100-malekiha_6

Available online at www.behaviorsciences.com

Reef Resources Assessment and

Management Technical Paper ISSN: 1607-7393

RRAMT 2014- Vol. 40, 2014, 1

Work-Family Enrichment, Work Engagement and Overall health:

An Iranian study

Marzieh Malekiha1*, Mohmmad Reza Abedi 2, Iran Baghban 2, Abass Johari 3, Maryam

Fatehizade2

1 Ph.D. student of career counseling, Department of counseling, University of Esfahan, Iran (Corresponding author) 2 Associate Professor, Department of Counseling, University of Esfahan, Iran

3Associate Professor, Department of Technology, University of Cameron ,USA

Abstract:

This paper examined the relation work engagement, overall health, work-to-family enrichment and family-to- work enrichment

among sample of 468 married employees that have worked in one governmental university in Iran. Using multivariate regression

(GLM) for analysis of data, we found that overall heath and dedication have significant associations with work-to-family

enrichment and family-to-work enrichment. The results showed that there is no relation between demographic variables and work-

to-family and family- to- work enrichment. We identified the contributions of the study to the work- family enrichment literature

and discussed the implications of the findings for future research.

2014 Published by RRAMT France Ltd.

Keywords: Work-family enrichment; Work-family engagement; Overall health

Introduction

Work and family are arguably the two core domains of adult life. In applied psychology, there is increasing interest

in investigating the relationship between these two central life domains. For the past decades, psychological research

has mainly focused on the negative effects (e. g., conflict) of being involved in work and family simultaneously.

(Casperet al., 2007) while often overlooking the positive effects. On the other in recent years, the importance of

managing the boundary between work and family roles has come to the fore on organizational research. This is because

work and family are essential components in the lives of most people (Andrews &Withey, 1976; Campbell & et al,

1976).Most of researchers agree that when a person has difficulty in striking this balance, there may potentially be

several detrimental outcomes. Conversely, if a person successfully manages his or her multiple roles, these roles may

enrich his or her life (Rothbard, et al.2006). On the other hand, employees who experience enrichment between work

and family tend to demonstrate improved physical health, lower absenteeism, and higher job performance. (Van

Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009).

Theory and hypotheses this study makes several contributions by addressing two important issues in the literature on

work-family enrichment. First, surprisingly little evidence exists illustrating the relation between work- to-family

enrichment and family to-work enrichment. Therefore, the overall objective of this study is first, to examine the

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

828

relevant antecedents of work-to-family enrichment proposed by Greenhouse and Powell (2006); second, to extend

Western theories of work- family enrichment to samples in Iranian employees.

Theoretical Underpinning of the study

The majority of work-family research has focused on negative spillover between demands and outcomes and between

the work and family domains (e.g., work-family conflict; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). The

theory that guided this research was in most cases role stress theory (Greenhaus& Beutell, 1985) or the role scarcity

hypothesis (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). However, according to spillover theory, work-related activities and

satisfaction also affect non-work performance, and vice vera .Recently, in line with the positive psychology movement

(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,2000),work-family interaction research has also included concepts of positive spillover

(Bakker & Schaufeli,2008; Grzywacz& Marks, 2000).This emerging focus supplements the dominant conflict

perspective by identifying new ways of cultivating human resource strength. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) suggested

that work-family enrichment best captured the mechanism of the positive work- family interface, and conceptualized

work-family enrichment as" the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other

role"(pp.73). Research on the positive aspects of the work-family interface suggests that employees balancing both

domains may actually receive enriching rewards (Powell &Greenhaus, 2010). Greenhouse and Powell (2006)

specified an instrumental path and an affective path by which work and family resources promote work-family

enrichment. In this dual-path model, five types of resources generated from participation in a role were identified:

skills and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social capital resources, flexibility, and material

resources. The instrumental path indicates that resources accumulated in role a (work or family) can directly promote

high performance in role B(family or work).The affective path suggests that resources derived from role A produce

positive affect in role A, which in turn promote higher performance in role Additionally, through both the instrumental

and affective paths, the resources derived in role promote positive affect in role B,due to the effect of improved

performance in role According to theses propositions, a role state that is characterized by high performance and

positive affect should be the most proximal factor in predicting work-family enrichment.Conceptually,work

engagement could represent a critical factor in testing Greenhaus and Powell s (2006) theoretical propositions.

