A Meta-Analyssis of The Antecedents of WFC

Laurent M. Lapierre, Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa, lapierre@telfer.uottawa.
ca
Yanhong Li, Ping Tyra Shao, Marco S. DiRenzo
A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family
g.
tin
Enrichment
ee
lM
ua
nn
Authors
tA
en
Laurent M. Lapierre, Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa, lapierre@telfer.uottawa.ca
em
Yanhong Li, Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa, yli201@uottawa.ca
Ping Tyra Shao, California State U. Sacramento, pshao@csus.edu
ag
Marco S. DiRenzo, Naval Postgraduate School, msdirenz@nps.edu
an
fM
yo
em
ad
Ac
16
20
he
rt
fo
d
p te
ce
ac
76
60
#1
ion
iss
bm
Su
1
A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment

2
ABSTRACT
This study meta-analytically examined theoretical antecedents of both directions of work-
family enrichment (also labeled facilitation and positive spillover), namely work-to-family
enrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE). Results, based on 377 correlations
from 110 independent studies, indicate that the most promising work role antecedents of WFE
include being more engaged at work, having more autonomy, and receiving more social support
from one’s supervisor and coworkers. The strongest personality-based antecedents of WFE
include being more optimistic and having greater positive affectivity. Regarding FWE, having
more social support from family members emerged as the strongest family role antecedent, while
being more extraverted and optimistic was most strongly related to FWE among the various
personality traits examined. Interestingly, family-focused support from one’s supervisor and
especially from one’s coworkers shared moderate to strong positive relationships with FWE,
potentially challenging the notion that role-based antecedents of FWE exist only in the family
domain. Lastly, there was no evidence supporting a moderating role of gender in the various
relationships we were able to examine.
Keywords:
Work-family enrichment; antecedents; meta-analysis

