4. culbertson et al. (2009) lmx and work–family interactions

This article was downloaded by: [Australian Catholic University]On: 05 March 2014, At: 00:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Leader–Member Exchange andWork–Family Interactions: TheMediating Role of Self-ReportedChallenge- and Hindrance-Related StressSatoris S. Culbertson a , Ann H. Huffman b & RachelAlden-Anderson ca Kansas State Universityb Northern Arizona Universityc University of Wisconsin–River FallsPublished online: 08 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Satoris S. Culbertson , Ann H. Huffman & Rachel Alden-Anderson(2009) Leader–Member Exchange and Work–Family Interactions: The Mediating Role ofSelf-Reported Challenge- and Hindrance-Related Stress, The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied, 144:1, 15-36, DOI: 10.1080/00223980903356040

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980903356040

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00223980903356040

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980903356040

Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Psychology, 2010, 144(1), 15–36Copyright C© 2010 Heldref Publications

Leader–Member Exchangeand Work–Family Interactions:

The Mediating Role of Self-ReportedChallenge- and Hindrance-Related Stress

SATORIS S. CULBERTSONKansas State University

ANN H. HUFFMANNorthern Arizona University

RACHEL ALDEN-ANDERSONUniversity of Wisconsin–River Falls

ABSTRACT. The authors examined the relations among 4 components of theleader–member exchange (LMX) relationship (i.e., contribution, affect, loyalty, and pro-fessional respect) and the level of work–family conflict and work–family facilitation thatan employee experiences. Further, the authors examined the mediating role of challenge-and hindrance-related self-reported stress on relations. In doing this, the authors linkedpositive and negative aspects of LMX, stressors, work–family conflict, and work–familyfacilitation. Data from a sample of full-time employed individuals support some hypothe-sized relations between components of LMX and work–family interactions. Also, resultssupport the mediating role of hindrance-related stress in the relation between (a) the affectand loyalty components of LMX and (b) work–family conflict. The authors discuss theimplications and limitations of their findings.

Keywords: challenge, hindrance, leader–member exchange, stress, work–family conflict

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP between leaders and their em-ployees is clear because high-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) relation-ships have been tied to many important outcomes, including increased team

A version of this article was presented at the 23rd annual Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology Conference in San Francisco, CA. The authors thank TravisTubre and William Weyhrauch for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to Satoris S. Culbertson, Kansas State University, Departmentof Psychology, 492 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA;[email protected] (e-mail).

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014

16 The Journal of Psychology

effectiveness (Boies & Howell, 2006), job satisfaction (Schyns & Croon, 2006),reactions to performance feedback (Elicker, Levy, & Hall, 2006), and decreasedorganizational turnover (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982). However, most researchershave focused primarily on work outcomes, ignoring the effect that leader–memberrelationships can have on nonwork outcomes or on the spillover employees expe-rience between their work and nonwork lives (for a recent exception, see Major,Fletcher, Davis, & Germano, 2008). Leaders can play a key role in how muchstress their employees face because leaders are able to provide them with threekey factors that contribute to the buffering of stressors: information, support, andesteem (Cohen & Wills, 1985). However, leaders do not always provide equallevels of support to all employees. Moreover, leaders could potentially exacer-bate, rather than alleviate, employee stress if the relationship between leader andmember is negative or strained.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between (a) LMX rela-tionships and (b) the levels of work–family conflict and work–family facilitationthat employees experience. We used LMX theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen& Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) as the basis for understanding theleader–employee relationships. Further, we examined the mediating role of self-reported stress—defined as challenge- and hindrance-related stress (Cavanaugh,Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000)—that the employee experiences in thisrelationship.

The present study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First,although other researchers (e.g., Bernas & Major, 2000; Lapierre & Allen, 2006;Lapierre, Hackett, & Taggar, 2006) have examined LMX regarding work–familyissues, they have focused on work–family conflict without consideration ofwork–family facilitation issues. Second, researchers who have examined LMXwith work–family conflict have tended to report LMX quality as a unidimensionalconstruct rather than a multidimensional construct (e.g., Bernas & Major; Major etal., 2008). Although some researchers have suggested that the different dimensionsof LMX are similar enough that they can be adequately measured with a single tool(e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), others have argued for the multidimensionalityof the LMX relationship (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Hui, Xiongying, & Law,2004) or have suggested that its dimensionality is unclear (e.g., Gerstner & Day,1997). Because of this uncertainty in the LMX literature, we measured and reportedmultiple dimensions of LMX quality. Specifically, we examined the dimensions ofaffect, consideration, loyalty, and professional respect. Last, our research extendsthe literature by examining work-related distress and work-related eustress.

Work–Family Interactions and LMX

Work–Family Interactions

Different types and levels of stress exist and affect the amount of perceivedwork–family conflict (Byron, 2005) and work–family facilitation (Hill, 2005) that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014

Culbertson, Huffman, & Alden-Anderson 17

employees experience. In recent years, researchers (e.g., Frone, 2003) have positedthat the work–family interface consists of two separate constructs: work–familyconflict and work–family facilitation. Work–family conflict occurs when the pres-sures and demands of work interfere with efforts to fulfill personal obligations andvice versa (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). Work–family facilitation,on the other hand, is rooted in role expansionist theory, which suggests that par-ticipation in multiple roles benefits the individual by facilitating the integrationand management of the roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Hanson, Hammer, &Colton, 2006).

