Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 20, No. 1, 82–92 1076-8998/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037890

Setting a Good Example: Supervisors as Work-Life-Friendly Role Models

Within the Context of Boundary Management
Anna R. Koch and Carmen Binnewies
University of Muenster

This multisource, multilevel study examined the importance of supervisors as work-life-friendly role
models for employees’ boundary management. Particularly, we tested whether supervisors’ work-home
segmentation behavior represents work-life-friendly role modeling for their employees. Furthermore, we
tested whether work-life-friendly role modeling is positively related to employees’ work-home segmen-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tation behavior. Also, we examined whether work-life-friendly role modeling is positively related to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

employees’ well-being in terms of feeling less exhausted and disengaged. In total, 237 employees and
their 75 supervisors participated in our study. Results from hierarchical linear models revealed that
supervisors who showed more segmentation behavior to separate work and home were more likely
perceived as work-life-friendly role models. Employees with work-life-friendly role models were more
likely to segment between work and home, and they felt less exhausted and disengaged. One may
conclude that supervisors as work-life-friendly role models are highly important for employees’ work-
home segmentation behavior and gatekeepers to implement a work-life-friendly organizational culture.

Keywords: work-life-friendly role modeling, boundary management, work-home segmentation behavior,

exhaustion, disengagement

Currently, work can be done anywhere and anytime. Boundaries
between work and home domains are becoming increasingly
blurred (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). For example, the rise
of communication technology allows wireless Internet access and
facilitates work being done at home (Kurland & Bailey, 1999).
Employees must step up to the new challenge of successfully
organizing the boundaries between their work and home domains.
As most human learning occurs through observational learning
(Bandura, 1977) employees often rely on their supervisors as role
models for learning how to successfully organize their work-home
boundaries (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009; Park, Fritz, & Jex,
2011). Supervisors are part of employees’ organizational environ-
ment, which boundary theory emphasizes as an influential ante-
cedent for employees’ boundary management (Clark, 2000; Ko-
ssek & Lautsch, 2012). Supervisors embody organizational values
(Powell & Mainiero, 1999; Scandura & Lankau, 1997) and allow
employees to view them as positive examples of organizational
boundary management norms. Particularly, because organizations
This article was published Online First September 8, 2014.
Anna R. Koch and Carmen Binnewies, Institute of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Muenster.
This study is part of Anna R. Koch’s dissertation. Preliminary results of
this study were presented at the 16th Conference of the European Associ-
ation of Work and Organizational Psychology in Muenster, Germany.
We thank Wiebke Boess, Anna Sophie Herrmann, Ina Krueger and
Astrid Wirth for their involvement in data collection. We thank Verena C.
Hahn and Eva Brosch for helpful comments on earlier versions of this
paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anna R.
Koch, Institute of Psychology, University of Muenster, Fliednerstr. 21,
48149 Muenster, Germany. E-mail: anna.r.koch@uni-muenster.de
typically cannot rely on formal systems of job descriptions to
cultivate boundary management, there should be a strong influence
of role models (Yaffe & Kark, 2011).
Until now, knowledge about supervisors as role models for their
employees’ work-home segmentation is scarce, although there
have been calls for studies on the effect of supervisors as role
models within the context of boundary management (Hammer,
Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009). In addition, research
aimed to identify starting points for implementing a work-life-
friendly organizational culture (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness,
1999). Supervisors constitute promising starting points (O’Neill et
al., 2009). Considering organizational work-life interventions, it
would be highly important to know whether supervisors with high
work-home segmentation behavior represent work-life-friendly
role models within their work group. We address these calls and
focus on supervisors as role models within the context of boundary
management. Relying on social learning (Bandura, 1977) and
recovery theories (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), we argue that su-
pervisors with high work-home segmentation behavior who define
clear respite from work when being at home represent work-life-
friendly role models. Although the work-home segmentation of
supervisors is not behavior that is directly aimed at employees, it
is visible and thus observable by employees (Nippert-Eng, 1996).
Employees can observe supervisors giving an example of how to
manage both life domains successfully in terms of defining work-
free respites when at home. We propose that work-life-friendly
role modeling is positively related to employees’ individual work-
home segmentation behavior and well-being (low amounts of
exhaustion and disengagement). Work-life-friendly role models
should facilitate the work-home segmentation behavior of employ-
ees in terms of taking respites, during which recovery can occur.
Moreover, work-life-friendly role models may give employees the
feeling of being fairly treated because of an adequate amount of

