is in meeting family
requirements.
In a study done on 2,700 Indian couples, it was reported that 60 per cent of working
mothers described part-time jobs as ideal situation, only 19 per cent of them
considered full-time motherhood as reasonable option, whereas 78 per cent of men
believed that at-home mother and full-time working father is the best solution (Banerjee
and Dutta-Sachdeva, 2008). With such a gender ideology, it is difficult for Indian
women to make others understand or appreciate her challenges (Parikh, 1998) and
hence receive support from them. Therefore, when an Indian woman receives support
from other domains rather than family (such as community), it is expected that she will
be more eager to utilize them.
Moreover, females are reported to have more reciprocated friendships (Vaquera and Kao,
2008) and more diverse social networks (Ajrouch et al., 2005). It is also reported that quality
of the community is more influential on female’s health and well-being than that of males
(Molinari et al., 1998).
On the basis of above literature, it is expected that females are likely to acquire and receive
more community support. Therefore, we propose that:
H6. There will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
community support and work-to-family enrichment such that:
H6a. The relationship between community support and work-to-family enrichment will be

Methods
Sample
Multi-stage sampling was adopted for data collection. A self-administered questionnaire
was distributed to married professionals. In total, 487 completed surveys were returned out
of the 800 distributed, yielding a response rate of approximately 61 per cent. The sample
was drawn from a single geographic area, thus essentially controlling for cost of living
differences. Instructions to fill the questionnaire were provided in the beginning. The
questionnaire clarified “there are no right or wrong answers” to avoid any evaluation
nervousness by the respondents. For clarity, different scales were separated by organizing
them into different sections. As suggested by Babbie (1990), at the beginning of each
section, a short explanation about the objective of the concern section was provided. The
questionnaire included a supplementary section related to demographic variables, such as
gender, age, family type, experience and parental status.
The age of respondents varied between 29 and 57 years, with 58 per cent in the age group
of 29 to 42 years. Thirty-eight per cent were female, and 62 per cent were male. The
minimum work experience of a respondent was 3.5 years and 70 per cent had one or more
children. Fifty-one per cent respondents were from a nuclear family (consisting of a married
couple and their unmarried children), whereas the remaining 49 per cent respondents were
from extended family setup, which included one or more married couples with their parents
and children staying in the same household.
Variables
Work-to-family enrichment. Work-to-family enrichment was measured using a nine-item

scale by Carlson et al. (2006). The scale measures work-to-family enrichment under three
factors: work-to-family capital, work-to-family affect and work-to-family development. An
example item is: “My involvement in my work helps me to gain knowledge, and this helps
me be a better family member.” The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). The inter-item correlation ranged between 0.52
and 0.89. The composite reliability score for the scale was 0.68. The Cronbach’s alpha for
the scale was 0.90.
Work–family culture. The work–family culture was measured through an 18-item scale by
Dikkers et al. (2007). The scale measures work–family culture under five factors:
supervisor’s support, co-worker’s support, organization’s leaders support, negative career
consequences and organizational time demands. An example item is: “In this organization,
it is considered important that, beyond their work, employees have sufficient time left for
their private life.” The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree,
5 = completely agree). The inter-item correlation ranged between 0.43 and 0.77. The
composite reliability score for the scale was 0.67. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was
0.91.
Family role salience. The 20 items from Life role salience scale by Amatea et al. (1986) were
adopted. This is a six-factor scale:
䊏 parental role reward value;
䊏 parental role commitment;
䊏 marital role reward value;
䊏 marital role commitment;
䊏 homecare role reward value; and
䊏 homecare role commitment.

As India is a collectivist country, it was important to measure “commitment toward parents/
elder care”, and hence, an item “I expect to devote whatever time, money and energy it
takes to take care of my parents” was introduced to the scale. The inter-item correlation
ranged between 0.50 and 0.75. The total variance explained was 87 per cent. The
composite reliability score for the scale was 0.64. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was
0.88.
Community support. Community support was measured by adapting an 11-item scale
developed by Voydanoff (2005). The scale measures community support under three
factors: neighborhood attachment, sense of belonging and support from friends. An
additional item was included to measure “accessibility to basic amenities such as
recreational activities, good schools, after-school academic assistance (tuitions), daycare
facilities”. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 =
completely agree). The inter-item correlation ranged between 0.40 and 0.79. The composite
reliability score for the scale was 0.62. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.82.
Moderator. Gender was self-reported by respondents and was dummy-coded. Females
were coded 1 and males were coded 2.
Results
Table I presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables in the model. The
correlations were found to be as expected. In particular, a strong correlation between
work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment was observed. Similarly, positive
correlations between family role salience and work-to-family enrichment, and community
support and work-to-family enrichment were observed. Gender moderated the relationship
between work-to-family enrichment and family role salience, and work-to-family enrichment
and community resources.
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for all the questionnaire scales. Reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scales were established as per the
guidelines suggested by Hair et al. (1998) and Huang et al. (2013). Table II provides scores
for each scale.
Harman’s single-factor test (cf. Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) was conducted to test the
common method bias. In Harman’s single-factor test, confirmatory factor analysis is carried
out using only one factor. Bias occurs if a single factor explains more than 50 per cent of the
variances. In this case, the total variance explained by the single factor is 33 per cent, and
therefore, no significant bias because of common factors is expected to have impacted the
results.
To test the hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical multiple regressions with controls and
antecedent variables entered on subsequent steps. Table III presents the results of the
hierarchical regression analysis. The variables were entered into the regression equation in
three steps. In the first step, the independent variables were entered in the regression, the
moderator variables were added in the second step, and the interaction terms obtained by
Table I Descriptive statistics and inter-item correlation among variables

Variables Mean SD Gender CS FRS WFE
Gender 1.62 0.485

Community support 3.80 0.918 0.108
Family role salience 4.45 1.002 0.281 0.438
Work-to-family enrichment 4.14 0.984 0.358 0.363 0.776
Work family culture 4.26 0.761 0.107 0.214 0.656 0.712
Notes: correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed)

Table II Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity
Composite Average variance Average shared
Variables reliability (CR) explained (AVE) squared variance (ASV)
Family role salience 0.64 0.75 0.37