Whereas work–family conflict focuses on negative aspects of participating inmultiple domains, work–family facilitation acknowledges how participation in onerole can positively affect one’s success in another role. Grzywacz and Butler (2005)stated that “work–family facilitation is not the bipolar opposite of work–familyconflict” (p. 106) and that, compared with work–family conflict, “work–familyfacilitation is a theoretically distinct and empirically viable construct” (p. 107).Their research showed that work–family facilitation and work–family conflicthave different predictors and are differentially related to different job characteristicvariables. In the present study, we examined the different types of stress—work-related distress (hindrance-related stress) and work-related eustress (challenge-related stress)—as well as the differences in LMX quality that likely differentiallypredict work–family conflict and work–family facilitation.

Last, conflict and facilitation between work and nonwork can originate ineither or both domains and should be conceptualized as two distinct compo-nents (work-to-family and family-to-work; e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992;Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Because a leaderundoubtedly influences the work environment directly, which can spill into theemployee’s personal life, the focus of the present study was on the work-to-familydirection of conflict and facilitation. However, in the interest of brevity, we usethe general term work–family conflict when presenting hypotheses and findings.

Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) noted that one determinant of whether workand family are allies (whether they lead to facilitation) or enemies (whether theylead to conflict) is the specific experiences encountered in either the work or fam-ily role. In the present study, we proposed that one such experience at work isthe relationship or interaction with one’s leader. Because high-quality relation-ships have been linked to many positive organizational and personal outcomes,we proposed that a high-quality leader–member relationship would lead to posi-tive outcomes involving work–family interactions. Similarly, it can be argued thatlow-quality leader–member interactions would lead to negative outcomes involv-ing work–family interactions. In addition, we proposed that these relationshipsare both likely to be mediated by positive and negative perceptions of stress, re-spectively. That is, not all stress is created equal. Some stress can be consideredas positive (i.e., eustress or challenge), whereas other stress can be considered asnegative (i.e., distress or hindrance). We proposed that the relationship between the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


leader–member exchange relationship and work–family perceptions are mediatedby the type of stress (challenge vs. hindrance) that an employee perceives.

LMX

LMX theory describes how leaders develop different exchange relationshipsover time with different subordinates. According to this theory, leaders establish aspecial high-quality relationship with a small number of subordinates who are seenas falling in the in-group. These members are given greater influence, autonomy,and tangible benefits in return for greater loyalty, commitment, and assistance inperforming duties. However, exchange relationships with members falling intothe out-group are driven more by the leader’s influence and based primarily onposition power. With these exchanges, there is much less mutual influence.

Researchers have argued for the multidimensionality of the LMX relation-ship (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Four components that researchers believecompose the LMX relationship are contribution, affect, loyalty, and professionalrespect (Dienesch & Liden; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Dienesch and Liden definedthe first component, perceived contribution, as the “perception of the amount,direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each member puts forth towardthe mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad” (p. 624). These could be thesubordinate’s performance on delegated tasks or the leader’s supply of physicalresources, information, or attractive task assignments (Dunegan, Duchon, & Uhl-Bien, 1992; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Liden & Graen,1980; S. J. Wayne & Green, 1993).

The second LMX component, affect, involves “the mutual affection membersof the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attraction ratherthan work or professional values” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986, p. 625). The impor-tance of this mutual liking for the LMX relationship varies somewhat, with someexchanges being based primarily on contribution rather than affect and some beingstrongly driven by affect, such as those in which friendships form and guide theexchanges. Nevertheless, researchers have shown that affect is a key aspect in thedevelopment (Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) and con-tinuation of LMX exchanges (Judge & Ferris, 1993; S. J. Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

The third LMX component is loyalty, which refers to the extent to which bothleader and member support one another’s goals, actions, and personal characteracross situations (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Loyalty isimportant because it helps to determine what tasks the member may be assigned(Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). For example, a memberwho belongs to the in-group—having a higher degree of loyalty than those in theout-group—is more likely to be assigned tasks that require increased responsibilityand independent judgment.

The final LMX component is professional respect, which refers to the extent towhich the leader and the member are seen as having developed a reputation for ex-celling at their particular lines of work. This reputation may be developed through

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


any number of different means, from word of mouth, to receipt of awards, to directexperience with the person. Thus, an individual may have professional respect forsomeone whom he or she has never personally met (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

In a meta-analytic review of the LMX literature, Gerstner and Day (1997)concluded that “having a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor can af-fect the entire work experience in a positive manner, including performance andaffective outcomes” (p. 835). Specifically, they found that the quality of LMXexchanges was positively related to increased job performance, satisfaction withsupervision, commitment, role clarity, and member competence and negativelyrelated to role conflict and turnover intentions. In a similar vein, Kahn, Wolfe,Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) reported that “role conflict has been shownto result in a deterioration of bonds of trust, respect and liking for one’s rolesenders” (p. 209), key components of the LMX relationship. In general, becauseof the positive nature of a high-quality LMX relationship (and the negative na-ture of a low-quality LMX relationship), we expected a positive relation betweenLMX quality and work–family facilitation. When employees have a positive re-lationship with their leader, they are provided with more resources, which allowfor positive spillover between their work and family domains. On the other hand,we expected a negative relation between LMX quality and work–family con-flict. When the relationship between an employee and a leader is not supportive,the leader is less likely to provide support in nonwork-related matters. We ex-pected these patterns for each of the LMX components and made the followinghypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a–1d (H1a–d): There is a positive relation between the LMXcomponents of (a) contribution, (b) affect, (c) loyalty, and (d) professionalrespect and work–family facilitation.

H2a–d: There is a negative relation between the LMX components of (a) contri-bution, (b) affect, (c) loyalty, and (d) professional respect and work–familyconflict.

Mediating Influences of Self-Reported Stressors

The relation between LMX quality and work–family interactions is likelyto have some mediating factors. One such variable that could likely mediatethe relation between LMX quality and work–family interactions is the type ofstressor the employee reports experiencing. On the basis of the work of Lazarusand colleagues (Lazarus, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and McCauley, Ru-derman, Ohlott, and Morrow (1994), Cavanaugh et al. (2000) noted that sometypes of stressors may result in negative outcomes, whereas other types of stres-sors may result in positive outcomes. Cavanaugh et al. showed that self-reportedstress can be separated into challenge- and hindrance-related stress. They definedchallenge-related self-reported stress as “work stress associated with challengingjob demands” (Cavanaugh et al., p. 66). These stressors include job demands or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


work circumstances that produce positive feelings, similar to the idea of eustress,which is defined as stress that creates feelings of achievement and fulfillment (Se-lye, 1982). They found that job demands such as job overload, time pressures, andhigh levels of responsibility fit into this category. Conversely, hindrance-relatedstress is similar to the idea of distress, which is defined as stress that is demoti-vating and problematic (Selye) in that it includes job demands that constrain orhinder one’s ability to achieve one’s goals. They found that organizational politics,red tape, and concerns about job security fit into this category. Whereas eustress(challenge stress) and distress (hindrance stress) can both be related to negativeoutcomes, eustress (challenge stress) can have some positive outcomes (LePine,LePine, & Jackson, 2004).

Our proposed mediated model is based on both role theory (Kahn et al., 1964)and LMX theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen &Uhl-Bien, 1995). According to Kahn et al., the unique relationship between therole sender (leader) and focal person (employee) affects employees’ perceptionsand expectations in the workplace. This relationship affects not only the attitudesand behaviors of the employee, but also those of the leader. With a positiveLMX relationship, the leader is more likely to give the employee more fulfillingand challenging tasks. Conversely, a negative LMX relationship is more likely tolead to more demanding tasks. These prescribed tasks influence how the employeeperceives his or her job. Specifically, those employees who are given more fulfillingtasks perceive their stress as a challenge, whereas those who are given the moredemanding tasks perceive their stress as more of a hindrance. It is this perceptionof stress that affects the level of work–family conflict and facilitation that anemployee experiences. According to Byron (2005), one set of the antecedents ofwork–family conflict are work-domain variables. In the case of work stress, weargue that individuals who experience some type of work stress are more likelyto allow that stress to spill into their nonwork life. Research has shown that workstress can affect the work–family interaction (Byron). Thus, we proposed that theLMX relationship can affect how one perceives stress, which can then influenceone’s work–family interaction.

Mediating Influences of Self-Reported Stressors by LMX Components

Although we proposed that LMX quality is related to work–family interac-tions through self-reported stress, the extent to which challenge- and hindrance-related self-reported stress mediates the relationship between LMX quality andthe work–family interaction perceptions partly depends on the specific componentof the LMX relationship. Thus, rather than testing all of the LMX components inrelation to both work–family facilitation and work–family conflict, as mediatedby challenge- and hindrance-related stress, we separately examined each of theLMX components as independent tests of the full mediated model (see Figure 1).We subsequently present the rationale for our hypotheses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Leader–Memberexchange

Self-reported stress Work–Family interaction

Challenge

Hindrance

In-group

Out-group

Facilitation

Conflict

FIGURE 1. Conceptual model of links among positive and negative aspects ofleader–member exchange relationships, self-reported stress, and work–familyinteractions.

Contribution

According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), individuals reciprocatebehaviors toward those who benefit the individuals. That is, when employees per-ceive a mutual obligation between themselves and their leader—which would bethe case with high degrees of the LMX component of contribution—the employeesare likely to engage in behaviors that serve as a form of payback to the leader. Inaddition, according to the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), individuals areobligated to respond positively to favorable treatment. Along these lines, severalresearchers (e.g., Graen, 1976; Liden & Graen, 1980; S. J. Wayne & Green, 1993)have noted that members who engage in high contribution perform tasks andduties beyond what is expected of them, with the leader in such exchanges provid-ing the resources and opportunities to do so. Several researchers have examinedthe relation between LMX and employee engagement in extrarole behaviors. Forexample, Deluga (1994) found that LMX significantly predicted increases in cit-izenship behaviors such as altruism and courtesy. Similarly, Ilies, Nahrgang, andMorgeson (2007) meta-analytically examined the relation between LMX qualityand citizenship behaviors and found a moderate positive correlation (p = .37).Thus, because of the positive LMX relationship that in part causes the increasedworkload and because of the increased responsibility for this work—which in-dicates a challenge-related stressor rather than a hindrance-related stressor—weproposed that challenge-related self-reported stress mediates the positive relationbetween contribution and work–family facilitation.

Affect

Individuals are more likely to help another person if the individuals like anaspect of that person, even if the liking is simply due to their similarity to the person,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


physical appearance, or other attraction factors (e.g., Clark, Oullette, Powel, &Milberg, 1987; Dovidio & Morris, 1975; Hayden, Jackson, & Guydish, 1984).The mutual liking of the leader and member that represents the LMX componentof affect could lead to an increase in workload (a challenge-related stressor) in thatthe member may take on added responsibilities for a leader he or she likes. Again,similar to the rationale provided for contribution, this increased workload is partlyself-imposed, likely accepted and embraced by the employee, and more indicativeof a challenge-related stresser rather than hindrance-related stressor. A high levelof affect can increase workload, but it might also facilitate positive spillover intoanother domain. For example, a leader who likes his or her employee may spendmore time with this employee on training (e.g., financial management). Althoughthis training increases the level of challenge-related stress, it also provides theemployee with additional skills (finances in this case), which can also be usedat home. Given this logic, we proposed that the positive relation between theLMX dimension of affect and work–family facilitation is mediated by challenge-related self-reported stress. In addition, members who like their leaders are notlikely to perceive their job demands as constraining or hindering their ability toachieve their goals (i.e., hindrance-related stressors). As a negative work outcome,work–family conflict is likely to be positively related to hindrance-related self-reported stress because individuals who feel that they are unable to fulfill theirwork duties because of red tape may feel frustration, which spills over outside oftheir job. Accordingly, we proposed that the negative relation between the LMXdimension of affect and work–family conflict is mediated by hindrance-relatedself-reported stress.

Loyalty

As previously noted, a member who belongs in the in-group, having a higherdegree of loyalty than those in the out-group, would be more likely to be assignedtasks that require increased responsibility and independent judgment. Becausechallenge-related stressors include job demands that include high levels of re-sponsibility, one would expect that individuals who perceive high degrees ofloyalty between themselves and their leaders would report experiencing morechallenge-related stress. This feeling of challenge-related stress might affect howtheir work life spills over into their family life. As a positive work outcome, weexpected work–family facilitation to be positively related to challenge-related self-reported stress. For example, when a leader and an employee have a high degreeof loyalty, they are highly supportive of one another across stations to includefamily-related matters. Thus, we propose that the positive relation between theLMX dimension of loyalty and work–family facilitation is mediated by challenge-related self-reported stress. In addition, work–family conflict is a negative workoutcome we expected to be positively related to hindrance-related self-reportedstress. Thus, we proposed that hindrance-related self-reported stress mediates thenegative relation between loyalty and work–family conflict.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Professional RespectLeaders whose members respect them and view them as experts in their field

can be said to have referent power (influence based on liking and respect) andexpert power (influence based on knowledge and expertise; French & Raven,1960). Numerous early studies have shown that expert and referent power areassociated with subordinates’ compliance and performance (e.g., Bachman, 1968;Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1970; Speckman, 1979; Student, 1968). In addition, Yukland colleagues (Yukl & Falbe, 1991; Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996) have shown thatexpert and referent power are significantly related to target commitment. Moreover,recent research shows that individuals who have higher levels of commitmenttend to take on greater responsibility and engage in extrarole behaviors (Organ& Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991). It stands to reason, then, that ifemployees view their relationships with their leader as being high in professionalrespect, they are likely to comply with requests from the leader and engage inactivities that may lead to overload and other activities that can be classified aschallenge-related stressors. Thus, we expected professional respect to be positivelyrelated to reports of challenge-related stress. Those employees who are affordedprofessional respect would also be more likely to be provided with support inboth their work and nonwork endeavors. Whereby work–family facilitation is apositive work outcome that we expected to be positively related to challenge-related self-reported stress, we proposed that the positive relationship between theLMX dimension of professional respect and work–family facilitation is mediatedby challenge-related self-reported stress. Conversely, in that work–family conflictis a negative work outcome that we expected to be positively related to hindrance-related self-reported stress, we proposed that the negative relationship betweenthe LMX dimension of professional respect and work–family conflict is mediatedby hindrance-related self-reported stress.

Overall LMX Model

Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of the proposed relations between LMX re-lationships and work–family interactions, with self-reported stress serving as a me-diator. As shown, the proposed model links positive and negative leader–memberrelationships to positive and negative stress, to positive and negative work–familyissues. That is, we expected the high-quality LMX relationships, in general, torelate to positive work–family interactions (and the low-quality relationships torelate to negative aspects of work–family interactions). Table 1 shows a summaryof the separate mediation relations.

H3a: Challenge-related self-reported stress mediates the relation betweenLMX quality and work–family facilitation.

H3b: Hindrance-related self-reported stress mediates the negative relationbetween LMX quality and work–family conflict.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


TABLE 1. Summary of Work–Family Outcomes of Mediation Relations

Mediation relations

Leader–Member exchangedimension

Challenge-relatedstress

Hindrance-relatedstress

Contribution Facilitation —Affect Facilitation ConflictLoyalty Facilitation ConflictProfessional respect Facilitation Conflict

Method

Participants and Procedure

We conducted a power analysis to determine the number of required partici-pants needed for this study. We based our estimation of the relation between theLMX components and work–family conflict on the work of Gerstner and Day(1997), which found that LMX was negatively and significantly correlated (r =−.31) with role conflict, a more general type of conflict. With an alpha levelof.05, we determined that we needed 103 participants to achieve a power (d) of .80(Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). Our total sample (subsequently described) ex-ceeded this estimate (N = 179). Nevertheless, this estimate (−.31) may not be themost accurate estimate for the present study. That is, we examined work–familyconflict, which is more specific than simply examining role conflict; this meansthat the relation may not be the same—and in fact may be smaller. Thus, becausethese are relationships that have not previously been examined, we wanted to ac-count for the possibility that the effect could be small by choosing a methodologythat would best allow us to find relationships, should they exist. Therefore, weused bootstrapping techniques (described in the Results section), which affordgreater statistical power relative to some other approaches when either samplesize or effect size may be low (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Descriptions of the sample andrecruitment procedures follow.