3
Recent decades have witnessed changing employment patterns and family roles.
Increasing representation of dual-earner families and the growing number of employees with
multigenerational caring responsibilities (Fox, Han, & Waldfogel, 2013; Fredriksen & Scharlach,
1999) have attracted researchers to devote their work to explain the work-family interface
(Barnett, 1998; Barnett, 1999; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Lambert, 1990). To date, the work-
family literature has been heavily skewed towards the conflict perspective, which assumes that
the multiple roles of an individual inevitably lead to the experience of conflict and stress (Barnett,
1998). Recently, with the growing attention of positive psychology, which emphasizes strengths
and health rather than weakness and illness, scholars in the work-family research have called for
an approach that recognizes the positive side of the work-family interface (Barnett, 1998; Frone,
2003). Taking the positive approach into consideration, research on work-family enrichment has
emerged and suggested that work-family enrichment is an important predictor of work, family,
and life outcomes (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007). Work-family
enrichment is related to an organization’s ultimate success and profitability (Jennings &
Mcdougald, 2007) as well as employee job performance (Witt & Carlson, 2006), career
advancement (Hoobler, Wayne, & Lemmon, 2009), and well-being at work and in life (McNall,
Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010). Due to its significant consequences for employees and organizations,
it is important to understand the factors that influence the extent to which employees experience
enrichment between their work and family roles.
Although a number of scholars have theorized that individual characteristics and work-
and family-domain variables play a key role in determining work-family enrichment (Greenhaus
& Powell, 2006; Grzywacz, Carlson, Kacmar, & Wayne, 2007; Rothbard, 2001), empirical
4
studies often reveal relationships between potential antecedents and work-family enrichment that
vary considerably across studies (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002; Heller & Watson,
2005; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). This study contributes to
the literature by meta-analyzing for the first time relationships between various theoretical
antecedents of enrichment and both directions of enrichment, namely work-to-family enrichment
(WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE). In so doing, we provide better estimates of true
relationships by accounting for variation across studies explained by sampling error and the
reliability of measures used.
Research examining the positive interface between work and family has been conducted
under a variety of different labels (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Butler, 2005),
including positive spillover, enhancement, facilitation, and enrichment. We adopt Greenhaus and
Powell’s (2006) definition of “work-family enrichment”, which is “the extent to which
experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006,
p.73), as our study construct. Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) review of nineteen studies reveals
that although most researchers used terms other than enrichment (e.g., positive spillover), the
measures used by those researchers indicate that the concept is consistent with Greenhaus and
Powell’s definition of work-family enrichment. Calson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz (2006)
have also suggested that constructs like positive spillover and facilitation can be grouped under
enrichment. Therefore, work-family enrichment appears to be the most inclusive construct to
study the positive interface of work and family domains.
This meta-analysis enabled us to examine three theoretical implications of the process by
which work-family enrichment is thought to occur. First, enrichment, which is produced by
resources that are transferred from one domain to another domain, is bidirectional (work can
5
enrich family and family can enrich work). Thus, the role in which a resource is acquired (work
or family) is likely to determine the direction of the enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For
reasons discussed more fully below, we examined whether work-related resources tend to be
related to WFE, and whether family-related resources tend to be more related to FWE.
Second, we examined relationships of personality traits with work-family enrichment. As
discussed below, certain personal characteristics (conscientiousness, extraversion, optimism, and
positive affectivity) should be positively associated with work-family enrichment because they
enable individuals to acquire resources that can be transferred from one role to another role.
Conversely, other personal characteristics (neuroticism and negative affectivity) should be
negatively associated with work-family enrichment, because they can inhibit either the
acquisition or transfer of resources across roles.
Third, we examined whether role-related resources are more strongly associated with
enrichment among women than among men by considering the proportion of women in each
sample as a moderator of effect sizes across samples. Previous theoretical and empirical work led
us to posit that gender could be a potential moderator of relationships between role-related
resources and enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; van Steengergen, Ellermers, & Mooijaart,
2007).
Work-Family Enrichment Theory
Work-family enrichment theory contends that resources from one domain can be
transferred into another domain either by instrumental path directly or by affective path
indirectly, enhancing the performance in another domain (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
Resources generated in one role that would facilitate work-family enrichment can be divided into
five categories, including skills and perspectives (e.g., cognitive and interpersonal skills, coping
6
skills, respecting individual differences, valuing differences in cultural background),
psychological and physical resources (e.g., self-efficacy, personal hardiness, physical health),
social-capital resources (e.g., influence, information), flexibility (e.g., flexible work
arrangements), and material resources (e.g., money, gifts). When such resources are acquired in
one role, individuals may be able to transfer them into another role through the instrumental or
the affective path. For example, an employee’s time-management skill acquired at work may
directly improve his/her performance at home (instrumental path). It is also possible that
resources in one role produce enrichment to another role through positive affect. For example,
one’s time-management skill acquired at work helps improve the individual’s performance in the
work domain, which produces positive affect. In turn, this positive affect from the work role may
produce more positive affect towards the family role. Hence, Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006)
model of work-family enrichment offers theoretical support for us to understand the drivers of
enrichment.
Work-Domain Resources and Work-Family Enrichment
Work-family enrichment theory infers that the abundance of work resources is essential
to the resource transfer from work to family, and in turn, facilitates work-to-family enrichment
(WFE) (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Generally speaking, the empirical literature on antecedents
of enrichment has not directly measured the types of resources suggested by Greenhaus and
Powell (2006), but has rather examined factors that would likely provide those resources, such as
work role involvement being conducive to new skill acquisition and to psychological resources.
In other words, most research has examined “resources of resources.” Considering the range of
work resources studied in the extant empirical literature, we group them into the following
categories: (1) Work role involvement; (2) work characteristics; and (3) workplace support. It is
7
noteworthy that these categories are similar to those used by Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark,
and Baltes (2011) in their meta-analysis of antecedents of work-family conflict.
Under work role involvement, we include job/work involvement, work centrality (i.e.,
salience, identity), and work engagement. These three constructs overlap to some extent in the
degree to which they denote an individual’s psychological involvement in their work role. The
more people are involved in their work role, the more they are likely to spend time and energy
pursuing success in that role, thus increasing their odds of acquiring knowledge and skills that
may be useful at home (instrumental path; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006) and of experiencing success-derived positive affect that could spillover at home
(affective path).
Our work characteristics category includes individuals’ perceived autonomy (i.e., latitude,
freedom), work tenure, and individual income. Autonomy can potentially elicit positive affective
experiences at work that may spillover at home through the affective path, and may also provide
the flexibility needed to more easily tend to family matters (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Tenure
at work (job and/or organizational) may garner easier access to particular assignments or
opportunities rich in resources, whether affective or instrumental in nature, that could benefit
one’s family role. As a material resource (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), income can be
instrumental to providing for one’s family.
Lastly, the workplace support category includes social support from supervisors, both
general and family-focused in nature, social support from coworkers, and organizational support
in the forms of family-friendly culture and family-friendly policies. Social support speaks to the
social capital resource described by Greenhaus and Powell (2006), which not only has the
potential to offer knowledge, skills, and perspectives that could directly benefit one’s success at
8
home, but can also be a source of positive affect that may also make it easier for individuals to
perform well at home. Moreover, the family-friendly culture and policies offered by some
organizations can make it easier for employees to perform well at home by giving them the
flexibility they need to tend to family matters (e.g., flextime policy) and/or by making it easier
for them to reach out for social support because talking about family-related matters at work
would not be frowned upon. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 1: Work role involvement, work characteristics, and forms of workplace
support are positively related to WFE.
Family-Domain Resources and Work-Family Enrichment
Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) model implies that resources generated in the family
domain, such as role involvement and social support, can promote higher performance in the
work role, whether instrumentally or affectively. As we did for work-related resources, we
grouped similar constructs under role involvement, including family involvement and family
centrality (i.e., salience, identity). Greater psychological involvement in the family role provides
an opportunity for individuals to acquire positive affect and new skills that can be exported to the
work role (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Family support can include affective and instrumental
support from various sources, such as parents, spouse, siblings, and children, and would be a
significant contributor to FWE (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005). For example, leadership skills
learned from being parents may help individuals improve their leadership skills in the workplace
(Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 2: Family role involvement and family support are positively related to FWE.
Personality and Work-Family Enrichment