Work–family culture 0.67 0.79 0.31
Work-to-family enrichment 0.68 0.88 0.36
Notes: Reliabilit CR > 0.6; convergent validity CR > AVE, AVE > 0.5; discriminant validity, ASV < AVE
Table III Regression analyses showing the predictors of work-to-family enrichment and
moderating effects of gender
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Independent variable
Work–family culture 0.712 0.75 1.044
Family role salience 0.507 0.509 0.516
Moderators
Gender 0.203 0.358
Interaction terms
Work–family culture gender 0.089
Family role salience gender 0.198
Community support gender 0.104
R2 0.507 0.658 0.72
Adjusted R2 0.505 0.68 0.71
F 407.82 121.68 76.03
Delta R2 0.151 0.062
Notes: p < 0.001; p < 0.01; p < 0.05
multiplying the moderator variables by the independent variable were added in the third
step. For moderation purposes (using interaction terms in regression analyses), centering
procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991) was used.
The following inferences are drawn from the above analyses:
H1 (work–family culture will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment) was strongly
supported (refer to Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table III). The greater the work–family culture, the
higher the work-to-family enrichment (p < 0.001 in Models 1, 2 and 3).
H2 (family role salience will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment) was strongly
supported (refer to Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table III). Greater the family role salience, higher
the work-to-family enrichment (p < 0.001 in Model 1, 2 and 3).
H3 (community support will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment) was
supported (refer to Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table III). Greater the community support, higher
the work-to-family enrichment (p < 0.01 in Models 1 and 2; and p < 0.05 in Model 3).
H4 and H4a (i.e. there will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship
between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment such that the relationship
between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment will be stronger for women than
men) was not supported. The interaction of gender and work-to-family enrichment was not
significant (Table III).
H5 (i.e. there will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
family role salience and work-to-family enrichment) was supported. The interaction of
gender and family role salience was significant (p < 0.01, Model 3 in Table III). However,

H5a was not supported. Please refer to Figure 1 for interaction plot. The relationship was
stronger for men than women.
H6 (i.e. there will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
community support and work-to-family enrichment) was supported. The interaction of
gender and community support was significant (p < 0.01, Model 3 in Table III). In this case
as well, H6a was not supported. Please refer to Figure 2 for interaction plot. The relationship
was stronger for men than women.
Discussion
Work–family culture, work-to-family enrichment and gender
H1 was supported, as work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment was strongly
correlated. The feeling of a positive work–family culture, i.e. support from supervisors, co-
workers, support from organization’s leaders, no fear of negative career consequences if
Figure 1 Interaction plot for gender as moderator between work-to-family enrichment and
family role salience (FRS)
5
Work-to-Family Enrichment
4.5
3.5 Moderator
3
Women Men
2.5
1.5
1
Low FRS High FRS
Figure 2 Interaction plot for gender as moderator between work-to-family enrichment and
community support (CS)
5
Work-to-Family Enrichment
4.5
3.5 Moderator
3
Women Men
2.5
1.5
1
Low CS High CS

one avails work–family benefits, and no additional organizational time demands will have a
positive impact on one’s family life.
A supportive work–family culture can enrich the family life of the employees both through
instrumental benefits (support in work domain provided by the manager, team members,
adequate environment to be able to use family-friendly policies, etc.) and also through
emotional benefits (positive experiences at work like appreciation, recognition and sense of
achievement by completing a task). Behson (2005) advised that underlying assumptions
and informal support are more significant than written and formal means.
Further, this finding supports other studies in the literature, which have demonstrated similar
positive consequences of a supportive work–family culture. Friedman and Greenhaus
(2000) found that a supportive environment at the work organization helps in generation of
instrumental resources like time, flexibility, advice and also psychological resources like
self-acceptance. Support at work is associated with increased satisfaction (Brough et al.,
2005) and can improve performance and well-being in the family (Moen et al., 2016).
Supportive work–family culture promotes usage of family-friendly policies (Allen, 2001;
Andreassi and Thompson, 2008; Casper et al., 2004) and thus may improve quality of family
life. Thompson et al. (2006) reported that supportive work–family culture is directly
associated with employees’ affective commitment. Their study also indicated that
supportive work–family culture is inversely related to work–family conflict and intentions to
leave the organization. Allen (2001) has shown in a study that those employees who
consider their workplace as family friendly report less work–family conflict and turnover
intentions. Such employees are more satisfied with the job and committed toward the
organization.
Eaton (2003) has found that work–family culture moderates the relationship between
available family-friendly benefits and perceived ease of use of these benefits. Thompson
and Prottas (2006) found that there is a positive relation between supportive work–family
culture and positive spillover, job satisfaction, family satisfaction and life satisfaction. They
also highlighted that supportive work–family culture is negatively correlated with stress,
work–family conflict and intentions to quit. Wayne et al. (2006) found a significant
association between the time demand aspect of work–family culture and work-to-family
enrichment. They reported that excessive time demand is negatively related to work–family
enrichment. Baral and Bhargava (2010) highlighted that work–family culture is positively
associated with job satisfaction and affective commitment. The positive association
between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment has also been highlighted by
Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008). The positive relationship between perception of the
supportive environment of the organization and work-to-family enhancement was reported
by Gordon et al. (2007). Thus, it can be inferred that a shared feeling of supportive
organizational culture toward employees’ family responsibilities is significant for leading a
better quality of family life.
The present results did not indicate any significant interaction effect of gender on the
relationship between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment. Thus, our H4,
i.e. there will be a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment, and H4a, i.e. the relationship
between work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment will be stronger for women
than men, were not supported. These findings highlight that both male and female
employees are equally benefitted from the supportive work–family culture of an
organization.
The moderating effect of gender was proposed because it was expected that male and
female employees would differ in their usage of a supportive work–family culture because of
the difference in gender role expectations and socialization patterns (Duxbury and Higgins,
1991; Gutek et al., 1991). The insignificant effect of gender on the relationship between

work–family culture and work-to-family enrichment was also pointed by Baral and Bhargava
(2011). Further, Aryee et al. (2005) in their study on Indian employee reported limited
moderating role of gender while studying work–family facilitation.
The awareness and support for gender equity are increasing throughout the world. As
explained by Konrad and Harris (2002), men are becoming more open to undertaking
traditionally feminine values, and women are more open to undertaking traditionally
masculine values. Though “gender role socialization” still exists, there is also evidence
which shows that men in India are increasingly sharing the household and child-rearing
responsibility (Bharat, 2003). The results point to the transitioning socio-cultural scenario of
India, which advocates more similarities than differences in modern gender role
expectations and identity. The current study emphasizes that while formulating policy
managers and policymakers should keep in mind evolving preferences of both the genders.
Moreover, the data for this study were collected from employees working in managerial
positions in multinationals based in Indian metro cities. Therefore, the sample includes male
and female employees largely with an equal level of education, exposure and career
mindset, and hence, no differences because of gender seems logical. However, further
research should be conducted, especially including men and women from different
segments of the society.
Family role salience, work-to-family enrichment and gender