82
 SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE
segmentation from work when they are at home, and increase
positive emotions and identification with the organization.
By including the concept of supervisors’ work-life-friendly role
modeling into boundary management research, our study contrib-
utes to the literature in two ways. First, our study captures the
relationship between work-life-friendly role modeling and em-
ployees’ work-home segmentation behavior. Studying work-life-
friendly role modeling as one element and potential predictor from
the organizational environment will enrich theory building around
the construct of boundary management. Hence, our study contrib-
utes to boundary literature and helps to better understand the
phenomenon of boundary management itself. Second, our study
examines whether supervisors who show a high degree of segmen-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tation behavior between the work domain and home domain are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
experienced as work-life-friendly role models within their work
groups. Focusing on the relationship between supervisors’ own
work-home segmentation behavior and work-life-friendly role
modeling allows us to draw a more comprehensive picture of the
potential consequences of boundary management. Our study
thereby aims to identify new starting points for implementing a
work-life-friendly organizational culture.
Boundary Management
Boundary theory indicates that employees create and maintain
boundaries between their life domains, such as work and home
(Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007; Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng,
1996). Boundaries can be constructed along a continuum from
weak ones (high integration between domains) to strong ones (high
segmentation between domains). Employees differ in their behav-
iors and strategies for integrating and segmenting life domains
(Hecht & Allen, 2009; Nippert-Eng, 1996). These behavioral strat-
egies aimed at integrating and segmenting life domains have been
defined as boundary management (Ashforth et al., 2000; Bulger et
al., 2007; Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996). Within the context of
work-life-balance, boundary management (e.g., bringing elements
of one domain into the other) comprises two typical behaviors,
referring to the integration of home into work and work into home
(Bulger et al., 2007; Hecht & Allen, 2009). Home-work segmen-
tation behavior refers to the degree to which employees prevent
various aspects of the home domain from entering the work
domain. Second, work-home segmentation behavior refers to the
degree to which employees prevent various aspects of work from
entering the home domain. In our study, we focus on the second
dimension: work-home segmentation behavior. Work-home-
segmentation behavior refers to the extent that employees work out
of office, write or receive work-related correspondence at home,
and define clear respites (Hecht & Allen, 2009). Employees with
high work-home segmentation behavior draw a line between work
and home domains (Kreiner et al., 2009). For example, employees
take respites during which they are not available for work issues
while at home. In contrast, employees with low work-home seg-
mentation behavior are likely to integrate work into the home
domain, for example by doing work-related correspondence at
home (Hecht & Allen, 2009). Boundary management is visible and
thus observable by others (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Nippert-Eng
(1996) states that boundary management “is first and foremost a
mental activity, but it must be enacted and enhanced through a
largely visible collection of essential, practical activities” (Nippert-
83
Eng, 1996, p. 7). Thus, supervisors’ work-home segmentation
behavior can be recognized by employees through direct and
indirect indicators (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Such indicators
could be supervisors’ direct communication, observed work and
nonwork hours, work results and received and written work-related
correspondence during nonwork time.
Recovery Perspective on Work-Home
Segmentation Behavior
In general, there is not just one right way to manage boundaries.
Research suggests that boundary management highly depends on
employees’ preferences for segmentation (Park et al., 2011). How-
ever, we argue that from a recovery perspective at least a slight
degree of segmentation between work and home domain is essen-
tial to release load reactions and secure well-being (Meijman &
Mulder, 1998). According to the Effort-Recovery model (Meijman
& Mulder, 1998), recovery occurs with the absence of work
stressors. If an employee stops working and depleting resources,
the functional system returns to the baseline level and recovery
automatically occurs (Binnewies & Sonnentag, 2008; Meijman &
Mulder, 1998). Therefore, according to the Effort-Recovery model
(Meijman & Mulder, 1998) recovery is essential to segment life
domains and find at least some respite from work when at home.
Recovery research supports this assumption and shows that recov-
ery during nonwork time is beneficial for well-being and health
(Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). However, if
time for recovery is not sufficient, an employee’s functional sys-
tem does not return to the baseline level and the performance of
upcoming work tasks is impeded (Binnewies & Sonnentag, 2008;
Meijman & Mulder, 1998). For example, job-related activities
during nonwork time further draw on resources needed at work
and inhibit recovery (Sonnentag, 2001). Consequently, an em-
ployee must invest compensatory effort in order to maintain the
fulfillment of tasks and goals (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Insuf-
ficient recovery and increased fatigue can accumulate, when re-
covery is lacking over longer periods of time (Meijman & Mulder,
1998). Over time, negative consequences, such as severe health
complaints that cannot be easily reversed during the usual rest
periods can result (Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2008). In conclusion,
from a recovery perspective work-home segmentation in terms of
finding respite from work is needed to recover from work stress
(Park et al., 2011). High integration of work into the home domain
without respite harms recovery (Park et al., 2011).
Supervisors as Work-Life-Friendly Role Models
Social learning theory emphasizes the importance of role mod-
els for employees’ behaviors and attitudes within the organiza-
tional context (Bandura, 1977). Supervisors are emphasized as
particularly important role models, for example by transforma-
tional leadership theories (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Judge & Bono,
2000). Supervisors’ behavior shapes organizational norms and
embodies organizational values (Hammer et al., 2009; Powell &
Mainiero, 1999; Scandura & Lankau, 1997). For example, super-
visors embody organizational valued boundary management.
Therefore, we argue that supervisors who segment more between
work and home represent stronger work-life-friendly role models
within their work groups.
 84 KOCH AND BINNEWIES
We define work-life-friendly role models as those who provide
examples of strategies and behaviors that allow employees to
recover from work stress. Supervisors who are perceived as work-
life-friendly role models set a good example in terms of work-life
balance, for example by taking respites during nonwork time and
refraining from work-related activities.
In our study, we conceptualize work-life-friendly role modeling
as a shared group-level variable that reflects work group members’
perceptions of the extent to which their supervisor constitutes a
work-life-friendly role model. This definition implies that employ-
ees working in the same work group are likely to experience
similar supervisor boundary management. This definition is con-
sistent with Chen and Bliese (2002) who conceptualized leadership
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
behavior as shared group-level perception and implies that super-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
visors’ work-home segmentation behavior is visible within their
work group. Work-life role modeling comprises supervisors’ mod-
eling behaviors on the job (Hammer et al., 2009). We propose that
supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior is a particularly
important modeling behavior. Supervisors who highly segment
between work and home domains create work-free spaces in their
private lives (e.g., engaging in leisure and family activities) during
which they are not available for work-related issues. These super-
visor behaviors provide employees with the impression that the
organization values private life and that taking time off does not
hinder organizational success (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Super-
visors who highly integrate work into the home domain with an
‘always-on’ mentality do not intentionally create work-free spaces
in their private lives. These supervisors are likely to engage in
work issues at any time (Hecht & Allen, 2009). Supervisors with
high work-home integration behavior may therefore imply that the
organization expects employees to be always available even during
nonwork time, probably to the detriment of family obligations and
leisure activities (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Therefore, these su-
pervisors may embody the perception that there is low organiza-
tional support for employees’ private lives and recovery from work
stress.
Empirical evidence supports our proposition: Kirby and Krone
(2002) showed that other than what supervisors communicate,
employees look at their supervisors’ behavior (e.g., hours worked
overtime) regarding their use of alternative work arrangements
(e.g., flextime). Also Hammer and colleagues (2009) found that
supervisors are experienced as role models within the context of
work-life-balance.
Hypothesis 1: Supervisors with high work-home segmentation
behavior represent work-life-friendly role models within their
work group.
Work-Life-Friendly Role Modeling Is Related to
Employees’ Work-Home Segmentation
Behavior and Well-Being
We argue that work-life-friendly role models constitute an im-
portant resource for employees in the organizational context
(Hammer et al., 2009) and should be positively related to employ-
ees’ own work-home segmentation behavior. Moreover, work-life
role modeling should be positively associated with employees’
well-being. Regarding employees’ well-being, we focused on two
core dimensions: emotional exhaustion and disengagement (cf.
Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Exhaustion is
a consequence of intense strain, and a long-term consequence of
prolonged exposure to certain job demands (Demerouti et al.,
2001). Disengagement refers to distancing oneself from one’s
work in general, work tasks and work content (Demerouti et al.,
2001). Low disengagement is associated with high identification
with work and willingness to stay in the same occupation (Demer-
outi, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). In general, employees rely on role
models by forming expectations for themselves as well as guide-
lines for future behavior (Bandura, 1977), which in turn affects
their well-being and behavior. A role model’s behavior is copied
particularly at times when rewarding consequences are expected
(Bandura, 1977). Supervisors represent organizational values
(Powell & Mainiero, 1999; Scandura & Lankau, 1997), have high
decisional power, and are often responsible for hiring, evaluating
and promoting employees. As a consequence, they constitute role
models whose behavior is likely to be imitated (Bandura, 1977;
Weiss, 1978). Previous research has shown that work-home seg-
mentation behavior depends not only on individual preferences for
integration and segmentation but also on organizational norms
(Park et al., 2011), as represented by the supervisor.
We argue that employees should be more likely to intentionally
define respites and believe that they do not have to be always
available when working with a work-life-friendly role model. In
order to be successful in the organization, employees are likely to
adapt their behavior according to the work-life-friendly role model
(Park et al., 2011) by segmenting stronger between work and home
domains. Moreover, employees should feel fairly treated and ex-
perience support for their private lives, as organizations allow time
for respites. Positive emotions and identification with the organi-
zation should thereby also be higher. Also, during work-free
respites load reactions (e.g., fatigue) can be released and recovery
can occur, which should benefit employees’ well-being (Cohen-
Charash & Spector, 2001; Meijman & Mulder, 1998). In sum, we
argue that work-life-friendly role modeling should be positively
related to employees’ work-home segmentation behavior and well-
being (low amounts of exhaustion and disengagement).
A work-life-unfriendly role model makes it more likely that
employees conclude that their organization expects an “always-
on” mentality. Therefore, it will be more likely that employees
integrate work into their home domain, for example, by taking
fewer work-free respites. These employees are more likely to feel
unfairly treated by disproportionate expectations of work-home
integration. Employees are more likely to feel distressed and less
committed to their organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
Moreover, if employees do not take work-free respites, they cannot
recover from load reactions, which may result in impaired well-
being (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Therefore, we argue that work-
life-unfriendly role models should be negatively related to employ-
ees’ work-home integration and reduce employees’ well-being
(high amounts of exhaustion and disengagement).
There is initial empirical evidence that supports our assump-
tions. Park and colleagues (2011) found that the organizational
segmentation norm affects whether employees can refrain from
work-related thoughts during nonwork time. Burke (2006) found
that employees who experienced their organization (and supervi-
sor) as valuing work-life-balance felt less forced to work extended
hours.
 SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE
Hypothesis 2: Work-life-friendly role modeling will have a
direct positive relationship with employees’ work-home seg-
mentation behavior.
Hypothesis 3: Work-life-friendly role modeling will have a
direct negative relationship with employees’ exhaustion and
disengagement.
Method
We used a multisource design with employees and their super-
visors to test our hypotheses. Participants were white-collar em-
ployees and supervisors from various German organizations. To
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
recruit participants we contacted and informed managers from
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
various companies (e.g., mostly local and federal administrations,
health insurance companies and care providers) about our study on
“work-life balance and recovery.” After managers expressed in-
terest in participation, we provided them with information leaflets
that they used to inform employees. Employees could then register
online for study participation. Upon registration we sent employ-
ees packages including instruction leaflets, paper-and-pencil ques-
tionnaires and postpaid return envelopes. Employees completed
the predictor variable questionnaire immediately, whereas the out-
come variable questionnaire was completed 2 days later. Employ-
ees also received questionnaires for their supervisors and were
asked to invite their supervisors to participate in the study by
giving them the questionnaires. Like employees, supervisors could
then decide whether or not they wanted to participate in the study.
All questionnaires were sent back via postpaid envelopes. Employ-
ees’ and supervisors’ questionnaires were matched with a code.
In total, 403 employees and 81 supervisors participated in our
study. A total of 149 employees1 had to be dropped from the
analyses, as they could not be matched with supervisor data. For
all study variables as well as for all demographic variables, we
conducted t-tests in order to compare employees whose supervi-
sors had participated with employees whose supervisors had not
participated. T-tests showed that employees whose supervisors had
participated did not significantly differ from those employees
whose supervisors had not participated with respect to job involve-
ment, work-life role modeling, work-home segmentation behavior
and exhaustion. The only significant difference between the groups
was that disengagement was higher for employees whose super-
visors had not participated. One possible explanation for this
finding is that less highly disengaged employees did invite their
supervisors to participate.
Another 17 employees and six supervisors had to be excluded
because of missing data on study variables. Thus, our final sample
consisted of 237 employees and 75 supervisors. The majority of
employees was female (67.4%). Employees’ mean age was 41.93
years (SD ⫽ 13.15). On average, 31.6% of employees lived
together with a partner and 37.6% lived together with a partner and
children. The average number of children was 0.82 (SD ⫽ 0.98).2
On average, employees had worked 10 years (SD ⫽ 9.78) in their
current company and 1.26% held a leadership position (SD ⫽
0.99). With regard to supervisors, 45.5% were female and on
average 49.25 years old (SD ⫽ 11.50). The average employment
duration of supervisors within their current company was 15.81
years (SD ⫽ 9.86). On average, 12.57 employees per supervisor
participated (SD ⫽ 12.53).
85
Measures
Supervisors completed one questionnaire, which comprised
their work-home segmentation behavior and demographic data.
Employee data was measured with two questionnaires: a predictor
and an outcome variable questionnaire. In the predictor variable
questionnaire, employees’ perception of their supervisors as work-
life-friendly role models was measured. Furthermore, employees’
job involvement as a control variable and demographic data were
collected. In the outcome variable questionnaire that was com-
pleted 2 days after the predictor variable questionnaire, employees’
work-home segmentation behavior as well as their exhaustion and
disengagement were measured. We used two separate question-
naires for employees to reduce common method bias. As recom-
mended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we
separated the measurement of the predictor (role modeling percep-
tion) from the outcomes (employees’ work-home segmentation
behavior and well-being). Our research design is displayed in
Figure 1.
Supervisors’ questionnaire. Supervisors’ work-home seg-
mentation behavior was assessed with Hecht and Allen’s (2009)
eight-item boundary strength at home scale. A sample item is “I
often do work at home” (reverse coded). Answering categories
were “1 ⫽ strongly disagree” to “7 ⫽ strongly agree.” Cronbach’s
alpha was .88.
Employees’ predictor variable questionnaire. Work-life-
friendly role modeling was assessed with a subscale of Hammer
and colleagues’ (2009) family supportive supervisor behavior
(FSSB) scale. The subscale contains three items. A sample item is
“My supervisor is a good role model for work and nonwork
balance.” Answering categories were “1 ⫽ strongly disagree” to
“5 ⫽ strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Employees’ job involvement was measured as a control variable.
Boundary theory and recent research findings (Ashforth et al.,
2000; Hecht & Allen, 2009) suggest that strong involvement
within the work domain makes integration of work into the home
domain more likely. Employees who strongly identify themselves
with their job seem to be particularly willing to put their private
life on hold in favor of work issues. Job involvement was assessed
with a five-item short scale of Kanungo’s job involvement ques-
tionnaire (1982). This scale measures the degree of psychological
importance of one’s job using a five-point Likert scale from “1 ⫽
strongly disagree” to “5 ⫽ strongly agree.” A sample item is “I
consider my job to be very central to my existence.” Cronbach’s
alpha was .87.
Supervisors’ emotional work-life support was measured as a
further control variable. Work-life research (e.g., Hammer et al.,
2009; Thompson et al., 1999) has shown that supervisors’ work-
life support benefits their employees in terms of work-home issues.
To rule out proposed relationships simply being because of super-
visors’ expressed support we decided to control for supervisors’
1
In our study, employees who participated received the supervisor’s
questionnaire and were asked to forward it to their supervisor. Thus, the
dropout of the 149 employees without matchable supervisor data could
have been caused by both employees and supervisors. Because of this
procedure and reasons of anonymity, the rate of nonresponding supervisors
cannot be determined.
2
Neither employees’ living situation nor their number of children was
significantly related to our study’s predictor and outcome variables.
 86 KOCH AND BINNEWIES