Conceptually, Work engagement is defined and operationalized by vigor, dedication, and absorption'(Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, & Bakker, 2002,pp.74).That is in engagement, fulfillment exists in contrasts to the voids

of life that leave people feeling empty as in burnout. Rather than a momentary, specific emotional state, engagement

refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and

mental resilience while working, and willingness to invest effort in one's work, and persistence even in the face of

difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work, and experiencing a sense of significance,

enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily

engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work

(Bakker &Leiter, 2010; Schaufeli&Salanova, 2007; Schaufeli&Taris, 2005; Schaufeli& et al.2006).On the other

handwork engagement is a positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that can be seen

as the antipode of job burnout. Engaged employees have high levels of energy, and enthusiastically involved in their

work (Bakker,Schaufeli,Leiter,& Taris,2008).Most scholar s agree that engagement includes an energy dimension and

an identification dimension. Thus, engagement is characterized by a high level of vigor and strong identification with

one's work.

From the affect perspective, employees with high work engagement should co- exist with positive affect and cognition,

as they feel vigorous and work on meaningful tasks. Furthermore, when people are fully concentrated, they tend to

feel time passes quickly, which is a typical happy experience (Seligman, Rashid,& Parks, 2006).From a performance

perspective, employees with high work engagement feel a strong identity with their work, and they perspective their

work as meaningful, inspirational and challenging, thus they tend to apply knowledge, and utilize skills and resources

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

828

to a greater extent at work(Bakker&Demerouti,2007).Research has indeed shown that work engagement is positively

related to job performance (Demerouti&Cropanzano,2010).Hence, conceptually, work engagement resembles the

states of high performance and positive affect.

Theoretical reasoning also points to the positive relationships between work engagement and the two-path process

underlying work-family enrichment. According to Greenhouse and Powell s (2006) first instrumental path,

knowledge, skills, and various resources in role A will directly improve performance in role B.We argue that the

knowledge, skills, and various resources at work are transferred and utilized in the family domain through the

experience of high work engagement. Highly engaged employees are characterized by strong identity with the work,

and recognition of meaning and significance in the work. Highly engaged employees also welcome challenges and

believe that they will continuously learn and grow from work(Bakker &Leiter,2010).Because engaged workers believe

what they do at work is meaningful and they can better cognitively crystalize the knowledge ,skills , and various

resources , which in turn are more readily transferred to their family domain. Similarly, according to Greenhouse and

Powell s (2006) affect path (Knowledge, skills , and various resources in role A will lead to positive affect in both

roles A and B),highly engaged employees are characterized by vigor, energy, and a happy mood at work. This mood

may directly spill over to the family domain and facilitate family role performance, which in turn would enhance the

positive mood in family domain. Therefore we suggest:

Hypotheses 1a.Dedication will be related to WFE.

Hypotheses 1b.Vigor will be related to WFE.

Hypotheses 1c.Absorpation will be related to WFE.

Under the influence of work family conflict, these has been an implicit assumption of domain specific city dynamics

, which suggests that job resources primarily lead to WFE, while family resources primarily lead to FEW. However,

empirical findings suggest that certain predictors that are significantly related to one type of enrichment are also

significantly related to the other type of enrichment .For example Lu et al. (2009). Found that both support and support

from family-friendly coworkers gad positive effects on both FEW and WFE. If Greenhouse and Powell s (2006)

propositions are true, the performance and affect enriching process between work and family roles may in fact be

reciprocal. Thetis, the knowledge, skills, and various resources derived from either role set will yield both WFE and

FEW. Thus we suggest,

Hypotheses 2a .Dedication will be will be related to FEW.

Hypotheses 2b.Vigor will be will be related to FEW.

Hypotheses 2c .Absorption will be will be related to FEW.

Studies have also found relationship between work-family conflict and adverse health outcomes. Most of these

findings suggest the opposite of work- family enrichment- that conflict contributes a decrease in physical and mental

health. For example, Frone et al. (1997 a) and Frone, Russell, and Barnes (1996 b) reported that conflict is related to

increased levels of depression, poor physical health, hypertension between work-family conflict and somatic

complaints, as well as depression. Madsen, John, and Miller (2005) also found a significant relationship between

higher employee perceptions of both work- to family and family-to- work conflict and their own perceptions of

personal mental and physical health. In combination these studies present persuasive evidence that both work-family

enrichment and workfamily conflict are related either favorable that both (enrichment) and unfavorable (conflict)

to health outcomes. Thus we suggested,

Hypotheses 3 a. Overall health will be related to WFE.

Hypotheses 3 b. Overall health will be related to FEW.

Finally, with regarding to overall health and work engagement, we suggested:

Hypotheses 4.Overall health and work engagement predicting WFE

Hypotheses 4.Overall health and work engagement predicting FWE

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

838

Method

Sample

A total 490 questionnaire were distributed to married male and female employees in one governmental university in

Iran .Although, the response rate was 0/100,22 questionnaires were later discarded because of missing data. Therefore,

the effective response rate was approximately 0/97 and exceeded on 468 participants. This sample was selected

randomly among all of married male and female employees that work in nine department of university .Of the 468

respondents, 229 (49 %) were male, and 239 (51%) were female. Among of all participants 31.4 were in less than 30

ages, 15.6 % were in the 30-40 age range; 36.8 % were in the 40-50 age range; 16.2 % were in the 50 or older age

range. .Regarding to income at month, 29.5 % have income 35 $ at month; 19.2% have income at range of 35 to 65$

at month; 30.6 % have income in the range of 65$ to 100$ at month, and 20.7 % have income in the range of 100 $

above. Regarding to job position, 53% were dual earner; 18.4 % were spouse earner and 28.6 % only husband earner.

Regarding to work hours 19.2 % have work hours less than 35 hours per week; 36.8 % work between 35 to 45 hours

per week; 31.23 % have work hours between 40 to 45 hours per week and .9 % above 40 hours per week. Regarding

life stage 15.6 % were without child ; 57.5 % have child or children in the range 6-12 age, 17.1 % have child or

children in the range 13-18 age and 9.8 % have child or children 18 age or older. Regarding control on work 22%

have without control on their work; 35.9 % have rarely control, 11.5% have sometime control on their work; 20.1 %

have often control and 10.3 % have perfect control on their work.

Measure

Work-family enrichment

A 24 item adaptation of scale developed by Carlson et al. (2006) was used to measure the dimensions of work-family

and family work enrichment. Three dimensions were reflected in each direction of enrichment (WFE; affect,

development, capital; FEW: affect, development, efficacy). Four items measured each dimension, participants

responded to the items on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach

alpha reliabilities reported by Carlson et al. (2006) for their full scale was high (=0/92) and for each subscale the

reliabilities exceeded the conventional level acceptance of 0/70 (Hair et al., 2003). The above measure was chosen

because it incorporates the multiple dimensions, the two elements (transfer of resource and enhanced functioning) and

the bi-directional nature of enrichment (Carlson et al., 2006).

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) has been developed base on definition of work engagement that

includes vigor, dedication, and absorption, a three-dimensional questionnaire has been developed. (Schaufeli&

Bakker, 2003; Schaufeliet al., 2002).UWES contains 17 items .The UWES items are scored from 0("never") to

6("always").In this scale vigor has been assess through 6 item(e.g., At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy)5

items for dedicating(e.g., I find that work that I do full of meaning and purpose)and 6 item for assess absorption(e.g.,

Time flies when I'm working) has been applied.

Overall health questionnaire

In this research for assess of overall health we used one scale that was an adapted 7-item health instrument that

developed by Madsen, John, and Miller (2005). It was used to measure overall health perceptions (i.e., mental,

emotional, physical). It was originally adapted from subscales within Hanpachern s (1997) Revised Margin in Life

instrument (Madsen et al., 2005).The Cronbach alpha for this sale was accepted( 0.85, Stoddard and et al., 2007).The

Cronbach s alpha of this scale in this study 0.83.

Demographic questionnaire

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

838

In this study demographic questionnaire include of age( coded as under 30 age =1, in the range of 30-39 age =2, in

the range of 40-49 age =3, 50 or older age= 4), gender (coded as male=1 and female=2), income at month( coded as

35 $ at month=1, between 35 to 65$ at month=2, 65$ to 100$ at month=3, 100 $ above= 4), job position ( coded as

dual earner=1, only spouse earner=2, only husband earner=3), work hours (coded as under 35 hours per week=1;

35 to 45 hours per week=2; 40 to 45 hours per week=3 , above 40 hours per week=4), life stage (coded as without

child=1, child(or) children in the range of 6-12 age=2, child(or) children in the range of 13-18 age=3; child(or)

children 18 or older age=4), control on work ( without control=1, rarely control=2, sometime =3, perfect control =4 ).