An important contribution of this study is of examining the relationship between family role
salience and work-to-family enrichment. Greenhaus and Singh (2003) have pointed out that
there has been a considerable amount of research on the consequences of work–family
enrichment phenomenon, but there is still need to explore underlying factors which may
enable transfer of resources. H2, i.e. family role salience is positively related with work-to-
family enrichment, was supported thus indicating that family role salience is a significant
underlying factor to experience work-to-family enrichment.
Family role salience is positively related to work-to-family enrichment because when a
particular role is vital to one’s self-concept, an individual makes more efforts to improve
performance in that role (Cinamon and Rich, 2002). Therefore, when “family role” is
significant, then individuals make more efforts to transfer and utilize resources from other
domain to accomplish their family responsibilities. Consistent with our findings, Cinamon
(2010) reported that “family-oriented” individuals reported a less work-to-family conflict and
higher efficacy to deal with the same. Family role salience was positively related to employee
performance, life satisfaction, work satisfaction and family satisfaction (Boyar et al., 2016;
Bhowon, 2013). Thus, indicating that “family role salience” helps in positively dealing with
work–family issues. As family role salience is related with work-to-family enrichment, it is
suggested that it may be advantageous for managers to provide opportunities that allow
employees to affirm their family roles which may, in turn, increase enrichment.
Further, it was found that the relationship between family role salience and work-to-family
enrichment is stronger for male than for female, i.e. for a given family role salience work-to-
family enrichment for a male is higher as compared to that of a female. Thus, our H5, i.e.
there will be significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between family role
salience and work-to-family enrichment, was supported. However, our H5a, i.e. the
relationship between family role salience and work-to-family enrichment will be stronger for
women than men, was not supported.
The probable rationale behind this finding may be an increasing co-existence of traditional
and modern gender role expectations in India (Aryee et al., 2005). A shift from traditional to
transitional roles among men has also been observed by Gilbert (2014), Silberstein (2014)
and Van den Berg et al. (2013). The International Men and Gender Equality Survey
(IMAGES) conducted a multi-country study in 2010 showed that more and more men in

developed, as well as developing countries, value greater participation in the lives of
children. Survey data from five of the countries (Brazil, Chile, Croatia, India and Mexico)
indicated that the vast majority of men were giving value to parental roles.
Saraff and Srivastava (2008) aimed to understand the attributes that Indian men perceive as
being an ideal father. Seven dimensions of the fathering role were identified:
1. caretaker;
2. surety;
3. economic provider;
4. playmate and friend;

5. role model;
6. family head; and

7. resource.
The findings revealed that caretaking was viewed as one of the most important attributes of
an ideal father. Thus, emphasizing that now the role of Indian father is not only about
“breadwinner”, but it has more to do with caretaking, being a friend and acting as a role
model for their children. Another study on “fathering in India” observed that, although
father’s traditional role of protector exists, but in current times, it is extended to father’s
involvement in raising the child in various childhood stages (Sriram and Navalkar, 2013).
Flipkart did a study in February 2018 and named it as “How Penguin Dads are Redefining
Indian Fatherhood”. The study was conducted on 1,700 fathers across 17 cities in India.
Results highlighted that 70 per cent of Indian men spend more time with family after
fatherhood, 59 per cent get kids ready for school, 80 per cent attend school activities, 34
per cent love to cook meals, 70 per cent ensure fun-time with children, 27 per cent quit
smoking after fatherhood, 58 per cent have become more patient, and 54 per cent want to
be child’s best friend. Further, a newspaper article claims the rise of Alpha Indian fathers:
fathers who take pride in fatherhood and active interest to nurture their child (Walial, 2016).
Another recent news article highlighted that Indian fatherhood is changing, as fathers now
takes paternity off, they change diapers; have sleepless nights while supporting their
spouse in taking care of the baby; and even like sharing other responsibilities such as
cooking, shopping and taking child to the park (Bhattacharjee, 2018).
Current trends are indicating that Asian societies are experiencing a mix of gender role
priorities which means that no more women are limited to domestic work, and a number of
men are willing to contribute in child-rearing, cooking and other household activities. For
example, research on Sri Lankan women proves that their social identity helped them to
break the glass ceilings and emerge as competent entrepreneurs (Hewapathirana, 2011).
In another study, it was found that Chinese male and female employees give equal value to
achievement in career goals and contributing to the family life (Granrose, 2007). Recently, a
survey done on working Indian women highlighted that over half (650) of them have shelved
plans to start a family as career advancement and higher education is their priority and
cannot sacrifice the same to raise kids (The Associated Chambers of Commerce and India
(ASSOCHAM), March 2018). Further, it is reported that in South Asia, women are becoming
more financially independent (Kaur and Hundal, 2017). There is also an increase in women
getting rights to family estate and are playing more active role in leadership (Gupta et al.,
2009).
Community resources, work-to-family enrichment and gender

Our H3, i.e. community support will be positively related to work-to-family enrichment, was
accepted. It appears that resources, such as helpful and caring friends, safe

neighborhood, availability of reliable day-care, domestic help and transportation play a
crucial role in the life of people; for example, an individual who manages to avail “work from
home” benefit because of supportive work–family culture. However, such facilities from the
workplace will be of little help if this person has untrusting surroundings, as then he/she may
not be comfortable in allowing her/his children to play or interact with others in the
neighborhood. Thus, it may turn out to be extremely demanding to manage both work and
children simultaneously in the home. On the contrary, if an individual feels safe about her/his
neighborhood then she/he will be able to concentrate and perform better in her/his work.
The positive experience and achievement at work will enrich her/his family life, thus,
highlighting the importance of community support in one’s life.
Another example to support this finding can be the availability of a daycare. Assurance of
child is in safe hands can reduce stress and increase concentration in the workplace. The
above illustrations state the direct importance of community resources for experiencing
work-to-family enrichment. Pitt-Catsouphes et al. (2006) reported that positive perception
and use of community resources increase life satisfaction and reduce work–family conflict.
Researchers (Wacker and Roberto, 2013; Voydanoff, 2014) have expressed a strong need
to study community resources with regard to the context and demographics. This gap in
knowledge has been addressed by the current study, and it finds that the relationship
between community resources and work-to-family enrichment is stronger for male than for
female. To elucidate, for a given community resources, work-to-family enrichment is higher
for male as compared to that of females. This indicates that men make more use of their
community resources. Thus, while our H6 is supported, no support is found for H6a.
There can be two probable reasons for “men making more use of community resources”:
1. growing intrinsic motivation toward household/children responsibilities; and

