Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Cataldo Giuliano Gemmano
 -- 2016 2024-01-23 09:11:19 |
2 layout
Camila Xu
 Meta information modification 2016 2024-01-23 09:17:35 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Giancaspro, M.L.; Gemmano, C.G.; Manuti, A. From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54231 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Giancaspro ML, Gemmano CG, Manuti A. From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54231. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Giancaspro, Maria Luisa, Cataldo Giuliano Gemmano, Amelia Manuti. "From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54231 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Giancaspro, M.L., Gemmano, C.G., & Manuti, A. (2024, January 23). From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54231
Giancaspro, Maria Luisa, et al. "From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment." Encyclopedia. Web. 23 January, 2024.
From Work Design to Burnout/Performance via Work-family Conflict/Enrichment
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/bs13120965

The work–family (WF) interface, namely, WF conflict and WF enrichment, as mediators in the relationship between work design (WD), burnout, and work performance. 

work design work performance burnout work/family interface

1. Introduction

Within the current occupational scenario, featuring radical and rapid changes that have impacted work processes as well as human resource management, work design (WD) has become an even more strategic tool to craft job descriptions, workload, tasks, and responsibilities, and to balance organizational demands with employees’ needs, thus enhancing well-being and performance [1]. Hence, several studies have confirmed the relationship between a poor WD and burnout [2][3][4][5], as well as between an effective WD and work performance [6][7][8][9]. However, despite the robust empirical evidence supporting the relationship between WD and organizational positive (performance) and negative (burnout) behaviors, research investigating the potential mediators of this relationship is still scarce. This gap needs to be addressed both for theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, because it suggests that there still is not an evidence-based foundation of “how and why” WD could be related to lower levels of burnout and/or to better performance. Therefore, there is a lack of knowledge about the underlying processes that might regulate the relationship between these variables. Practically, this gap limits any possibility to draw conclusions and to make recommendations to organizations and managers about how to drive WD as a strategic tool to produce desired outcomes.
The work–family (WF) interface, namely, WF conflict and WF enrichment, as mediators in the relationship between WD, burnout, and work performance. Attention was focused on these WF interface aspects because a broad literature supports the importance of WD dimensions in promoting positive interrelationships between work and family [10], which, in turn, could impact burnout [11][12] and work performance [13][14][15]. Thus, WF conflict and WF enrichment were expected to be some of the mechanisms linking WD to the desired outcomes.