9
In their theoretical paper, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) call for examination of the
impact of an individual’s dispositional characteristics on the work-family enrichment process. It
has been suggested that personality traits facilitate the experience of work-family enrichment
(Wayne et al., 2004). We were able to identify sufficient studies reporting relationships of
enrichment with conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion (not for WFE), optimism, positive
affectivity (not for FWE), and negative affectivity. Previous work suggests that individuals
higher in conscientiousness, extraversion, optimism, and positive affectivity would be more apt
at acquiring resources in one role that would benefit their performance in the other role directly,
or indirectly through positive affect (Aryee et al., 2005; Baron, 1996; Wayne et al., 2004).
Conversely, people higher in neuroticism and negative affectivity would have greater difficulty
securing resources in one role that would aid their performance in the other role (Baron, 1996;
Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 3a: Conscientiousness, optimism, and positive affectivity are positively
related to WFE, and neuroticism and negative affectivity are negatively related to WFE.
Hypothesis 3b: Conscientiousness, optimism, and extraversion are positively related to
FWE, and neuroticism and negative affectivity are negatively related to FWE.
Gender as a Moderator of the Relationship between Antecedents and Work-Family
Enrichment
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) argued that individual differences may moderate the
relationship between resources and enrichment. The decision to apply resources from one role to
another role is likely to be intentional (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Individuals who strongly
value a particular role are inclined to utilize resources gained from another role to enrich the
former. Thus, work resources are more likely to be applied to the family role (i.e., a stronger
10
relationship between work resources and WFE) if one’s family role is particularly salient.
Similarly, family resources are more likely to be applied to the work role (i.e., a stronger
relationship between family resources and FWE) if one’s work role is particularly salient
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
Gender is an individual difference variable that may moderate the relationships between
the antecedents we examined and enrichment. Gender is the most frequently studied
demographic variable in the work-family interface research (Korabik, McElwain, & Chappell,
2008). Research suggests that the family role is more likely to be highly salient for women than
men and the work role is more likely to be highly salient for men than women (Powell &
Greenhaus, 2010). Thus, women may have a higher intention to transfer work resources to
benefit their family lives compared to their male counterparts. Conversely, men may have a
greater intention to transfer family resources to benefit their work lives. In addition, van
Steenbergen and colleagues (2007) argued that women, compared to men, may generally be
more likely to work out of choice than out of necessity, and that such choice would make it
easier for women to experience the enriching experiences of being involved in both roles. Their
evidence in support of this argument is that women were found to experience higher levels of
WFE and of FWE than men were. Taken together, the above arguments imply that work role
resources would be more strongly associated with WFE among women than among men.
However, while the argument based on gender role salience predicts that family role resources
would be more strongly related to FWE among men than among women, the “work as a choice”
perspective predicts the opposite moderating role for gender. It is therefore more difficult to
make a prediction involving FWE. Thus, we propose the following:

11
Hypothesis 4: Relationships between work role resources and WFE are stronger for
samples with larger percentages of women than for samples with smaller percentages of
women.
METHODS
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria
To identify studies to be included in this meta-analysis, we first conducted a
computerized search of three databases (ABI-INFORM, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses) up to and including the year 2014. Articles with correlation matrices that contain
variables of interests were located. Keywords used include “enhancement”, “enrichment”,
“facilitation”, “positive spillover”, “work-family”, “work-home”, and “work-life”.
We also manually scanned through the articles published between 1990 and 2014 in the
following journals: Administrative Science Quarterly, the Academy of Management Journal,
Community, Work and Family, Human Relations, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal
of Management, the Journal of Marriage and the Family, the Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, the Journal of
Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, and Personnel Psychology. Year 1990 was chosen because the first
scale of role enhancement from work to family was developed and published in 1990 (Tiedje,
Wortman, Downey, Emmons, Biernat, & Lang, 1990). The reference lists of all the identified
articles, the conceptual paper of Greenhaus and Powell (2006) as well as the meta-analytic study
of McNall and colleagues (2010) were examined for other relevant studies. Some authors
published different studies with the same data set, reporting the same correlation in more than
one study. In these cases, the correlation in question was recorded only once based on the largest
12
sample size. If a study contains multiple independent samples, the correlations of the variables of
interest were obtained from each sample. In terms of longitudinal studies, where the variables
were measured multiple times in the same samples repeatedly, the correlations were recorded
only once from the time point with the largest sample size; if the sample sizes were the same
across different times, the correlation associated with larger alphas were recorded; if both the
sample sizes and alphas were the same, the average of the correlations were computed and
recorded. The Divisions of Careers, Gender and Diversity in Organizations at the Academy of
Management, and researchers who are active in the field of work-family interface were contacted
for unpublished or in press studies in order to minimize publication bias. Finally, we performed a
manual search of the AoM and SIOP annual conference programs from 2004 to 2014 to locate
conference papers.
Studies were included if a measure of WFE or/and FWE was administered, and
correlations between enrichment and antecedents were provided. Studies were omitted if they
include only qualitative data, no correlations were obtained after contacting the authors, or work-
family enrichment direction was not indicated. Based on these criteria, a total of 110 studies with
377 correlations were retained for the current meta-analysis. Due to space limitations, we were
unable to include the references for these 110 studies in our reference section.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
After gathering all the data, three members of the project team independently coded the
identified variables. In situations where there was disagreement, discussion was conducted to
reach a consensus. We employed the meta-analytic procedure suggested by Hunter and Schmidt
(2004), such that the effect size was the product-moment correlation coefficient (r) reported in
each study.
13
We corrected each correlation for unreliability in the measurement by using the
Cronbach’s alpha values (α) provided in each study with the exception of measures that were
assumed to be perfectly reliable, such as individual income. When an alpha value was
unavailable, the average alpha value was calculated from the remaining studies using similar if
not identical scales. For studies that reported the correlations and alpha values between proposed
antecedents and sub-dimensions of work-family enrichment measures rather than the overall
work-family enrichment measure, we calculated the correlation values and alpha values of the
composites based on Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation. To combine corrected
correlations across studies in a way that corrects for sampling error, we calculated the average
corrected correlation by weighing each corrected correlation by the product of its corresponding
sample size and its squared compound attenuation factor (the product of the square root of each
measure’s reliability; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). This approach gives more weight to correlations
that have less sampling error. A mean corrected correlation was considered statistically
significant when its 95% confidence interval excluded zero. We also computed an 80%
credibility interval that provides an estimate of the variability of correlations in the population
and suggests that at least 90% of the individual correlations are greater than zero when the
credibility interval does not include zero. In addition, we calculated the percentage of total
variance across corrected correlations explained by sampling error and measurement unreliability,
which provides an indication of the possibility of moderators being at play. When the percentage
is over 75%, the likelihood of moderators being present is unlikely (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
To test for moderator effects, we ran a series of weighted least squares (WLS) regressions
on the Fisher-z-transformed corrected correlations, weighting each effect size by the inverse of
its variance (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), which has been noted as the most accurate test for
14
continuous moderators in meta-analysis (Steel & Kammeyer- Mueller, 2002). For each
regression, a pseudo F(QR) and associated beta (β) is calculated. If the latter is significant, then
this indicates that the variability in effect sizes is explained by the moderator (Lipsey & Wilson,
2001).
RESULTS
Tables 1 and 2 present the results of the meta-analyses relating various antecedents to
WFE and FWE, respectively. In terms of interpreting effect sizes, a mean corrected correlation
of .09 to .23 was regarded as small, .24 to .36 as medium, and .37 or higher as large (Cohen,
1988). It should be noted that some of the mean corrected correlations, while larger in value than
others, were not statistically significant because their corresponding 95% confidence interval
included zero (e.g., work centrality/salience/identity in relation to WFE, family involvement in
relation to FWE). Also of note is the fact that moderators seem to have been at play for most of
the relationships we meta-analyzed, as evidenced by the 80% credibility intervals and the
generally small proportion of variance across samples accounted for by sampling error and
measurement unreliability.
-----------------------------------
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
-----------------------------------
Antecedents of WFE
As shown in Table 1, relationships involving work role involvement were mostly
significant and of medium to large sizes, with work engagement having the largest relationship
with WFE (rc = .51). The only relationship that was not statistically significant involved work
centrality/salience/identity.
15
Relationships involving forms of workplace support were generally significant and were
mostly of a medium size, particularly those involving sources of social support (e.g., supervisors,
coworkers). However, relationships involving organizational support were quite small (family-
friendly policies; rc = .09) or not statistically significant (work-family culture; rc = .24).
Relationships involving work characteristics were mostly weak and non-significant, with the
exception of the medium relationship between work autonomy and WFE (rc = .32). Taken
together, results involving work role resources were mixed, giving partial support to Hypothesis
1.
Relationships involving personality traits ranged in magnitude from small (e.g.,
neuroticism; rc = -.12) to large (positive affectivity; rc = .45). All were of the expected sign.
However, the relationship involving conscientiousness was not statistically significant (rc = .12).
Thus, Hypothesis 3a was partially supported. It is important to note that relationships involving
personality traits were based on very small numbers of samples (five or less), which would