2. difference at the micro and macro level of analysis.
Growing intrinsic motivation can be explained through Vroom’s expectancy theory of

motivation according to which, individuals put in efforts for the desired outcomes and when
they believe that by putting in efforts they will achieve the desired outcome. With changing
times, Indian men are trying hard to accomplish their job as well as domestic
responsibilities. They not only value being a good employee but also a family man (desired
objective) and, hence, to achieve this goal they put in their best efforts also using available
resources (in this case, community resources which have a positive relationship with
work–family enrichment thus indicating that individuals would have a positive view about
usefulness of community resources in meeting family responsibilities).
Further, increasing crime against women (National Crime Records Bureau India, 2016) has
increased dependency of Indian men on community resources. Community resources are
likely to have a more meaningful impact on Indian men, as in addition to the security of
children, security of spouse is also a major concern for them. With the availability of desired
community resources, these concerns can be partially addressed and, hence, lead to
higher enrichment.
The point on the difference in macro and micro level refers to the possibility of gender role
evolution being limited to individual level (changing choices of Indian males and females)
and system-level (community and society) change is yet to be administered. As per Globe
Study (2014), India is relatively high on valuing gender egalitarianism while relatively low on
practicing gender egalitarianism. This finding supports the results declared by Globe study,
as it also indicates that though gender roles are not that sacrosanct and changes are visible
at individual’s preferences level for a macro level change, India still needs to build systems
which can be equally usable by males and females. Though individuals are choosing
gender role amalgamation, it may be that community and society are yet to evolve
accordingly. This can be because in the present study, we have had a sample of males and

females who are equally educated, working and staying in metro cities. Thus, though a
section of society is witnessing the change, it is yet to happen at a broader level. We urge
future scholars to further explore impacts because of gender role evolution at individual and
system level.
This finding highlights that though Indian society is seeing substantial change in the gender
role reversal, such that men are actively involved in family rearing responsibilities there are
other aspects (Intrinsic motivation: innate desire to be able to perform well in domestic
responsibilities and raising child aggressive; and individual- and system-level change) that
play a role in making appropriate use of community resources.
Limitations and implications

Before discussing the implications of our findings, few limitations of our study deserve to be
noted. Firstly, this being a cross-sectional study, it will be inappropriate to draw any firm
causality. Though longitudinal study design is traditionally considered to be more
appropriate for establishing causality, it has also been pointed that such studies are only
successful when researcher knows “a-priori”, the optimal time lag for a given relationship
(Frone et al., 1992). Else, longitudinal data can demonstrate more biased results as
compared to cross-sectional data (Gollob and Reichardt, 1987; Rothbard and Edwards,
2003). Second, the study is restricted only to employees working in private sector
organizations. Future research may be carried out to examine these relationships in public
sector organizations as well. Comparisons between the two sectors may be useful in
understanding differences and drawing learnings from one another. Finally, the sample
comprises of males and females who are equally educated, working in multi-nationals and
staying in metro/Tier 1 cities. Despite this limitation, the finding that gender role is evolving
among a segment of society is significant, especially for management literature as the
sample involved is the one which is primarily associated with the multi-nationals.
This study has theoretical contributions. First, we have studied positive (rather than
negative) side of the work–family interface thus contributing to sparse but growing literature
(Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Moreover, this study addresses the gap identified
earlier in the literature about the scarcity of research on the positive side of work–family
enrichment in emerging economies (Shaffer et al., 2011). It also fulfills the need to explore
work–family interface in different demographics (Spector et al., 2004), as it extends prior
research by identifying the moderating influence of gender. Finally, we have contributed to
the understanding of work-family-community interface. Our findings provide actionable
elements with suggestions to increase work-to-family enrichment.
From a practical viewpoint, the positive relationship between work–family culture and work-
to-family enrichment suggests that workplace factors like supervisor support, time
demands, career consequences, co-worker support and leader’s standpoint are crucial for
leading to a better quality of family life. A family-friendly work culture can be built by
sensitizing supervisors, and team members about the importance of their support for
building an adequate work–family culture. Management should encourage the use of
flexible hours, job sharing, provide a choice of working for fewer hours, work from home
facility, fixed paid leaves to deal with family responsibilities at all organizational level. For
example, PwC (one of the four globally big audit firms) has successfully rolled out a flexible-
work practice called “compressed work week” in Mumbai, India. The practice enables the
employees to enjoy an extended weekend provided they have completed the requirement
of minimum working hours from Monday to Thursday (Sharmal, 2013). Moreover, as
community support has also been demonstrated as a significant factor, it might be useful
for the organizations to also explore how they can facilitate their employees to develop ties
with their communities, through local, social or volunteer programs.