2. Work Design, WF Conflict, and WF Enrichment

The radical changes that have overwhelmed the labor market in recent years have led scholars and practitioners to focus attention on the conditions that could best support individuals and organizations in maintaining high production standards and thriving even in a difficult scenario. In particular, the investigation of the mechanisms governing the organizational system (e.g., the organization of work and/or the conditions that might nurture employees’ well-being) is strategically used to read the signs of changes and to direct the management process. In light of the profound wider changes that have impacted the labor market (e.g., technological advancement and global competition among the main ones), to survive, organizations have been forced to redefine their working processes, consequently revising job descriptions and role requirements, rediscovering WD as a good practice of HR and organizational management. Hence, WD “concerns the content and organization of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships and responsibilities” [16] (p. 662).
Historically, the interest in WD has stemmed from the widespread application of the principles of scientific management in the design of initial industrial jobs. But, if, on the one hand, this approach aimed for a simplification of any management process, the motivational WD perspectives appear much more focused on the enhancement of the positive effects that work design might have on positive organizational behaviors. For instance, the job characteristics model [17] maintained that an effective WD should consider five core job characteristics (i.e., variety, autonomy, feedback, significance, and identity) to produce three individual positive psychological states (i.e., experiencing meaning, feeling responsible for outcomes, and understanding the results of their efforts), which, in turn, were proven to impact on positive work outcomes (e.g., intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and work performance). In this vein, the adequate WD of tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities could be highly strategic to manage human resources with respect to several organizational goals, such as safety, competitiveness, and innovation.
The contemporary perspective on WD [18] focuses on the four dimensions of work characteristics: task, knowledge, social, and work context characteristics. Task characteristics refer to the complexity of the tasks involved to accomplish the work of a particular job. In particular, they include the following specific aspects that characterize job tasks: autonomy, task significance, and feedback from the job. Knowledge characteristics refer to the individual requirements of a job in terms of knowledge, skills, and ability. They include the extent to which information processing and skill variety are required at work. Social characteristics refer to the nature of relational interactions involved in the execution of work activities. They include not only the social support that comes from the work climate, but also the specific feedback that comes from colleagues and supervisors. Work context characteristics refer to the physical and environmental aspects of a particular job. They include the physical demands required from the job and the conditions of the work environment [19][20]. Accordingly, the relationship between the person and work is often regulated by job characteristics and WD strategies also influence work–life balance. For many employees, work and family are the prevailing domains of life. The need to balance the two domains has become a part of all employees’ daily lives because of the increase of dual-earner households and non-traditional gender roles [21][22].
WF conflict is commonly defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” [23] (p. 77). WF conflict is interpreted in two directions: work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) [24]. WIF is caused by the work demands (e.g., long working hours and work overload) that compromise the family role [25][26]. FIW is caused by those family demands (e.g., responsibilities toward family members) that that have detrimental effects on the work domain [27]. Based on this theorization, empirical evidence has shown that WIF and FIW are influenced by work and family demands and they also have consequences on work and family outcomes, such as performance and satisfaction, e.g., [28][29][30]. Among the predictors of WF conflict, several studies ascertained that role demands have relevant effects on WF conflict, showing that work demands associated more with WIF than with FIW and family role demands associated more with FIW than with WIF [10][29][31]. Michel and colleagues’ [10] meta-analysis on the antecedents of WF conflict supported the relevance of work role stressors (e.g., role overload and time demands), work role involvement (e.g., job involvement and work centrality), work social support (e.g., organizational and peer support), and work characteristics (e.g., task variety and job autonomy) as predictors of WF conflict.
Given this evidence, the content and context features of the job were proven to play a crucial role in favoring a balance and reducing the conflict between work and family domains. For instance, job complexity is an enabling resource that could increase individual performance in the work domain as well as in other domains [32]. Hence, job complexity requires the development of skills and abilities (e.g., handling multiple tasks, planning, and organizing) to complete the work, which could also become useful skills to manage the WF interface. Likewise, the positive characteristics of the job (e.g., autonomy and decision control) have been proven to promote WF enrichment and decrease WF conflict through adequate work resources that sustain individual coping [10][33].
Recently, scholars have investigated the influence of the WF interface on individual attitudes and behaviors. These studies have led to the development of different constructs such as positive spillover [34][35] and WF facilitation [36][37][38] or work–family synergy [39]. Among these, WF enrichment was proven to have a relevant role in the process of WF balance [40][41][42]. Greenhaus and Powell define WF enrichment as “the extent to which experience in one role improves the quality of life namely performance or affect, in the other role” [12] (p. 6). However, further studies have largely suggested positive relationships between job characteristics and some nuances of WF enrichment, such as positive spillover [43][44] and WF facilitation [32][45]. The underlying assumption common to many of these approaches is that motivating job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, variety, and feedback) could provide successful and satisfactory work experiences, which, in turn, might contribute to facilitating the family role [17][46]. These characteristics are related to specific resources (e.g., time management skills and self-confidence) that could be applied to family activities and relationships to enrich the family domain though the work role [32].

