how work–family research can finally have an impact in

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4 (2011), 352–369.Copyright © 2011 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/11

FOCAL ARTICLE

How Work–Family Research Can FinallyHave an Impact in Organizations

ELLEN ERNST KOSSEKMichigan State University

BORIS B. BALTESWayne State University

RUSSELL A. MATTHEWSLouisiana State University

AbstractAlthough work–family research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persistsin putting work–family research into practice. Because of this, work–family researchers have not made asignificant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of research that has beenconducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–family researchand practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better anddifferent research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for thework–family researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts,(b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–family boundaries, (c) conductresearch to empower the individual to self-manage the work–family interface, and (d) engage in advocacyand collaborative policy research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnershipsbetween industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and researchers from many industries anddisciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.

According to a 2011 American Psycholog-ical Association study, only about a third(36%) of U.S. workers are satisfied withthe manner in which their employers assistthem in balancing work and family andother personal life demands—a drop from42% in 2009 (Clay, 2011). And growingnumbers of employers are not very satisfiedwith work–family benefits either. A recentSociety for Human Resource Management(SHRM) survey (2010) reports many firmsare reducing or eliminating some family

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Ellen Ernst Kossek.E-mail: [email protected]

Address: School of Human Resources and LaborRelations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824

friendly benefits, with the biggest drops inflextime, elder care referral, and adoptionassistance. Another survey shows a signifi-cant drop in employer provision of full-timepay and time off for maternity leave, downto 16% from 27% in the prior decade(Shellenbarger, 2008). This decline in sat-isfaction with employer work–life supportsis paradoxical as work–family research hasmushroomed over the past several decades.

Work–family research—the study ofpositive and negative processes, anteced-ents, and outcomes related to workand family roles—has finally movedfrom the margins to the mainstreamof industrial–organizational (I–O) psy-chology, management, and organizationalbehavior. Yet, research evaluating the

352

Work–family research 353

effective implementation of work–familyinitiatives seems to have declined in thepast decade. It is our contention that, todate, work–family researchers have notmade a significant impact in improving thelives of employees relative to the amountof research that has been conducted. Evi-dence of having an impact would includethe reduction of workplace stress, more pos-itive work–family relationships in employ-ment settings, and effectively implementedwork–family policies.

We believe a big part of the prob-lem is that an implementation gap remainsbetween work–family research and prac-tical impact. Even before the economicdownturn, the implementation gap was evi-dent (Kossek, 2005, 2006; Kossek & Lam-bert, 2005). However, the current economicclimate has put into sharpened focus the dis-connect between what research suggests arekey ingredients about balancing work andfamily (e.g., positive organizational cultureand supervisory support, employee controlover work hours and workload, and oppor-tunities for recovery outside the workplace),what organizations offer and allow for, andwhat options employees feel they can gen-uinely access that will be truly effective inhelping them excel and thrive on and offthe job.

The purpose of this article is to makethe argument that better and differentwork–family research should be conductedto improve its impact in employing orga-nizations. Before turning to the main bodyof the article, we give a brief overviewof work–family conflict origins and defineconcepts related to organizational supportof work and family roles. We discusswhy there has been an implementationgap and argue why employers should(still) put organizational support of workand family roles higher on the corporateagenda than ever, even in light of cur-rent economic challenges. We will thendiscuss positive developments related towork–family research and suggest areas forimprovement to enhance impact. Our dis-cussion is not intended to be exhaustive,as the topic has benefited from numerous

reviews (see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton,2000; Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood& Lambert, 2007; Eby, Casper, Lockwood,Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Ford, Heinen,& Langkamer, 2007; Kossek & Distelberg,2008; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998, 1999; Michel,Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes,2009). We close with alternative yetcomplementary strategies to help bridgeresearch–practice gaps.

Work–Family Research Origins

Most I–O psychologists study how the workside of the work–family relationship affectsindividual performance at work more pre-dominantly than employee effectiveness inother life roles or how the work affectsthe family or the community (Thompson,Beauvais, & Allen, 2006). The main the-oretical foundation that I–O psychologistsuse to study work and family relationshipsemanates from role theory (Katz & Kahn,1978), which focuses on how individu-als in social contexts enact expectationsof their roles or positions. The notion ofwork–family conflict derives from the beliefthat when individuals have to enact multi-ple roles, psychological distress increasesfrom the increased conflicts that are likelyto occur when the expectations of one role,such as work, interfere with the expecta-tions of the family role (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).

The assumption that conflicts are thepredominant dynamic between work andfamily roles emanates from stress theoryand theories of role accumulation sug-gesting that human energy and time is afixed commodity (Thompson et al., 2006).The more roles individuals add on totheir life demands, the greater the prob-ability of role strain, role overload, andconflict (Marks, 1977). The construct ofwork–family conflict has been central tothe work–family field’s development (Ebyet al., 2005; MacDermid & Harvey, 2006).It has been well studied as an antecedent(e.g., of job satisfaction and life satisfac-tion; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998), interrelatedprocesses (Lambert, 1990), and an outcome

354 E.E. Kossek, B.B. Baltes, and R.A. Matthews

(MacDermid & Harvey, 2006). Allen, Herst,Bruck, and Sutton’s (2000) meta-analysisdemonstrates that work-to-family conflicthas clear negative effects on individual well-being as it is strongly related to job burnout,depressive symptoms, general psychologi-cal stress, physical health symptoms, andfamily strain.

Why the focus on conflict between thefamily role and the work role? Schol-ars examining the historical roots ofwork–family conflict (e.g., MacDermid &Harvey, 2006; Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1980)note that at the turn of the 20th cen-tury as economic development occurredand large social institutions grew (such asorganizations employing a larger number ofindividuals), classical sociologist and orga-nizational theorists such as Karl Marx andMax Weber became concerned with thepotential negative impacts of power dynam-ics of large institutions, namely employers,on worker well-being and alienation.

The historical development of U.S.societal interest in work–family poli-cies is also relevant to understandingthe current research–practice relationship.Work–family policies have some ties toequal employment opportunity and socialresistance to changing the workplace to beinclusive of new labor market entrants. Withthe passage of equal employment opportu-nity legislation (e.g., the Civil Rights Actof 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimina-tion Act of 1971), work–family policiessuch as child care centers and part-timeand flexible working arose to integratewomen, who were participating in the laborforce in unprecedented numbers, into thework place. The term work–family poli-cies became popular in the business press,referring to employers’ support of child careand flexible work hours for employees withthe most salient family demands—oftenwomen with young children. Yet, someemployees without families or with stay-at-home spouses felt that work–family policyusers were not carrying their weight at workand that their lower ‘‘face time’’ made themless committed. To address this stigmatiza-tion, large employers began to switch the

names of their work–family policies to belabeled work–life policies to create the nar-rative that all workers need to be supportedfor personal life roles. Yet many researchersstill prefer to study work and family poli-cies, perhaps given a special interest inunderstanding organizational response towork–family conflict. These historical rootshelp explain why we see it as criticalthat I–O psychological research results inimproved organizational support for workand family. It should be noted that we definefamily broadly and do not use the term sim-ply to refer to traditional nuclear families,but to the nonwork and personal roles of allemployees. In light of the shifting rhetoricon the evolution of work–family policies,it is not surprising that social conflict andambiguity regarding their implementationremain.