We recruited participants for the present study in two ways. First, we recruitedparticipants from a U.S. Southwest university alumni association list server as partof a larger research project assessing various aspects of the work–life interface. Weincluded only those respondents who were employed full-time. In addition, be-cause we focused on work–family interactions, we included only individuals whoreported having a family at home (i.e., they were married, were in a relationship, or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


had children). A total of 80 participants (21 men, 59 women) from this recruitmentstrategy fit these requirements. Second, we recruited working individuals using asnowball sampling technique (Goodman, 1961; Rapoport, 1957). Specifically, wee-mailed a Web link to an online survey to approximately 45 individuals who wereemployed full-time and whom we knew personally or professionally. We sent thelinks to individuals varying substantially in age, occupation, geographic location,and education to generate a diverse sample. We invited individuals to participatein a study examining leadership and work–family perceptions provided they wereemployed full-time. Further, we asked individuals to forward the link to other full-time employees. Again, we included only those individuals who reported havinga family at home (i.e., they were married, were in a relationship, had children). Atotal of 99 individuals (29 men, 70 women) fitting our specifications completedthe survey. As an incentive, all participants were entered into a drawing for a $30gift card upon completion of the online survey.

Most of the 179 participants (79.3%) identified themselves as White, followedby Asian (7.8%), Hispanic (4.5%), and African American (1.1%). The remain-der either did not report their ethnicity or indicated ethnicities other than thoselisted. Regarding marital status, 168 participants (93.9%) were married or had asignificant other and had been in the committed relationship for an average of10.43 years (SD = 10.50 years). Last, 75 participants (41.9%) reported havingone or more children living at home. Individuals were geographically dispersedand employed in a wide range of occupations.

Measures

Work–Family Conflict and FacilitationWe measured work–family conflict and facilitation using work-to-family di-

rections items from the Work–Family Conflict/Facilitation scale (J. H. Wayne,Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Four conflict items assess the extent to which timepressures and strain at work interferes with performance at home. A sample work-to-family conflict item is “Stress at work makes you irritable at home.” Fourfacilitation items assess the extent to which the skills, behaviors, or mood fromwork positively affect one’s home life. A sample work-to-family facilitation itemis “The things you do at work make you a more interesting person at home.”Participants rate items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5(all the time). Higher scores indicate greater conflict or facilitation levels.

Self-Reported StressWe assessed participants on the extent to which they experience challenge- or

hindrance-related stress at work using the Challenge and Hindrance Stressor scale(Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Participants were given a list of six challenge stressors(e.g., time pressures, responsibilities) and five hindrance stressors (e.g., lack ofjob security, understanding job expectations) and were asked to indicate how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


much stress each causes them. Participants rated items on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (produces no stress) to 5 (produces a great deal of stress). An exampleof a challenge stressor is “The volume of work that must be accomplished in theallotted time.” An example of a hindrance stressor is “The degree to which politicsrather than performance affects organizational decisions.” Higher scores indicategreater perceived challenge-related (or hindrance-related) stress.

Leader–Member ExchangeWe used the LMX scale (Gerstner & Day, 1997) to assess participants’ per-

ceived quality of relationship with their leaders. The scale consists of four compo-nents (i.e., contribution, loyalty, affect, and professional respect), each comprisingof three items. A sample contribution item is “I am willing to apply extra efforts,beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work goals”; a sampleloyalty item is “My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even withoutcomplete knowledge of the issue in question”; a sample affect statement is “I likemy supervisor very much as a person”; and a sample professional respect itemis “I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and competence on the job.” Partici-pants indicate the degree to which each statement applies to them using a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higherscores indicate a perceived high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor.

Results

Table 2 depicts descriptive statistics, correlations, and coefficient alphas forthe variables we examined. Consistent with Becker’s (2005) recommendations,we statistically controlled for any demographic variables that were significantlyrelated to the dependent variables. The only significant relations that emerged werebetween gender and work–family conflict and between gender and work–familyfacilitation.

H1 and H2 stated that there is a positive relation between work–family fa-cilitation and the four LMX components and that there is a negative relationbetween work–family conflict and the four LMX components, respectively. Aftercontrolling for gender and entering all four components of LMX into one re-gression equation, we found work–family facilitation to be significantly relatedto contribution (β = .18, p < .05). Table 3 shows the full results of this hi-erarchical regression. Regarding conflict, significant relations emerged betweenwork–family conflict and affect (β = −.19, p < .05) and loyalty (β = −.21, p <

.05). Thus, we found support for H1a for work–family facilitation and for H2b andH2c for work–family conflict, such that contribution was significantly predictive ofwork–family facilitation, whereas affect and loyalty were significantly predictiveof work–family conflict (see Table 4). We found no support for H1b, H1c, H1d,H2a, or H2d.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


TA

BL

E2.

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

cs,R

elia

bilit

ies,

and

Cor

rela

tion

sfo

rV

aria

bles

(N=

173–

179)

Var

iabl

eM

SD1

23

45

67

89

1.G

ende

ra0.

720.

45—

2.L

MX

cont

ribu

tion

3.95

0.80

−.03

(.79

)3.

LM

Xaf

fect

3.68

1.05

.09

.51∗∗

(.91

)4.

LM

Xlo

yalty

3.72

0.93

.06

.44∗∗

.67∗∗

(.88

)5.

LM

Xpr

ofes

sion

alre

spec

t3.

741.

17−.

06.4

8∗∗.7

0∗∗.5

7∗∗(.

94)

6.C

halle

nge-

rela

ted

stre

ss2.

610.

72.1

0−.

03−.

05−.

12−.

00(.

90)

7.H

indr

ance

-rel

ated

stre

ss2.

060.

67.0

2−.

12−.

30∗∗

−.35

∗∗−.

26∗∗

.34∗∗

(.72

)8.

Wor

k–Fa

mily

confl

ict

3.06

0.78

.17∗

−.04

−.25

∗∗−.

28∗∗

−.15

.57∗∗

.44∗∗

(.84

)9.

Wor

k–Fa

mily

faci

litat

ion

2.96

0.65

.16∗

.24∗∗

.17∗

.10

.15∗

.02

−.09

.05

(.62

)

Not

e.R

elia

bilit

yco

effic

ient

sar

ein

pare

nthe

ses

alon

gth

edi

agon

al.L

MX

=L

eade

r–M

embe

rex

chan

ge.

a Cod

ed1

for

fem

ale,

0fo

rm

ale.

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


TABLE 3. Work–Family Facilitation and Leader–Member Exchange Factors(N = 215)

Step and variable B SE B β R2 �R2

Step 1 .023 .023∗

Constant 2.801∗∗ 0.092Gender 0.217∗ 0.108 .151

Step 2 .088 .065∗

Constant 2.053∗ 0.270Gender 0.230∗ 0.108 .160Contribution 0.176∗ 0.071 .218Affect 0.041 0.075 .066Loyalty −0.060 0.071 −.087Professional respect 0.031 0.060 .057

∗p <.05.∗∗p <.01.

H3a: Challenge-related self-reported stress mediates the relation betweenLMX quality and work–family facilitation.

H3b: Hindrance-related self-reported stress mediates the negative relationbetween LMX quality and work–family conflict.

TABLE 4. Work–Family Conflict and Leader–Member Exchange Factors (N= 173)

Step and variable B SE B β R2 �R2

Step 1 .025 .025∗

Constant 2.852∗∗ 0.108Gender 0.266∗ 0.128 .157

Step 2 .145 .120∗∗

Constant 3.394∗∗ 0.309Gender 0.353∗∗ 0.124 .208Contribution 0.149† 0.081 .157Affect −0.188∗ 0.085 −.258Loyalty −0.205∗ 0.081 −.250Professional respect 0.070 0.068 .108

†p <.10.∗p <.05.∗∗p <.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


We examined only the relations in which H1 and H2 were shown to besignificantly related. We used bootstrap estimation to determine the significanceof mediation effects (Mallinckrodt, Abraham, Wei, & Russell, 2006; Preacher &Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Bootstrap methods involve sampling withcontinuous replacement from a particular sample to draw a large number of uniquesamples and consequently provide increased statistical power (e.g., MacKinnonet al., 2002; MacKinnon et al., 2004). The bootstrap estimates of indirect effectsare similar to point estimates computed from conventional regression analyses(Preacher & Hayes). In addition, we report Sobel test values, which may be morefamiliar to readers. Preacher and Hayes argued that using the Sobel test moredirectly assesses the mediation hypothesis than does the more familiar method oftesting mediation—a series of regression analyses proposed by Baron and Kenny(1986). Thus, in addition to the bootstrapping results, we also provide Sobel valuesfor those relations that were supported.

We conducted bootstrap analyses using macros created by Preacher and Hayes(2004) with SPSS (Version 12.0) statistical software. Following Mallinckrodtet al.’s (2006) suggestion, we estimated 10,000 bootstrap samples. Because oursample size was greater than 80, we did not deem a further bias correction to benecessary to compensate for asymmetry in the distribution of bootstrap estimates(cf. Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). For each test of H3, we computed 95% confidenceintervals to conclude whether the indirect effect is significantly different from zeroat the significance level of.05 (two-tailed). If the confidence interval did not containzero, we concluded that there was a mediation effect; if the confidence intervalcontained 0, we concluded there was no indirect effect. The output provided byPreacher and Hayes’s macros also provided the Sobel test values and significancelevels subsequently reported.

Results revealed that two of the three tests of mediation were supported.First, we found support for the assertion that the relation between affect andwork–family conflict is mediated by hindrance-related stress (M effect = −0.09,SE effect = 0.03, 95% CI = −0.15, −0.04). In addition, we found support for theassertion that hindrance-related stress mediates the relationship between loyaltyand work–family conflict (M effect = −0.11, SE effect = 0.03, 95% CI = −0.19,−0.05). Also, results from the Sobel tests support the mediating role of hindrance-related stress on the relations between affect and work–family conflict (z = −3.31,p <.001) and between loyalty and work–family conflict (z = −3.60, p <.001). Wefound no support for the mediating role of challenge-related stress in the relationbetween contribution and work–family facilitation.

Discussion

We examined the relation between the type of LMX relationship and employ-ees’ level of work–family conflict and work–family facilitation, as well as withthe mediating role of challenge- and hindrance-related stress on these relations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Our results provide several implications for research and practice. First, Parasur-aman and Greenhaus (2002) noted that it would be useful to determine whetherfacilitation and conflict have common or unique antecedents. Our results suggestthat, at least regarding LMX components, work–family conflict and work–familyfacilitation do not appear to share any common antecedents, but there are nu-merous unique antecedents (e.g., loyalty and affect were related to work–familyconflict but not to work–family facilitation, whereas contribution was related towork–family facilitation but not to work–family conflict). More research is neededto better understand the factors that contribute to conflict versus facilitation.

Also, our results provide evidence that leadership positions hold power be-yond day-to-day management to influence aspects of employees’ nonwork lives.Because of the many negative outcomes shown for work–family conflict in partic-ular (see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000), the role leaders can play in reducingsuch conflict is critical and worthy of continued research. Moreover, we provide aframework for understanding how leadership can affect work–family experiences,potentially through positive and negative stress. Although not always the case,there is some evidence that leaders influence employee stress perceptions, which,in turn, may influence the interactions employees have between their work andpersonal lives.

From a practical perspective, our results indicate that hindrance-related stress,as opposed to challenge-related stress, mediates the relationships between LMXand work–family conflict. Thus, organizations may want to focus on reducinghindrance-related stressors for their employees. To accomplish this, leaders couldtake steps to reduce organizational politics, eliminate barriers to goal achievement(i.e., red tape), and assure employees regarding their job security. More specifically,our results show that hindrance-related stress mediated the relations of loyalty andaffect to work–family conflict. Accordingly, as a means to reducing hindrance-related stress, and subsequent work–family conflict, leaders may wish to focuson aspects of affect and loyalty. For example, leaders may wish to use strategiesto increase the levels of interpersonal attraction between themselves and theiremployees. For example, the use of team-building exercises and discussions aimedat fostering closer relationships may facilitate liking (i.e., affect) and therefore leadto closer LMX relationships, thus lowering perceptions of hindrance-related stress,and, in turn, lowering work–family conflict. In addition, to increase feelings ofloyalty leaders may consider being especially supportive and encouraging towardtheir employees regarding the employees’ goals, work-related effort, and personalcharacter.

Limitations, Contributions, and Future Research

Because of the cross-sectional design of the present study, researchers shouldexercise caution when inferring causality among the variables. For example,rather than the type of exchange relationship determining employees’ level of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


work–family conflict (or the level of work–family facilitation)—which was theassumption that we made—it could be that employees’ willingness to be availablefor work leads to being in the in-group in the first place. That is, people who sac-rifice family for work may be preferred in general. Related to this is the potentiallimitation of the present study involving the single-source nature of our data. Inthe future, researchers may consider obtaining data from multiple sources or atmultiple time periods to better ascertain the directionality of these variables andto help alleviate problems related to common method bias.

Another potential limitation to our study is our use of only member perspec-tives of the LMX relationship. Although some researchers (e.g., Tanner, Dunn, &Chonko, 1993) have reported high levels of statistical agreement (.85 or better) be-tween leader and member reports of LMX quality, justifying only measuring oneview, some studies have found relatively low correlations (.5 and smaller) betweenmember and leader perceptions (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Cashman,1975; Scandura et al., 1986). This has caused some researchers to note that LMXshould always be measured from both leader and member perspectives (e.g., Ger-stner & Day; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). Nevertheless, a meta-analysis ofLMX scales by Gerstner and Day found that member reports of LMX qualitywere more reliable than leader reports. In addition, because we were interested inthe relations between the LMX relationship and employees’ reports of their stresslevels and work–family perceptions, it made sense to measure employee perspec-tives of their relationships with their leader. That is, employees’ perspectives areconsistent with the dependent variable of interest in this study. However, futureresearchers may consider examining both leader and member perceptions in theLMX relationship to determine any differences between the two in predictingpositive and negative work outcomes.

Although we obtained adequate reliability estimates for the majority of ourvariables, the coefficient alpha for the work–family facilitation scale (.62) wasless than ideal. However, the reliability estimates for the conflict scale was in theideal range. This could indicate several things. First, it is possible that employeesare not as able to conceptualize facilitation as they are conflict. Also, it could bethe facilitation measure is not as well developed as the conflict measure. Futureresearchers may wish to investigate the adequacy of the facilitation construct, aswell as the measures used to assess it, to determine its dimensionality and utility.

Despite these potential limitations, the present study has a number of strengthsand makes numerous contributions. First, as numerous researchers (e.g., Green-haus & Powell, 2006; Haas, 1999) have noted, more emphasis has traditionallybeen placed on the negative spillover between work and family, with little atten-tion paid to positive spillover. Thus, we focused on both work–family facilitationand work–family conflict (Byron, 2005). Furthermore, we examined multiple di-mensions of LMX rather than simply looking at a unidimensional view of LMXquality. By doing so, we were able to get a more complete picture of the LMXrelationship’s association with employee stressors and work–family interactions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


In addition, by examining the relatively new idea of challenge- and hindrance-related work stress, we were able to extend the literature in this area, essentiallylinking positive and negative stress to positive and negative leader–member rela-tionships and work–family issues. Also, our choice of sampling methods allowedus to have a wide variety of organizations and locations. As J. H. Wayne, Grzywacz,Carlson, and Kacmar (2007) noted, to maximize the generalizability of the results,such research with heterogeneousness is imperative. In addition, our sample com-prised full-time employees, all of whom had families in the traditional sense (i.e.,they were married, were in a relationship, or had children at home). Becauseof this, our focus on work–family interactions was better tested. Last, our useof bootstrapping to test for indirect effects afforded us greater statistical power(MacKinnon et al., 2002; MacKinnon et al., 2004) and, because it is not basedon large-sample theory, allowed us to draw conclusions about our sample withgreater confidence (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Conclusion

We examined the relation between leader–employee relationships andwork–family interactions, with a look at the mediating role of self-reported stresson this relationship. We proposed, and found some support for, a conceptual modellinking positive and negative leader–member relationships to positive and nega-tive stress and work–family interactions. We provided a thorough examinationof these relations by examining work–family conflict and facilitation as well asfour components of the LMX relationship (i.e., affect, consideration, loyalty, andprofessional respect). In general, the results of this study provide theoretical andpractical insight on the role leaders can play in employee perceptions of stress andtheir subsequent work–family interactions.