Results:

Table 1 provides the correlations, means, and standard deviations of study variables. Correlation coefficients with

work-to-family enrichment and family- to- work enrichment indicated no relationship of demographic factors but for

life stage (-.12, p

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

832

Table 2 Result of hierarchical regression predicting WFE, FWE

Variable B SE T R 2 F df p Total R 2

Regression 1: Overall health and Dedication predicting WFE

Step 1

Health

2.626

.129

.632

17.559

.40

308.325

1,467

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

833

The result of this study shows that there is significant correlation between overall health and work-to-family

enrichment and family-to- work enrichment. Thus 3a and 3b were confirmed. Yet it is clear that there is a relationship

between work- to- family enrichment and family- to- work enrichment and individual health. Nevertheless, in today's

workplace health is seen as directly influencing the bottom line. On the other hand this study also suggests that that

work-family enrichment and health may influence one another. Overall health and mental-emotional health were

strongly correlated to enrichment in the family-work direction, suggesting that family participation supports the

mental-emotional and overall health of an individual. These findings also support those of Grzwacz and Bass (2003),

Hanson et al. (2006), Grzwacz (2000), and Barnett and Baruch (1986), who also found positive health behaviors

(lower mental illness, depression, and problem; higher overall mental and physical health) are associated with

simultaneous involvement in work and family roles. This study only measured the employee s perceptions of health,

not actual health. However, perceptions are an important measure of various dimensions of health and overall

wellbeing; they have been used in many respected studies (e. g., Frone et al., 1997 a). Most of the previously health-

related studies (e. g., Frone et al., 1997b; Frone et al ., 1996; Madson et al ., 2005; Major et al., 2002). Some research

also have been found that there is positive relationship between physical and mental health and work-family

enrichment (e.g., Dyson-Washington,2006),another positive side of work-family interaction such as work-family

facilitation( Allis & O Driscoll, 2008; Holbrook, 2005; Vaydanoff,2005; Grzywacz& Bass,2003; Van Steenburgen et

al., 2007)and work-family spillover( Hammer et al., 2005 ;Kinnunen et al.,2006;McCarthy,1999;Stephens et al.,1997;

Williams et al., 2006)and physical and mental health that these finding is congruence with result of this research. Last

our hypothesis in this study was examining the role of overall health and work engagement in predicting of work-

family enrichment and family-work enrichment. The results showed that overall health and dedication strongly

predicting work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment.

Limitation and future research

Like any study, there are limitations that must be acknowledged. First, these studies were cross-sectional and based

on self-report data, which has the potential to inflate correlations and limits the ability to make causal inferences.

Additionally, research should examine positive work-family interaction by employing longitudinal designs; following

the lead of Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, and Shafiro (2005).There are several recommendations for future research.

First, research needs to be continued to determine the causality of work-family enrichment construct with other

variables; specifically an investigation in to employee s perceptions of a stronger link between work- to- family

enrichment and family- to- work enrichment and variety of possible moderating and influential factors may be helpful.

This research only addressed a few. Understanding what factors in work and family life influence enrichment could

be valuable to employees as they strive to find balance in these roles. Third, future research should also focus on other

demographic variables which may be mediating influences in the work family interface. Finally qualitative research

exploring the specific supportive behaviors that are linked to higher work- family enrichment would be valuable.

Practical and theoretical implications

The present research contributes to theory in several ways. First, it provides clarification between the three most

frequently used constructs in the different domain that also not consider. Second, this study clarifies some of the

confusion with regard to the relationship between work engagement, overall health, work- to-family enrichment and

family-to-work enrichment. Finally, this study provides new evidence showing that employees who possess overall

health and dedication are able to experience and perceive positive synergies between work and life domain. These

findings indicate to managers the importance of valuing employees family lives because family lives because family

life is an important source of support and meaning for employee's engagement in the workplace. For employees, our

findings suggest that work means much more than in instrumental support for family.

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

838

References:

Allis,P., &O Driscoll,M. (2008). Positive effects of network-to-work facilitation on wellbeing in work, family and personal domains. Journal of

Managerial psychology, 23(3), 273-291.

Andrews, F., &Withey, S. (1976). Social Indicators of Well- Being. New York: Plenum Press.

Bakker,A.B., &Schaufeli, W.B.(2008). Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 29, 147-154.

Bakker, A. B., &.,Leither, M.P. (Eds.).(2010). Work engagement : A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.

Bakker, A. B., &Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309- 366.

Bakker,A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter,M P., &Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology.

Work & Stress,22,187-200.

Barnett, R. & Baruch, G.K. (1986). Women s involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49(1),135-145.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976).The Quality of American Life. Gray. Modern Differential Geometry.CRE Press, 1998.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., &Grzwacz, 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.