Defining Organizational Support ofWork and Family

Organizational support of work and fam-ily roles pertains to the degree towhich the workplace is designed toreduce work–family conflicts and enhancework–family interactions. Employer work–family supports include three workplacecharacteristics that influence work–familyrelationships: (a) job conditions and thestructure of work, such as work hours andjob designs that give workers control overwhen, where, or how they do their job;(b) organizational culture and norms aboutthe hegemony of work and nonwork rela-tionships; and (c) human resource policiessupporting the juggling of work and familyroles (Kossek, 2006). Of these three areas,the business press has paid most attention toemployer work–family policies, setting upa cultural expectation that ‘‘progressive’’employers offer these policies as a meansof being nominated to working mother orother best employer lists.

Work–family policies are organizationalprograms, policies, and practices that aredesigned to assist employees with the jointmanagement of a paid work role withnonwork roles such as parenting, elder


care, leisure, education, volunteering, andself-care (e.g., exercise or medical needs;Ryan & Kossek, 2008). Examples includeflexibility in the scheduling (flextime),location (telework, mobile virtual office),or amount of work (job sharing, part time,vacation, and leaves); benefits such ashealth-, and child-, and elder care anddomestic partner; and information suchas referral programs. A key problem isthat work–family policies have often beenimplemented in silos and not well linkedto the other workplace characteristics suchas the conditions of employment (i.e.,expected work schedules and the abilityto control workload and work hours) orworkplace cultural support (e.g., can thepolicies be used without backlash?).

Even more importantly, managers areunsure how to implement and managenew work–family policies such as flexibilitywhere they cannot see the employeesat work. Consequently, there is con-siderable anecdotal evidence suggestingthat employers have had problems imple-menting policies in ways that create aninclusive workplace and increase pro-ductivity, yet research clarifying exactlyhow to address these problems is limited(Kelly et al., 2008; Ryan & Kossek, 2008).Thus, although work–family researchershave demonstrated that employees whoare able to effectively take advantage ofwork–family policies do benefit psycholog-ically (e.g., have higher job satisfaction), wehave failed to fully clarify how use of thepolicies link to productivity, how to avoidcultural stigmatization from use of the poli-cies (e.g., being viewed as less committed orperforming less effectively), and what chal-lenges managers and organizations mayface in implementing these policies toenhance competitiveness and, importantly,how to address these challenges to increaseorganizational effectiveness.

Why has work–family research beensomewhat disconnected from improvingpractice? For one, how to translate andimplement work–family research findingsis not necessarily simple. Employers facemany complexities in the development

of work–family practice as workplaceinnovation. Many employers have far lessexperience in the work–family arena thanin other traditional I–O and HumanResources (HR) areas such as selection ortraining or performance appraisal. Employ-ers may also be unsure how to imple-ment work–family policies effectively intoexisting HR systems and managementphilosophies of labor management. Forexample, increasing organizational supportof employees’ ability to devote more timeand energy to nonwork demands by givingworkers more control over their scheduleschallenges traditional labor economic andcapitalistic principles that employers shouldstrive to get as much working time outof people as possible in the short run inexchange for the least amount of money.

Scalability is also an issue. For example,should policies like flextime be mandatedfor all employees or just those in tightlabor markets, in conducive jobs, and whohave an established work record? Whatabout the tensions of standardization andcustomization? Should employers adopt aone-size-fits-all approach to ensure equityand ease of administration or customizesupport to individuals such as single par-ents compared to older workers? Givengrowing workforce diversity, it is increas-ingly difficult for employers to determinewhich strategies work best for which work-ers, how to ensure equity and coordinatediverse schedules and benefits, and howmuch work–family conflict is too muchwhile trying to run a business and make aprofit. These are the types of research ques-tions that would help employers, but notmuch research has focused on these issues.

Another reason for a growing research–policy gap is that researchers and practi-tioners often have different agendas and failto collaborate as much as they could. Theyalso sometimes simply fail to trust eachother and come from different perspectives.For example, they often use a different lan-guage. More specifically, practitioners talkabout work–family balance, whereas mostwork–family scholars (barring some excep-tions such as Greenhaus & Powell, 2006)


emphasize the notion of work–family con-flict. And evaluation of effectiveness couldbe problematic. For some firms, offeringwork–family policies serves as a publicrelations tool to increase worker recruit-ment and attraction. What if researchersshow a failure to implement and that thesepolicies are really more window dressingthan real support?

Why Work–Family Research CanReally Help Organizations

A recent review of research notes that itis clear that employers benefit from offer-ing and supporting the use of work–familypolicies in several ways: more positiveemployee attitudes, better talent, and costsavings (Kossek & Michel, 2010). Recruit-ment and retention, job satisfaction andcommitment, and workforce quality areimproved from offering work–life policiesand implementing them. Employers whoimplement these policies are more likelyviewed as an employer of choice and reapthe benefits of a larger applicant pool (Kellyet al., 2008). Cost savings comes from adecrease in problematic employee behav-iors, such as turnover, absenteeism, or acci-dents, as well as lower labor costs as someworkers are willing to trade off flexibilityfor wages (Kossek, 2006; Kossek & Ham-mer, 2008; Kossek & Michel, 2010). Yet,these trends have been documented for sev-eral decades and still have not resultedin a major tipping point that creates aground swell of employer excitement forwork–family policies. As noted previously,we have actually seen a decline in sup-port for some work–family policies (e.g.,Shellenbarger, 2008; SHRM, 2010).

What we would like to see is a researchagenda focused on how work–life policiesand positive role relationships can helporganizations solve pressing critical orga-nizational and societal problems. Theseinclude the facilitation of workforce engage-ment and creativity, more time for learning,and better communication and collabora-tion in a global world. Clear statistical evi-dence of the heightened work–family issues

we are facing is provided from the NationalStudy of the Changing Workforce (Aumann& Galinsky, 2009; Galinsky, Aumann, &Bond, 2009). Although granting that thereare currently many U.S. workers who lackjobs or are underemployed, the nationallyrepresentative survey results from Aumannand Galinsky (2009) suggest that manyemployees perceive overwork stress. Overa third report they ‘‘often or very often’’felt overwhelmed by the amount of workthey had to do on their jobs in the lastseveral months. In the same survey, onethird of respondents report signs of clini-cal depression, and one in five report highblood pressure. Only a little more than onequarter (28%) of workers rate their healthexcellent, down from 34% in 2002. Blurringwork–family boundaries and interruptionsare other issues: Nearly one third of workersreport being contacted by a work colleagueor client outside of normal work hours atleast once a week, and over half of employ-ees surveyed report they often or very oftenworked on too many tasks and multitaskedtoo much. What if work–family researchactually addressed these trends by providingtangible solutions for organizational prac-tice or individuals?

Before discussing four possible pathsfor work–family research to improve itsimpact, we discuss what we see as positivedevelopments in work–family research andareas where improvement is still needed,looking in turn at the framing and languageused in the work–family field, the clarity ofour constructs, issues of measurement andresearch design, and research samples.