increase second-order sampling error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). However, the total sample sizes
upon which mean corrected correlations were based tended to be rather large, with most
involving over 1000 participants.
Antecedents of FWE
As shown in Table 2, neither of the relationships involving family role involvement (i.e.,
family involvement, family centrality/salience/identity) were statistically significant. However,
the relationship between work engagement and FWE was statistically significant (rc = .35).
Support from family members emerged as having a large mean corrected relationship with FWE
(rc = .44). These results provide partial support to Hypothesis 2. Although not originally
hypothesized, social support from people at work tended to have medium to large relationships
16
with FWE, particular when such support was provided by coworkers and focused on employees’
family needs (rc = .56).
Lastly, all relationships involving personality traits were statistically significant and of
the expected signs. Hypothesis 3b was therefore supported.
Moderating Role of the Proportion of Women in Each Sample
Although the majority of the relationships we meta-analyzed showed evidence of
moderators being at play (credibility intervals, proportion of variance unaccounted for by
sampling error and measurement reliability), the proportion of women in each sample was not
shown to be a moderator of any of the 10 relationships we tested. Results are presented in Table
3. Hypothesis 4 was therefore not supported.
-----------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
-----------------------------------
DISCUSSION
The study provides a quantitative review of the extant empirical literature on theoretical
antecedents of WFE and of FWE. With respect to antecedents of WFE, our results suggest that
promising antecedents exist in the work role. In particular, being more engaged at work,
receiving more support from supervisors and from coworkers, and having more autonomy seem
to provide significant resources that would contribute to success in the family role. The
observation that family role resources (e.g., family involvement, support from family members)
were not statistically significant in their relationships with WFE is consistent with the position
that resources most likely to fuel WFE would be acquired more in the work role than in the
family role.
17
It was interesting to observe that social support at work (from supervisors, coworkers)
appears relatively more conducive to WFE than would support from the broader organization
(work-family culture, family-friendly policies). The relatively weak association between family-
friendly policies and WFE is consistent with the generally weak link between such policies and
employees’ work-family conflict (e.g., Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013). One of the
primary resources that such policies can potentially provide is that of flexibility, which
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) argue can be an enrichment-inducing resource. However, having
greater flexibility in the timing and/or location of one’s work may not necessarily induce
enrichment. For example, such flexibility may only induce enrichment if it enables the person to
more easily fulfill role demands (at work and/or at home), which in turn could elicit sufficient
positive affect that would spill over from one role to the other. The flexibility afforded by such
policies may generally be insufficient to induce such spillover. With respect to the non-
significant relationship between WFE and work-family culture, this finding is quite different
from the mean relationship observed between family-supportive organizational cultures and
work-family conflict (r = -.36; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). Perhaps such
cultures are of relatively more consequence to work-family conflict than they are to enrichment.
While such organizational cultures may make it easier for employees to make decisions that
enabling them to fulfill family role obligations (e.g., using available family-friendly policies)
despite their work demands, it is not as clear how working in such cultures would necessarily be
a source of resources that would enhance performance in the family role.
In terms of antecedents of FWE, it was surprising that neither family involvement nor
family centrality/salience/identity was significantly associated with that direction of enrichment.
Perhaps one’s psychological involvement in the family role provides little access to knowledge
18
or skills that would generally be conducive to success at work. Also, perhaps such involvement
is not simply the counterpart to involvement in the work role. The degree to which one is
psychologically invested (e.g., engaged) in their work may be a function of the resources the
work role provides them with, and those same resources would nurture WFE (e.g., Siu, Lu,
Brough, Lu, Bakker, Kalliath et al., 2010). However, one’s involvement in the family role may
be less a function of what that role provides in terms of resources, and more a function of being
physiologically and sociologically driven to provide for one’s family. In other words, one may be
highly involved in the family role even though that role consumes more resources than it
provides.
While we found a strong relationship between support from family members and FWE, it
was surprising to observe that workplace social support, particularly when it is focused on
family-related issues, was significantly and strongly (in the case of support from coworkers)
related to FWE. These results cast some doubt over the position that resources most likely to fuel
FWE would be acquired more in the family role than in the work role. Perhaps family-focused
social support at wok is particularly effective at helping individuals enjoy a more satisfying or
fulfilling family life, which in turn makes it easier for them to perform well at work.
It was also interesting to note that, among the personality traits included in our review,
those denoting positivity (positive affectivity, optimism) appeared to be most strongly associated
with both directions of enrichment. This implies that one’s propensity to experience positive
emotions and to see the positive side of things may be instrumental in acquiring resources in one
role (e.g., self-esteem, knowledge) that would enable greater success in the other role.
Alternatively, it is plausible that having such traits simply makes it easier for people to
(optimistically) assume that one role helps them be successful in the other role.
19
Although we had reason to expect the proportion of women in samples to moderate
relationships of antecedents with WFE, no moderation effects were detected. Our non-significant
findings may imply that there is little gender difference (among the samples included in our
review) in terms of work versus family role salience and/or in terms of the degree of choice
people have to work. Given the fact that moderators seem to have been at play among the
majority of the relationships we examined, it would be fruitful to consider alternative individual
difference moderators more clearly reflective of individuals’ role salience levels.
Limitations
The value of any meta-analysis is dependent on the quality of the primary studies it
includes. As the majority of studies we reviewed were cross-sectional and all relied on single-
source data, we cannot draw any causal inferences from our observations, nor can we refute the
possibility that single-source biases (e.g., consistency bias) were present. In addition, meta-
analyses based on smaller numbers of samples involve greater second-order sampling error
(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Such sampling error was of particular concern with respect to
relationships involving personality traits. While second-order sampling error affects meta-
analytic estimates of standard deviations more than it affects estimates of means, the implication
is that we are less able to trust the accuracy of variance across primary studies.
Conclusion
This study is the first to quantitatively review theoretical antecedents of work-family
enrichment. Among the various antecedents that we were able to investigate, those holding the
most promise in terms of nourishing WFE include engagement in the work role, support from
one’s supervisor and coworkers, having more autonomy at work, and tending to seek out and
experience positivity. The most promising antecedents of FWE include support from one’s
20
family, family-focused support from one’s coworkers and supervisor, being more extraverted,
and being more optimistic.

