relationships of work–family coping strategies with work–family conflict and enrichment: the...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 16 June 2013, At: 01:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Family SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfsc20
Relationships of work–family coping strategies withwork–family conflict and enrichment: The roles ofgender and parenting statusSaija Mauno a , Ulla Kinnunen b , Johanna Rantanen a , Taru Feldt a & Marika Rantanen aa Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finlandb School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Tampere, FinlandPublished online: 06 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Saija Mauno , Ulla Kinnunen , Johanna Rantanen , Taru Feldt & Marika Rantanen (2012): Relationships ofwork–family coping strategies with work–family conflict and enrichment: The roles of gender and parenting status, FamilyScience, 3:2, 109-125
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2012.707618
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Family ScienceVol. 3, No. 2, April 2012, 109–125
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Relationships of work–family coping strategies with work–family conflict and enrichment:The roles of gender and parenting status
Saija Maunoa*, Ulla Kinnunenb , Johanna Rantanena , Taru Feldta and Marika Rantanena
aDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; bSchool of Social Sciences and Humanities, University ofTampere, Tampere, Finland
(Received 22 February 2012; final version received 25 June 2012)
This study investigated individual work–family coping strategies (WFCS). We focused on four types of coping efforts andbehaviours that employees take up in order to balance their work and family life: (1) ‘Being super at work/home’, (2)‘Being good enough at work/home’, (3) ‘Prioritizing at work/home’ and (4) ‘Delegating at work/home’. We examined therelationships between WFCS and work–family conflict and between WFCS and work–family enrichment. In addition, weinvestigated whether parenting status and gender relate to the use of WFCS and their potential moderator role in the linkagebetween WFCS and work–family conflict and enrichment. The study was based on a sample of Finnish health care andservice employees (N = 2340). The results showed, first, that WFCS were related to work–family conflict and enrichment,but also that the relationships varied according to the type of WFCS and the outcome studied. For example, ‘Delegating’and ‘Being super’ were related to higher enrichment, whereas ‘Prioritizing’ associated with higher conflict. Second, womenprioritized more at home than men, whereas men prioritized more at work than women. Third, parents reported a higheruse of delegation at work than non-parents. Fourth, a few relationships were moderated by parenting, for example, mothersand fathers benefited more from ‘Prioritizing at home’ in terms of higher work-to-family enrichment and ‘Good enough atwork/home’ in terms of lower family-to-work conflict and higher work-to-family enrichment than non-parents.
Keywords: work–family coping strategies; gender; parenting status; work–family conflict; work–family enrichment
Introduction
Background, aim and added value of the study
A major issue exercising many employees today is howto cope with the multiple challenges facing them inthe work and family domains that often make it dif-ficult for them satisfactorily to combine these two lifedomains. Here, we suggest that use of appropriate copingstrategies may be one way of resolving such difficulties.Overall, coping refers to ‘an individual’s cognitive andbehavioural efforts to manage specific external and/orinternal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceed-ing the resources of the person’ (Lazarus & Folkman,1984, p. 141). In empirical research, coping is most oftenassessed via coping strategies, and their important role iswell acknowledged in the psychological stress and well-being research literature (Dewe, O’Driscoll, & Cooper,2010; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman,1984; Penley, Tomaka, & Wiese, 2002; Taylor & Stanton,2007). However, coping strategies have turned out to bedifficult to measure via global coping instruments as theycannot be always applied across all situations (Schwarzer& Schwarzer, 1996; Steed, 1998). Therefore, more fine-grained coping measures, which evaluate coping on a
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
contextual or situational basis, have been called for anddeveloped. One example of these new coping instrumentsis the work–family coping strategies (WFCS) scale, whichwas examined in this study (see Somech & Drach-Zahavy,2007). WFCS measure the coping efforts and behavioursthat employees apply in combining work and family lifeand aim at improving employees’ work–family balance.
This study, which sampled the Finnish health careand service employees (N = 2340), had two main objec-tives. First, we examined the relationships between WFCSand work–family conflict and between WFCS and work–family enrichment. Specifically, low work–family conflictand high work–family enrichment were conceptualized asindicators of work–family balance. Second, we investigatedwho benefits most from WFCS. Specifically, we focused onparenting status as a key factor in evaluating the effective-ness of WFCS. Namely, WFCS most likely relate to theamount of the role demands of a person in different lifedomains (see Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Frone, 2003;Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Parents experience morerole demands at home compared to non-parents (Byron,2005; Frone, 2003; Kroska, 2004), implying a greaterneed to cope, which in turn might also mean that theywould obtain greater benefits from coping in the sense of
ISSN 1942-4620 print/ISSN 1942-4639 online© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2012.707618http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
110 S. Mauno et al.
improved work–family balance. Consequently, we studiedwhether parenting status moderates the linkages betweenWFCS and work–family conflict and work–family enrich-ment. Furthermore, we also took gender as a potentialmoderator into account, because the work–family inter-face is gendered (Hochschild, 1999; Martinengo, Jacob, &Hill, 2010; Westman & Zimmerman, 1987), which mayalso have implications for WFCS and their associationswith work–family conflict and work–family enrichment.To answer this second research question, we also examinedvariation in the take-up of WFCS by parenting status andgender.
As these research objectives show, work–family con-flict and work–family enrichment formed the criteria forcoping effectiveness in our study. Work–family conflictrefers to a form of role conflict where work and familydemands are incompatible in some respect. Such conflictmay occur via time-, strain- or behaviour-based mecha-nisms (for more details, see Greenhaus & Beutell (1985)).We focused on time- and strain-based conflict, meaningthat the work and family domains are incompatible becauseboth need time (time-based conflict) and energy andcommitment (strain-based conflict). Work–family enrich-ment is the opposite experience to work–family conflict.Specifically, enrichment captures the spillover of posi-tive effect and psychosocial capital between work andfamily, and the core assumption is that work/family qual-ity positively affects family/work quality (Greenhaus &Powell, 2006). We considered work–family enrichment,which reflects good balance and psychosocial functioningin adulthood, as an important extension to the theory. Thus,by definition, WFE should also show association with suc-cessful coping. Moreover, work–family conflict and work–family enrichment are bidirectional (see Carlson, Kacmar,Wayne, & Grzywascz, 2006; Frone, 2003; Greenhaus& Beutell, 1985), and therefore, we studied these phe-nomenon in both directions: from work to family andfamily to work. Thus, we studied work-to-family conflict(WFC), family-to-work conflict (FWC), work-to-familyenrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE).
The WFCS inventory: Content and theoreticalunderpinnings
As already stated, new constructs and measures of copinghave recently been called for and also developed in researchon the work–family interface. One of these is the WFCSinventory, targeted in this study (see Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007). We see three reasons why it is important tofocus on WFCS instead of more traditional generic copingstrategies. First, WFCS assess coping strategies beyond thecriticized taxonomic model (i.e. emotion/problem-focusedcoping; see Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003).Second, WFCS fit better into the situational model of cop-ing, emphasizing that situation always has a role in the
choice of coping strategies (Lazarus, 1966, 1999; Lazarus& Folkman, 1984). Thus, in the case of work–family chal-lenges, specific coping efforts are needed. Third, muchless research attention has been paid to WFCS comparedto generic coping strategies in contemporary work–familyresearch (for studies on generic coping, see Andreassi,2011; Haar, 2006; Mauno & Rantanen, 2012; Rantanen,Mauno, Kinnunen, & Rantanen, 2011; Rotondo, Carlson,& Kincaid, 2003, for example).
Specifically, the WFCS scale consists of eight strate-gies, and four of these assess coping in the workdomain and four in the home domain: (1) ‘Super atwork/home’ (a person tries to be a perfect performer atwork/home and doing everything fully/better), (2) ‘Goodenough at work/home’(a person lowers his/her effort levelor standards but mainly mentally), (3) ‘Prioritizing atwork/home’(a person prioritizes some tasks and dutiesat home/work) and (4) ‘Delegating at work/home’(a per-son delegates some tasks and duties to someone else athome/work, role cycling). Although these categories weredeveloped mainly inductively on the basis of qualitativeinterview data, they have clear theoretical roots in ear-lier coping models. Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007)have also confirmed the above-described eight-dimensionalstructure, that is, four coping strategies at work and fourat home, in their psychometric analyses in an Israeli sam-ple (n = 679). Furthermore, the correlations between theseeight WFCS were relatively low (r < .50), supporting theview that these eight factors are in fact distinct.
As already mentioned, the WFCS scale has its over-all theoretical underpinnings in the transactional stresstheory (see Lazarus, 1966, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman,1984), emphasizing the situation-specific nature of cop-ing. More specifically, Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007)relied on Hall’s (1972) coping typology when developingthe WFCS inventory. This typology consists of three typesof coping in relation to one’s life roles: (1) structural roleredefinition refers to attempts to reduce role demands andchange externally/structurally posed expectations regard-ing one’s role. Delegating and prioritizing are examples ofthis type of role redefinition. (2) Personal role redefinitionmeans modifying one’s own expectations and perceptionsof one’s behaviour in a given role instead of altering therole demands or role expectations themselves. Being goodenough represents this type of role definition. (3) Reactiverole behaviour refers to one’s passive accommodation tothe role sender without structural or personal redefinition.Thus, the individual strives to improve his/her ability tosatisfy all role demands rather than restructuring them.Being super reflects this type of coping.
If we look at the WFCS items in more detail, they allseem to include role redefinition, at either the behavioural(prioritizing and delegating) or the cognitive/mental level(being good enough) and reactive role behaviour (beingsuper), which may occur at both levels. Thus, they seem
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 111
to capture the essence of active/problem-focused coping,which can occur at either the behavioural (e.g. consult-ing other people, seeking information and taking actionto solve the problem) or cognitive (e.g. taking a positiveview of the situation and thinking about alternatives) level,as suggested by Billings and Moos (1981, 1984) in theircoping model (see also Dewe et al., 2010). However, itshould be recalled that no coping strategy is either whollybehavioural or cognitive, but in real life blurred, and thatnarrow coping categories rarely capture the true essenceof coping, which is better characterized by different cop-ing sub-categories (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989;Dewe et al., 2010; Skinner et al., 2003). Viewed in thislight, one of the benefits of WFCS is that it covers varioussub-categories of context-specific coping.