Supervisors’ Employees’ Employees’

quesonnaire predictor variable quesonnaire outcome variable questionnaire

- Work-life friendly role- - Employees’ work-home

modeling segmentaon behavior

Supervisors’ work-home - Employees’ job involvement - Employees’ exhauson

segmentaon behavior
- Emoonal work-life support - Employees’ disengagement

Figure 1. Conceptual model and research design.

emotional work-life support within our analyses. Supervisors’ To test our hypotheses, all predictor variables were centered
emotional work-life support was measured with a subscale of around the grand mean.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hammer and colleagues’ (2009) family supportive supervisor be-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

havior (FSSB) scale. The subscale measures supervisors’ care and
verbalized support toward employees’ work-life balance with four
items. A sample item is “My supervisor makes me feel comfort-
able talking to him or her about my conflicts between work and
nonwork.” Answering categories were “1 ⫽ strongly disagree” to
“5 ⫽ strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha was .92.
Employees’ outcome variable questionnaire. Employees’
work-home segmentation behavior was assessed with Hecht and
Allen’s (2009) eight-item boundary strength at home scale. A
sample item is “I often do work at home” (reverse coded). An-
swering categories were “1 ⫽ strongly disagree” to “7 ⫽ strongly
agree.” Cronbach’s alpha was .82.
Exhaustion and disengagement were assessed with the Olden-
burg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti, Bakker, Vardakou, & Kantas
Aristotelis, 2003). Emotional exhaustion was measured with eight
items. A sample item is “After my work, I usually feel worn out
and weary.” Disengagement was also measured with eight items.
An example item is “I usually talk about my work in a derogatory
way.” Answering categories for both dimensions were “1 – totally
disagree” to “4 – totally agree.” Cronbach’s alphas were .82 for
exhaustion and .78 for disengagement.
Data Analysis
We had data at two levels: the employee level (Level 1) and the
supervisor level (Level 2). Employee-level data was nested within
supervisors. In order not to overestimate statistical significance
(Urbach & Austin, 2005) we applied hierarchical linear models to
test our hypotheses (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). We used the HLM
software (HLM Version 6; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Cong-
don, 2004) to analyze the data with hierarchical linear modeling.
Results
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, intraclass cor-
relations and zero-order correlations are displayed in Table 1. To
test for the relationship between supervisors’ work-home segmen-
tation behavior and work-life-friendly role modeling (Hypothesis
1) we conducted HLM analyses. In the Null model, the intercept
was the only predictor. In Model 1, we entered employees’ job
involvement and supervisors’ emotional work-life support as con-
trol variables. In Model 2, we entered supervisors’ work-home
segmentation behavior as Level 2 predictor variable. Supervisors’
emotional work-life support in Model 1 (b ⫽ 0.57, p ⬍ .01) and
supervisors’ work-home segmentation in Model 2 (b ⫽ 0.29, p ⬍
.01) emerged as significant positive predictors of work-life-
friendly role modeling (see Table 2). Thus, supervisors who pro-
vided support and segmented work from the home domain were
experienced as stronger work-life-friendly role models within their
work groups, which supports Hypothesis 1.
To test whether work-life-friendly role modeling is related to
employees’ work-home segmentation behavior and well-being
(Hypotheses 2–3) we also used HLM analyses. In the Null model,
the intercept was the only predictor. In Model 1, we entered
employees’ job involvement and supervisors’ emotional work-life
support as control variables. In Model 2, we entered supervisors’
work-home segmentation behavior and work-life-friendly role
modeling as predictor variables.
Table 3 displays the results for employees’ work-home segmen-
tation behavior as an outcome variable. In Model 1, job involve-
ment was a significant negative (b ⫽ ⫺.22, p ⬍ .001) predictor of
employees’ work-home segmentation behavior. In Model 2, work-
life-friendly role modeling was a significant positive predictor

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations (SDs), Cronbach’s Alphas, Intra Class Correlations (ICCs) and Correlations Between Study Variables

Variables Mean SD ␣ ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Employees’ job involvement 4.12 1.16 0.87 0.10