21
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. 2013. Work–family conflict and
flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66, 345-376.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. 2005. Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of
work- family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132-146.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132
Barnett, R. 1998. Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125-182.
Barnett, R. 1999. A new work-life model for the twenty-first century. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562(1), 143-158.
doi:10.1177/000271629956200110
Barnett, R., & Hyde, J. S. 2001. Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory.
American Psychologist, 56, 781-796.
Baron, R. 1996. Interpersonal relations in organizations. In K. Murphy (Eds.), Individual
differences and behavior in organizations: 334-370. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & 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, 68, 131-164. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

22
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. 2007. A review of
research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28-
43. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.28
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25,
178-199. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791609
Fox, L., Han, W., & Waldfogel, J. 2013. Time for children: Trends in the employment patterns
of parents, 1967-2009. Demography, 50, 25-49. doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0138-4
Fredriksen, K. I., & Scharlach, A. E. 1999. Employee family care responsibilities. Family
Relations, 48, 189-196. doi:10.2307/585083
Frone, M. R. 2003. Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology: 143-162. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10474-007
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. 1999. Research on work, family, and gender: Current status
and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Eds.), Handbook of gender and work: 391-412.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
doi:10.2307/20159186
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. 2002. Work-family spillover and daily
reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51, 28-36.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. 2005. The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family
facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10, 97-109. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.97
Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Wayne, J. H. 2007. A multi-level perspective
on the synergies between work and family. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 80, 559-574. doi:10.1348/096317906X163081
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Heller, D., & Watson, D. 2005. The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and
marriage: The role of time and mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1273-1279.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1273
Hoobler, J., Wayne, S., & Lemmon, G. 2009. Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict and
women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 939-
957.
24
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jennings, J. E., & Mcdougald, M. S. 2007. Work-family interface experiences and coping
strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. The Academy of
Management Review, 32, 747-760. doi:10.2307/20159332
Korabik, K., McElwain, A. K., & Chappell, D. B. 2008. Integrating gender-related issues into
research on work and family. In D. S. Korabik, & D. L. Lero (Eds.), Handbook of work-
family integration: 215-232. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & 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, 64, 289-313.
Lambert, S. 1990. Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda.
Human Relations, 43, 239-257. doi:10.1177/001872679004300303
Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McNall, L., Nicklin, J., & Masuda, A. 2010. A meta-analytic review of the consequences
associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 381-
396. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1
Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. 2011. Antecedents
of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
689-725. doi: 10.1002/job.695

25
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and
subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2010. Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface:
Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53,
513-534.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. 2002. Benefits of multiple roles for
managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369-386.
Tiedje, L. B., Wortman, C. B., Downey, G., Emmons, C., Biernat, M., & Lang, E. 1990. Women
with multiple roles: Role-compatibility perceptions, satisfaction, and mental health. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 52, 63-72. doi:10.2307/352838
Siu, O.-l., Lu, J.-f., Brough, P., Lu, C.-q., Bakker, A. B., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Phillips, D.
R., Chen, W., Lo, D., Sit, X., & Shi, K. 2010. Role resources and work–family enrichment:
The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 470–480.
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2002. Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation
techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.

26
van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. 2007. How work and family can facilitate
each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 279-300.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & 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, 64, 108-130. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6
Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. 2006. The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating
effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 343-357. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.343

27
TABLE 1
Meta-analyses for Hypothesized Antecedents of Work-to-Family Enrichment (WFE)
Variable k N ro rc SDc 95% Confidence 80% Credibility Vart

Interval Interval
Work role resources
Work/job involvement 7 1,993 .27 .34* 0.13 (.11, .56) (.17, .51) 26.70
Work centrality/salience/identity 7 2,807 .23 .30 0.17 (-.02, .61) (.08, .52) 12.25
Work engagement 14 6,418 .44 .51* 0.15 (.24, .79) (.32, .70) 8.57
Supervisor support (general) 17 8,374 .30 .36* 0.13 (.11, .60) (.19, .53) 12.98
Supervisor support (family) 17 7,219 .26 .31* 0.12 (.10, .53) (.16, .47) 19.52
Coworker support (general) 8 3,652 .25 .30* 0.11 (.11, .49) (.16, .44) 22.36
Coworker support (family) 8 2,811 .25 .29* 0.10 (.12, .45) (.16, .41) 32.89
Overall support (general) 12 5,882 .25 .31* 0.15 (.03, .59) (.12, .50) 11.74
Family-friendly policies 8 3,211 .08 .09* 0.06 (.04, .15) (.01, .17) 80.66
Work-family culture 18 8,531 .19 .24 0.18 (-.10, .57) (.01, .47) 9.30
Job tenure 8 4,683 -.03 -.03 0.07 (-.13, .07) (-.11, .05) 42.38
Organization tenure 12 4,046 .01 .01 0.10 (-.14, .17) (-.12, .14) 40.21
Autonomy/freedom/latitude 21 16,035 .24 .32* 0.12 (.11, .53) (.17, .47) 14.02
Individual income 12 5,819 .04 .05 0.07 (-.03, .14) (-.04, .14) 58.40
Family role resources

Family involvement 7 1,995 .06 .08 0.22 (-.32, .49) (-.20, .36) 11.89
Family 8 3,047 .05 .07 0.13 (-.16, .29) (-.10, .24) 26.09
centrality/salience/identity
Family support 19 7,944 .17 .20 0.13 (-.04, .43) (.03, .37) 26.09
Personality
Conscientiousness 2 2,127 .09 .12 0.09 (-.02, .27) (.01, .23) 27.18
Neuroticism 3 2,436 -.09 -.12* 0.05 (-.12, -.12) (-.18, -.07) 100.00
28
Optimism 5 2,693 .28 .36* 0.11 (.16, .56) (.21, .50) 19.18
Positive affectivity 2 994 .38 .45* 0.00 (.45, .45) (.44, .45) 100.00
Negative affectivity 2 939 -.12 -.14* 0.02 (-.14, -.14) (-.16, -.12) 100.00
Notes: k = number of independent samples cumulated; N = cumulative sample size; ro = sample size weighted mean correlation; rc
= mean corrected correlation; SDc = corrected standard deviation; Vart = percentage of variance in rc explained by study artifacts.
* 95% confidence interval excludes zero.
29
TABLE 2
Meta-analyses for Hypothesized Antecedents of Family-to-Work Enrichment (FWE)
Variable k N ro rc SDc 95% Confidence 80% Credibility Vart

Interval Interval
Work role resources
Work/job involvement 9 3,306 .07 .08 0.10 (-.07, .24) (-.05, .21) 40.98
Work centrality/salience/identity 7 1,971 -.04 -.05 0.17 (-.35, .25) (-.27, .16) 19.48
Work engagement 5 2,669 .26 .35* 0.04 (.35, .35) (.30, .40) 100.00
Supervisor support (general) 11 4,447 .14 .16 0.11 (-.01, .33) (.02, .29) 31.01
Supervisor support (family) 8 2,449 .20 .24* 0.05 (.24, .24) (.17, .31) 100.00
Coworker support (general) 4 1,826 .18 .22* 0.06 (.17, .26) (.14, .29) 83.96
Coworker support (family) 2 350 .46 .56* 0.06 (.56, .56) (.49, .64) 100.00
Overall support (general) 9 3,997 .15 .19 0.11 (-.00, .38) (.04, .33) 26.39
Family-friendly policies 7 3,024 .07 .08* 0.04 (.08, .08) (.02, .14) 100.00
FSOP/work-family culture 11 5,487 .07 .10 0.09 (-.03, .22) (-.01, .21) 45.53
Job tenure 4 2,312 -.03 -.04* 0.04 (-.04, -.04) (-.09, .02) 100.00
Organization tenure 10 3,006 -.02 -.02 0.08 (-.09, .04) (-.12, .07) 80.18
Autonomy/freedom/latitude 14 8,860 .19 .23 0.19 (-.12, .59) (-.00, .47) 6.65
Individual income 11 3,305 -.01 -.01 0.11 (-.17, .11) (-.15, .13) 41.97
Family role resources