Another interesting theoretical framework for WFCSapplied in this study is the SOC theory, which is a devel-opmental goal-setting theory of life management over thewhole life span (see Baltes, 1997; Freund & Baltes, 2002).This theory is also applicable in examining the work–family interface (Baltes & Dickson, 2001; Wiese, 2002),in which life-stage aspects are clearly important (Moen& Sweet, 2004). The SOC model distinguishes betweenthree types of behaviour, selection (S), optimization (O)and compensation (C), each of which promotes an indi-vidual’s successful adaptation and development. The SOCtheory can also be considered a coping theory, becausethe major aim of coping is to ensure an individual’s adap-tation during/after stressful episodes (Holahan, Moos, &Schaefer, 1996). One additional premise underlying theSOC theory is that the use of SOC behaviours will resultin adaptive responses, for example, resource gains, devel-opmental enhancement and good psychosocial functioningin life challenges. These positive outcomes have also beenconfirmed in empirical studies (Baltes, 1997; Freund &Baltes, 2002; Wiese, 2002).
Baltes and Heydens-Gahir (2003) have utilized theSOC theory explicitly in examining WFC. Accordingly,they have proposed that these three kinds of behaviouralcoping responses are possible in work–family challenges.First, through selection, an individual identifies and setslife goals to channel his/her efforts and energies becauseresources (time and energy) in life are limited. For exam-ple, in the case of work–family challenges, a person mightprioritize some tasks at work/home, that is, he/she selectsthose goals that are most relevant in terms of adaptationin this situation. Selection fits nicely with the dimensionof prioritization in the WFCS inventory, but it also hasmuch in common with the good enough strategy of cop-ing, characterized by the setting of new more attainablegoals at the cognitive level (i.e. being just good enough atwork/home). Second, through optimization, a person triesto develop the best ways to achieve his/her goals, includingbehaviours such as persistence, practice and learning newskills. Applied to work–family challenges, optimization
means that a person devotes a lot of resources to achiev-ing his/her goals of maintaining a sustained effort levelat work/home (or both domains). We see optimizationas similar to ‘being super’ at work/home in the WFCSmodel. Third, compensation behaviour relates to acquiringand utilizing alternative means to maintain adaptation andoptimal functioning when resources (e.g. time and energy)are threatened or already diminished, as in a situation ofoverload or excessive role demands. Compensation meanscover behaviours such as seeking instrumental support andis usually used when optimization is not possible. In work–family challenges, compensation may occur via seekinghelp from others, for example, via delegation, which is partof the WFCS inventory.
Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007) have also found thatthe four sub-scales of the WFCS were significantly relatedto WFC, such as ‘Delegating at home’, ‘Super at work’,‘Prioritizing at home’ and ‘Prioritizing at work’, and wererelated to higher WFC. Moreover, ‘Prioritizing at work’was also associated with higher FWC. Thus, all the asso-ciations found were positive: the more an employee useda given WFCS, the more he/she reported conflict betweenwork and family, referring to the possibility that these cop-ing efforts might not be effective if WFC is used as acriterion. Furthermore, certain confounding factors, suchas gender and parenting, might affect these relationships(i.e. coping effectiveness in terms of WFC and WFE), aswe will discuss in the next section.
The direct and moderator role of parenting status andgender
Work–family issues are argued to be more salient forworking women because of their ‘double shifts’ and thegendered division of labour at home (see Hochschild,1999; Loscocco & Spitze, 2007; Martinengo et al., 2010;Mennino & Brayfield, 2002; Westman & Zimmerman,1987). Statistics support this by showing that women spendmore time than men on domestic duties (Bianchi, Milkie,Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Hochschild, 1999; Noonan,Estes, & Glass, 2007) – even in the Nordic countries,forming the context of this study, which are well knownfor their gender-equal dual-earner family policies (seeBygren & Duvander, 2006; Fox, Pascall, & Warren, 2009;Grönlund & Öun, 2010). Moreover, women also moreoften take advantage of existing work–family policies, forexample, flexibility and care arrangements (Blair-Loy &Wharton, 2002; Hakim, 2006). Work–family policies havealso been indicated to be more important to women, forinstance, in terms of reducing their work–family conflictor increasing work–family balance (e.g. Grönlund & Öun,2010; Mennino & Brayfield, 2002). This, in turn, impliesthat other work–family coping resources than work–familypolicies, such as WFCS, would also be more importantto women owing to their gender-reinforced role demands
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
112 S. Mauno et al.
and greater sensitivity to those demands (e.g. Galinsky &Bond, 1996; Hakim, 2006; Noonan et al., 2007; Shockley& Allen, 2007).
Moreover, parenthood may further strengthen this pat-tern; this is supported by studies, indicating that traditionalgender role differences (e.g. in the domestic division oflabour) become even more pronounced when working menand women enter into parenthood and have children liv-ing at home (see Martinengo et al., 2010; Moen & Sweet,2004). In these life stages, women (mothers) start to focusmore on family demands and actively seek work–familybalance, for example, by reducing their working hours,whereas men (fathers) often even increase their workinghours and do less at home. Thus, having children livingat home strengthens parents’ gendered behaviour and roles(see Martinengo et al., 2010; Mennino & Brayfield, 2002).
The above-mentioned reasons suggest that mothers, inparticular, owing to their higher gender-reinforced roledemands and expectations, would not only use more WFCSbut also benefit from them most in terms of low WFC andFWC and high WFE and FWE. However, mothers mighthave certain preferences as to which WFCS they take upaccording to their perceived beneficial effects on (low)work–family conflict and (high) work–family enrichment.Here, the preferences are derived from the SOC theory(Baltes, 1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Freund &Baltes, 2002; Wiese, 2002), which was discussed earlier.The SOC theory proposes that compensative life manage-ment behaviour (e.g. applying alternative means to attainone’s valued goals, e.g. delegation) is most likely to occurwhen optimization (e.g. being super) is not possible, forinstance, in the presence of excessive role demands, such asfaced by working mothers because of their ‘double shifts’(Hochschild, 1999; Loscocco & Spitze, 2007; Martinengoet al., 2010; Mennino & Brayfield, 2002). According to theSOC model, selective life management behaviour, consist-ing of personally meaningful goal setting (e.g. prioritizingand being good enough), is adopted as a response to thelimited resources (e.g. time and energy) in life and alsocharacterizes the life situation of most working mothers.Selective coping may also occur more easily in situationswhere optimization is not possible.
In sum, we developed our research hypotheses,described in the next section, mainly on the basis of psy-chological coping theories (including the SOC theory),but also drawing on gender theory, and related previousfindings in studies of the work–family interface.
The research hypotheses of this study
The study had three specific aims: to examine (1) therelationship between WFCS, work–family conflict andwork–family enrichment, (2) the take-up of WFCS by gen-der and parenting status and (3) the moderator role ofgender and parenting status in the relationship between
WFCS, work–family conflict and work–family enrichment.Specifically, we posed the following hypotheses.
Our first hypothesis (H1) was that the more a personuses WFCS (all eight sub-categories), the less he/she per-ceives WFC and FWC and the more WFE and FWE. H1was grounded in our earlier definition of WFCS, which, ata general level, characterizes different forms of active cop-ing (at either the behavioural or the cognitive level (Billings& Moos, 1981, 1984) or adaptive SOC behaviours (Baltes,1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Freund & Baltes,2002; Wiese, 2002). Earlier studies also show that activecoping (e.g. taking action, seeking information, consultingothers or thinking about alternatives), in most cases, resultsin positive outcomes (e.g. Dewe et al., 2010; Folkman &Moskowitz, 2004; Penley et al., 2002; Taylor & Stanton,2007), supporting H1. Moreover, according to the SOC the-ory, we can expect that all WFCS, as a form of selection(prioritizing and being good enough), optimization (beingsuper) and compensation (delegating), promote positiveadaptation, psychosocial functioning and role enhancement(Baltes, 1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Freund &Baltes, 2002; Wiese, 2002), that is, less work–family con-flict and more work–family enrichment. However, possiblerole differences between men and women might changethis picture, and in relation to this, we posed the followingtwo hypotheses.
Specifically, our second hypothesis (H2) stated thatworking mothers, due to their ‘double shifts’ (e.g.Hochschild, 1999; Loscocco & Spitze, 2007; Martinengoet al., 2010; Mennino & Brayfield, 2002), cannot rely somuch on ‘being super’ coping; instead, they are more likelyto use prioritizing, ‘being good enough’ and delegationcoping than childless women and men with or withoutchildren. Both selective (refers here to prioritizing and‘being good enough’) and compensative (delegating) cop-ing efforts are more likely when optimizing coping (‘beingsuper’) is not possible due to excessive role demands orlowered resources (see Baltes, 1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Freund & Baltes, 2002), as is very likely to bethe case among working mothers. Moreover, we expectedthat these three WFCS sub-scales (prioritizing, delegatingand ‘being good enough’) are not only the coping strate-gies most often used by working mothers but also the mostbeneficial for them in terms of work–family balance (herelower work–family conflict and higher work–family enrich-ment). Accordingly, our third hypothesis (H3) was thatprioritizing, delegating and ‘being good enough’ copingbenefit working mothers most in terms of low WFC andFWC and high WFE and FWE.
Methods
Participants
The data were collected as part of the research project‘Work-family coping strategies as promoters of employee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 113
well-being’. Participants for the project were recruited viatwo Finnish labour unions: (1) the Union of Health andSocial Care Professionals (in Finnish Tehy) and (2) ServiceUnion United (in Finnish PAM) operating in health andsocial care and in services. More specifically, the rep-resentatives of the labour unions randomly selected therespondents from their membership registers. It should benoted that the unionization rate in Finland is very high.For example, in the fields studied, the rates are 87% (ser-vices) and 90% (health and social care). The selectedsample (N = 7511) comprised 3560 Finnish health andsocial care employees and 3951 service sector employees.The data were collected in October 2009 by means of anelectronic questionnaire distributed to each participant bye-mail. All participants were voluntary and received aninformal consent in line with the American PsychologicalAssociation’s (APA) ethical standards. Of the original sam-ple, 2756 individuals participated in this study, resulting ina response rate of 36.7%. Although the response rate waslower than we hoped for, it can be considered satisfactory inoccupation- and organization-based research (see Baruch& Holtom, 2008). Health care professionals accounted for1719 (62%) and service employees for 1037 (38%) of theparticipants.
Because this study focuses on WFCS, it is impor-tant that the participants have some family demands tocope with. For this reason, we excluded 416 singles(no partner/spouse) from the data. After this deletion,there were 2340 participants in the data, forming thepresent sample. Of these respondents, 88% were women,which compares favourably with the gender distribution ofemployees in the two Finnish labour unions: 93% of Tehy’sand 80% of PAM’s members are women. The respondentswere on average of 40.9 (SD = 11.1) years old, whichagain compares with the mean age of the union member-ships: 43 in Tehy and 40 in PAM. Thus, in gender and age,the respondents were reasonably representative of the tar-get population. Of the respondents, 66% had at least onechild under age of 18 years and 8% (n = 200) of them weresingle parents, which is somewhat below the Finnish aver-age (12%; Statistics Finland, 2012a). The majority (60%)had a polytechnic or post-secondary education and 31%had an intermediate vocational or college education. Theparticipants worked on average of 37.0 (SD = 8.8) hoursper week, 86% on a permanent employment contract and47% in shifts.
Because this study investigates the work–family inter-face, it is important to briefly describe the Finnish contextin this respect. From a legislative standpoint, Finland is avery family-friendly country, and various statutory work–family policies are available for working parents. Forinstance, Finnish parents are entitled to long paid parentalleave (105 plus 158 days), and flexibility in working hoursis available for parents with young children (for moredetails, see www.kela.fi). In addition, every child under age
of 7 years has the right to public day care of high qualitywith professionally qualified staff. School-aged children, inturn, receive free education and warm meals at schools.These policies have also enabled mothers to undertakefull-time work, and thus, in Finland, the female labourparticipation rate is fairly high (67%; Statistics Finland,2012b), including the fields (health care and services) stud-ied here. In fact, the dual-earner family is very common inFinland (50%), and mothers also most often work full-time(for detailed statistics, see OECD, 2011).
Despite the prevalence of the dual-earner model, a fewcomparative studies have shown that work–family conflictis less frequent in the Nordic countries (e.g. Norway andFinland) compared to other Western countries and that oneof the reasons for this is the provision of institutional work–family policies (e.g. Crompton & Lyonette, 2006; Edlund,2007; Grönlund & Öun, 2010). On the other hand, Finnishfamilies, as families elsewhere, also suffer from inequali-ties in the division of housework, because the majority ofdomestic tasks continue to be performed by women (e.g.Bygren & Duvander, 2006), thereby creating a ‘double bur-den’ for Finnish working mothers. Furthermore, researchindicates that an already gendered division of domestictasks becomes even more gendered when men and womenenter parenthood (Martinengo et al., 2010). In Finland, gen-der inequality at home may have particular relevance forwork–family balance among mothers, because of the pre-dominance of the dual-earner family with both partners infull-time employment.
Given the Finnish context of this study, we saw the roleof individual WFCS as potentially very relevant, particu-larly in female-dominated fields, like health care and ser-vices. It should also be recalled that in these fields family-friendly arrangements (e.g. flexibility in working hours orprocesses and telework) are more difficult to implement atthe organizational level because of the nature of the work.In this situation, individual coping strategies might becomemore important for good work–family balance.
Measures
WFCS were measured by the 22-item-based inven-tory developed by Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007).Specifically, this instrument consists of eight sub-scales ofwhich four assess coping in the home domain and four inthe work domain. The items were rated on a 6-point Likertscale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (stronglyagree). We calculated eight sum scores in accordance withthe original sum scales in the study by Somech and Drach-Zahavy (i.e. high score (1–6) indicates a high amount ofcoping). In the work context, the sub-scales were ‘Super’(three items; the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.68), ‘Goodenough’ (three items; the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.63),‘Prioritizing’ (two items; the Cronbach’s alpha value is0.50, r = .37, p < 0.01) and ‘Delegating’ (three items;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
114 S. Mauno et al.
the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.72). The respective sub-scales in the home context were ‘Super’ (three items; theCronbach’s alpha value is 0.70), ‘Good enough’ (threeitems; the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.50), ‘Prioritizing’(two items; the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.48, r = .33,p < 0.01) and ‘Delegating’ (three items; the Cronbach’salpha value is 0.76).
Notably, the two sub-scales, that is, ‘Prioritizing’ (inboth domains) and ‘Good enough at home’ had low inter-nal consistency (<0.60). However, in the former, the lowreliability might relate to the low number of items (only2). In this respect, it is noteworthy that WFCS scalesdeveloped by Neal and Hammer (2007) showed low relia-bilities too (two out of three scales had Cronbach’s alpha <
0.60), suggesting that low reliabilities seem to be a sharedproblem to these context-specific coping scales. On theother hand, in the original study of Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2007), the reliability coefficients were high (foreach sub-scale > 0.70), and this was one of the reasonswe took their scale as a starting point in assessing WFCS.Because the WFCS inventory has not earlier been used inFinland, we wanted to be certain that it would have ade-quate dimensionality. Hence, confirmatory factor analysiswas applied to this eight-dimensional structure using thissame data set in an yet unpublished study (Feldt, Mauno, &Rantanen, 2012), and the results showed acceptable factorloadings.
Generic coping strategies
We controlled for the role of generic coping in examiningthe relationships between WFCS and work–family conflictand between WFCS and work–family enrichment. We rea-soned that WFCS should relate to WFC and WFE afteradjusting for generic coping strategies; otherwise, WFCShave little added value. Specifically, generic coping strate-gies were measured using the Cybernetic Coping Scale(Edwards & Baglioni, 1993), which has been validated inEurope (Guppy et al., 2004). In this study, we focused onthree sub-scales of coping: avoidance-focused coping (e.g.‘I try to avoid thinking about the problem’, three items),problem-focused coping (e.g. ‘I focus my efforts on chang-ing the situation’, three items) and emotion-focused coping(e.g. ‘I try to let off steam’, three items). These threecoping strategies are also frequently contained in othercoping instruments. Each item used a 5-point responsescale, ranging from 1 (‘almost never’) to 5 (‘always’). TheCronbach’s alpha for avoidance-focused coping was 0.80(M = 2.68, SD = 0.75), for problem-focused coping 0.69(M = 3.10, SD = 0.66) and for emotion-focused coping0.65 (M = 3.40, SD = 0.66). Two sub-scales had lowerreliability than 0.70. However, low-scale reliabilities are arelatively common problem for generic coping scales (asfor context-specific scales discussed above), implying thatcoping strategies are often hard to measure by pre-defined
scales (Dewe et al., 2010; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996;Steed, 1998).
Work–family conflict was assessed by using eightitems of the multidimensional measure of the Work–FamilyConflict scale developed by Carlson, Kacmar and Williams(2000). Of these eight items, four measured WFC and theother four measured FWC. In both directions, two itemsmeasured time-based conflict (e.g. ‘My family responsi-bilities prevent me from effectively performing my job’)and the other two items measured strain-based (e.g. ‘Afterwork, I come home too tired to do some of the thingsI’d like to do’) conflict. Each item was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (‘totally disagree’) to 7(‘totally agree’). The Cronbach’s alpha for WFC was 0.78(M = 3.97, SD = 1.35) and for FWC 0.72 (M = 2.19,SD = 0.95).
Work-family enrichment was assessed using eightitems of the Work-Family Enrichment scale developed byCarlson et al. (2006). Of these eight items, four measuredWFE and the other four measured FWE. In both directions,two items measured affective (e.g. ‘My involvement in mywork puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a bet-ter family member’) and two developmental mechanismsof enrichment (e.g. ‘My involvement in my work helpsme acquire skills and this helps me be a better parent orspouse’). Each item was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale,ranging from 1 (‘totally disagree’) to 7 (‘totally agree’).The Cronbach’s alpha for WFE was 0.83 (M = 3.88,SD = 1.29) and for FWE 0.85 (M = 4.87, SD = 1.17).
The moderator variables were coded as follows: gen-der (1 = female, 2 = male) and parenting status (1 = no,2 = one or more children under age 18). Furthermore,we used age (in years; a continuous variable), educa-tion (1 = comprehensive school, 2 = secondary school,3 = vocational college, 4 = master’s degree/higher),weekly working hours (a continuous variable), shift work(1 = no, 2 = yes), employment contract (1 = permanent,2 = temporary) and sector (1 = health care, 2 = ser-vices) as control variables in the analyses. The first fourbackground variables were controlled because of their rel-evant experiences of the work–family interface (see Byron,2005; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005).Sector and type of job contract, in turn, were more context-specific background factors relevant in the present sample.
The correlations between the study variables are pre-sented in Table 1.
Statistical analyses
We examined H2 whether the prevalence of WFCSwould vary by parenting status (non-parents vs. parents)and gender (women vs. men) by performing analysisof covariance (ANCOVA) analysis separately for eachWFCS. Parenting status and gender were used as fixedfactors (2 (parenting status) × 2 (gender) design) and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 115
Tabl
e1.
Cor
rela
tion
sbe
twee
nth
est
udy
vari
able
s.
Var
iabl
es1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
1.G
ende
ra−
2.A
ge−0
.10∗
∗∗−
3.E
duca
tion
−0.1
7∗∗∗
0.16
∗∗∗
−4.
Wee
kly
0.08
∗∗∗
0.13
∗∗∗
0.10
∗∗∗
−w
orki
ngho
urs
5.S
hift
wor
kb0.