3. WF Variables, Burnout, and Work Performance

The search for a balance between work and personal domains is a very expensive activity in terms of resources and energy for workers. Generally, the balance between work and family fosters psychological and physiological health and organizational outcomes [47]. On the other hand, the conflict between work and family roles leads to negative outcomes in both domains, such as emotional exhaustion and burnout [11][48]. Maslach defines burnout as “a psychological syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among normal individuals who work with people in some capacity” [49] (pp. 20–21). A recent attempt to overcome this traditional conception of the construct and its related measurement tool came from a recent study by Schaufeli, De Witte, and Desart [50] who developed the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT). The theoretical framework that inspired the authors sees burnout as a syndrome that consists of four interrelated components. The first component is exhaustion, which involves the depletion of physical and psychological resources. The second one is mental distance, which involves the indifference and disenchantment toward the meaning of work; the third is emotional impairment, which refers to overwhelming negative emotions at work; and the last one is cognitive impairment, which refers to the indicators of declined cognitive processes.
Among the several antecedents of burnout, WF conflict is considered a prominent one [48][51][52][53][54]. WF conflict drains individual mental and physical resources to face the imbalance between work and family demands [54]. Therefore, burnout could arise at work because of the mental and physical fatigue caused by the detrimental process of WF conflict. At the same time, in line with the COR theory [55], WF enrichment is negatively associated with burnout, because a resource gain spiral may be sparked by WF enrichment, producing an increase in physical and psychological resources which compensate for the difficulties of work demands [56][57]. For instance, developing new work competencies and applying them to the family domain may decrease burnout components because it sustains the family role with new resources. Moreover, the family domain may give employees additional resources (e.g., esteem, support, and flexibility) that may sustain the work role performance [12][44].
Another outcome considered here is represented by work performance. In contrast to job burnout, work performance is considered a positive outcome of individual and organizational health. It is difficult to provide an unequivocal definition of work performance as it is a multifaceted construct with numerous meanings: from performance assessment to proactive behavior [58], organizational citizenship behavior [59], counterproductive behavior [60], adaptive performance [61], and contextual performance [62]. Proficiency refers to work performance in terms of the accomplishment of activities that are required for a specific job. Adaptivity refers to the extent to which employees adapt and cope with changes in the job and work environment. Proactivity refers to the extent to which employees take initiative and propose ideas to enhance work activities and contexts.
In this direction, as previously stated, WF conflict is associated with a decrease in performance. Previous research has shown that WF conflict impacts on work performance [13][14][15]. The influence of WF conflict on work performance is supported by the role theory and by the scarcity of resources hypothesis, which state that individual personal resources are limited and can be depleted by the demands of one role, such that they can also be insufficient for other roles [63][64][65]. Moreover, heavy workloads drain the individual capacity to balance different roles, leading to emotional exhaustion and poor performance at work. For the same reasons, WF enrichment is positively related to work performance [66][67]. The role accumulation [65][68] and the conservation of resources (COR) [69][70] theories support the idea that individual resources can also be expanded. Using and developing resources in one domain may bring improvement in resources that can be used in other domains. For instance, learning strategies for managing conflict at work may help individuals to use that skills in the family domain to obtain positive effects and enrich both the work and family roles.