Another critical point of consideration is for policymakers. Our findings suggest that it may be
crucial to take individual factors such as role salience into account while designing work–family
policies. This study has shown that even male employees may have higher family-role salience
which enhances their work-to-family enrichment. In India, work–family issues are primarily
looked as issues for working females and work–life balance policies are concentrating primarily
on women (Baral and Bhargava, 2011). Male employees face biases in being able to utilize
work–family benefits (Mishra, 2015). As Indian men are willing and desire to be an “alpha
father” or “penguin dad” (Walial, 2016; Flipkart, 2018), biased outlook in preparing policies/
providing of work–family benefits toward willing male employees needs to end. Policymakers
and top-management should keep evolving gender role dynamics in mind and think beyond
age-old work–family practices which were primarily concentrating on female issues.
An in-depth qualitative study may be useful to further enlighten on how men think about their
workplace arrangements. Future studies should also explore other demographic and
situational factors such as job characteristics and personality characteristics, for example,
optimism, for a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between work and
family.
We urge researchers to conduct more studies for exploring work–family dynamics in
different cultures. As highlighted, “Increased globalization, coupled with the
recognition that balancing work and family is a challenge for employed parents in
almost all modern societies, suggests that this program of research should be
conducted in different cultural contexts” (Aryee et al., 2005, p. 144). As work–family
interface is a culture-specific phenomenon, as such, it is crucial for researchers to
develop a valid knowledge base that may be helpful to multinationals in developing
effective family-friendly policies.
References
Aditya, S.M. and Sen, A.K. (1993), “Executives under stress: a comparison between men and women”,
Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-6.
Aiken, L.G. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Ajrouch, K.J., Blandon, A.Y. and Antonucci, T.C. (2005), “Social networks among men and women: the
effects of age and socioeconomic status”, The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences
and Social Sciences, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 311-S317.
Allen, T.D. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 414-435.
Amatea, E.S., Cross, E.G., Clark, J.E. and Bobby, C.L. (1986), “Assessing the work and family role
expectations of career-oriented men and women: the life role salience scales”, Journal of Marriage and
the Family, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 831-838.
Andersen, S., Ertac, S., Gneezy, U., List, J.A. and Maximiano, S. (2013), “Gender, competitiveness, and
socialization at a young age: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society”, Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 1438-1443.
Andreassi, J.K. and Thompson, C.A. (2008), “Work-family culture: current research and future
directions”, in Korabik, K., Lero, D.S. and Whitehead, D.L. (Eds), Handbook of Work-family Integration:
Research, Theory, and Best Practices, Elsevier, New York, NY.
Aryee, S. and Luk, V. (1996), “Work and nonwork influences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner
couples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S. and Tan, H.H. (2005), “Rhythms of life: antecedents and outcomes of work-family
balance in employed parents”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 132-146.
The Associated Chambers of Commerce and India (2018), available at: www.indiainfoline.com/article/
general-others/working-women-in-urban-india-put-career-ahead-of-motherhood-assocham-survey-
113103105268_1.html (accessed 2 April 2018).

Babbie, E. (1990), Survey Research Methods, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Banerjee, R. and Dutta-Sachdeva, S. (2008), “Working moms want careers too”, The Times of India,
available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3010380.cms (accessed 9 March 2018).
Baral, R. and Bhargava, S. (2010), “Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational

interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 274-300.
Baral, R. and 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, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-147.
Barbuto, J.E., Fritz, S.M., Matkin, G.S. and Marx, D.B. (2007), “Effects of gender, education, and age
upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors”, Sex Roles, Vol. 56 Nos 1/2,
pp. 71-83.
Barnett, G.C. and Hyde, J.S. (2001), “Women, men, work and family: an expansionist theory”, The
American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 781-796.
Behson, S.J. (2005), “The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work–family support”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 487-500.
Beutell, N.J. and Wittig-Berman, U. (2008), “Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation
X, baby boomers, and matures: generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 507-523.
Bharat, S. (2003), “Women, work, and family in urban India: towards new families?”, in Berry, J.W.,
Mishra, R.C. and Tripathi, R.C. (Eds), Psychology in Human and Social Development: Lessons from
Diverse Cultures, Sage, New Delhi, pp. 155-169.
Bhatnagar, D. and Rajadhyaksha, U. (2001), “Attitudes towards work and family roles and their
implications for career growth of women: a report from India”, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 549-565.
Bhattacharjee, R. (2018), “As fatherhood changes”, The Hindu, available at: www.thehindu.com/opinion/
open-page/as-fatherhood-changes/article22535782.ece (accessed 20 February 2018).
Bhowon, U. (2013), “Role salience, work-family conflict and satisfaction of dual-earner couples”, Journal
of Business Studies Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 78.
Blau, P.M. (2017), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Boixados, M., Hernandez, E., Guillamon, N. and Pousada, M. (2010), “Working women’s lifestyles
and quality of life in the information society”, Health Care for Women International, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 552-567.
Boyar, S.L., Wagner, T.A., Petzinger, A. and McKinley, R.B. (2016), “The impact of family roles on
employee’s attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 623-635.
Bragger, J.D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., Kutcher, E.J., Indovino, L. and Rosner, E. (2005), “Work-family
conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 303-324.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M.P. and Kalliath, T.J. (2005), “The ability of ‘family friendly’ organizational resources
to predict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction”, Stress and Health, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 223-234.
Brush, C.G. and Cooper, S.Y. (2012), “Female entrepreneurship and economic development: an
international perspective”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 24 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-6.
Buttner, E.H. and Moore, D.P. (1997), “Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self-reported
motivations and correlates with success”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 34-46.
Carlson, D.S., Hunter, E.M., Ferguson, M. and Whitten, D. (2014), “Work-family enrichment and
satisfaction mediating processes and relative impact of originating and receiving domains”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 845-865.
Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2000), “Work-family conflict in the organization: do life role values make
a difference?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1031-1054.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H. and Grzywacz, J.G. (2006), “Measuring the positive side of the
work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 131-164.

Casper, W.J., Fox, K.E., Sitzmann, T.M. and Landy, A.L. (2004), “Supervisor referrals to work-family
programs”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 136.
Cinamon, R.G. (2010), “Anticipated work-family conflict: effects of role salience and self-efficacy”, British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 83-99.
Cinamon, R.G. and Rich, Y. (2002), “Profiles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications
for the work-family conflict”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, p. 212.
Clark, S.C. (2001), “Work cultures and work/family balance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 348-365.
Coates, J. (2015), Women, men and Language: A Sociolinguistic account of Gender Differences in
Language, Routledge, Abingdon.
Daniel, S. and Sonnentag, S. (2016), “Crossing the borders: the relationship between boundary
management, work-family enrichment and job satisfaction”, The International Journal of Human Resource
DeBord, K., Canu, R.F. and Kerpelman, J. (2000), “Understanding a work-family fit for single parents
moving from welfare to work”, Social Work, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 313-324.
De Klerk, M., Nel, J.A., Hill, C. and Koekemoer, E. (2013), “The development of the MACE work-family
enrichment instrument”, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1147-1162.
De Martino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-833.
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L. and Bakker, A.B. (2014), “New ways of working: impact on working
conditions, work-family balance, and well-being”, in Hoonakker, P. and Korunka, C. (Eds), The Impact of
ICT on Quality of Working Life, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 123-141.
Desai, N. (1996), “Women’s employment and their familial role in India”, in Shah, A.M., Baviskar, B.S. and
Ramaswamy, E.A. (Eds), Social Structure and Change: Women in Indian Society, Sage, New Delhi,
Vol. 2, pp. 98-112.
Dikkers, J.S., Geurts, S.A., Dulk, L.D., Peper, B., Taris, T.W. and Kompier, M.A. (2007), “Dimensions of
work-home culture and their relations with the use of work-home arrangements and work-home
interaction”, Work & Stress, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Dixon, M.A. and Sagas, M. (2007), “The relationship between organizational support, work-family conflict,
and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 78
No. 3, pp. 236-247.
Duxbury, L.E. and Higgins, C.A. (1991), “Gender differences in work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, p. 60.
Eagly, A.H. (2013), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation, Psychology Press,
Abingdon.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Makhijani, M.G. (1995), “Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a Meta-
analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 125-145.
Eaton, S.C. (2003), “If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and
perceived performance”, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 145-167.
Ezzedeen, S.R. and Ritchey, K.G. (2009), “Career advancement and family balance strategies of
executive women”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 388-411.
Fellin, P. (2001), The Community and the Social Worker, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove,
CA.
Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A. and Walters, S. (2002), “Opportunities to work at home in the
context of work-life balance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-76.
Fiksenbaum, L.M. (2014), “Supportive work-family environments: implications for work-family conflict and
well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 653-672.
Flipkart (2018), “How India’s ‘Penguin dads’ are redefining fatherhood”, available at: https://stories.
flipkart.com/penguin-dads-india-fatherhood/ (accessed 15 March 2018).

Friedman, S.D. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2000), Allies or Enemies? How Choices about Work and Family
Affect the Quality of Men’s and Women’s Lives, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, Sage, Washington, DC, Vol. 43, pp. 143-162.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1,
p. 65.
Fu, Q., He, S., Zhu, Y., Li, S.M., He, Y., Zhou, H. and Lin, N. (2015), “Toward a relational account of
neighborhood governance territory-based networks and residential outcomes in urban china”, American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 992-1006.
Furstenberg, F.F. and Hughes, M.E. (1997), “The influence of neighborhoods on children’s development:
a theoretical perspective and a research agenda”, Indicators of Children’s Well-Being, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 346-371.
Gajendran, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007), “The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting:
meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 6, p. 1524.
Hewapathirana, G.I. (2011), “The role of social identity in internationalization of women-owned small
businesses in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 172-193.
Gilbert, L.A. (2014), Men in Dual-career Families: Current Realities and Future Prospects, Psychology
Press, Abingdon.
Gneezy, U., Leonard, K.L. and List, J.A. (2009), “Gender differences in competition: evidence from a
matrilineal and a patriarchal society”, Econometrica, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 1637-1664.
Gollob, H.F. and Reichardt, C.S. (1987), “Taking account of time lags in causal models”, Child
Development, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Gordon, J.R., Whelan-Berry, K.S. and Hamilton, E.A. (2007), “The relationship among work-family conflict
and enhancement, organizational work-family culture, and work outcomes for older working women”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 350.
Granrose, C.S. (2007), “Gender differences in career perceptions in the People’s Republic of China”,
Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-27.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “When work and family are allies: a theory of work family
enrichment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 72-92.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Singh, R. (2003), “Work-family linkages, a Sloan work and family encyclopedia
entry”, available at: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/downloads/Work_family_Linkages.pdf
Greenhaus, J.H., Allen, T.D. and Spector, P.E. (2006), “Health consequences of work-family conflict: the
dark side of the work-family interface”, in Perrewé, P.L. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds), Employee Health,
Coping and Methodologies, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 5, pp. 61-98.
Greenhaus, J.H., Ziegert, J.C. and Allen, T.D. (2012), “When family-supportive supervision matters:
relations between multiple sources of support and work-family balance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 266-275.
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000), “Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological
perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Gupta, V., Levenburg, N., Moore, L., Motwani, J. and Schwarz, T. (2009), “Anglo vs. Asian family
business: a cultural comparison and analysis”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 46-55.
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family
conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, p. 560.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C. and Perhoniemi, R. (2011), “Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work
and at home: a 3-year cross-lagged panel study”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 8-30.

Huang, C.C., Wang, Y.M., Wu, T.W. and Wang, P.A. (2013), “An empirical analysis of the antecedents
and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform”, International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 217-221.
Jaga, A. and Bagrain, J. (2011), “The relationship between work-family enrichment and work-family
satisfaction outcomes”, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 52-62.
Kaur, H. and Hundal, B.S. (2017), “Impact of advertising strategies on the cognitive and behavioral
component of attitude of women consumers”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 413-433.
Kossek, E.E., Barber, A.E. and Winters, D. (1999), “Using flexible schedules in the managerial world: the
power of peers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Kossek, E.E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. and Hammer, L.B. (2011), “Workplace social support and work-
family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and
organizational support”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 289-313.
Karatepe, O.M. and Bekteshi, L. (2008), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family facilitation and
family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees”, International Journal of Hospitality
, I., Gregov, L. and Šimunic
Kneževic , A. (2016), “Salience and conflict of work and family roles among
employed men and women”, Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Vol. 67 No. 2.
Konrad, A. and Harris, C. (2002), “Desirability of the BEM sex-role inventory items for women and men: a
comparison between African Americans and European Americans”, Sex Roles, Vol. 47 Nos 5/6, pp. 259-271.
Lee, K. (2009), “Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 87-96.
Lee, N. (2001), Childhood and Society: Growing up in an Age of Uncertainty, McGraw-Hill Education,
London.
Lenka, U. and Agarwal, S. (2017), “Role of women entrepreneurs and NGOs in promoting
entrepreneurship: case studies from Uttarakhand, India”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 451-465.
Lieke, L. and Lautsch, B.A. (2016), “Office or kitchen? Wellbeing consequences of role participation
depend on role salience”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 93, pp. 171-182.
Litchfield, L. and Bankert, E. (1998), Business Week’s Work and Family Corporate Ranking: An Analysis
of the Data, Boston College Center for Work & Family, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Lyness, K.S. and Erkovan, H.E. (2016), “The changing dynamics of careers and the work-family
interface”, in Allen, T. and Eby, L.T. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 376-390.
McNall, Nicklin, J.M. and Masuda, L.A., A.D. (2010), “A meta-analytic review of the consequences
associated with work-family enrichment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 381-396.
Mans, U. (2014), “Tracking geographies of sustainability transitions: relational and territorial aspects of
urban policies in Casablanca and Cape Town”, Geoforum, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 150-161.
Marks, S.R. (1977), “Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time, and commitment”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 921-936.
Marks, S.R. and Leslie, L.A. (2000), “Family diversity and intersecting categories: toward a richer
approach to multiple roles”, Handbook of Family Diversity, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 402-423.
Martire, L.M., Stephens, M.A.P. and Townsend, A.L. (2000), “Centrality of women’s multiple roles:
beneficial and detrimental consequences for psychological well-being”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 15
No. 1, p. 148.
Milkie, M.A. and Peltola, P. (1999), “Playing all the roles: gender and the work-family balancing act”,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 476-490.
Mishra, P. (2015), “A grounded theory study on family-to-work enrichment: exploring links with family
resources, community resources, work-role salience and psychological capital”, South Asian Journal of
Global Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-67.

Mishra, P., Gupta, R. and Bhatnagar, J. (2014), “Grounded theory research: exploring work-
family enrichment in an emerging economy”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 289-306.
Mitchell, M.E., Eby, L.T. and Lorys, A. (2015), “Feeling work at home: a transactional model of women and
men’s negative affective spillover from work to family”, in Mills, M. (Ed.), Gender and the Work-Family
Experience: An Interaction of Two Domains, Springer International Publishing, New York, NY,
pp. 121-140.
Moen, P., Kelly, E.L., Fan, W., Lee, S.R., Almeida, D., Kossek, E.E. and Buxton, O.M. (2016), “Does a
flexibility/support organizational initiative improve high-tech employees’ well-being? Evidence from the
work, family, and health network”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 134-164.
Mohan, J. (1973), Twenty-five Years of Indian Independence, Vikas Publishing, New Delhi.
Molinari, C., Ahern, M. and Hendryx, M. (1998), “The relationship of community quality to the health of
women and men”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1113-1120.
Mueller, S.L. (2004), “Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countries and cultures”,
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 199-220.
Narayana, G. (1982), “Job analysis of workload assessment of female workers in India”, ASCI Journal of
National Crime Records Bureau India (2016), available at: http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/
CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf
Neubert, M.J. and Taggar, S. (2004), “Pathways to informal leadership: the moderating role of gender on
the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership
emergence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-194.
Odle-Dusseau, H.N., Herleman, H.A., Britt, T.W., Moore, D.D., Castro, C.A. and McGurk, D. (2013),
“Family-supportive work environments and psychological strain: a longitudinal test of two theories”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T.J. (2004), “Work/Family conflict, psychological well-being,
satisfaction and social support: a longitudinal study in New Zealand”, Equal Opportunities International,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 36-56.
Oh, H.J., Ozkaya, E. and LaRose, R. (2014), “How does online social networking enhance life
satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social
support, sense of community, and life satisfaction”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 30,
pp. 69-78.
Olson, D.A. and Shultz, K.S. (1994), “Gender differences in the dimensionality of social Support1”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 1221-1232.
Parikh, I.J. (1998), “Paradigms of gender issues in Indian organizations”, available at: http://vslir.iima.ac.
in:8080/jspui/bitstream/11718/618/1/wp%201998_1445.pdf (accessed 28 February 2018).
Mishra, P., Bhatnagar, J., Gupta, R. and Wadsworth, S.M. (2017), “How work–family enrichment influence
innovative work behaviour: role of psychological capital and supervisory support”, Journal of
Management & Organization, pp. 1-23, available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.23
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., MacDermid, S.M., Schwarz, R. and Matz, C. (2006), “Community contexts the
perspectives and adaptations of working parents”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 49 No. 10,
pp. 1400-1421.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Poster, W. and Prasad, S. (2005), “Work-family relations in transnational perspective: a view from high-
tech firms in India and the United States”, Social Problems, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 122-146.
Powell, G.N., Francesco, A.M. and Ling, Y. (2009), “Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family
interface”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 597-616.
Punia, B.K. (2005), “Emerging gender diversity and male stereotypes: the changing indian business
scenario”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 188-205.
Rajadhyaksha, U. and Smita, S. (2004), “Tracing a timeline for work and family research in India”,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39 No. 17, pp. 1674-1680.

Razvi, M. and Roth, G. (2004), “Socio-economic development and gender inequality in India”, in Egan,
T.M., Morris, M.L. and Inbakumar, V. (Eds), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development, Academy of Human Resource Development, Bowling Green, OH, pp. 168-175.
Reevy, G.M. and Maslach, C. (2001), “Use of social support: gender and personality differences”, Sex
Roles, Vol. 44 Nos 7/8, pp. 437-459.
Rothbard, N. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-684.
Rothbard, N.P. and Edwards, J.R. (2003), “Investment in work and family roles: a test of identity and
utilitarian motives”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 699-729.
Sampson, R.J. (2001), “How do communities undergird or undermine human development? Relevant
contexts and social mechanisms”, in Booth, A. and Crouter, A.C. (Eds), Does It Take a Village?
Community Effects on Children, adolescents, and Families, Psychology Press, Abingdon, pp. 3-30.
Saraff, A. and Srivastava, H.C. (2008), “Envisioning fatherhood: Indian fathers’ perceptions of an ideal
father”, Population Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Seligman, M.E. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014), Positive Psychology: An Introduction, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 279-298.
Shaffer, A.M., Joplin, R.W.J. and Hsu, Y. (2011), “Expending the boundary of work family research: a
review and agenda for future research”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 221-268.
Sharmal, M. (2013), “Work from home policy gains popularity among companies”, Times of India,
available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/Work-from-home-policy-gains-popularity-
with-companies/articleshow/19421602.cms (accessed 12 January 2014).
Sieber, S.D. (1974), “Toward a theory of role accumulation”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 567-578.
Silberstein, L.R. (2014), Dual-career Marriage: A System in Transition, Psychology Press, Abingdon.
Skinner, N. and Ichii, R. (2015), “Exploring a family, work, and community model of work-family gains and
strains”, Community, Work & Family, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 79-99.
Small, S. and Supple, A. (2001), “Communities as systems: is a community more than the sum of its
parts”, in Booth, A. and Crouter, A.C. (Eds), Does It Take a Village? Community Effects on Children,
adolescents, and Families, Psychology Press, Abingdon, pp. 159-187.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012), “Coping with work-family conflict: the reciprocal and additive
contributions of personal coping and organizational family-friendly support”, Work & Stress, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 68-90.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T.D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J.I., Siu, O.L., Hart, P. and
Lu, L. (2004), “A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-
being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1,
pp. 119-142.
Spier, E., Britto, P., Pigott, T., Roehlkepartain, E., McKarthy, M., Kidron, Y., Wagner, D., Lane, J., Glover,
J. and Song, M. (2016), “Parental, familial, and community support interventions to improve children’s
literacy in developing countries: a systematic review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 1-24.
Sriram, R. and Navalkar, P. (2013), “Fathering in India”, in Pattnaik, J. (Ed.), Father Involvement in Young
Children’s Lives: A Global Analysis, Springer, Dordrecht, Vol. 6, pp. 279-300.
Stein, E. (1999), The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Stoner, C.R., Hartman, R.I. and Arora, R. (2011), “Work/family conflict: a study of women in management”,
Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-74.
Thompson, C.A. and Prottas, D.J. (2006), “Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 100.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Allen, T.D. (2006), “Work and family from an industrial/organizational
psychology perspective”, in Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E.E. and Sweet, S. (Eds), The Work and Family