2. Emotional work-life support 3.56 0.97 0.92 0.08 .18ⴱⴱ
3. Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior 3.15 0.82 0.88 .06 ⫺.05
4. Work-life-friendly role modeling 3.25 0.98 0.88 0.14 .20ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ
5. Employees’ work-home segmentation behavior 3.85 0.85 0.82 0.08 ⫺.29ⴱⴱ .08 .04 .14ⴱ
6. Employees’ exhaustion 2.14 0.55 0.82 0.06 ⫺.02 ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ
7. Employees’ disengagement 1.89 0.53 0.78 0.13 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ .17ⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ
Note. N at the employee level ⫽ 237. N at the supervisor level ⫽ 75.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE 87

Table 2
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Work-Life-Friendly Role Modeling

Nullmodel Model 1 Model 2

Estim. SE t Estim. SE t Estim. SE t

Intercept 3.24 0.08 38.90 3.26 0.08 42.18 3.27 0.07 48.52
Employees’ job involvement 0.05 0.05 1.05 0.06 0.05 1.14
Emotional work-life support 0.57ⴱⴱⴱ 0.08 7.02 0.58ⴱⴱⴱ 0.08 7.49
Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior 0.29ⴱⴱ 0.10 2.84
⫺2ⴱlog (lh) 650.25 551.85 541.96
⌬⫺2ⴱlog 98.40ⴱⴱⴱ 9.89ⴱⴱ
⌬ DF 2 1
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.82 (0.09) 0.50 (0.05) 0.51 (0.05)
Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.13 (0.08) 0.18 (0.07) 0.11 (0.05)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. N at employee level ⫽ 237. N at supervisor level ⫽ 75. Unstandardized estimates are reported.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

(b ⫽ 0.17, p ⬍ .05). Supervisors’ work-home segmentation be-
havior was not significantly related to employees’ work-home
segmentation behavior. Consequently, Hypothesis 2 was support-
ed: Work-life-friendly role modeling was positively related to
employees’ work-home segmentation behavior.
Table 4 displays the results for employees’ exhaustion as an
outcome variable. In Model 1, supervisors’ emotional work-life
support (b ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⬍ .05) and in Model 2, work-life-friendly
role modeling emerged as significant negative predictors
(b ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍ .01). Supervisors’ work-home segmentation
behavior was not a significant predictor.
Table 5 displays the results for employees’ disengagement as an
outcome variable. In Model 1, job involvement (b ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⬍
.001) and supervisors’ emotional work-life support (b ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬍
.01) emerged as negative predictors of employees’ disengagement.
In Model 2, work-life-friendly role modeling (b ⫽ ⫺.09, p ⬍ .05)
but not supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior was a
significant negative predictor. In sum, work-life-friendly role mod-
eling was positively related to employees’ well-being, such that
employees felt less exhausted and disengaged. Thus, Hypothesis 3
was confirmed.
Testing for Indirect Effects of Supervisors’
Work-Home Segmentation Behavior and Employees’
Work-Home Segmentation Behavior and Well-Being
Because we found positive relationships between supervisors’
work-home segmentation behavior and work-life role modeling, as
well as between work-life role modeling and employees’ outcome
variables (work-home segmentation behavior, exhaustion, disen-
gagement), the question arises whether work-life-friendly role
modeling is the linking mechanism and functions as a mediator.3
Therefore, we tested for indirect effects of supervisors’ work-home
segmentation behavior on employees’ work-home segmentation
behavior and well-being, conducting Sobel tests (Sobel, 1982) and
Multilevel SEM. Concerning employees’ work-home segmenta-
tion behavior as an outcome variable, Sobel tests revealed an
indirect effect of supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior
(Sobel’s z ⫽ 2.04, p ⬍ .05). This finding indicates that work-life
role modeling mediates the relationship of supervisors’ work-
home segmentation and employees’ work-home segmentation be-
havior. Referring to exhaustion and disengagement as outcome
variables, Sobel tests did not reveal significant indirect effects.
In the context of two-level data, Multilevel SEM constitutes a
more sophisticated way of testing multilevel mediation (Preacher,
Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010; Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, 2011). To
test for the indirect relationships between supervisors’ work-home
segmentation behavior and employees’ outcomes via work-life
role modeling we also conducted Multilevel SEM, using Mplus 7.0
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2012). Specifically, we entered work-
life role modeling as a latent variable. Concerning all three out-
come variables, Multilevel SEM showed similar relationships as
the Sobel tests. However, concerning employees’ work-home seg-
mentation behavior as an outcome variable, the indirect effect of
supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior via work-life role
modeling was only marginally significant (b ⫽ .04, SE ⫽ .02, p ⫽
.075). The slightly smaller effect may be because of the small
sample size at Level 2 (75 supervisors), which limits statistical
power. Nevertheless, Multilevel SEM supports the proposition that
work-life role modeling functions as a mediator between supervi-
sors’ and employees’ work-home segmentation behavior.
We also tested the effects of supervisors’ and employees’ gen-
der on our proposed relationships. We tested for main effects,
cross-level interactions (supervisors’ gender and work-life role
modeling) and effects of specific gender pairings but could not
identify any significant gender effects.
Discussion
This multisource, multilevel study examined the importance of
supervisors as role models within the context of boundary man-
agement. Recent research highly emphasizes the importance of
supervisors as role models for their employees’ boundary between
work and home domains (Hammer et al., 2009; Kirby & Krone,
2002; Regan, 1994). However, to the best of our knowledge our
study is the first to examine the relationship between supervisors’
actual work-home segmentation behavior and employees’ percep-
tion of work-life role modeling. By our study, we can enrich theory
3
Additional analyses showed that work-life role modeling was not a
significant moderator between supervisors’ work-home segmentation and
our three outcome variables.
 88 KOCH AND BINNEWIES

Table 3
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Employees’ Work-Home Segmentation Behavior