References

  1. Morgenson, G. An Unstoppable Climb in C.E.O. Pay. New York Times. 2013. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/business/an-unstoppable-climb-in-ceo-pay.html (accessed on 29 June 2013).
  2. Borritz, M.; Bültmann, U.; Rugulies, R.; Christensen, K.B.; Villadsen, E.; Kristensen, T.S. Psychosocial work characteristics as predictors for burnout: Findings from 3-year follow up of the PUMA Study. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 47, 1015–1025.
  3. Fernet, C.; Austin, S.; Trépanier, S.G.; Dussault, M. How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 22, 123–137.
  4. Jindal, A.; Garg, P.; Rastogi, R. Decoding impact of job design on employee burnout. Apeejay Bus. Rev. 2014, 13, 28–37.
  5. Pisanti, R.; Van der Doef, M.; Maes, S.; Meier, L.L.; Lazzari, D.; Violani, C. How changes in psychosocial job characteristics impact burnout in nurses: A longitudinal analysis. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1082.
  6. Humphrey, S.E.; Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1332–1356.
  7. Lievens, I.; Vlerick, P. Transformational leadership and safety performance among nurses: The mediating role of knowledge-related job characteristics. J. Adv. Nurs. 2014, 70, 651–661.
  8. Zhou, Q.; Martinez, L.F.; Ferreira, A.I.; Rodrigues, P. Supervisor support, role ambiguity and productivity associated with presenteeism: A longitudinal study. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3380–3387.
  9. Dianat, I.; Vahedi, A.; Dehnavi, S. Association between objective and subjective assessments of environmental ergonomic factors in manufacturing plants. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 54, 26–31.
  10. Michel, J.S.; Kotrba, L.M.; Mitchelson, J.K.; Clark, M.A.; Baltes, B.B. Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 689–725.
  11. Geraldes, D.; Madeira, E.; Carvalho, V.S.; Chambel, M.J. Work-personal life conflict and burnout in contact centers: The moderating role of affective commitment. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 400–416.
  12. Greenhaus, J.H.; Powell, G.N. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 72–92.
  13. Wang, M.L.; Tsai, L.J. Work–family conflict and job performance in nurses: The moderating effects of social support. J. Nurs. Res. 2014, 22, 200–207.
  14. Odle-Dusseau, H.N.; Britt, T.W.; Greene-Shortridge, T.M. Organizational work–family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process of work–family conflict and enrichment. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 28–40.
  15. Jung Choi, H.; Tae Kim, Y. Work-family conflict, work-family facilitation, and job outcomes in the Korean hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 1011–1028.
  16. Parker, S.K. Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 661–691.
  17. Hackman, J.R.; Oldham, G.R. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perfor. 1976, 16, 250–279.
  18. Grant, A.M.; Fried, Y.; Juillerat, T. Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Zedeck, S., Ed.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 417–453.
  19. Grant, A.M.; Fried, Y.; Parker, S.K.; Frese, M. Putting job design in context: Introduction to the special issue. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 145–157.
  20. Morgeson, F.P.; Humphrey, S.E. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1321–1339.
  21. Bond, J.T.; Galinsky, E.; Swanberg, J.E. The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce; Families and Work Institute: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
  22. Greenhaus, J.G.; Callanan, G.A.; Godshalk, V.M. Career Management, 3rd ed.; The Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  23. Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 76–88.
  24. Mesmer-Magnus, J.R.; Viswesvaran, C. Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 215–232.
  25. Geurts, S.A.; Taris, T.W.; Kompier, M.A.; Dikkers, J.S.; Van Hooff, M.L.; Kinnunen, U.M. Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work Stress 2005, 19, 319–339.
  26. Leung, M.Y.; Bowen, P.; Liang, Q.; Famakin, I. Development of a job-stress model for construction professionals in South Africa and Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04014077.
  27. Fu, C.K.; Shaffer, M.A. The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Pers. Rev. 2001, 30, 502–522.
  28. Amstad, F.T.; Meier, L.L.; Fasel, U.; Elfering, A.; Semmer, N.K. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 151–169.
  29. Ford, M.T.; Heinen, B.A.; Langkamer, K.L. Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 57–80.
  30. Shockley, K.M.; Singla, N. Reconsidering work—Family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 861–886.
  31. Byron, K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 169–198.
  32. Voydanoff, P. The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. J. Marriage Fam. 2004, 66, 398–412.
  33. Siu, O.L.; Lu, J.F.; Brough, P.; Lu, C.Q.; Bakker, A.B.; Kalliath, T.; O’Driscoll, M.; Phillips, D.R.; Chen, W.; Lo, D.; et al. Role resources and work–family enrichment: The role of work engagement. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 470–480.
  34. Allis, P.; O’Driscoll, M. Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-being in work, family and personal domains. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 273–291.