04∗
−0.2
2∗∗∗
−0.0
0−0
.08∗
∗∗−
6.E
mpl
oym
ent
−0.0
4∗−0
.20∗
∗∗0.
06∗∗
−0.0
20.
04∗
−co
ntra
ctc
7.S
ecto
rd0.
26∗∗
∗−0
.38∗
∗∗−0
.53∗
∗∗−0
.15∗
∗∗0.
03−0
.06∗
∗−
8.Pa
rent
inge
−0.1
2∗∗∗
0.56
∗∗∗
0.14
∗∗∗
0.08
∗∗∗
−0.1
4∗∗∗
−0.1
3∗∗∗
−0.3
1∗∗∗
−9.
Pro
blem
−0.0
2−0
.06∗
∗0.
08∗∗
∗0.
00−0
.01
0.02
−0.0
0−0
.03
−co
ping
10.A
void
ance
−0.0
3−0
.10∗
∗∗−0
.08∗
∗∗−0
.05∗
0.04
∗0.
020.
11∗∗
∗−0
.09∗
∗∗0.
05∗
−co
ping
11.E
mot
ion
−0.1
1∗∗∗
−0.0
8∗∗∗
0.08
∗∗∗
−0.0
10.
05∗∗
0.04
−0.0
2−0
.08∗
∗∗0.
33∗∗
∗0.
32∗∗
∗−
copi
ng12
.Sup
erat
hom
e0.
10∗∗
∗−0
.20∗
∗∗−0
.18∗
∗∗−0
.01
0.06
∗∗0.
04∗
0.19
∗∗∗
−0.1
5∗∗∗
0.02
0.04
−0.0
2−
13.G
ood
enou
gh−0
.06∗
∗0.
19∗∗
∗0.
11∗∗
∗−0
.03
−0.0
4−0
.01
−0.1
1∗∗∗
0.12
∗∗∗
0.02
0.08
∗∗∗
0.05
∗∗−0
.44∗
∗∗−
atho
me
14.P
rior
itiz
ing
−0.1
1∗∗∗
0.07
∗∗∗
0.12
∗∗∗
−0.0
20.
02−0
.01
−0.1
3∗∗∗
0.09
∗∗∗
0.12
∗∗∗
0.11
∗∗∗
0.09
∗∗∗
−0.2
9∗∗∗
0.43
∗∗∗
−at
hom
e15
.Del
egat
ing
−0.0
1−0
.11∗
∗∗0.
08∗∗
∗−0
.02
0.00
0.01
−0.0
7∗∗
−0.0
20.
04−0
.07∗
∗∗0.
05∗
−0.2
2∗∗∗
0.20
∗∗∗
0.09
∗∗∗
−at
hom
e16
.Sup
erat
wor
k0.
05∗∗
−0.1
8∗∗∗
−0.1
9∗∗∗
−0.0
30.
030.
010.
24∗∗
∗−0
.13∗
∗∗0.
05∗
−0.0
10.
010.
50∗∗
∗−0
.30∗
∗∗−0
.18∗
∗∗−0
.11∗
∗∗−
17.G
ood
enou
gh−0
.01
0.15
∗∗∗
0.08
∗∗∗
−0.0
2−0
.03
−0.0
2−0
.13∗
∗∗0.
11∗∗
∗0.
010.
10∗∗
∗0.
05∗∗
−0.2
4∗∗∗
0.38
∗∗∗
0.20
∗∗∗
0.06
∗∗−0
.54∗
∗∗−
atw
ork
18.P
rior
itiz
ing
0.03
0.02
0.03
−0.0
00.
01−0
.04∗
−0.0
10.
000.
14∗∗
∗0.
07∗∗
∗0.
08∗∗
∗−0
.10∗
∗∗0.
16∗∗
∗0.
31∗∗
∗0.
05∗∗
−0.2
3∗∗∗
0.36
∗∗∗
−at
wor
k19
.Del
egat
ing
−0.0
5∗∗
0.03
0.17
∗∗∗
0.07
∗∗∗
0.08
∗∗∗
−0.0
2−0
.19∗
∗∗0.
06∗∗
0.09
∗∗∗
−0.0
20.
10∗∗
∗−0
.17∗
∗∗0.
20∗∗
∗0.
15∗∗
∗0.
21∗∗
∗−0
.28∗
∗∗0.
33∗∗
∗0.
29∗∗
∗−
atw
ork
20.W
FC
−0.0
2−0
.06∗
∗0.
07∗∗
∗0.
11∗∗
∗0.
24∗∗
∗0.
01−0
.04∗
−0.0
30.
04∗
0.06
∗∗0.
06∗∗
−0.0
30.
030.
20∗∗
∗−0
.00
−0.0
20.
010.
15∗∗
∗0.
05∗
−21
.FW
C0.
06∗∗
−0.1
0∗∗∗
−0.0
6∗∗
0.02
0.03
0.05
∗0.
07∗∗
0.06
∗∗0.
07∗∗
∗0.
17∗∗
∗0.
04∗
0.03
−0.0
4∗0.
11∗∗
∗−0
.11∗
∗∗0.
000.
04∗
0.17
∗∗∗
−0.0
4∗0.
22∗∗
∗−
22.W
FE
−0.0
6∗∗
0.07
∗∗∗
0.14
∗∗∗
0.01
−0.0
40.
07∗∗
−0.2
2∗∗∗
0.13
∗∗∗
0.07
∗∗−0
.06∗
∗−0
.00
0.04
0.06
∗∗0.
030.
08∗∗
∗0.
06∗∗
−0.0
10.
010.
11∗∗
∗−0
.19∗
∗∗0.
02−
23.F
WE
−0.0
7∗∗∗
−0.0
30.
09∗∗
∗−0
.02
−0.0
30.
02−0
.08∗
∗∗0.
09∗∗
∗0.
11∗∗
∗−0
.04∗
0.09
∗∗∗
0.03
0.01
−0.0
10.
24∗∗
∗0.
05∗∗
0.00
0.01
0.09
∗∗∗
−0.0
5∗∗
−0.1
4∗∗∗
0.37
∗∗∗
−N
otes
:WF
C,w
ork–
fam
ilyco
nflic
t;F
WC
,fam
ily–w
ork
confl
ict;
WF
E,w
ork–
fam
ilyen
rich
men
t;F
WE
,fam
ily–w
ork
enri
chm
ent.
a 1=
fem
ale,
2=
mal
e.b1
=no
,2=
yes.
c 1=
perm
anen
t,2
=te
mpo
rary
.d1
=he
alth
,2=
serv
ice.
e 1=
no,2
=ye
s.∗ p
<0.
05,∗
∗ p<
0.01
,∗∗∗
p<
0.00
1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
116 S. Mauno et al.
WFCS as dependent variables, resulting altogether in eightANCOVAs. We also controlled for certain backgroundvariables (age, education, weekly working hours, shiftwork, type of job contract and health vs. service sector)on the dependent variables. These ANCOVA analyses,although reported first, answered the second researchquestion. We used regression analysis in answering thefirst and third research questions, and thus, for practicalreasons, these results will be reported together.
After examining mean variations in WFCS, we con-tinued to analyse H1 whether and how various WFCSsub-scales relate to WFC and FWC and WFE and FWE,and moreover H3 whether these effects vary by parentingstatus and gender, that is, we analysed moderator effects.Specifically, we performed a set of hierarchical moderatedregression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991), where themodels were estimated in the following manner. First, weentered the background factors mentioned above but addedgender and parenting status to them to control for theireffects on the dependent variables. In the second step,we entered the generic coping strategies (i.e. problem-,avoidance- and emotion-focused coping) to adjust for theireffects on work–family conflict and work–family enrich-ment. In the third step, the eight WFCS sub-scales assessed(i.e. Super, Good Enough, Prioritizing and Delegating) athome and work (in this order) were entered into the regres-sion analysis to examine their direct relationships withWFC and FWC and WFE and FWE. Finally, we computedtwo- and three-way interaction terms, that is, parentingstatus × WFCS (step 4), gender × WFCS (step 5) andparenting status × gender × WFCS (step 6) to examinethe moderator effects of parenting status and gender onthe studied relationships. Before computing the interac-tion terms, the variables were standardized according to theguidelines of Aiken and West (1991). We then performedfour regression analyses (i.e. WFC, FWC, WFE and FWE,each as a dependent variable at a time), each of which con-tained the six above-described steps. Interaction effects, ifsignificant, were plotted as suggested by Frazier, Tix andBarron (2004).
Results
Prevalence of WFCS by parenting status and gender
The most common strategy was ‘Delegating at home’(M = 4.50, SD = 1.12) followed by ‘Good enoughat home’ (M = 3.90, SD = 0.87), ‘Super at work’(M = 3.75, SD = 0.97) and ‘Delegating at work’(M = 3.73, SD = 0.97). The strategy reported least oftenby the respondents was ‘Prioritizing at work’ (M = 2.93,SD = 1.00), whereas the ‘Super at home’ (M = 3.36,SD = 1.10) and ‘Prioritizing at home’ (M = 3.35,SD = 1.03) strategies were equally often applied with the‘Good enough at work’ strategy lying between these two(M = 3.21, SD = 0.91).
When comparing the prevalence of WFCS accordingto parenting status (no/yes) and gender (women/men),we found three significant main effects, one for parentingstatus and two for gender, whereas none of the two-wayinteraction effects (gender × parenting status) was sta-tistically significant. Specifically, it emerged that parents(M = 3.76, SD = 0.96) delegated at work more oftenthan non-parents (M = 3.65, SD = 0.97) (F(2) = 4.57,p < 0.05). In relation to gender, we found that women(M = 3.40, SD = 1.03) prioritized at home more oftenthan men (M = 3.06, SD = 0.99) (F(2) = 8.06, p < 0.01),whereas men (M = 3.01, SD = 0.96) prioritized atwork more often than women (M = 2.90, SD = 1.01)(F(2) = 3.90, p < 0.05). For the other five WFCS, wedid not establish any significant effects of parenting statusor gender after adjusting for the effects of the covariates.When we related these results to our second hypothesisH2, according to which mothers use prioritizing, delega-tion and ‘being good enough’ coping more often than menor childless women, it was not supported as none of thegender × parenting interactions was significant.
Direct relationships between WFCS and work–familyconflict and between WFCS and work–familyenrichment
The results of the regression analyses for WFC, FWC,WFE and FWE are presented in Table 2, with beta coef-ficients for each variable and interaction terms from thelast step. We found much scale-based variation in the directrelationships, as none of the WFCS scales was related toall the criterion variables. First, ‘Prioritizing at work’ and‘Prioritizing at home’ were positively related to WFC andFWC, after adjusting for the effects for background fac-tors and generic coping strategies (see Table 2, step 3).Thus, the more a person prioritized at work and home,the more he/she experienced WFC and FWC. However,‘Prioritizing’ (at home or work) did not relate to WFE orFWE. Furthermore, higher levels of ‘Delegating at work’,‘Delegating at home’ and ‘Good enough at home’ copingwere related to lower FWC. Thus, the more an employeedelegated tasks at work or home, and the more he/sheused ‘Good enough at home’ coping, the less FWC he/shereported. Second, the pattern of relationships was differ-ent for work–family enrichment (see Table 2, step 3). Thestrategies of ‘Delegating at work’, ‘Delegating at home’,‘Super at work’ and ‘Super at home’ were positively relatedto WFE and FWE (except for delegating at work) aftercontrolling for the background factors and generic cop-ing strategies. In addition, ‘Good enough at home’ copingrelated positively to WFE. Consequently, persons whomore frequently used these kinds of coping (delegating,being super and being good enough) reported higher WFEand FWE. These findings were only partly consistent withour first hypothesis H1, according to which all eight WFCS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 117
Table 2. Results of regression analyses (N = 1955–1957).
Predictors WFC FWC WFE FWE
Step 1: Backgrounds
Gendera −0.02 0.05∗ 0.01 −0.04Age −0.05∗ −0.17∗∗∗ −0.03 −0.13∗∗∗Education 0.05∗ −0.05∗ 0.03 0.06∗Weekly working hours 0.13∗∗∗ 0.01 −0.01 −0.02Shift workb 0.23∗∗∗ 0.02 −0.03 −0.04Employment contractc −0.01 0.04∗ 0.06∗∗ 0.01Sectord −0.02 0.01 −0.21∗∗∗ −0.06∗Parentinge 0.01 0.17∗∗∗ 0.10∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗
�R2 0.08∗∗∗ 0.04∗∗∗ 0.07∗∗∗ 0.03∗∗∗
Step 2: Generic copingProblem coping 0.03 0.07∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗Avoidance coping 0.06∗∗ 0.16∗∗∗ −0.03 −0.06∗∗Emotion coping 0.02 −0.02 −0.02 0.07∗∗
�R2 0.01∗∗ 0.03∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.02∗∗∗Step 3: WFCS
SH −0.02 −0.02 0.09∗∗∗ 0.09∗∗∗GEH −0.03 −0.10∗∗∗ 0.10∗∗∗ 0.02PH 0.17∗∗∗ 0.10∗∗∗ −0.03 −0.04DH −0.03 −0.10∗∗∗ 0.06∗∗ 0.24∗∗∗SW 0.04 0.02 0.15∗∗∗ 0.09∗∗∗GEW −0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04PW 0.14∗∗∗ 0.16∗∗∗ 0.02 0.01DW −0.02 −0.06∗∗ 0.09∗∗∗ 0.03
�R2 0.05∗∗∗ 0.05∗∗∗ 0.04∗∗∗ 0.07∗∗∗
Step 4: Two-way interactionsParenting × SH 0.01 −0.05 0.01 0.01Parenting × GEH −0.01 −0.07∗ −0.04 0.04Parenting × PH 0.06∗ 0.08∗∗ 0.07∗ 0.00Parenting × DH 0.05 0.02 −0.05 −0.10∗∗∗Parenting × SW 0.00 0.02 0.03 −0.01Parenting × GEW −0.01 0.05 0.09∗∗ −0.03Parenting × PW −0.00 −0.02 −0.09∗∗∗ −0.04Parenting × DW −0.03 0.03 0.02 −0.04
�R2 0.00 0.01∗ 0.01∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗Step 5: Two-way interactions
Gender × SH 0.01 −0.03 −0.05 0.01Gender × GEH 0.00 −0.03 −0.04 −0.05Gender × PH −0.06 0.02 −0.01 −0.02Gender × DH 0.02 0.02 −0.07 0.05Gender × SW −0.03 −0.01 0.09∗ 0.07Gender × GEW 0.01 −0.00 0.00 0.06Gender × PW −0.03 −0.02 0.01 0.02Gender × DW −0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04
�R2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Step 6: Three-way interactions
Parenting × Gender × SH −0.07 −0.09∗ 0.02 0.00Parenting × Gender × GEH −0.02 −0.06 −0.02 0.04Parenting × Gender × PH 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.05Parenting × Gender × DH 0.07 −0.06 −0.04 −0.06Parenting × Gender × SW 0.05 0.03 −0.07 −0.11∗Parenting × Gender × GEW 0.00 0.01 −0.02 −0.07
(Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
118 S. Mauno et al.
Table 2. (Continued).
Predictors WFC FWC WFE FWE
Parenting × Gender × PW 0.04 0.01 −0.09∗ −0.06Parenting × Gender × DW −0.05 0.01 0.04 0.03
�R2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
R2 for the total model 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14
Notes: SH, Super at home; GEH, Good enough at home; PH, Prioritizing at home; DH,Delegating at home; SW, Super at work; GEW, Good enough at work; PW, Prioritizing at work;DW, Delegating at work; WFCS, work–family coping strategies; WFC, work–family conflict;FWC, family–work conflict; WFE, work–family enrichment; FWE, family–work enrichment.a1 = female, 2 = male.b1 = no, 2 = yes.c1 = permanent, 2 = temporary.d1 = health, 2 = service.e1 = no, 2 = yes.Standardized beta coefficients derived from the last step; �R2 = explanation rate for each step;R2 = explanation rate for the total model; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
sub-scales link positively to work–family balance, that is,less WFC and more WFE. Thus, we did not expect as muchscale-based variation.
Parenting status and gender as moderators in therelationships between WFCS and work–family conflictand between WFCS and work–family enrichment
Finally, we examined the moderator effects of parentingstatus and gender in the relationships between WFCS andwork–family conflict and between WFCS and work–familyenrichment (see Table 2, steps 4–6). Altogether we foundseven significant two-way interaction effects for parentingstatus and WFCS (step 4). However, none of the two-wayinteraction effects for gender and WFSC (step 5) or three-way interaction effects for parenting status, gender andWFCS (step 6) was significant, as steps 5 and 6 did not sig-nificantly add to the explanation rate. It should be noted thatwe also examined the correlation coefficients for signifi-cant interactions and relied only on those effects that wereconsistent with them. The reason for this is that the mod-els included multiple predictors and their interaction terms,which adds to the risk of multicollinearity, making the find-ings unreliable. This criterion resulted in four (out of seven)interaction effects, all of which concerned parenting statusand WFCS.
In the work-to-family direction (WFC and WFE), twoof the reliable significant two-way interaction effects con-cerned WFE. Figures 1 and 2 show that parents benefitedmore from ‘Prioritizing at home’ (β = 0.07; Figure 1)and ‘Good enough at work’ (β = 0.09; Figure 2) cop-ing in terms of higher WFE; when parents often usedthese strategies, they reported higher WFE than non-parents who used these strategies equally often. We alsofound a third interaction effect for WFE concerning parent-ing status × ‘Prioritizing at work’ coping. However, thisinteraction effect (β = −0.09) is likely to be artificial as
1
0.5
0
–0.5
Wor
k –f
amily
enr
ichm
ent
–1Low prioritizing at home High prioritizing at home
Non-parents
Parents
Figure 1. A significant interaction effect between prioritizing athome and parenting on WFE.
1Non-parents
Parents0.5
0
–0.5
Wor
k–fa
mily
enr
ichm
ent
–1Low good enough at work High good enough at work
Figure 2. A significant interaction effect between good enoughat work and parenting on WFE.
the respective correlation coefficient was non-significant,and therefore, we did not interpret this effect. For WFC,we did not find any parenting status × WFCS interactions,which would have been significant in terms of change inthe explanation rate (�R2).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 119
In the family-to-work direction (FWC and FWE),we also found two reliable two-way interaction effects.Figure 3 reveals that parents benefited more from high‘Good enough at home’ coping (β = −0.07; Figure 3) com-pared to non-parents: if parents applied this strategy often,they reported more decrease in FWC than non-parents,for whom the level of this strategy did not make any dif-ference in their level of FWC. However, the direction ofthe relationship changes when we look at the respectivetwo-way interaction effect for ‘Prioritizing at home’ cop-ing (β = 0.08; Figure 4). Figure 4 indicates that parentswho prioritized often at home reported a higher, ratherthan a lower, level of FWC, whereas for non-parents, thelevel of prioritizing at home did not relate to their level ofFWC. Thus, this strategy was harmful for parents, implyinghigher FWC. Finally, we also found a significant interactioneffect for FWE between parenting status and ‘Delegating athome’ (β = −0.10), but because the respective correlationwas positive (and much lower) rather than negative, as wasthe beta coefficient, we considered this interaction effectunreliable and did not examine it further.
1
0.5
0
–0.5Fam
ily–w
ork
conf
lict
–1Low good enough at home High good enough at home
Non-parents
Parents
Figure 3. A significant interaction effect between good enoughat home and parenting on FWC.
1
0.5
Non-parents
Parents
0
Fam
ily–w
ork
conf
lict
–0.5
–1Low prioritizing at home High prioritizing at home
Figure 4. A significant interaction effect between prioritizing athome and parenting on FWC.