Nullmodel Model 1 Model 2

Estim. SE t Estim. SE t Estim. SE t

Intercept 3.85 0.07 56.64 3.85 0.06 63.63 3.86 0.06 59.86
Employees’ job involvement ⫺0.22ⴱⴱⴱ 0.05 ⫺4.76 ⫺0.23 0.05 ⫺4.97
Emotional work-life support 0.14 0.07 1.95 0.06 0.06 0.91
Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior 0.12 0.08 1.48
Work-life-friendly role modeling 0.17ⴱ 0.08 2.08
⫺2ⴱlog (lh) 590.62 566.42 556.01
⌬ ⫺2ⴱlog 24.20ⴱⴱⴱ 10.41ⴱⴱ
⌬ DF 2 2
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.67 (0.07) 0.62 (0.06) 0.57 (0.06)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.06 (0.05) 0.03 (0.03) 0.06 (0.04)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. N at employee level ⫽ 237. N at supervisor level ⫽ 75. Unstandardized estimates are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

building around the construct of boundary management and iden-
tify starting points for implementing a work-life-friendly organi-
zational culture within organizations. As boundary theory suggests
(Kossek & Lautsch, 2012), we found that work-life-friendly role
modeling is positively related to employees’ individual work-
home segmentation behavior and well-being. The perception of
working with a work-life-friendly role model seems to give em-
ployees the feeling that it is socially accepted within the organi-
zation to take time away from work and that organizations require
an appropriate amount of work-home integration. When working
with a work-life-friendly role model, employees were more likely
to segment between life domains in terms of taking respites. Also,
these employees reported better well-being, in terms of feeling less
exhausted and disengaged. Lockwood (2006) suggested that fe-
male employees may derive particular benefit from the example of
a female supervisor with family duties as a role model. However,
our findings do not support these assumptions, as we could not find
any significant effects of gender on our study variables and pro-
posed relationships.
It may be concluded from our results that it is functionally
strategic for organizations to stimulate supervisors’ work-life-
friendly role modeling to benefit their employees’ work-home
segmentation behavior, well-being, and their work-life-balance in
a broader sense. Our results are consistent with findings from
Hammer and colleagues (2009) who found that family-supportive
supervisor behavior, from which role modeling is one subcompo-
nent, decreases employees’ work-home conflict. Employees with a
family-supportive role model reported less conflict from work-
related issues entering the home domain. However, Hammer and
colleagues (2009) acknowledged that predictors of supervisors’
role modeling as well as underlying mechanisms between super-
visors’ support and employees’ boundary management should be
identified by further research.
Our results show that supervisors’ work-home segmentation
behavior is related to work-life role modeling. Supervisors with
high work-home segmentation behavior draw a sharper line be-
tween life domains. Employees have the feeling that these super-
visors are able to meet the needs from both life domains and
balance both domains successfully. This finding is highly impor-
tant, as supervisors’ work-home segmentation is not a behavior
that is aimed at employees, compared with the leadership behav-
iors or emotional work-life support that we also identified as being
significantly related to work-life role modeling. Many supervisors
are probably not even aware that their work-home segmentation
behavior is recognized and has an effect on employees. Our
findings are in line with research suggesting that supervisors’ own

Table 4
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Employees’ Exhaustion

Nullmodel Model 1 Model 2

Estim. SE t Estim. SE t Estim. SE t

Intercept 2.17 0.04 51.17 2.17 0.04 50.38 2.17 0.04 51.21
Employees’ job involvement ⫺0.01 0.03 ⫺0.26 0.00 0.03 0.04
Emotional work-life support ⫺0.08ⴱ 0.04 ⫺2.28 ⫺0.01 0.04 ⫺0.14
Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior 0.01 0.05 0.11
Work-life-friendly role modeling ⫺0.14ⴱⴱ 0.05 ⫺3.05
⫺2ⴱlog (lh) 387.95 382.76 373.10
⌬ ⫺2ⴱlog 5.19 9.66ⴱⴱ
⌬ DF 1 2 2
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.29 (0.03) 0.28 (0.03) 0.27 (0.03)
Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Note. N at employee level ⫽ 237. N at supervisor level ⫽ 75. Unstandardized estimates are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE 89

Table 5
Multilevel Estimates for Models Predicting Employees’ Disengagement

Nullmodel Model 1 Model 2

Estim. SE t Estim. SE t Estim. SE t

Intercept 1.89 0.04 42.20 1.90 0.04 49.68 1.90 0.04 49.14
Employees’ job involvement ⫺0.10ⴱⴱⴱ 0.02 ⫺4.97 ⫺0.10ⴱⴱⴱ 0.02 ⫺4.34
Emotional work-life support ⫺0.11ⴱⴱ 0.04 ⫺2.87 ⫺0.06 0.05 ⫺1.32
Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior 0.01 0.04 0.31
Work-life-friendly role modeling ⫺0.09ⴱ 0.04 ⫺2.09
⫺2ⴱlog (lh) 360.71 333.82 329.50
⌬ ⫺2ⴱlog 26.89ⴱⴱⴱ 4.31
⌬ DF 1 2 2
Level 1 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.24 (0.03) 0.23 (0.02) 0.22 (0.02)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Level 2 Intercept Variance (SE) 0.04 (0.02) 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. N at employee level ⫽ 237. N at supervisor level ⫽ 75. Unstandardized estimates are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