Framing and Language

A positive development in work–familyresearch has been the movement to focusnot only on the negative aspects of work–family relationships, such as work–familyconflict, but to include the study of pos-itive work–family relationships as well.The work–family enrichment perspectiveadvanced by Greenhaus and Powell (2006)and others argues that resources such aspsychological assets (e.g., resilience and


mood), social capital (e.g., knowledge andinfluence), or behaviors and skills canbe transferred back and forth betweenwork and family domains to enrich each.This spotlight on positive resource trans-fer among multiple roles has its roots inrole expansion theories, which contrary tostress theories assume that greater involve-ment in meaningful roles involving positiveexperiences can enhance well-being andpositive functioning (Barnett & Hyde, 2001;Sieber, 1974).

Including positive perspectives advanceswork–family research for a number of rea-sons. First, more and more families andworking individuals today have no choicebut to juggle work and caregiving roles.Given these trends, research might as wellexamine how to make the joint enactmentof work–family roles as positive as possibleto create resilience and positive outcomes.Second, given the recent global economicslowdown and the aging population world-wide, it is clear that a growing proportion ofthe population will be involved in employ-ment for longer periods of the life span andcaring for their own health needs. And thehigh unemployment rates have highlightedthe need to shift mindsets to the positivebenefits of having a job and an income forindividuals’ identities, families’ householdeconomic security, and communities atlarge. Finally, a positive focus may increaseunderstanding that can help individuals bet-ter optimize how they manage work–familyconflict (Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003) orhelp organizations learn how to increasesocial support in the workplace to cre-ate more positive work–family climates(Allen 2001; Kossek, Colquitt, & Noe,2001; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, Hammer,2011). This could provide a new theoreti-cal home for work–family research in thegrowing positive organizational scholarship(POS; Cameron & Caza, 2004) and posi-tive organization psychology (POP) fields.Donaldson and Ko (2010) define POP asthe study of ‘‘positive subjective experi-ences and traits in the workplace and pos-itive organizations, and its application toimprove the effectiveness and quality of life

in organizations,’’ which seems very apro-pos for application of work–family researchinto a core I–O psychology and humanresource policy domain.

At the same time, we argue that thework–family field needs to broaden andupdate its language. Language and cul-tural framing are very powerful. As Keganand Lahey (2001) note, language, as themain way we communicate issues, doesmore than merely reflect attitudes andemotions, but rather the mere choice ofone word over others can shape beliefsand attitudes and, ultimately and mostcritically, our actions. Language regardingwork–family issues often implies deviancyor negative connotations regarding com-mitment to work. For example, those whouse flexible work schedules are viewed asworking ‘‘alternative’’ or ‘‘nontraditional’’schedules. Teleworkers are ‘‘distant work-ers.’’ Those who do not work this wayare ‘‘traditional’’ workers. We talk aboutthe ‘‘nonwork’’ role as if it is juxtaposedagainst the work role, where work is seenas the norm, that is, the primary role orthe standard with which all other life rolesshould be compared. Careers that are ‘‘fulltime’’ are ‘‘normal.’’ Any work arrangementthat deviates from this, such as ‘‘part time’’or ‘‘reduced load’’ or ‘‘customized work,’’uses language implying that the worker isnot giving his or her full effort and is gettingspecial treatment. Yet in the Netherlands,nearly 39% of the workforce works parttime and nearly 75% of women who workdo so part time. This suggests that part-time work is the norm for some employeegroups, and they are valued members ofthe workforce. Furthermore, research showspart-time workers can often bring higherintensity and productivity than full-timeworkers (Kossek & Michel, 2010). We neednew ways to talk about careers and jobs thatmove away from the notion that workingflexibly is somehow cheating the employer,particularly as our companies become moreglobal.

We also need to drop the use of‘‘work–life’’ as the politically correctway to talk about work–family matters.


As noted in the historical review ofwork–family policy development, a num-ber of years ago ‘‘work–life’’ replaced theterm ‘‘work–family’’ in many major com-panies and in the field as a well-meaningeffort to minimize backlash against givingincreased support and attention to peoplewith caregiving demands. Yet we need todrop the term ‘‘work–life’’ as ‘‘work’’ is apart of ‘‘life.’’ We simply, in our research,need to be clearer on what personal liferoles we are juxtaposing vis-a-vis the workrole. Why don’t we just use the terms ‘‘workrole’’ and ‘‘caregiving role’’ and ‘‘leisurerole’’ for example, and actually name therole being compared to give greater clarity?

Finally, some authors use terms such as‘‘work–family balance’’ and ‘‘work–familyintegration’’ as positive outcomes, assumingall workers want the same thing. Yet notall workers necessarily want work–familybalance as some may have higher workidentities. Others may have higher familyidentities. And, yes, still some othersare truly ‘‘dual-centric,’’ meaning theiridentities truly are high for both workand family roles (Galinsky et al., 2003;Lobel, 1991). Put another way, one personworking 80 hours a week may perceivethat they have achieved work–familybalance, but another employee workinga ‘‘traditional’’ 40-hour week may feelimbalanced. This is a function of therelative importance these two individualsplace on work and family; balance doesnot mean the same thing to everyone. Butthe persistence of research on work–familybalance normalizes this as the outcome thatall workers want and the norm.

Similarly, not all workers want ‘‘work–family integration’’ as the goal. Some reallydo desire the ability to separate or controlwork–family boundaries more. As Kossekand Lautsch (2008) and Bulger, Matthews,and Hoffman (2007) note, people varyin terms of their preferences and theirabilities to segment work and family and todetach from work. In fact, recent researchsuggests that some individuals are veryunwilling to integrate work and family,and when they do, they experience more

work–family conflict (Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Bulger, 2010). We need tobe more careful in our language to notassume that all workers want the samething or normalize some outcomes asmore desirable. Doing so suggests thatvariation from balance, integration, or otheroutcomes implies deviancy or being ‘‘lessnormal.’’

Clarity of Constructs

We see a large challenge remaining inthe work–family literature with respect toconstruct overlap. For example, on the con-flict side, commonly measured constructsare work–family conflict, work–familyinterference, and work–family spillover.Work–family conflict is said to arise fromsimultaneous pressures from the work andfamily domains that are incompatible insome respect—participation in one role ismade more difficult by virtue of participa-tion in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell,1985). Work–family interference describesthe extent to which employees’ work (orfamily) demands interfere with their family(or work) responsibilities (Gutek, Searle, &Klepa, 1991). Work–family spillover isdefined as emotions, attitudes, skills, andbehaviors established at work (or home)that employees carry into their family (orwork) life (Lambert, 1990). All three termsare often used interchangeably in empir-ical studies (e.g., Leiter & Durup, 1996;Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002). Unfortu-nately, few authors have clarified if they arethe same constructs with different namesthat could be used interchangeably, dis-tinct but related constructs, or separateconstructs altogether.

This lack of construct clarity is alsoreflected in overlapping items in scales usedto measure these constructs. For example,an item from the work interference withfamily scale (Gutek et al., 1991) reads ‘‘Mywork takes up time that I would like to spendwith my family/friends.’’ An item fromthe work–family conflict scale (Netemeyer,Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) reads ‘‘ThingsI want to do at home do not get done


because of the demands my job putson me.’’ An item from the negativework-to-nonwork spillover scale (Bond,Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2003) reads‘‘How often has your job kept you fromconcentrating on important things in yourfamily or personal life?’’ All three of theseitems illustrate some construct overlap.