Family involvement 7 2,127 .24 .33 0.18 (-.00, .66) (.09, .56) 15.02
Family centrality/salience/identity 7 2,307 .17 .21 0.19 (-.15, .57) (-.04, .46) 12.25
Family support 20 8,338 .42 .44* 0.21 (.04, .84) (.17, .71) 6.17
Personality
Conscientiousness 3 2,470 .14 .20* 0.08 (.07, .33) (.09, .31) 36.94
Neuroticism 3 2,382 -.10 -.13* 0.07 (-.22, -.04) (-.22, -.05) 53.79
Extraversion 2 2,334 .23 .30* 0.03 (.30, .30) (.26, .34) 100.00
30
Optimism 4 1,767 .26 .32* 0.02 (.32, .32) (.30, .34) 100.00
Negative affectivity 2 400 -.12 -.15* 0.09 (-.24, -.05) (-.27, -.03) 73.66
Notes: k = number of independent samples cumulated; N = cumulative sample size; ro = sample size weighted mean correlation; rc
= mean corrected correlation; SDc = corrected standard deviation; Vart = percentage of variance in rc explained by study artifacts.
* 95% confidence interval excludes zero.
31
TABLE 3
Results of the Moderating Role of the Proportion of Women in Each Sample
Relationships k β Regression F-value

WFE-work engagement 14 -.10 .13
WFE-supervisor support (general) 17 -.40 2.89
WFE-supervisor support (family) 16 -.07 .08
WFE-overall support (general) 11 .10 .08
WFE-FSOP/work-family culture 18 -.32 1.78
WFE-organization tenure 10 .04 .01
WFE-autonomy/freedom/latitude 21 -.30 1.05
WFE-individual income 12 -.09 .09
FWE-nonwork support 20 -.20 .75
Note: k = number of samples in regression analysis; β = standardized beta weight for moderator.
Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging
from 0 to 100.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

A Meta-Analyssis of The Antecedents of WFC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

A Meta-Analyssis of The Antecedents of WFC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laurent M. Lapierre, Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa, lapierre@telfer.uottawa.

A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family

A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment

A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment

This study meta-analytically examined theoretical antecedents of both directions of work-

relationships we were able to examine.

Work-family enrichment; antecedents; meta-analysis

A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment

enrichment is related to an organization’s ultimate success and profitability (Jennings &

enrichment between their work and family roles.

antecedents of enrichment and both directions of enrichment, namely work-to-family enrichment

reliability of measures used.

Powell’s (2006) definition of “work-family enrichment”, which is “the extent to which

enrichment. Therefore, work-family enrichment appears to be the most inclusive construct to

study the positive interface of work and family domains.

This meta-analysis enabled us to examine three theoretical implications of the process by

which work-family enrichment is thought to occur. First, enrichment, which is produced by

Second, we examined relationships of personality traits with work-family enrichment. As

discussed below, certain personal characteristics (conscientiousness, extraversion, optimism, and

Conversely, other personal characteristics (neuroticism and negative affectivity) should be

acquisition or transfer of resources across roles.

us to posit that gender could be a potential moderator of relationships between role-related

Work-Family Enrichment Theory

skills, respecting individual differences, valuing differences in cultural background),

social-capital resources (e.g., influence, information), flexibility (e.g., flexible work

Work-Domain Resources and Work-Family Enrichment

and Baltes (2011) in their meta-analysis of antecedents of work-family conflict.

instrumental to providing for one’s family.

would not be frowned upon. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Work role involvement, work characteristics, and forms of workplace

support are positively related to WFE.

Family-Domain Resources and Work-Family Enrichment

work role, whether instrumentally or affectively. As we did for work-related resources, we

(Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Therefore, we propose:

Personality and Work-Family Enrichment

impact of an individual’s dispositional characteristics on the work-family enrichment process. It

Hypothesis 3a: Conscientiousness, optimism, and positive affectivity are positively

Hypothesis 3b: Conscientiousness, optimism, and extraversion are positively related to

Gender as a Moderator of the Relationship between Antecedents and Work-Family

(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

make a prediction involving FWE. Thus, we propose the following:

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

To identify studies to be included in this meta-analysis, we first conducted a

computerized search of three databases (ABI-INFORM, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations

variables of interests were located. Keywords used include “enhancement”, “enrichment”,

“facilitation”, “positive spillover”, “work-family”, “work-home”, and “work-life”.

following journals: Administrative Science Quarterly, the Academy of Management Journal,

Psychology, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, the Journal of

Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and

We corrected each correlation for unreliability in the measurement by using the

composites based on Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation. To combine corrected

included zero (e.g., work centrality/salience/identity in relation to WFE, family involvement in

As shown in Table 1, relationships involving work role involvement were mostly

friendly policies; rc = .09) or not statistically significant (work-family culture; rc = .24).

Relationships involving personality traits ranged in magnitude from small (e.g.,

involving over 1000 participants.

family involvement, family centrality/salience/identity) were statistically significant. However,

family needs (rc = .56).

the expected signs. Hypothesis 3b was therefore supported.

Moderating Role of the Proportion of Women in Each Sample

Although the majority of the relationships we meta-analyzed showed evidence of

moderators being at play (credibility intervals, proportion of variance unaccounted for by