These findings did not support our third hypothesis H3,according to which prioritizing, delegating and ‘being goodenough’ coping would most benefit mothers in terms of lowconflict and enrichment. None of the three-way interactions(gender × parenting × WFCS) was significant, and onlyparenting status was found to operate as a moderator in thisrespect.
Discussion
This study had three objectives: (1) to investigate the rela-tionships between WFCS and work–family conflict andbetween WFCS and work–family enrichment, (2) to anal-yse the variations in WFCS take-up by gender and parent-ing status and (3) to clarify their (i.e. gender and parentingstatus) moderator role between WFCS, work-family con-flict and work-family enrichment. To our best knowledge,this is the first study of these associations to focus also onthe role of gender and parenting status. To address theseresearch goals, we used a large sample of health and ser-vice sector employees (N = 2340). We sampled healthcare and service employees because in their work – mainlyowing to shift work and lacking the possibility of telework– organizational flexibility arrangements are more difficultto implement. Therefore, in such circumstances, individualWFCS might be more important in achieving work–familybalance.
Different WFCS were related to work-family conflict andwork-family enrichment
On the basis of overall coping theory (Billings & Moos,1981, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the SOC the-ory (Baltes, 1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Freund& Baltes, 2002), we hypothesized H1 that all WFCS asa form of (behavioural and cognitive) active coping andSOC behaviour associate with positive adaptation and roleenhancement (see Dewe et al., 2010; Freund & Baltes,2002; Penley et al., 2002; Taylor & Stanton, 2007) concep-tualized in this study as good work–family balance (i.e. lowwork-family conflict and high work-family enrichment).However, H1 was only partially supported, and interest-ingly, the results also indicated considerable scale-basedvariation. Such a scale-based variation, although unex-pected in our study, supports the discriminant validity ofthe WFCS inventory; its dimensions are likely to relate todifferent outcomes and thus capture different coping styles,the idea of which has its underpinnings in the generic cop-ing theory (see Carver et al., 1989; Folkman & Moskowitz,2004; Skinner et al., 2003; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). It isalso important to note that in our study the explanation ratesfor generic coping strategies remained lower (1–3%) thanfor WFCS (4–7%), indicating that WFCS had also addedvalue beyond generic coping when work-family conflictand work-family enrichment were studied as criteria. Thus,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
120 S. Mauno et al.
WFCS mattered more for conflict and enrichment thangeneric strategies. This supports the view that WFCS arepromising tools for future work–family research from theperspective of coping.
Specifically, we found that ‘Prioritizing’ (a form ofselection in the SOC model) was positively associated withwork-family conflict in both directions, whereas ‘Super’ (aform of optimization) and ‘Delegating’ (a form of compen-sation), in turn, linked positively with work-family enrich-ment, again in both directions (except for ‘Delegating atwork’). ‘Delegating at home and work’ was also related tolower FWC as ‘Good enough at home’ (a form of selec-tion) coping strategy, which furthermore was associatedwith higher WFE. Thus, those who often prioritized at workand at home reported higher work-family conflict, whereasthose who more frequently used ‘delegating’ at work and athome and managed to be ‘perfect’ performers in both lifedomains reported not only higher WFE but also lower FWC(concerning ‘Delegating’). Moreover, those who loweredtheir standards at home by using ‘being good enough’ cop-ing reported lower FWC as well as higher WFE. Notably,these effects remained significant after controlling for var-ious background variables and generic coping strategies,indicating that WFCS had added value beyond the genericcoping.
In the light of the overall coping research findings todate, it seems that three of the four WFCS, namely dele-gating, being super and being good enough, are effective,active, behaviourally or cognitively applied coping strate-gies in response to work–family challenges, whereas pri-oritizing is not (for the effectiveness of coping, see Deweet al., 2010; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Penley et al.,2002; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). These results are also con-sistent, in most part (except for prioritizing), with the SOCmodel, which proposes that three kinds of life managementbehaviours (selection = being good enough, optimiza-tion = being super and compensation = delegating) ensuregood adjustment over the life span (Baltes, 1997; Freund& Baltes, 2002; Wiese, 2002). This adjustment may alsowell cover successful work–family reconciliation (Baltes &Heydens-Gahir, 2003).
A few observations on the harmfulness of ‘Prioritizing’should be made. Intuitively, this sub-scale would appearto be an escape route from work-family conflict, and wemight also assume that prioritizing is necessary if a personis in a demanding home or work situation, which usuallyprecedes work-family conflict (Byron, 2005). However, wewere not able to confirm this assumption. On the contrary,it turned out that prioritizing does not help in such a situa-tion. Thus, it seems plausible that prioritizing is used whendemands have already piled up, which explains the natureof the relationship. In addition, Somech and Drach-Zahavy(2007) found that high prioritizing related to high, and notlow, work-family conflict in both directions, supporting ourconclusion.
One additional explanation for this unexpected find-ing might reside in reverse causality; perhaps those whoexperience more work-family conflict start to prioritize inorder to find a way out of this stressful situation, imply-ing that work-family conflict might be a cause rather thana consequence of this particular coping style. There mightalso exist a negative feedback loop or cycle between thephenomena; that is, work-family conflict activates pri-oritization, which for certain reasons (e.g. because ofbad conscience or rumination) is not successful, andresults in increased rather than decreased work-familyconflict. Furthermore, mediator effects might also occur:work-family conflict primarily activates prioritizing, whichthen relates to better well-being (if the prioritizing hasbeen successful), as suggested by the transactional stresstheory (Lazarus, 1966, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).However, our study cannot reveal mediating pathwaysowing to its cross-sectional design. The finding has alsoimplications for employees: if prioritizing is not beneficial,as this study suggests, it should be avoided. The positiveoutcome in the present sample was that ‘Prioritizing atwork’ was the least often used coping strategy. Thus, inthis regard at least, our participants preferred other moreadaptive coping strategies.
Both parenting status and gender related to the take-upof WFCS
We argued that employees in different family situationswould need to use WFCS to varying extents because theirrole demands differ (see Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003;Byron, 2005; Martinengo et al., 2010; Moen & Sweet,2004, for example). This idea is also consistent withthe situational coping model, stating that different situa-tions, including family situations, require different copingbehaviours (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Here, we pro-posed that parents have more role demands, particularlyin the home domain, than non-parents. Moreover, soci-ety may also impose different role expectations on certaingroups. For example, women are still expected to bearmost of the responsibility for family duties (see Bygren& Duvander, 2006; Hochschild, 1999; Loscocco & Spitze,2007; Martinengo et al., 2010; Noonan et al., 2007), imply-ing that working mothers would have the highest needs forcoping resources that would assist them in achieving goodwork–family balance.
Accordingly, our second hypothesis (H2) stated thatmothers would use WFCS more often than non-mothers,fathers and non-fathers. More specifically, we predictedthat certain WFCS would be more often utilized bymothers; that is, ‘Being good enough’, ‘Prioritizing’ and‘Delegating’ would be likely to be used when role demandsbecome more excessive and when optimization (‘Beingsuper’) is no longer possible (see Baltes, 1997; Baltes &Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Wiese, 2002). However, our findings
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 121
did not support this second hypothesis. In fact, therewere quite a few differences in the take-up of WFCS bygender and parenting status after controlling for severalbackground factors, and none of the gender × parentingstatus interaction effects was significant. However, bothgender and parenting had main effects on the take-up ofWFCS. Namely, we found that parents delegated moreat work than non-parents, supporting the assumption thatparents have more role demands than non-parents, andthus a greater need to delegate (Byron, 2005; Shockley& Allen, 2007). This finding can also be explained withinthe demand/resource capability model (see Kroska, 2004),which is a gender neutral model, hypothesizing that par-ents, both mothers and fathers, will contribute to domestictasks to the extent they have time to do so and to the extentthey are faced with demands at home; thus, when familydemands increase, both parents have to devote more timeand resources to the family.
Nevertheless, we found that women, mothers and non-mothers, prioritized more at home than men, whereas men,fathers and non-fathers, prioritized more at work thanwomen. This finding in turn is consistent with traditionalgender roles, according to which home is predominantlywomen’s ‘sphere’ and work men’s ‘sphere’ (Hochschild,1999; Loscocco & Spitze, 2007; Martinengo et al., 2010;Mennino & Brayfield, 2002; Westman & Zimmerman,1987). Inequality in domestic work may also be involved:women have to prioritize more at home because theyhave more responsibilities at home, including in Finland(see Bygren & Duvander, 2006; Mauno, Kinnunen, &Rantanen, 2011). In Finland, the dual-earner model, withboth parents working full-time, is also very common (formore details on statistics, see OECD, 2011), which maypresent working women with more challenges owing totheir ‘double shifts’. Furthermore, it has also been sug-gested that institutional work–family policies, for whichthe Nordic countries are well known (see Hook & Wolfe,2011; Mauno et al., 2011; Petit & Hook, 2009), may alsohave negative consequences by weakening women’s possi-bilities in the labour market and gender equality at home(e.g. Edlund, 2007; Hakim, 2006).
On the other hand, we should note that gender differ-ences were very modest (for only two of the eight WFCSsub-scales) in our study overall, suggesting that traditionalgender role theories may not be the most appropriate foruse in contemporary work–family interface research, atleast in the Nordic context (see Barnett & Hyde, 2001;Hook & Wolfe, 2011, for example). Thus, other models,such as the demand/resource capability model, referredabove (Kroska, 2004), would merit further attention.Furthermore, it has to be recalled that gender may havedifferent impacts in different contexts: Finland is an exam-ple of a de-familialist or socio-democratic regime (Edlund,2007), where labour force participation, for both sexes, isstrongly supported through an extensive policy package for
working parents, often thought to mean better work–familybalance (see Crompton & Lyonette, 2006; Grönlund &Öun, 2010). In other types of family regimes, for example,in the familialist, conservative or marked-driven regimes,where institutional support is lacking, the findings could bedifferent, potentially favouring gender differences.
Only parenting status, not gender, related to theeffectiveness of WFCS
Our final hypothesis (H3) is related to the effectivenessof WFCS by gender and parenting status. Specifically,we investigated the moderator effects of parenting sta-tus and gender in the relationships between WFCS andwork–family conflict and between WFCS and work–familyenrichment. These two latter constructs formed the criteriafor the effectiveness of coping behaviour in terms of bet-ter work–family balance. Specifically, we predicted, basedon the same reasoning as in H2, that mothers benefit mostfrom ‘Prioritizing’, ‘Delegating’ and ‘Being good enough’coping by showing the lowest work-family conflict and thehighest work-family enrichment (from work to family andvice versa). This hypothesis, although theoretically soundin the light of the gendered role demands model (Galinsky& Bond, 1996; Hochschild, 1999; Loscocco & Spitze,2007; Martinengo et al., 2010; Mennino & Brayfield,2002; Westman & Zimmerman, 1987), was not supported.Namely, we established only interaction effects for parent-ing status, signifying that being a parent moderated therelationships between WFCS and work–family conflict andbetween WFCS and work–family enrichment, but that theeffects did not differ between men and women. However,some of these interaction effects found are understandablein the light of the role demands assumption: parents expe-rience higher role demands than non-parents (e.g. Byron,2005; Frone, 2003; Martinengo et al., 2010; Mennino &Brayfield, 2002; Shockley & Allen, 2007), and for this rea-son, they would not only use more WFCS but also benefitmore from them in terms of lower work-family conflictand higher work-family enrichment. These findings againsupport the demand/response capability model (Kroska,2004), according to which family demands, not gender,determine how much time and energy a person devotesto home, stressing that people make rational choices injuggling between work and family.
Specifically, our results on these two-way interac-tions (parenting × WFCS) indicated that parents benefitedmore from ‘Prioritizing at home’ and ‘Good enough athome/work’ in terms of higher WFE and lower FWC (onlyfor ‘Good enough at home’ coping). Parents, comparedto non-parents, who more often used these coping strate-gies reported higher enrichment and lower conflict. In ourresearch model, these two WFCS characterized the selec-tive life management behaviour used in situations, where,because of limited resources, an individual identifies and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
122 S. Mauno et al.
sets life goals that serve to channel his/her efforts andenergies (Baltes, 1997; Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003).Thus, being a parent challenges one’s resources (e.g. timeand energy), leading the individual to use coping strategiesappropriate to this situation. The result is also consistentwith the situational coping theory: the nature of the situa-tion combined with the individual’s resources determinesthe selected coping response (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
However, we also found that ‘Prioritizing at home’was a counter-productive strategy for parents in relationto FWC: parents who prioritized more at home perceivedhigher FWC than those who did not prioritize. Naturally,reverse causality, referred to above, might also explain thisfinding. Parents, who are very likely to experience FWC(see Byron, 2005), start to prioritize at home to renderthe situation manageable. However, this might not work aswell as was hoped for, and FWC does not decrease, pos-sibly because the situation is difficult to control or becausehaving a guilty conscience or rumination hampers the posi-tive effects of prioritizing. Whatever the underlying reason,this finding is interesting and merits more attention infuture. For example, it is possible that other moderators,which remained beyond this study, are also involved, forexample, number and/or age of children or even person-ality factors. For some individuals, it might be easier toprioritize, whereas others might be more susceptible tohaving a bad conscience if they renounce family-relatedgoals.
Although these two-way interaction effects are inter-esting and also reasonable for the most part, it should beborne in mind that their predictive power was lower (1%)than that found for the main effects of WFCS (4–7%).Consequently, it seems that all employees, irrespective ofgender or family type, would benefit from some WFCS,that is, ‘Super at home/work’, ‘Good enough at home’ and‘Delegating at home/work’. ‘Prioritizing at home/work’,in turn, was harmful for all employees alike, if we look atthe direct effects. However, the effectiveness of its mod-erator role seems to depend on the criterion selected: forparents, ‘Prioritizing (at home)’ was beneficial in relationto WFE but harmful in relation to FWC. The effectivenessof generic coping is also known to be dependent on thecriteria used (Dewe et al., 2010; Folkman & Moskowitz,2004; Taylor & Stanton, 2007), and this also seems toapply to WFCS. Furthermore, we also know that the long-term consequences of coping strategies might differ fromtheir short-term consequences (e.g. Folkman & Moskowitz,2004), and because our study was cross-sectional, wewere not able to investigate the possible long-term con-sequences. This and other limitations are discussed in thenext section.
Limitations and future directions
Our study has a few limitations that should be noted.First, as already noted, the study was cross-sectional, and
thus inherently limited in respect of cause–effect relation-ships. For example, longitudinal studies would also revealhow the WFCS sub-scales change, if they change, overtime. Overall coping strategies have been approached fromdispositional (stable trait-like reaction styles) as well assituational (varying by the challenging situation) perspec-tives (see Carver et al., 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),and it would be interesting to examine which dimensionsof the WFCS scale are by their nature more dispositional(stable) or more situational (changeable). It should alsobe pointed out that coping is always a process proceed-ing in time between stressors and outcomes (Folkman &Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore,ultimately only longitudinal research is capable of unravel-ling such processes. Different coping strategies, includingthe WFCS sub-scales, might be applied in different phasesof this process.
A second limitation concerns the sample, which wasfemale-dominated and derived from two fields of employ-ment only. Thus, our results should be confirmed in moreheterogeneous samples. However, we were interested inhealth care and service employees because we thoughtthat individual coping strategies would prove to have par-ticular relevance for them due to the lower flexibility intheir occupational fields. Several other studies have alsoshown that work–family issues are more salient for women(e.g. Hakim, 2006; Martinengo et al., 2010; Mennino& Brayfield, 2002), and therefore, we mainly sampledfemale workers. Future studies may also want to focuson male-dominated occupations (e.g. information tech-nology (ICT) and engineering) and examine whether ourresults could be replicated in these contexts. The responserate was less than we had hoped for (37%), but this isa relatively common problem in industrial/organizational(I/O) psychology, where response rates usually rangebetween 30% and 50% (Baruch & Holtom, 2008).Nevertheless, the sample was representative in genderand age.
Third, the presence of several confounding factors,which we could not take into account, should be men-tioned. One such is occupation or socioeconomic status(SES) (of the respondents or his/her spouse), which areknown to be relevant factors in the context of the work–family interface (e.g. Hakim, 2006; Mennino & Brayfield,2002). However, in our samples, hundreds of differentoccupations were represented, and therefore, we agreedwith the representatives of the labour unions that we wouldnot seek to elicit this information in our survey, whichwas already long (10 pages). The family situation couldalso have been operationalized differently: we only com-pared parents and non-parents, which is a rough measureof parenting. Thus, we did not ask about parenting qual-ity (e.g. parenting stress) nor take into account the age ornumber of children. A related point is that we operational-ized gender as the sex of an individual despite the factthat gender has multiple dimensions and manifestations,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 123
for instance, gender role ideology/attitudes, which play animportant role in the work–family interface (e.g. Mennino& Brayfield, 2002; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007).One additional confounding factor could also involveemployees’ work–lifestyle preferences, that is, whetheran individual is work- or home-centred or in-between(Hakim, 2006). All these aspects would need special atten-tion in future studies of WFCS and related employeeoutcomes. On the other hand, this was the first attemptto examine WFCS in the Nordic context, with a focuson the relationships between work-family conflict andwork-family enrichment from the viewpoint of gender andparenting status. Unfortunately, the scope of the studydid not allow examination of these or other confoundingfactors.
Fourth, all constructs were measured by self-reportsand are thus sensitive to common method variance bias.However, not all the constructs showed high intercorrela-tions (cf. Table 1), signifying that this type of bias was nota major problem here (see Spector, 2006). In fact, the inter-correlations were notably low, if the cross-sectional natureof the data is taken into account. Admittedly, individualcoping strategies are impossible to measure objectively;however, collecting data from multiple sources shouldprovide some new insights. With regard to work–familyreconciliation, it would be particularly interesting to studythe WFCS from the viewpoint of couples, that is, at thedyadic level.
Fifth, it has to be noted that some coping scalesshowed low reliabilities (particularly ‘Prioritizing’ and‘Good enough at home’ sub-scales), implying that theinstrument would benefit from further development atleast in the Finnish context. Nevertheless, low reliabili-ties were unexpected because all sub-scales of the WFCSinventory had high reliabilities (ranging from 0.73 to0.92) in the original study (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,2007). However, it is possible that the Finnish employ-ees interpreted the items somewhat differently because ofcultural differences (the WFCS inventory has been devel-oped in Israel). Perhaps it is also noteworthy that the otherWFCS inventory also, developed by Neal and Hammer(2007) in the United States, had low scale reliabilities(<0.70). Thus, low internal scale consistency seems to bea shared problem to these context-specific coping invento-ries. Previous studies have also indicated that, in overall,individual coping strategies are difficult to measure (e.g.Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996; Steed, 1998), and WFCScannot be assumed to be any exception in this respect.On the other hand, it is also known that alpha coeffi-cients tend to underestimate ‘true’ reliability, and theiruse as an indicator of reliability/internal consistency hasbeen criticized (Schmitt, 1996; Weiss & Davidson, 1982).We are aware of this and have analysed the factor struc-ture of WFCS with confirmatory factor analysis in another,as yet unpublished study and found it satisfactory (Feldtet al., 2012).
Conclusions and implications
This study is among the first efforts to examine theWFCS scale by taking into account also gender and par-enting status. Moreover, our research model, in additionto work-family conflict, also covered work-family enrich-ment, which thus far has received almost no attention instudies of coping and the work–family interface. One of thekey findings was that WFE could well be a proximal cor-relate of successful work–family coping. Accordingly, bothwork-family conflict and work-family enrichment need fur-ther attention as correlates of WFCS. The second importantfinding was that ‘Prioritizing’ is not a useful coping strat-egy in striving for work–family balance, although there areoccasions where parents might find it beneficial. The thirdimportant observation was that ‘Delegating’, ‘Being super’and ‘Being good enough’ coping help all employees, irre-spective of gender or parenting status, to balance work andfamily demands.