behavior has an effect on employees, over and above what super-
visors directly communicate to employees (Kirby & Krone, 2002).
Friedman and Lobel (2003) suggest that “no matter what you say,
people look at what you do. And if you’re working 15 hours a day
and not taking any vacation, it will be believed that emulating that
in the organization is a way to success” (p.88). Our study’s
findings support these suggestions: although supervisors’ emo-
tional work-life support also relates to work-life role modeling,
supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior was related to
work-life role modeling above and beyond the expressed support.
Supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior was measured as
a more distal construct than emotional work-life support, which
yields common method variance with work-life role modeling as
both constructs were measured in the same employee question-
naire.
We also found a significant indirect relationship between super-
visors’ work-home segmentation behavior and employees’ work-
home segmentation behavior via work-life role modeling, and thus
identified work-life role modeling as mediator according to the
definition of Hayes (2009); Judd and Kenney (2010) and
MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood (2000). We can conclude from
this result that supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior
represents work-life-friendly role modeling within their work
group, which in turn is positively related to their employees’
work-home segmentation behavior. Regarding the well-being of
employees, no indirect relationships could be identified. In terms
of our findings, it could be suggested that there is no direct
relationship, as supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior
and employees’ well-being constitute distal constructs. We can
conclude from this result that work-life-friendly role modeling is
not the connecting mechanism between supervisors’ work-home
segmentation behavior and employees’ well-being.
Theoretical Implications
Our results suggest that social learning (Bandura, 1977) and
recovery (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) theory can be useful frame-
works to describe organizational influence on employees’ work-
home segmentation behavior. Many organizations wish to imple-
ment a work-life-friendly organizational culture. Research
suggests that only implementing organizational-work-life benefits
is not enough (Dikkers et al., 2007; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Lewis,
1997). Regan (1994) suggested that cultural change would only
come about when supervisors also embrace work-life values, both
in what they say and in what they do. Our study brings up initial
evidence for this assumption, and shows that supervisors with high
work-home segmentation behavior constitute work-life-friendly
role models. Our study also contributes to boundary theory and
shows that elements from the organizational environment, in terms
of work-life role models, are related to employees’ work-home
segmentation behavior.
In line with previous research, our results show that individual
predictors, such as employees’ own job involvement (Hecht &
Allen, 2009), are also related to work-home segmentation behav-
ior. Additionally, correlations show a significant positive correla-
tion between employees’ disengagement and work-home segmen-
tation behavior (r ⫽ .17). Disengaged employees experience
negative attitudes toward their work (Demerouti et al., 2001) and
could therefore be more likely to implement a high work-home
boundary to minimize negative work-home spillover. However,
this explanation should be further tested in future research. Fur-
thermore, future studies should focus on examining individual and
organizational predictors together and how they interact with each
other. For example, Kossek and Lautsch (2012) suggested that the
boundary management of employees might be a function of indi-
vidual preferences in relation to the organizational context in
which these styles are enacted. Referring to our study, employees’
individual preference for segmentation may be a moderator in the
relationship between work-life-friendly role modeling and em-
ployees’ outcomes. Employees who prefer segmentation between
life domains may particularly benefit from a work-life-friendly
role model and experience a work-life-unfriendly role model as a
source of stress (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012). Furthermore, based on
our results regarding supervisors as role models in the context of
boundary management, future research should further investigate
the role of other domain members, such as the role of spouses from
the home domain or the role of colleagues from the work domain
(Park et al., 2011).
Research also suggests that organizational climate that is sup-
portive of employees’ work-life-balance affects employees’ work-
home segmentation behavior. For example, Thompson and col-
 90 KOCH AND BINNEWIES
leagues (1999) showed that a work-life-friendly climate fosters
employees’ use of work-life benefits (e.g., telework) and decreases
work-life conflict. In terms of work-life role modeling, the impor-
tance of climate supporting employees to deal with work-life
issues is promising. It could be suggested that employees’ partic-
ularly imitate a role model’s behavior when this is in line with the
work-life climate. Whether supervisors feel affected by climate in
terms of their own work-home segmentation behavior and which
behaviors of organizational actors shape the climate would be
important additional research questions within this context. In line
with previous research, it can be suggested that work-life climate
affects both supervisors’ and employees’ work-home segmentation
behavior (Thompson et al., 1999).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Practical Implications
Our findings are highly important with respect to practical
implications. Organizations should keep in mind that because of
their status supervisors can be powerful change agents in making
workplaces more work-life-friendly. Supervisors can act as gate-
keepers for the availability and implementation of organizational
work-life benefits and as change agents for informal supportive
organizational cultures. Therefore, organizations may wish to en-
able their supervisors to set a positive example in the context of
boundary management. Organizations should make sure that su-
pervisors are not expected to be always available, and have op-
portunities to switch off when at home. Supervisors’ high work-
home segmentation behavior represents work-life-friendly role
modeling, which in turn is positively related to employees’ work-
home segmentation behavior. Also, work-life-friendly role mod-
eling was positively related to employees’ well-being. Therefore,
efforts to enhance supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior
would probably not only benefit supervisors themselves but also
the system as a whole. For example, Burke (2001) emphasizes that
it is important that organizations stop taking “pride in developing
cultures where long work hours and sacrifices in nonwork lives are
seen as requirements for success and advancement” (p. 639).
Keeping a boundary between work and home allows switching off
from work demands, recovery and continued motivation in the
long run (Hecht & Allen, 2009; Park et al., 2011).
However, responsibility for employees’ well-being and work-
life balance in a broader sense should not be exclusively attributed
to supervisors. Organizations should also take additional steps to
foster their employees’ well-being and work-life balance, for ex-
ample by avoiding negative career consequences in terms of pri-
vate obligations and also by limiting organizational time demands
(Thompson et al., 1999).
Limitations and Future Research
Any study such as ours has some limitations, and this must be
taken into account when considering the results. One limitation of
our study is the use of a cross-sectional design in which causal
interpretations are limited. For example, we cannot ensure from
our study design whether there really is a downward process from
supervisors on employees or whether the effect is vice versa.
Although this study provides multilevel findings of supervisors’
behavior on work groups’ role modeling perception that are the-
oretically plausible (Weiss, 1978), we recommend the use of a
longitudinal design in future research to confirm the current find-
ing in more detail. For example, the effect could be more precisely
studied in a sample of job beginners who are having their first
contact with organizational boundary management values.
Second, we focused exclusively on the supervisor-employee rela-
tionship in our study, although there may be other social influences on
employees within the organizational context. For example, Park and
colleagues (2011) showed that a social norm within the work group
that is also shaped by coworkers affects employees’ detachment at
home. Still, in focusing on the supervisor-employee relationship it is
neither suggested that the supervisor is the only potential role model
nor that the influence process occurs only in a downward direction.
However, if role modeling does occur in organizations, the
supervisor-employee relationship is an interaction in which this is
likely to be found and is therefore a good starting point (Weiss, 1978).
Third, although we could confirm a positive relationship be-
tween supervisors’ work-home segmentation behavior and em-
ployees’ shared work-life role modeling perception, we cannot
conclusively say which specific behaviors of supervisors’ work-
home segmentation (e.g., working after hours, received correspon-
dence) shape employees’ perception. As we controlled for super-
visors’ emotional work-life support in our analyses, we ruled out
one alternative influence on work-life role modeling. Our study is
one first step to enhance the understanding of work-life role
modeling in the context of work-home segmentation behavior and
should stimulate further research in this field. Whereas our study
focused on whether supervisors’ work-home segmentation behav-
ior is related to employees’ work-life role modeling perception at
all, future research should continue our effort by directly asking
employees about crucial signals of supervisors’ work-home seg-
mentation behavior. Also a comparison with supervisors’ own
perspective on visible indicators would be interesting to find out
how much awareness supervisors have concerning their role mod-
eling effect. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that
supervisors’ work-home segmentation is one important but prob-
ably not the only modeling behavior that shapes employees’ per-
ception of having a work-life-friendly role model. Therefore, fur-
ther modeling behaviors on the job as well as further confounding
variables above emotional work-life support should be examined.
Thereby, the understanding of the relationship between supervi-
sors’ work-home segmentation behavior and work-life role mod-
eling can be expanded.
In addition, our sample consisted of employees and supervisors
from the health and service sector. Most of the employees who
participated were female. Thus, there may be concerns about the
generalizability of our study. However, additional analyses did not
reveal relations between employees’ and supervisors’ gender and
our study’s predictor and outcome variables. Furthermore, we had
to drop 149 employees as they could not be matched with super-
visor data that introduces the risk of a systematic sample bias.
However, t-tests showed that employees whose supervisors had
participated did not significantly differ from those employees
whose supervisors had not participated (with the exception of
disengagement). Also, our dropout is still in the range of what
Nulty (2008) describes as being typically found in paper-based
settings. Nevertheless, future research should replicate our find-
ings in a more representative sample to validate our findings.
 SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE
References
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work:
Boundaries and micro role transitions. The Academy of Management
Review, 25, 472– 491. doi:10.2307/259305
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and
organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration,
17, 541–554. doi:10.1080/01900699408524907
Binnewies, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Recovery after work. Unwinding
from daily job stress. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long
work hours culture - Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 275–293).
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal
life balance and the segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 365–375. doi:10.1037/1076-8998
.12.4.365
Burke, R. J. (2001). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organiza-
tional values. Personnel Review, 30, 637– 645. doi:10.1108/
EUM0000000005977
Burke, R. J. (2006). Organizational culture: A key to the success of
work-life integration. In F. Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westьman (Eds.),
Work-life balance. A psychological perspective (pp. 235–260). Hove &
New York: Psychology Press.
Burke, R. J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2008). Work hours, work intensity, and
work addiction: Costs and benefits. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
The long work hours culture. Causes, consequences and choices (1st ed.,
pp. 3–36). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Pub.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership
in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549 –556. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.87.3.549
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/
family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770. doi:10.1177/
0018726700536001
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in orga-
nizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 86, 278 –321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 499 –512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas Aristotelis. (2003).
The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-
multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
19, 12–23. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work
engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both
constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209 –222.
doi:10.1037/a0019408
Dikkers, J. S. E., Geurts, S. A. E., Dulk, L. D., Peper, B., Taris, T. W.,
& Kompier, M. A. J. (2007). Dimensions of work– home culture and
their relations with the use of work– home arrangements and work–
home interaction. Work & Stress, 21, 155–172. doi:10.1080/
02678370701442190
Friedman, S. D., & Lobel, S. (2003). The happy workaholic: A role model
for employees. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 87–98. doi:
10.5465/AME.2003.10954764
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson,
G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional mea-
sure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of
Management, 35, 837– 856. doi:10.1177/0149206308328510
91
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408 –
420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the
work-nonwork boundary strength construct. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 839 – 862. doi:10.1002/job.579
Judd, C. M., & Kenney, D. A. (2010). Data analysis in social psychology:
Recent and recurring issues. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 115–
139). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–
765. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67
.3.341
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really
use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50 –77. doi:10.1080/
00909880216577
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2012). Work-family boundary manage-
ment styles in organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psy-
chology Review, 2, 152–171. doi:10.1177/2041386611436264
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders
and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work
tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 704 –730. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2009.43669916
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). The advantages and challenges of
working here, there anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics,
28, 53– 68. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80016-9
Lewis, S. (1997). ‘Family friendly’ employment policies: A route to
changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins? Gen-
der, Work and Organization, 4, 13–23. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00020
Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college
students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 30, 36 – 46. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence
of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Sci-
ence, 1, 173–181. doi:10.1023/A:1026595011371
Meijman, T., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In
P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work
and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Work psychology (2nd ed., pp.
5–33). Hove: Psychology Press.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998 –2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries
through everyday life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:
10.7208/chicago/9780226581477.001.0001
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper
surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, 33, 301–314. doi:10.1080/02602930701293231
O’Neill, J. W., Harrison, M. M., Cleveland, J., Almeida, D., Stawski, R.,
& Crouter, A. C. (2009). Work–family climate, organizational commit-
ment, and turnover: Multilevel contagion effects of leaders. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 74, 18 –29. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.004
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home
segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of
communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 16, 457– 467. doi:10.1037/a0023594
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
 92 KOCH AND BINNEWIES