Similar issues exist on the positive side ofthe work–family interface where constructslike work–family enrichment (the degreeto which the work role enhances the familyrole), work–family facilitation (the degree towhich the work role makes it easier to per-form the family role), work–family positivespillover (the degree to which positive emo-tions, skills, or other resources carryoverover to the family role), and work–familyintegration (the degree to which work andfamily roles are synthesized or combined)are often used interchangeably, yet theyall have different meanings (cf., Thomp-son et al., 2006). The field will be heldback if we continue to use several overlap-ping constructs interchangeably to measurephenomena.

The lack of construct clarity also mani-fests itself in our measurement tools. Evenwhen scholars and practitioners are claim-ing to be measuring the same thing (i.e.,using the same construct name such aswork–family conflict with conceptuallysimilar items), two issues often arise. First,we have multiple measures of the sameconstruct that potentially differ in manyfunctional ways. For example, Matthews,Bulger, and Barnes-Farrell (2010) point outthat measures of conceptually similar con-structs can differ in terms of number ofitems, response scale, and scale orientation.These differences can affect the relation-ships found between those measures andother variables. Second, we too often createour own short measures or trim items fromexisting measures in a way that is often notspecified in our publications. These abbre-viated measures typically have not beensubjected to much psychometric or valid-ity evaluation (Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, &Bulger, 2010). In summary, we think much

more needs to be done to help with con-struct clarity, both theoretically and from astandardized measurement perspective.

Measurement and Research Design

The trend toward collecting multisourcedata from not just the worker but fam-ily members, coworkers, supervisors, andeven clients represents an improvement inwork–family research measures. This devel-opment moves the field away from its longand not so rigorous history of over relianceon same source self-report data (Casper,Eby, et al., 2007). It also helps us bettertap into the notion of cross-over, the ideathat increasingly work–family issues impactnot only the individual employee, but fam-ilies and coworkers as well (Westman &Etzion, 2005).

We are also seeing more triangulationof qualitative and quantitative methodsas well as more longitudinal work (cf.,Hammer et al., 2011; Kossek, Huber, &Lerner, 2003), although this trend is stillsomewhat limited (Casper, Eby, et al.,2007). Building on the movement towardmore multisource data, many studies areexamining dyadic (e.g., Hoobler, Wayne, &Lemmon, 2009; Ilies, Schwind, & Wagner,2009) and multilevel relationships (Major,Fletcher, Davis, & Germano, 2009) to moreaccurately reflect the fact that work–familyattitudes and outcomes are not independentbut rather reflect nested relationships athome and at work.

However, our current measures ofwork–family conflict may not be up to thetask when the goal is to understand dyadicand multilevel relationships. Although mea-suring perceptions of work–family conflictis valuable as a psychological measureand should be continued when this issueis central to the research question, it ismost probably not the correct measurementtechnique when one is attempting cross-person prediction. For example, in dualcareer couples, if one wants to predict ahusband’s level of marital satisfaction fromhis wife’s level of work–family conflict, we


would argue that both objective and subjec-tive data are needed. Specifically, it wouldbe useful to predict a husband’s perceivedlevel of satisfaction with his marriage fromhis wife’s level of work-to-family conflict.It may not be his wife’s perceived levelof work-to-family conflict that is the mostimportant in this scenario but indicatorsof how work is affecting family members.These include, for example, how often sheis late because of work, how often shemisses family functions because of work,and how often she has to complete workafter hours at home. Some may argue thata spouse’s perception of his or her partner’swork impinging on family is still subjec-tive, although it is better than having theemployee’s self-report on the family’s viewsof their work–family conflict. Truly objec-tive indicators of interference would be thenumber of family occasions missed becauseof work and the number of hours workedat home after hours before the childrenare asleep. Or health of family might bemeasured objectively to show the objectiveimpact of work–family conflict on family.In summary, for many of the cross-personpredictions we would like to see explored,objective data is needed. As objective scaleswill not meet many of the requirementsmade of perceptual measures (e.g., internalconsistency), it will require some ‘‘relearn-ing’’ for researchers, practitioners, readers,and reviewers in the work–family arena tobe more open when it comes to objective,nonsame source scale development.

Samples

Unlike early research that focused onsamples with a very restricted range ofwork–family issues, we are seeing amuch greater diversity of job and fam-ily demographics represented in researchsamples. Examples of formerly understud-ied populations include singles (Casper,Weltman, & Kwesiga, 2007), blue-collarworkers, (Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael,2007), low-income retail workers (Ham-mer, Kossek, Bodner, Anger, & Zimmerman,2011; Lambert, 2008), immigrant families

(Chien-Juh, 2009), unionized workers (Berg,Kossek, & Misra, 2010), welfare-to-workrecipients (Kossek et al., 2003), and kinthat live together but are not comprised ofa married couple or a parent and childrenunder 18 (Rothausen-Vange, 2005).

At the same time, there is limitedinternational sampling in work–familystudies. U.S. cultural norms about the pri-macy of the work role and individualisticapproach to work–family issues should notbe viewed as the worldwide norm. TheUnited States is also unique among indus-trialized countries as having a more limitedpublic safety net for work–family issuesbecause of the lack of nationalized paidfamily leave for newborn children. Andthe United States has a very individualistemployer-driven approach to work–familysupport, where employers have far morelatitude than in some other nations to deter-mine how to manage work–family matters.We increasingly need to include measuresof cultural values in work–family studies,particularly on collectivism and feminin-ity (Hofstede, 2001), which may deeplyshape perceptions of the appropriatenessof employer support of work and familydemands.

A final issue is sampling heterogeneity.Numerous inconsistencies in antecedentsand outcomes of work–family conflict havebeen noted in the past research. Some ofthese include flexible work arrangements(Shockley & Allen, 2007), family friendlypolicies (Brough, O’Driscoll, & Kalliath,2005), job performance (Cullen & Hammer,2007), job and life satisfaction (Kossek &Ozeki, 1998), social support (Kossek et al.,2011), and perceived stress (Voydanoff,2005). For example, two meta-analysesconducted only a year apart providedwidely different estimates of the relation-ship between flexible work arrangementsand work-to-family conflict—from .30 inByron’s (2005) study to −.01 in Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran’s (2005) study.We argue that the lack of systematic man-agement of sample heterogeneity may be adriving factor in some of the inconsistentfindings. Sample heterogeneity is defined


as the degree to which participants within aparticular sample differ in terms of a varietyof individual difference variables.

In a single study where sample hetero-geneity is so high that two or more distinctsubpopulations exist, incorrect inferencescan be generalized to all subpopulations(Matthews, Bulger, & Barnes-Farrell, 2010).Alternatively, when multiple subpopula-tions exist, a null effect might be observedfor the entire sample if the process works inopposite directions for the groups (e.g., as ina traditional interaction effect). As an illus-tration of this issue, Matthews, Bulger, andBarnes-Farrell (2010) found in their overallsample that family social support had norelationship with work-to-family conflict.However, when conceptually distinct agegroups were considered, they note that thenull effect in their overall model was drivenby a canceling out of the effect across thethree age groups.

Across studies examining the sameissues, sample heterogeneity may also playa role in the reporting of inconsistentresults. For example, it is possible thatwithin two independent studies, sampleheterogeneity may be relatively low (allparticipants are relatively similar) withineach sample. However, each study mightdemonstrate contradictory results for theconstructs of interest if the samples aresystematically different from one another.For example, if one study examines flexiblework arrangements for a sample of nursesand a second study examines the same issuein a sample of blue-collar workers, differentresults may be observed as a function of thenature of the job, types of policies available,issues of organizational culture, and otherdistinguishing characteristics of individualswho comprise these occupations. Thus, theissue is not so much an inconsistency inthe observed results but variation in resultsgeneralization. We must systematicallyexamine the degree to which these sampleidiosyncrasies may bias study results or howour findings must be understood as validonly for a very specified context.

One way to address sampling issue isto include greater use of individual, group,

and organizational differences as modera-tors. Overall, relative to the total numberof work–family studies that have beenconducted, the role that important indi-vidual, group, or organizational differencecharacteristics play as moderators of rel-evant processes is understudied (Casper,Eby, et al., 2007). Although we continueto develop a better overarching conceptualmodel of how the work–family interfacefunctions (Eby et al., 2005), we persist inignoring the role that surface-level demo-graphics and deep-level characteristics suchas values play in moderating importantrelationships. We also would like to seemore organizational- and occupational-level moderators used, given wide variationin occupations and family supportive orga-nizational cultures and access to and use ofwork–family policies.

Different Paths Forward inWork–Family Research

In addition to addressing some of the persis-tent problems in work–family research sothat ‘‘better’’ research is conducted, result-ing in richer and more valid knowledge fororganizations to use in figuring out what todo, we advocate for a renewed emphasison several substantive paths. We do not seethese paths as an either/or crossroad butrather that each are worthy of pursuit.

Path 1: Researchers Actually StudyEffective Policy and PracticeImplementation

Overall, we need work–family researchto improve the understanding of effec-tive policy and practice implementation.Going down this path, researchers wouldwork to help organizations better imple-ment policies. This would require moreresearch focused on program evaluationand on linking work–family policies toorganizational development and change.Such research would also focus on con-textual differences—one-size does not fitall organizations and cultures. What wouldcomprise such a research agenda?


First on the agenda are integrative studiesof policy availability, timing, extent of use,and subsequent outcomes. A shortcomingof research examining policy implemen-tation is that it often simply examineswhether a policy, such as a flextime ortelework, is reported by organizations asbeing available but does not examine vari-ation in use and effectiveness of the pol-icy, or consequences (good and bad) ofpolicy use (Kossek & Michel, 2010). Weneed to really look into organizations morecarefully to understand what is happen-ing within the firm and across workgroups.Many organizations have ‘‘lumpiness’’ orwide unevenness in policy implementa-tion. That is, individuals are nested inworkgroups that vary considerably in thedegree to which they have jobs or bossessupporting work–family flexibility, whichcreates understudied work–family micro-climates. Unevenness in within-firm imple-mentation and access also highlights issuesof organizational stratification—the notionthat within organizations there is workforcestratification or rigidity where only someworkgroups, employees, or occupations areallowed to work flexibly while others arenot. Yet at the firm level, a company can stillpublicize that it offers flextime or telework(Ryan & Kossek, 2008).

Researchers should also not assumethat all work–family policies, practices, orinterventions affect people the same way.For example, different family structures(e.g., single parents, families with childrenwith disabilities, elder caregivers) are likelyto view (and experience) these policiesdifferently. The ability to telework severaldays a week may be a moderately attractivejob policy for an unmarried recent collegegraduate entering the labor market butviewed very differently by someone withan on going lifelong critical work–familydemand. More than simply ‘‘nice to have,’’the psychological meaning of such atelework policy may be viewed as agodsend for a parent whose child has long-term learning disabilities or physical ormental health problems (Parish, 2006).

Scholars also need to more carefullymeasure and examine the conditions underwhich policy use leads to positive out-comes. Few studies include both measuresof cultural support for work–family policiesand actual policy use (from family membersor work) in the same study or assess the neg-ative consequence of policy use. Regardingthe later, some studies have found thatthe heaviest users of work–family poli-cies have higher work–family conflict thannonusers. For example, a study of telework-ers found that they had higher work–familyconflict than nontelework users (Kossek,Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). One explanation(given the cross-sectional design) is thatmost teleworkers had higher work–familyconflict than nonusers a priori, that is,the presence of work–family conflict moti-vated them to make use of the teleworkoption. Work–family conflict may increas-ingly need to be measured not just as adependent variable but as an independentvariable shaping the effects of work–familypolicy use (Hammer et al., 2011).

Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood,and Colton (2005) found that greaterusers of work–family flexibility had higherwork–family conflict but surmised userswere using policies to their detriment.Rather than ameliorating work–family con-flict, sometimes work–family flexibilitypolicies have the reverse effect of enablingmore negative work–family spillover. Thisoccurs because workers are trying to doboth their family demands and their workdemands at the same time without cut-ting back on either or having more openboundaries between work and home. Forexample, we should examine the possi-ble negative consequences of flexibilitypolicies leading to lower and more perme-able boundaries between work and family,which in turn increases interruptions fromfamily-to-work or work-to-family.

Another explanation for negative effectsis that policy use may lead to backlash.That is, if policies do not fit with the com-pany culture, using these policies can actu-ally lead to greater work–family conflict,thereby hurting the users the policies were


designed to help. We must increase ourunderstanding on potential backlash of usefrom childless workers, clients, managers,and those in nondual-earner families. Wealso need to understand ‘‘family backlash’’from use of flexibility policies enablinghigher work-to-family conflict. Finally, weneed to look at the stickiness of positiveor negative effects from policy use. Someresearch has shown (Baltes et al., 1999)that the positive effects of new flexi-ble schedules may decline over time,particularly in terms of how they relate tojob satisfaction. This may be because peo-ple start getting used to policies, they justbecome part of the normal expectationspeople have of a job design.

It could also be that having access toflexibility, particularly for professionals, willnot reduce work–family conflict unlessworkload is also reduced. This may alsobe because professionals often have the‘‘flexibility’’ to work 24/7, and policiesthat are well intentioned such as flextimeand telework may actually be producingoverwork and workaholism, and peopleare having increasing difficulty shuttingwork off.

Path 2: Researchers Focus on the Impact ofRapid Technological Advances That AreBlurring Work–Family Boundaries

This path could create a whole newballgame in terms of understanding thework–family interface and perhaps main-stream work–family issues as essential toimplementation of workforce deploymentas a global organizational strategy.

Technology is increasing the spreadof work into people’s personal timeand the spread of the private domaininto working time. As a result, individ-uals will have more difficulty maintain-ing work–family boundaries, unless theyactively seek to do so (Kossek & Lautsch,2008). Research is needed to understandhow work–family flexibility practices arebeing self-regulated by the employee, par-ticularly for those who work on laptops oruse cell phones. More and more employees

are being given autonomy to enact personaldifferences in how they manage boundariesbetween work and home—either by choice(e.g., psychological preference to multitask)or constraints (e.g., global travel job, singleparent).

Kossek and Lautsch (2008) have devel-oped a typology of boundary-managementstyles: segmenters, integrators, and volley-ers. Some employees prefer to segmentboundaries and work in blocks where theyseparate work and family. Perhaps they onlytake phone calls from a doctor during theirlunch hour, for example. Other employeeslike to integrate work and family boundariesand blend work and family all day long. Stillother employees are volleyers who haveperiods of high segmentation and then highintegration depending on how their jobsare structured (e.g. accountants who havepeaks and valleys during tax season) or theirfamily situation (e.g., divorced parent whogets full child custody every summer).

We need to continue to update ourwork–family measures to include prefer-ences for balance and segmentation, inte-gration, and how individuals and groupsseek to actively structure temporal bound-aries and work–family relationships. Thiswill also enhance objective measurementissues discussed above, as now studies canmeasure actual behaviors such as the num-ber of e-mails and texts individuals sendand receive a day, how long they are oncell phones and computers for personaland work demands, and whether this isby individual choice. We can also measurethe length of time someone is spending onwork interruptions when at home and fam-ily interruptions when at work as e-mailsand cell calls arrive.

Path 3: Researchers Work to Empower theIndividual

Another avenue of research that could helpemployees achieve work–family balance isone that focuses on the individual and notthe organization. Given the fact that manywork–family policies still lag in impact intheir current form, and the fact that the


employer is powerful in fostering work-to-family boundary blurring via technology,one could argue that employees mayoften be on their own when it comes todealing with work–family conflict. On thispath, researchers assume organizations areunlikely to ever really make organizationalsupport for work–family issues a toppriority. Here researchers would focusstudies to help individuals better helpthemselves.

Although the body of research thatexamines how individuals successfullydeal with work–family conflict has grownconsiderably in recent years, relatively lit-tle is known about what individual fac-tors may allow some employees to bettercope with the antecedents of work–familyconflict than others. It is reasonable toassume that both personality factors andcoping strategies used by individuals indealing with the limited resources result-ing from work–family conflict may influ-ence whether an employee can achievesome level of work–family balance, andrecent research supports this hypothe-sis (e.g., Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003;Rosenbaum & Cohen, 1999). Of specialinterest are coping strategies because indi-viduals can use these and they wouldseem to be trainable (i.e., malleable),whereas personality factors are not. Recentresearch on coping strategies (e.g., Baltes &Heydens-Gahir, 2003) has shown that theyare linked to lower levels of work–familyconflict.

The most often tested model of copingin the work–family domain is the meta-model of selection, optimization, andcompensation (SOC; Baltes, 1997; Baltes &Baltes, 1990; Freund & Baltes, 2002). SOCis based on the underlying assumption that‘‘the coordinated use of behaviors involvingSOC can (a) increase one’s resources inthe sense of developmental enhancement,(b) help maintain functioning in the face ofchallenges, and (c) help regulate impendinglosses in resources’’ (Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003, p. 1006).

Selection is concerned with the degreeto which individuals identify and select

goals, alternative contexts, outcomes, andgoal structures. Behaviors associated withthe selection strategy provide a directionto behavior. Optimization refers to theacquisition, refinement, and use of means toachieve goals. Compensation concerns theacquisition and use of alternative means tomaintain a desired level of functioning inthe face of decreases in resources.

Early studies examining the usage of SOCand how it relates to work–family conflicthave demonstrated that individuals who useSOC behavioral strategies in the work orfamily domain tend to experience loweramounts of job and family stressors and inturn lower levels of work–family conflict(Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Clark, Bal,Zhdanova, & Baltes, 2009) and that peoplein the most resource-stretched situationsbenefit the most from using SOC copingbehaviors (Young, Baltes, & Pratt, 2007).

Although a handful of studies that haveexamined coping strategies suggest thatthey can be very effective in helpingindividuals reduce work–family conflict,much more research is required before apractical impact may be seen. We pro-pose three interrelated themes of research:(a) research that investigates which strate-gies work and which do not (taking into con-sideration boundary conditions that mightinfluence the effectiveness of different tech-niques), (b) research that examines howthe use of coping strategies affect theemployees’ immediate partner and family,(c) research on the degree to which effec-tive coping strategies are indeed trainable,what training methods are the most effica-cious, and how organizations can enhancetransfer of training.

Path 4: Researchers Engage in Advocacyand Collaborative Policy Research toChange Institutional Contexts and BreakDown Silos

The movement toward research to changepublic policy and to advocate for the effec-tive implementation of work–family poli-cies could be achieved if organizations likeSIOP were more active on Capitol Hill or


partnered more with the U.S. Departmentof Labor and Census Bureau to better mea-sure policy availability and use. There isan increasing availability of NIH grants tolook at intervention and policy effectivenessresearch. Recently, the SHRM publishedprinciples for a 21st-century flexibility pol-icy. The principles advocate for flexibilitypolicies that facilitate employees’ abilitiesto jointly meet growing personal and workdemands in their daily lives while still ensur-ing productivity and stability for employersand not hurting job creation (SHRM, 2011).SHRM also argues for better coordinationof state and federal laws and ‘‘safe harbors’’standards where employers could voluntar-ily offer a certain number of paid leavedays that workers could use for any need,as long as consistent with collective bar-gaining agreements or other organizationalpolicies. I–O psychologists could play abigger role here. Partnering with SHRM,employers, and other groups, we couldhelp design and evaluate these policies anddemonstrate the potential benefits of effec-tive implementation.

The Need forResearcher—Practitioner andInterdisciplinary Partnerships

Providing technical assistance to helpemployers better implement work–familypolicies and develop supportive work–family cultures as organizational changeinterventions is needed. Scholars, policy-makers, and practitioners increasingly needto build bridges to help ensure continu-ous improvement in the implementationof work–family initiatives. Until this isdone, practitioners may continue to bemore comfortable with consulting firmswho are not necessarily selling evidenced-based work–family policies.

Rather than seeing work–family consult-ing as a way to implement a quick fixto the work–family ‘‘problem,’’ consultingfirms and companies should embed schol-ars to help with confidential evaluationas a neutral third party. This would helpensure that the work–life policies being

sold by work–family vendors actually work.Researchers could be instrumental in mea-suring a pre- and post snapshot of currentwork–family stress. They could then do afollow-up evaluation to ensure that policiesand practices being implemented actuallywork and are being uniformly implementedacross the company. This would also leadto the development of multiple stakeholdermeasures of effectiveness as the views ofemployees, employee subgroups, and com-panies may differ. We need not spend moremoney on new policies, but we do needto better implement the policies we alreadyhave, as noted above. Certainly conduct-ing needs assessments of unique workforceneeds to prioritize work–family issues alsowould be helpful to ensure that employ-ers don’t just buy what vendors are sellingcarte blanch but are customizing policies tounique workforce needs.

We would also like to see companiesmove toward adopting certified or vali-dated interventions. Just like the total qualitymovement moved toward certification ofcertain quality procedures, we would liketo see this done for work–family policies.We’ve noted that consultants rarely validatethe interventions they are promoting. Yet inthe employee selection realm, the Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assess-ment encourages practitioners to provideresearch briefs using ‘‘real’’ data as part oftheir Information Exchange manuscript sub-mission process (Viswesvaran, 2007). Thewrite-ups are short and theory is not neededor warranted. This serves as fertile groundand empirical evidence for theorists to workfrom and supports inductive theory genera-tion. We hope developments for validatedknowledge sharing are something we cansee in the work–family arena either as arecurring section in at least one of our topjournals, in a series of special issues, or aSIOP online community.

Work–family research also needs tobecome more interdisciplinary, and thenext generation of work–family schol-ars need to be more cross-disciplinary.Work–family phenomena, problems, andsolutions indeed span many disciplines.


Although there are many lenses to under-stand work–family issues, the field hasbeen fragmented and studies do not talkto each other well. Deciding what researchquestions to ask and the perspectives usedto ‘‘see’’ and interpret work–family phe-nomenon are very disciplinary specific.Take this example from a chapter in theHandbook of Work and Family (Kossek,Sweet, & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2006).

A young woman who has been employedat the local factory for several yearswith an excellent attendance and per-formance record decides to quit workshortly after the birth of her and her hus-band’s second child. She had returned towork for a few months after her 6-weekmaternity leave and it seemed as if thingswere working fine, but then she gaveher 2 weeks’ notice to her supervisor.Senior management noted that the youngwoman’s behavior was similar to that ofmany other working parents at the plantand they were becoming worried aboutthe lost productivity. They decided toconsult a variety of researchers from thelocal university. The psychologist statedthat the working parents were probablyexperiencing role conflict between thedemands of work and those of the fam-ily. The sociologist added that traditionalsocietal and marital gender expectationswere causing women to work a seconddomestic shift when they got home fromtheir jobs. The economist surmised thatthe wages the plant was offering were notsufficiently generous to offset the cost ofpaying for quality child care. The demog-rapher observed that workforce data sug-gest that if a working mother has morethan one child under 3 years old andis also part of the sandwich generationproviding elder care, she is likely to tem-porarily leave the labor force. The histo-rian stated that the factory has retainedemployment approaches not much dif-ferent from those first adopted a centuryago, and these traditional productionmethods have made it difficult to alterworkplace structures to provide flexible

work hours. This perspective was echoedby the anthropologist, who noted thestrong factory cultural norms reinforcingsegmentation of the workplace for at least10 hours a day from personal life. (p. 67)

As this example illustrates, researchersfrom different disciplines tend to frameresearch questions in very unique ways,using different measures, replicating andculturally reproducing knowledge in waysreflective of how they were socialized asdoctoral students. I–O scholars, practition-ers, students, or policymakers have prob-ably overfocused on the employer andemployee psychological perspectives andconsequently have limited the utility of ourstudies. We need to look at work–familyrelationships more broadly to better under-stand the structural root causes perpetuat-ing work–family issues—perspectives moreoften investigated by broader social andbehavioral sciences.

An exciting university and companypartnership that is interdisciplinary isthe National Work–Family Health Net-work, which is supported by the U.S.National Institutes of Health and manyother foundations and agencies. This teamof leading scholars from a broad rangeof disciplines, including public and occu-pational health, I–O psychology, humanresources, and sociology, has teamed up todesign workplace interventions to reducework–family conflict, increase social sup-port for work–family issues, increase sched-ule control and change the culture to bemore supportive, and ultimately improvehealth and effectiveness of workers, com-panies, and families. When the studies aredone, interdisciplinary research teams willhave collaborated over a decade to con-duct studies with workers, families, andmanagers spanning retail, corporate head-quarter professional, IT, healthcare, andhotel environments. Some of the studiesare using clinical trial methodology whereworkgroups and organizations are random-ized to receive work–family interventionsas a treatment and then compared to control


workplace groups. As supportive super-visors and work–family cultures are socritical to the effective implementation ofwork–family policies, this interdisciplinarypractitioner, scholarly, and governmentpartnership is an important innovationand hopefully one that can be replicated(http://www.kpchr.org/workfamilyhealthnetwork/public/default.aspx).

ReferencesAllen, T., Herst, D., Bruck, C., & Sutton, M. (2000).

Consequences associated with work-to-family con-flict: A review and agenda for future research.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,278–308.

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environ-ments: The role of organizational perceptions.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.

Aumann, K., & Galinsky, E. (2009). The state ofhealth in the American workforce: Does havingan effective workplace matter? New York, NY:Families and Work Institute.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., &Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressedworkweekschedules: A meta-analysis of theireffects on work-related criteria. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 496–513.

Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. A. (2003). Reduc-tion of work–family conflict through the useof selection, optimization, and compensationbehaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,1005–1018.

Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architectureof human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, andcompensation as foundation of developmentaltheory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380.

Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (Eds.). (1990). Successfulaging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, R., & Hyde, J. (2001). Women, men, work,and family: An expansionist theory. AmericanPsychologist, 56, 781–796.

Berg, P., Kossek, E., & Misra, K. (2010). Work–lifevoice. Working paper. East Lansing, MI: Schoolof Labor and Industrial Relations.

Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D.(2003). Highlights of the national study of thechanging workforce. New York, NY: Families andWork Institute.

Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005).The ability of ‘family friendly’ organizationalresources to predict work–family conflict andjob and family satisfaction. Stress & Health, 21,223–234.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic view of work-familyconflict and its antecedents. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 67, 169–198.

Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E.(2007). Work and personal life boundary man-agement: Boundary strength, work/personal lifebalance and the segmentation-integration contin-uum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12, 365–375.

Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Introduction: Con-tributions to the discipline of positive organiza-tional scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist,47, 731–739.

Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A.,& Lambert, D. (2007). A review of researchmethods in IO/OB work–family research. Journalof Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.

Casper, W. J., Weltman, D., & Kwesiga, E. (2007).Beyond family-friendly: The construct and mea-surement of singles-friendly work culture. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 70, 478–501.

Chien-Juh, G. (2009). Immigration and work–familyconcerns. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes & E. Kossek(Eds.), Work–family encyclopedia. Retrieved fromhttp://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=15431&area=All.

Clark, M. A., Bal, A., Zhdanova, L., & Baltes, B. B.(2009, April). A qualitative analysis of strategiesfor coping with work –family stressors. Interactiveposter presented at the 24th Annual Conferenceof the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, New Orleans, LA.

Clay, R. (2011). Is stress getting to you? Monitor onPsychology, 42(1), 58. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Cullen, J. C., & Hammer, L. B. (2007). Developing andtesting a theoretical model linking work–familyconflict to employee safety. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 12, 266–278.

Donaldson, S. I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organiza-tional psychology behavior and scholarship: Areview of the emerging literature and evidencebase. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 171–199.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C.,& Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research inIOOB: Content analysis and review of the literature(1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,124–197.

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007).Work and family satisfaction and conflict: Ameta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journalof Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.

Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-managementstrategies of selection, optimization, and compen-sation: Measurement by self-report and constructvalidity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 82, 642–662.

Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. (2009). Timesare changing: Gender and generation at work andhome. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Galinsky, E., Salmond, K., Bond, J. T., Brumit Kropf, M.,Moore, M., & Harrington, B. (2003). Leaders in aglobal economy: A study of executive women andmen. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H.(2007). Work–family supportiveness organiza-tional perceptions: Important for the well-being ofmale blue-collar hourly workers? Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 71, 460–478.

Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, J. N. (1985). Sources ofconflict between work and family roles. Academyof Management, 10, 76–88.

Greenhaus, J., & Powell, G. (2006). When workand family are allies: A theory of work–familyenrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31,72–79.


Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rationalversus gender role explanations for work–familyconflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,560–568.

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Bodner, T., Anger, K.,& Zimmerman, K. (2011). Clarifying work–familyintervention processes: The roles of work–familyconflict and family supportive supervisor behav-iors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 134–150.

Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J., Brockwood,K. J., & Colton, C. (2005). A longitudinal study ofthe effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization offamily-friendly workplace supports on work andfamily outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 799–810.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Com-paring values, behaviors, institutions, and organi-zations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009).Bosses’ perceptions of family–work conflict andwomen’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects.Academy of Management Journal, 52, 939–957.

Ilies, R., Schwind, K. , & Wagner, D. (2009). Thespillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees’family lives: The facilitating role of work-familyintegration. The Academy of Management Journal,52, 87–102.

Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., &Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studiesin role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY:Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology oforganizing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talkcan change the way we work: Seven languagesfor transforming organizations. San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.

Kelly, E., Kossek, E., Hammer, L. Durham, M., Bray, J.,Chermack, K., Murphy, L., & Kaskubar, D. (2008).Getting there from here: Research on the effects ofwork-family initiatives on work-family conflict andbusiness outcomes. In J. P. Walsh & A. Brief (Eds.),The Academy of Management Annals (Volume 2,pp. 305–349). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kossek, E. E. (2005). Workplace policies and prac-tices to support work and families. In S. Bianchi,L. Casper, & R. King (Eds.), Work, family, health,and well-being (pp. 97–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Kossek, E. E. (2006). Work and family in America:Growing tensions between employment policy anda changing workforce. A thirty-year perspective.In E. Lawler & J. O’Toole (Eds.), America at work:Choices and challenges (pp. 53–72). New York,NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J., & Noe, R. (2001). Caregivingdecisions, well-being, and performance: The effectsof place and provider as a function of dependenttype and work–family climates. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44, 29–44.

Kossek, E. & Distelberg, B. (2008). Work and familyemployment policy for a transformed work force:Trends and themes. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth(Eds.), Work-life policies (pp. 1–51). Washington,DC: Urban Institute Press.

Kossek, E. & Hammer, L. (2008, November). Supervi-sor work/life training gets results (p. 36). Boston,MA: Harvard Business Review.

Kossek, E. E., Huber, M., & Lerner, J. (2003). Sustain-ing economic and psychological well-being ofmothers on public assistance: Individual deficit andsocial structural accounts. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 62, 155–175.

Kossek, E., & Lambert, S. (2005). Work and life inte-gration: Organizational, cultural, and individualperspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kossek, E., & Lautsch, B. (2008). CEO of me: Creating alife that works in the flexible job age. Philadelphia,PA: Wharton School Publishing.

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006).Telecommuting, control, and boundary manage-ment: Correlates of policy use and practice, jobcontrol, and work–family effectiveness. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 68, 347–467.

Kossek, E., & Michel, J. (2010). Flexible workscheduling. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of in-dustrial-organizational psychology (pp. 535–572).Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-ation.

Kossek. E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work- family con-flict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relation-ship: A review and directions for organizationalbehavior/human resources research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 139–149.

Kossek, E. E. & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap. InternationalJournal of Community, Work, and Family, 2, 7–32.

Kossek, E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L.(2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying theinfluence of general and work–family specificsupervisor and organizational support. PersonnelPsychology, 64, 289–313.

Kossek, E., Sweet, S., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2006).The insights gained from integrating disciplines.In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet(Eds.), The work–family handbook: Multi-discipli-nary perspectives and approaches (pp. 67–72).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work andfamily. Human Relations, 43, 239–257.

Lambert, S. J. (2008). Passing the buck: Labor flexibilitypractices that transfer risk onto hourly workers.Human Relations, 61, 1203–1227.

Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home,and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29–47.

Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment inwork and family roles: Alternative theories andimplication for research. Academy of ManagementReview, 16, 507–521.

MacDermid, S., & Harvey, A. (2006). The work–familyconflict construct: Methodological implications. InM. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.),The work–family handbook: Multi-disciplinaryperspectives and approaches (pp. 238–308). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Major, D., Fletcher, T., Davis, D., & Germano, L.(2009). The influence of work–family cultureand workplace relationships on work interferencewith family: A multilevel model. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 29, 881–897.

Major, V. S., Klein, K. S., & Ehrhart M. G. (2002). Worktime, work interference with family, and psycho-logical distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,427–436.


Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain:Some notes on human energy, time and com-mitment. American Sociological Review, 42,921–936.

Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Bulger, C. A.(2010). Advancing measurement of work–familyboundary characteristics. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 77, 447–460.

Matthews, R. A., Bulger, C. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L.(2010). Work social supports, role stressors, andwork–family conflict: The moderating effect of age.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 78–90.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Con-vergence between measures of work-to-family andfamily-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examina-tion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton,J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative testof work–family conflict models and criticalexamination of work–family linkages. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 74, 199–218.

Near, J., Rice, R., & Hunt, R. (1980). The relationshipbetween work and nonwork domains: A review ofempirical research. The Academy of ManagementReview, 5, 415–429.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R.(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family-work conflict scales.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.

Parish, S. L. (2006). Juggling and struggling: A prelim-inary work–life study of mothers with adolescentswho have developmental disabilities. Mental Retar-dation, 44, 393–404.

Rosenbaum, M., & Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarianmarriages, spousal support, resourcefulness andpsychological distress among Israeli workingwomen. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,102–113.

Rothausen-Vange, T. (2005). Family diversity. InM. Pitt-Catsouphes and E. Kossek (Eds.), Sloanwork–family encyclopedia. Boston, MA: BostonCollege Sloan Work Family Network. Retrievedfrom http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=1138.

Ryan, A., & Kossek, E. (2008). Work-life policy imple-mentation: Breaking down or creating barriers toinclusiveness. Human Resource Management, 47,295–310.

Shellenbarger, S. (2008). Downsizing maternity leave:Employers cut pay, time off. The Wall Street Journal,June 11, 2008, D1.

Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibil-ity helps: Another look at the availability of flexiblework arrangements and work–family conflict. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 479–493.

Sieber, S. (1974). Toward a theory of role accu-mulations. American Sociological Review, 39,567–578.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2010).2010 employee benefits: Examining employeebenefits in the midst of a recovering economy.Alexandria, VA: Author.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2011).Principles for a 21st century workplace flexibilitypolicy. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Allen, C. (2006).Work and family from an industrial-organizationalpsychology perspective. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes,E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work–familyhandbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives andapproaches (pp. 283–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Viswesvaran, C. (2007). Editorial. International Journalof Selection and Assessment, 15, 1–2.

Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization ofperceived work-family fit and balance: A demandsand resources approach. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 67, 822–836.

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2005). The crossoverof work–family conflict from one spouse to theother. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,1936–1957.

Young, L. M., Baltes, B. B., & Pratt, A. (2007). Usingselection, optimization, and compensation toreduce job-family stressors: Effective when itmatters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18,1–2.

how work–family research can finally have an impact in

Documents