Handbook: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives, methods, and Approaches, vol. 26, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 283-307.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Lyness, K.S. (1999), “When work-family benefits are not enough: the
influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 392-415.
Turner, M. and Lingard, H. (2016), “Community role salience: the development and testing of a new
measure”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1-16.
Van den Berg, W., Hendricks, L., Hatcher, A., Peacock, D., Godana, P. and Dworkin, S. (2013),
“One man can’: shifts in fatherhood beliefs and parenting practices following a gender-
transformative programme in Eastern Cape, South Africa”, Gender & Development, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 111-125.
Van Steenbergen, E.F. and Ellemers, N. (2009), “Is managing the work-family interface worthwhile?
Benefits for employee health and performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 617-642.
Vaquera, E. and Kao, G. (2008), “Do you like me as much as I like you? Friendship reciprocity and
its effects on school outcomes among adolescents”, Social Science Research, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 55-72.
Vinkenburg, C.J., van Hattem, A.Y., Ossenkop, C. and Dikkers, J.S. (2013), “Life role salience and
values”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, p. 607.
Voydanoff, P. (2004), “Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to
family conflict and facilitation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 275-285.
Voydanoff, P. (2005), “The differential salience of family and community demands and resources for
family-to-work conflict and facilitation”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 395-417.
Voydanoff, P. (2014), Work, family, and Community: Exploring Interconnections, Psychology Press,
Abingdon.
Wacker, R.R. and Roberto, K.A. (2013), Community Resources for Older Adults: Programs and Services
in an Era of Change, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wang, P., Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, H. and Aryee, S. (2013), “Unraveling the relationship between family-
supportive supervisor and employee performance”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 258-287.
Wang, P., Lawler, J.J., Shi, K., Walumbwa, F. and Piao, M. (2008), “Family-friendly employment practices:
importance and effects in India, Kenya, and China”, Advances in International Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 235-265.
Walial, N. (2016), “The rise of alpha dads”, Times of India, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/life-style/relationships/parenting/The-rise-of-Alpha-Dads/articleshow/52795134.cms (accessed 23
February 2018).
Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N. and Fleeson, W. (2004), “Considering the role of personality in the work-family
experience: relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 108-130.
Wayne, J.H., Randel, A.E. and Stevens, J. (2006), “The role of identity and work-family support in work-
family enrichment and its work-related consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 445-461.
Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2007), “Work-family facilitation: a
theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Wadsworth, L.L. and Owens, B.P. (2007), “The effects of social support on work-family
enhancement and work-family conflict in the public sector”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67
No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Westman, M. (2005), “Cross-cultural differences in crossover research”, in Poelmans, S. (Ed.),
Work and Family: An International Research Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 241-260.

Wolfram, H.J. and Gratton, L. (2014), “Spillover between work and home, role importance and life
satisfaction”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
About the authors

Dr Pavitra Mishra is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human
Resource Management at Indian Institute of Management Rohtak (India). She is
awarded Fellow in Management from Management Development Institute Gurgaon. She
has received two international awards Highly Commended Award winner of the 2015
Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral Research Award in the Human Resource
Management category, and Outstanding Paper in the 2016 Emerald Literati Network
Awards for Excellence. Pavitra Mishra is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: pavitra.mishra@iimrohtak.ac.in
Dr Jyotsna Bhatnagar is Professor of Human Resource Management at Management
Development Institute Gurgaon. PhD from IIT Delhi, Prof. Bhatnagar completed GCPCL at
Harvard Business School, Boston, USA. She has published extensively and has
participated in imminent management conferences such as Academy of Management and
International Human Resource Management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Individual, Organizational and Social Level Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment: Does Gender Acts As A Moderator?

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

Individual, Organizational and Social Level Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment: Does Gender Acts As A Moderator?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual, organizational and social level

antecedents of work-family enrichment:

Pavitra Mishra is based at Abstract

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 105

1. Work-to-family capital, i.e. when involvement in work promotes various levels of

PAGE 106 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

Theory and hypotheses

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 107

Family role salience and work-to-family enrichment

Community support and work-to-family enrichment

PAGE 108 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 109

PAGE 110 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

Work-to-family enrichment. Work-to-family enrichment was measured using a nine-item

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 111

Table I Descriptive statistics and inter-item correlation among variables

Gender 1.62 0.485

PAGE 112 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

Family role salience 0.64 0.75 0.37

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 113

PAGE 114 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 115

Family role salience, work-to-family enrichment and gender

PAGE 116 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

4. playmate and friend;

6. family head; and

Community resources, work-to-family enrichment and gender

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 117

1. growing intrinsic motivation toward household/children responsibilities; and

Growing intrinsic motivation can be explained through Vroom’s expectancy theory of

PAGE 118 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

Limitations and implications

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 119

PAGE 120 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

Baral, R. and Bhargava, S. (2010), “Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 121

PAGE 122 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 123

PAGE 124 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 125

PAGE 126 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j PAGE 127

About the authors

PAGE 128 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019

You might also like