AUTHOR NOTES

Satoris S. Culbertson is an assistant professor at Kansas State University. Her re-search interests are work–family interface, performance appraisal, and employment in-terviews.Ann H. Huffman is an assistant professor at Northern Arizona University. Hercurrent research interests are work–family interface and environmental and green issues inthe workplace.Rachel Alden-Anderson is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin–RiverFalls.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associ-ated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.

Bachman, J. G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s influence: An organizationalstudy of twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 55–61.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organiza-tional research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational ResearchMethods, 8, 274–289.

Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing amodel of women’s work–family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination

of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explainingteam-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246–247.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Anempirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 65–74.

Clark, M. S., Oullette, R., Powel, M. C., & Milberg S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationshiptype, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange and organizationalcitizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,315–326.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership:A critique and further development. Academy Management Review, 11, 618–634.

Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader–memberexchange. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 395–413.

Dovidio, J. F., & Morris, W. N. (1975). Effects of stress and commonality of fate on helpingbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 145–149.

Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link betweenleader–member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzabil-ity and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59–76.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman& Hall/CRC.

Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in theperformance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531–551.

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). G∗Power: A general power analysis program.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11.

French, J. P. R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A.Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607–623). New York: Harper and Row.

Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family: Allies or enemies? Whathappens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Hand-book of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work–family conflict:Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13, 723–729.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member ex-change theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32,148–170.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. AmericanSociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245).Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: Adevelopmental approach. In J. G. Hun & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp.143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State Press.

Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee with-drawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868–872.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach toleadership—Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leader-ship over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. LeadershipQuarterly, 6, 219–247.

Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied towork–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and familyroles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory ofwork–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-familyfacilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 10, 97–109.

Haas, L. (1999). Families and work. In M. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson(Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 571–612). New York: PlenumPress.

Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validationof a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 11, 249–265.

Hayden, S. R., Jackson, T. T., & Guydish J. (1984). Helping behavior of females: Effectsof stress and commonality of fate. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 233–237.

Hill, E. J. (2005). Work–family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers,work–family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793–819.

Hui, W., Xiongying, N., & Law, K. S. (2004). Multi-dimensional leader–member exchange(LMX) and its impact on task performance and contextual performance of employees.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 179–185.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citi-zenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1970). Leader influence and performance. PersonnelPsychology, 23, 539–549.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions.Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80–105.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organiza-tional stress. New York: Wiley.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organization Behavior and HumanPerformance, 32, 198–215.

Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive su-pervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications forwork–family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 11, 169–181.

Lapierre, L. M., Hackett, R. D., & Taggar, S. (2006). A test of the links between family inter-ference with work, job enrichment and leader–member exchange. Applied Psychology:International Review, 55, 489–511.

Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A.Kleinman, & P. Maxim (Eds.), Models for clinical pathology (pp. 177–214). New York:Spectrum.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress:

Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model ofleadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: Anempirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the earlydevelopment of leader–member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). Acomparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psycho-logical Methods, 7, 83–104.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indi-rect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 39, 99–128.

Major, D. A., Fletcher, T. D., Davis, D. D., & Germano, L. M. (2008). The influence ofwork–family culture and workplace relationships on work interference with family: Amultilevel model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 881–897.

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M. & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testingthe statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53,372–378.

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessingthe developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,544–560.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositionalpredictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps inwork–family research. Human Resources Management Review, 12, 299–312.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indi-rect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &Computers, 36, 717–731.

Rapoport, A. (1957). Contribution to the theory of random and biased nets. Bulletin ofMathematical Biophysics, 19, 257–277.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decideautocratically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579–584.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014


Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange and supervi-sor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 1588–1602.

Schyns, B., & Croon, M. A. (2006). A model of task demands, social structure, andleader–member exchange and their relationship to job satisfaction. International Journalof Human Resource Management, 17, 602–615.

Selye, H. (1982). History and present status of the stress concept. In L. Goldberger & S.Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress (pp. 7–17). New York: Free Press.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

Speckman, R. E. (1979). Influence and information: An exploratory investigation of theboundary role person’s basis of power. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 104–117.

Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work–group performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 52, 188–194.

Tanner, J. F., Dunn, M. G., & Chonko, L. B. (1993). Vertical exchange and salespersonstress. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 27–36.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality insupervisor–subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75, 487–499.

Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader–member exchange on employeecitizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431–1440.

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facil-itation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences.Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63–76.

Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality inthe work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict andfacilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitmentas predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17, 601–607.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). The importance of different power sources in downwardand lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 309–317.

Original manuscript received March 25, 2008Final version accepted April 13, 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Cat

holic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:47

05

Mar

ch 2

014

4. culbertson et al. (2009) lmx and work–family interactions

Documents