Consequently, from a practical viewpoint, our resultspoint to the conclusion that three WFCS – ‘Delegating’,‘Being super’ and ‘Being good enough’ – should beapplied if aiming at good adjustment in responding towork–family challenges, but an employee’s life situationalso determines which of these strategies are most ben-eficial. For example, ‘Being good enough’, as a formof selection, might help best if demands at work or/andhome are excessive. In addition, organizations need topay more attention to what kinds of WFCS their person-nel tend to use in coping with work–family challenges.Organizational stress management interventions could alsocover WFCS training. The Nordic countries, includingFinland, are well known for their statutory work–familypolicies (e.g. long parental leaves and flexible workinghours), designed to help employees with work–family bal-ance. Despite these family-friendly policies, our studyindicated that personal WFCS also mattered for employ-ees’ experiences of work-family conflict and work-familyenrichment, underlying the fact that coping resources atthe individual and family level are also important for asuccessful work–family balance.
As a final suggestion on future directions for research,we would like to take up the fact that coping resourcesalso tend to accumulate (Hobfoll, 1998). For instance,certain individual coping strategies (e.g. ‘Being super atwork/home’) may help an employee to better utilize cer-tain organizational coping resources (e.g. work–familypolicies). Such resource combinations or resource compen-sation (i.e. lack of one resource is compensated by another)would also explain their positive effects, and hence mightbe worth exploring in future work–family research.
AcknowledgementsThis study was supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund(grant number 108 280) and the Academy of Finland (grantnumbers 125422 and 138369).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
124 S. Mauno et al.
ReferencesAiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regressions. Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Andreassi, J.K. (2011). What the person brings to the table:
Personality, coping, and work–family conflict. Journal ofFamily Issues, 32, 1474–1499.
Baltes, B.B., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Using life-span modelsin industrial/organizational psychology: The theory of selec-tive optimization with compensation. Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 5, 51–62.
Baltes, B.B., & Heydens-Gahir, H.A. (2003). Reduction of work-family conflict through the use of selection, optimization, andcompensation behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6,1005–1018.
Baltes, P.B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of humanontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foun-dation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52,366–380.
Barnett, R., & Hyde, J. (2001). Women, men, work, and family.American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B.C. (2008). Survey response rate levelsand trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61,1139–1160.
Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000).Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in gender division ofhousehold labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228.
Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1981). The role of copingresponses and social resources in attenuating the stress of lifeevents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 157–189.
Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1984). Coping, stress, and socialresources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46, 877–891.
Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. (2002). Employees’ use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. SocialForces, 80, 813–845.
Bygren, M., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2006). Parents’ workplace situa-tion and fathers’ parental leave use. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 68, 363–372.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family con-flict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,169–198.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H., & Grzywascz, J.G.(2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family inter-face. Developing and validation of a work-family enrichmentscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., & Williams, L.J. (2000).Construction and initial validation of a multidimensionalmeasure of work-family conflict. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 56, 249–276.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessingcoping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Work-life ‘balance’ inEurope. Acta Sociologica, 49, 379–393.
Dewe, P.J., O’Driscoll, M., & Cooper, C.L. (2010). Copingwith job stress. A review and critique. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley,A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Contentanalysis ad review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal ofVocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.
Edlund, J. (2007). The work–family time squeeze: Conflictingdemands of paid and unpaid work among working cou-ples in 29 countries. International Journal of ComparativeSociology, 48, 451–480.
Edwards, J.R., & Baglioni, A.J., Jr. (1993). The measurement ofcoping with stress: Construct validity of the Ways of CopingChecklist and the Cybernetic Coping Scale. Work & Stress, 7,17–31.
Feldt, T., Mauno, S., & Rantanen, J. (2012). The factorial validityof the work-family coping strategies-scale. In Presentation inInaugural Meeting of the New Work and Family ResearchersNetwork, June 14–16, 2012, New York.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J.T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls andpromise. Annual Reviews, 55, 745–774.
Fox, E., Pascall, G., & Warren, T. (2009). Work-family policies,participation, and practices: Fathers and childcare in Europe.Community, Work & Family, 12, 313–326.
Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P., & Barron, K.E. (2004). Testing modera-tor and mediator effects in counseling psychology research.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Freund, A.M., & Baltes, P.B. (2002). Life management strategiesof selection, optimization, and compensation: Measurementby self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 82, 642–662.
Frone, M.R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J.C. Quick & L.E.Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology(pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.
Galinsky, E., & Bond, J.T. (1996). Work and family: Comparingthe experiences of mothers and fathers in the U.S. labourforce. In C. Costello and B.K. Krimgold (Eds.), The Americanwoman 1996–97 (pp. 79–103). Washington, DC: Women’sResearch and Education Institute.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflictbetween work and family roles. Academy of ManagementReview, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G.N. (2006). When work and familyare allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy ofManagement Review, 31, 72–92.
Grönlund, A., & Öun, I. (2010). Rethinking work-family con-flict: Dual-earner policies, role conflict and role expansionin Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 20,179–194.
Guppy, A., Edwards, J.A., Brough, P., Peters-Bean, K.M., Sale,C., & Short, E. (2004). The psychometric properties of theshort version of the Cybernetic Coping Scale: A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis across four samples.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77,39–62.
Haar, J.M. (2006). The downside of coping: Work-family conflict,employee burnout and the moderating effects of coping strate-gies. Journal of Management & Organization, 12, 146–159.
Hakim, C. (2006). Women, careers, and work-life preferences.British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 34, 279–294.
Hall, D.T. (1972). A model of coping with role conflict: The rolebehavior of college-educated women. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 17, 471–486.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1998). Stress, culture and community: The psychol-ogy and philosophy of stress. New York, NY: Plenum.
Hochschild, A. (1999). The second shift. New York, NY: AvonBooks.
Holahan, C.J., Moos, R.H., & Schaefer, J.A. (1996). Coping,stress resistance, and growth: Conceptualizing adaptive func-tioning. In M. Zeidner & N.S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook ofcoping. Theory, research and applications (pp. 24–44). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hook, J.L., & Wolfe, C.M. (2011). New fathers? Residentialfathers’ time with children in four countries. Journal ofFamily Issues, 33, 415–450.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013
Family Science 125
Kroska, A. (2004). Divisions of domestic work: Revising andexpanding the theoretical explanations. Journal of FamilyIssues, 25, 890–932.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping pro-cess. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R.S. (1999). Stress and emotions: A new synthesis.London: Free Association Books.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New York, NY: Springer.
Loscocco, K., & Spitze, G. (2007). Gender patterns in providerrole attitudes and behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 28,934–954.
Martinengo, G., Jacob, J.I., & Hill, E.J. (2010). Gender andthe work-family interface: Exploring differences across thefamily life course. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1363–1390.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Rantanen, M. (2011). Work-familyconflict and enrichment and perceived health: Does type offamily matter? Family Science, 2, 1–12.
Mauno, S., & Rantanen, M. (2012). Contextual and dispositionalcoping resources as predictors of work-family conflict andenrichment: Which of these resources of their combinationsare the most beneficial? Journal of Family and EconomicIssues. doi:10.1007/s10834-012-9306-3.
Mennino, S., & Brayfield, A. (2002). Job-family trade-offs: Themultidimensional effects of gender. Work & Occupations, 29,226–256.
Moen, P., & Sweet, S. (2004). From “work-family” to “flexi-ble careers”: A life course reframing. Community, Work andFamily, 7, 209–226.
Neal, M., & Hammer, L. (2007). Work-family coping strategies:What are the effects on work-family fit, well-being and work?In M. Neal & L. Hammer (Eds.), Working couples caringfor children and ageing parents (pp. 143–155). Mahwah, NJ:LEA.
Noonan, M.C., Estes, S.B., & Glass, J.L. (2007). Do work-place flexibility policies influence time spent in domesticlabor?Journal of Family Issues, 28, 263–288.
OECD. (2011). OECD Family Database. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/els/social/family/database
Penley, J.A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J.S. (2002). The associationof coping to physical and psychological health outcomes: Ameta-analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25,551–603.
Petit, B., & Hook, J.L. (2009). Gendered tradeoffs: Family, socialpolicy, and economic inequality in twenty-one countries. NewYork, NY: Russel Sage.
Rantanen, M., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Rantanen, J. (2011).Do individual coping strategies help or harm in the work-family conflict situation? International Journal of StressManagement, 18, 24–48.
Rotondo, D.M., Carlson, D.S., & Kincaid, J.F. (2003). Copingwith multiple dimensions of work-family conflict. PersonnelReview, 32, 275–296.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.
Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey ofcoping instruments. In M. Zeidner & N.S. Endler (Eds.),Handbook of coping. Theory, research and applications(pp. 107–132). New York, NY: Wiley.
Shockley, K.M., & Allen, T.D. (2007). When flexibility helps?Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangementsand work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71,479–493.
Skinner, E.A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003).Searching for the structure of coping: A review and cri-tique of category systems for classifying ways of coping.Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Strategies for cop-ing with work-family conflict: The distinctive relationshipsof gender role ideology. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 12, 1–19.
Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9,221–232.
Statistics Finland (2012a). Families 2010. Helsinki: OfficialStatistics of Finland.
Statistics Finland (2012b). Labour force survey: Employmentand unemployment in 2011. Helsinki: Official Statistics ofFinland.
Steed, L.G. (1998). A critique of coping scales. AustralianPsychologist, 33, 193–202.
Taylor, S.E., & Stanton, A. (2007). Coping resources, copingprocesses, and mental health. Annual Review of ClinicalPsychology, 3, 129–153.
Weiss, D.J., & Davidson, M.L. (1982). Test theory and methods.Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 629–658.
Westman, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender& Society, 1, 125–151.
Wiese, B.S. (2002). Subjective career success and emotionalwell-being: Longitudinal predictive power of selection, opti-mization, and compensation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,60, 321–335.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
01:
33 1
6 Ju
ne 2
013