Powell, G. N., & Mainiero, L. A. (1999). Managerial decision making
regarding alternative work arrangements. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 41–56. doi:10.1348/096317999166482
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for
assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel
SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18,
161–182. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.557329
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel
SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological
Methods, 15, 209 –233. doi:10.1037/a0020141
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004).
HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Sci-
entific Software International.
Regan, M. (1994). Beware the work/family culture shock. Personnel
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and
consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job
time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393– 414. doi:
10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire:
Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and
unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,
204 –221. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & 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, 54, 392– 415. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998
.1681
Urbach, D. R., & Austin, P. C. (2005). Conventional models overestimate

Journal, 73, 35–36. the statistical significance of volume-outcome associations, compared

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family with multilevel models. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 391– 400.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.001

job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377–391. doi: Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199707)18:4⬍377::AID-JOB807⬎3.0.CO; Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711–718. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63
2-1 .6.711
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An intro- Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader
duction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage. OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806 – 826. doi:10.1037/
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in a0022464
structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290 –312.
doi:10.2307/270723
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: Received November 29, 2013
A diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196 –202. Revision received August 4, 2014
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.196 Accepted August 6, 2014 䡲

Showcase your work in APA’s newest database.

Make your tests available to other researchers and students; get wider recognition for your work.
“PsycTESTS is going to be an outstanding resource for psychology,” said Ronald F. Levant,
PhD. “I was among the first to provide some of my tests and was happy to do so. They will be
available for others to use—and will relieve me of the administrative tasks of providing them to
individuals.”
Visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psyctests/call-for-tests.aspx
to learn more about PsycTESTS and how you can participate.
Questions? Call 1-800-374-2722 or write to tests@apa.org.
Not since PsycARTICLES has a database been so eagerly anticipated!