Demorouti, E., &Cropanzona. (2010). from thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter

(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.

Dyson-Washington, F. (2006).The relationship between optimism and work-family enrichment and their influence on psychological well-being.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., &Brinley, A. (2005). A retrospective on work and family research in IO/OB: A content

analysis and review of the literature [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.

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.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J.K.& Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 50,145-167.

Frone, M.R., Russell. & Cooper, M.L. (1997). Relation of work- family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed

parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(4),325-335.

Frone,M.R., Russell,M., &Barnes,G.M.(1996). Work-family conflict, gender and health related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two

community samples. Journal of Occupational Heath Psychology,1(1),57-67.

Frone,M.R., YardleyJ.K., &Markel,K.S.(1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 50,145-167.

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

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

10, 76-88.

Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. (2000).Conceptualizing the work- family interfaces: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and

negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,111-126.

Grzywacz,J.G.&Bass,B.L.(2003). Work, family and mental health: Testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family,

65(1), 248-262.

Hair, J. F ., Babin, B., Money, A. H., &Samoul, P. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. Hobonken, NJ: Wiley.

Hammer,L.B., Cullen,J.C., Neal,M.B., Sinclair, R.R., &Shafiro, M. V. (2005). The longitudinal effects of work- family conflict and positive

spillover on depressive symptons among dual-earner couples.Journal of Occuupational Health Psychology, 10,138-154.Doi: 10.1037/1076-

8998.10.2.138.

Hanpachern, C., Morgan, G.A.,&Griego, O.V. (1998). An extension of the theory of margin: A framework for assessing reading for change. Human

Resource Development Quarterly,9(4),336-350.

Hanson, G.C., Hammer,L.B. & Colton, C.L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive

spillover . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,11(3),249-265.

Holbrook, S. (2005). Development and initial validation of the work-family facilitation scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Florida, Gainesvills,FL.

Kinnunen,U., Feldt,T., Geurts,S.,&Pulkkinen,L. (2006). Types of work-family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover

between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149-162.

Lu, J. F., Siu, O. L., Spector, P., & Shi, K. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of a four fold taxonomy of work-family balance in Chines employed

parents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 182- 192.

Madsen, S.R., John, C.R., &Miller,D. (2005). Work-family conflict and health: A study of workplace, psychological, and behavioral correlates.

Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(3), 225-247.

Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, Vol. 40 (4), 2014, 1, pp. 827-835

838

Major,V.S., Klein,K.J., &Ehrhart,M.G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family,and psychological distress. Journal of Applied

Psychology,87(3),427-436.

McCarthy, N. B. (1999). Relations between work-family interface modes and patterns of coping behavior .Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Powell, G. N., &Greenhouse, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy

of Management Journal, 53.

Rothbard,N.P.,& Tracy .L. D. (2006). Research Perspectives: Managining the work-human interface. In Jones, Fiona, Burke, Ronald J and Western,

Mina (Ed.) Work-Life Balance: A psychological Perspective. Psychology Press, New York.

Schaufeli, W, B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative

analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., &Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy , that s the question: Burnout and work engagement , and their relationship with

efficacy. Anxiety , Stress, & Coping, 20, 177- 196.

Schaufeli, W. B., &Taris, T. W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress,

19, 356-362.

Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez,I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova,M., Bakker, A.B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross

national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism.

In: R, Burke (Ed.), Work hours and work addiction (pp. 193-252). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Schaufeli,W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003).. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual .Department of Psychology, Utrecht University,

The Netherlands: (available from www.schaufeli.com).

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006).Positive psychology. American Psychologists, 61 , 774-788.

Seligman, M., &Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Stephens,M.P., Franks,M.M., &Atienza, A.A.(1997). Where two roles intersect: Spillover between parent care and employment. Psychology and

Aging,12(1),30-37.

Stoddard,M., Madsen,S.R. (2007). Toward an understanding of the link between work- family enrichment and individual health. Academy of

Human Resource Development Conference of the Americas.

Van Steenbergen, E. F., &Ellemres, N. (2007). Is managing the work- family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 617-627.

Voydanoff,P. (2005). Social integration, work-family conflict and facilitation, and job and ,marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,

666-679.

Williams, A., Franche, R.L., Ibrahim,S., Mustard, C.A., &Layton,F.R. (2006). Examining the relationship between work- family spillover and sleep

quality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,27-37.