  35. Hammer, L.B.; Cullen, J.C.; Neal, M.B.; Sinclair, R.R.; Shafiro, M.V. The longitudinal effects of work-family conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 138–154.
  36. Rotondo, D.M.; Kincaid, J.F. Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the work and family domains. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 484–506.
  37. Wayne, J.H.; Randel, A.E.; Stevens, J. The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work-related consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006, 69, 445–461.
  38. Balmforth, K.; Gardner, D. Conflict and facilitation between work and family: Realizing the outcomes for organizations. N. Z. J. Psychol. 2006, 35, 69–76.
  39. Beutell, N.J.; Wittig-Berman, U. Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 507–523.
  40. Frone, M.R. Work-family balance. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology; Quick, J.C., Tetrick, L.E., Eds.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 143–162.
  41. Aryee, S.; Srinivas, E.S.; Tan, H.H. Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 132–146.
  42. Carlson, D.S.; Kacmar, K.M.; Wayne, J.H.; Grzywacz, J.G. Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006, 68, 131–164.
  43. Grzywacz, J.G.; Marks, N.F. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 111–126.
  44. Thompson, C.; Prottas, D. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 10, 100–118.
  45. Van Steenbergen, E.F.; Ellemers, N.; Mooijaart, A. How work and family can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 279–300.
  46. Friedman, S.D.; Greenhaus, J.H. Work and Family—Allies or Enemies?: What Happens When Business Professionals Confront Life Choice; Oxford University Press: Cary, NC, USA, 2000.
  47. Haar, J.M.; Russo, M.; Suñe, A.; Ollier-Malaterre, A. Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. J. Vocat. Behav. 2014, 85, 361–373.
  48. Allen, T.D.; Herst, D.E.; Bruck, C.S.; Sutton, M. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 278–308.
  49. Maslach, C. Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research; Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C., Marek, T., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 20–21.
  50. Schaufeli, W.B.; Desart, S.; De Witte, H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—Development, validity, and reliability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9495.
  51. Haar, J.M. The downside of coping: Work–family conflict, employee burnout and the moderating effects of coping strategies. J. Manag. Organ. 2006, 12, 146–159.
  52. Leineweber, C.; Westerlund, H.; Chungkham, H.S.; Lindqvist, R.; Runesdotter, S.; Tishelman, C. Nurses’ practice environment and work-family conflict in relation to burn out: A multilevel modelling approach. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96991.
  53. Lambert, E.; Hogan, N.L.; Altheimer, I. The association between work-family conflict and job burnout among correctional staff: A preliminary study. Am. J. Crim. Justice 2010, 35, 37–55.
  54. Lizano, E.L.; Hsiao, H.Y.; Mor Barak, M.E.; Casper, L.M. Support in the workplace: Buffering the deleterious effects of work–family conflict on child welfare workers’ well-being and job burnout. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2014, 40, 178–188.
  55. Hobfoll, S.E.; Halbesleben, J.; Neveu, J.P.; Westman, M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 5, 103–128.
  56. Tone Innstrand, S.; Melbye Langballe, E.; Arild Espnes, G.; Falkum, E.; Gjerl⊘w Aasland, O. Positive and negative work–family interaction and burnout: A longitudinal study of reciprocal relations. Work Stress 2008, 22, 1–15.
  57. Robinson, L.D.; Magee, C.; Caputi, P. Burnout and the work-family interface: A two-wave study of sole and partnered working mothers. Career Develop. Int. 2016, 21, 31–44.
  58. Crant, J.M. Proactive behavior in organizations. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 435–462.
  59. Smith, C.A.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–663.
  60. Bennett, R.J.; Robinson, S.L. The development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 349–360.
  61. Pulakos, E.D.; Arad, S.; Donovan, M.A.; Plamondon, K.E. Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 612–624.
  62. Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel Selection in Organizations; Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1993.
  63. Edwards, J.R.; Rothbard, N.P. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 178–199.
  64. Goode, W.J. A theory of role strain. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 483–496.
  65. Marks, S.R. Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1977, 42, 921–936.
  66. Witt, L.A.; Carlson, D.S. The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 343–357.
  67. Graves, L.M.; Ohlott, P.J.; Ruderman, M.N. Commitment to family roles: Effects on managers’ attitudes and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 44–56.
  68. Sieber, S.D. Toward a theory of role accumulation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1974, 39, 567–578.
  69. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524.
  70. Hobfoll, S.E. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2002, 6, 307–324.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Psychology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Maria Luisa Giancaspro
,
Cataldo Giuliano Gemmano
,
Amelia Manuti
View Times: 107
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback