Work-Family and Work-Life Conflict

Work-family conflict is a form of inter-role conflict that occurs when the energy, time, or behavioral demands of the work role conflicts with those of the family role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). A key assumption of work-family conflict is that the demands and expectations of work (e.g., working late, travel) often conflict with those of the family (e.g., picking up a child after school to be able to attend their soccer practice or music lesson) or taking a parent to the doctor when they are sick and cannot drive themselves. When an individual’s multiple roles such as work and family become incompatible with each other, role conflict occurs (Kahn et al., 1964).

Work-life conflict is an extension of work-family conflict reflecting the reality that the work role may interfere with individuals’ other personal life roles and interests. Besides the family role, these can range from time for friends, exercise, military service, education, having time for self and recovery (Kossek, 2016), volunteering, or being active in religious organizations. While work-family conflict remains a key factor for many employees, a challenge with current research is that scholars often methodologically and theoretically confound all forms of non-work conflict in the work-family measure (Wilson & Baumann, 2015). Consequently, some researchers such as Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, and Garden (2005) use the term “work-life conflict” to reflect the many additional non-work demands in individuals’ lives that are not restricted to those involving the family. In this article, we use the term work-family conflict and work-life conflict, interchangeably, unless otherwise noted.

Consequences of Work-Family Conflict for Work and Non-Work Roles and Stress

Work-family conflict is related to many critical employment and personal life outcomes. These include work outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover), family outcomes (e.g., marital satisfaction and family satisfaction), physical health (e.g., physical symptoms, eating and exercise behaviors), psychological health (e.g., stress and depressive symptoms), and life satisfaction (Allen & Armstrong, 2006; Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996).

Allen and colleagues’ meta-analysis (2000) organized consequences of work-family conflict into three main groups: work-related, non-work-related, and stress-related and ranked the relative effect sizes. Among work-related outcomes, turnover intentions (r = .29) had the strongest relationship followed by job satisfaction (r = −.24), and organizational commitment (r = −.23). The non-work-related outcomes were all significant in this order: life satisfaction (r = −.28) had the strongest relationship, followed by martial satisfaction (r = −.24) and family satisfaction (r = −.17). Many stress-related outcomes were significant from alcohol abuse (r = .17) to all others such as physical health strain and depressive symptoms all being at least r = −.29 and above with burnout being the highest at r = .42.

Role Theory

Grounded in role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), work-family conflict results from the incompatibility of role demands between work and family from time, strain, or behavior (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work role conflict can occur in two directions; from work to family or from family to work (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). It can be asymmetrical in impact as work variables seems to be more strongly related to work-to-family conflict than family variables seem to be related to family-to-work conflict (Byron, 2005).

Time-based role conflict occurs when the time demands from work and family compete with each other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).For example, overtime takes away hours a parent can spend with children (work-to family conflict); and illness of a family member may limit working hours (family-to-work conflict). Recent studies (Clarkberg & Moen, 2001; Dugan, Matthews, & Barnes-Farrell, 2012) suggest that subjective measures of time, namely, work hours preferences or perceptions of time pressures are key aspects to update measures of work-family conflict. Strain-based conflict occurs when strain in one role constrains individuals’ ability to perform another role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For example, a study of professionals found that exhaustion and anxiety from work can spill over to family or life domain (work-to-family conflict) limiting individuals’ role performance (Kinman & Jones, 2001). On the other hand, new parents may not get enough sleep, affecting their work performance (family-to-work conflict). Behavior-based conflict occurs when behavior patterns related to work and family are not compatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). While some scholars argue that behavior-based work-family conflict may not be relevant to most occupations (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2006), it is clear that certain occupations such as military (Britt, Adler, & Castro, 2006) or prison guards (Kinman, Clements, & Hart, 2017) may require hostile or aggressive interpersonal interactions that may not be suitable in family interactions (work-to-family conflict) (Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008). Similarly, needing to be very nurturing with a preschooler may require behaviors that might not fit with a more hard-nosed environment such as being a CEO that has to downsize and fire people or being a police officer that has to arrest people (family-to-work conflict). Thus, there may be occupational variation in the processes and degree to which work-family processes such as positive and negative crossover of roles may operate.

Conservation of Resources Theory

Work-family conflict is typically conceptualized as a type of stress in conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). When individuals are trying to balance the demands of work and family, they may experience or be threatened to experience the loss of resources such as time and energy, leading to stress that is one form of work-family conflict (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Conservation of resources theory is based on the premise that (1) individuals seek to gain and protect objective sources or conditions; and (2) stress occurs when the loss of resources is threatened, and investment of resources does not lead to resource gain (Hobfoll, 1989). Conservation of resources theory often emphasizes protection of resources such as a good marriage, free time, personal health, self-discipline, financial assets, and tangible family help with work tasks (Hobfoll, 1989). Individuals also gain resources by performing a role well (e.g., promotion, higher pay, or self-esteem). However, resource loss has greater impact (negative) on individual outcomes than resource gain (Hobfoll, 2001).

According to the conservation of resources theory, there are several coping mechanisms of work-family conflict. One mechanism relates to the cross-domain investment of resources to prevent resource losses. For example, when individuals experience problems at work (e.g., low performance) or home (e.g., a sick child), they may feel they have to invest more resources in the problem area to prevent resource losses. This may increase stress in one domain that can spill over to the other domain (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) or limit resources for the other domain (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009). A second mechanism relates to when individuals invest large amount of resources to work or experience chronic, minor losses without any return resource gain, and individuals experience personal burnout (Hobfoll, 2001). A third mechanism occurs when individuals may guard against future resource loss through proactive coping, which refers to “efforts undertaken to either prevent a potentially stressful event or modify its form before it occurs (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997, p. 417). Here, individuals strive to attain, maintain, and invest in new resources to be better prepared for potential future loss. The ability to engage in proactive coping may depend on the initial level of resources. Individuals have to have enough resources to be able to invest to gain new resources (e.g., new skills), ultimately protecting them from the future resource loss (Hobfoll, 2001).

Demands-and-Resources Approaches

Resources-and-demands approaches emphasize the need to examine demands and resources to understand job strain contributing to work-family conflict (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, De Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003; Voydanoff, 2005a). The job demands-and-resources model assumes that job demands may deplete individuals’ resources, resulting in negative individual and work outcomes. On the other hand, job resources have potential to motivate individuals to perform better, leading to positive individual and work outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This approach also suggests that some job resources such as social support, autonomy, and supervisor feedback may act as a buffer between job demands and job strain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). For example, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2007) note that high levels of autonomy and support reduce the impact of job demands on burnout among home-care organization employees.

Voydanoff (2005a) extended one-domain demands-and-resources approaches by integrating both work and family domains. Based on person-environment fit theory (Edwards, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1998; French, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982) and boundary theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000), Voydanoff (2005a) proposed that the cross-domain fit (the work demands-family resources fit and the family demands-work resources fit) is the key to decreasing work-family conflict and achieving work-family balance. Fit is achieved when “resources meet, offset, or satisfy” demands (Voydanoff, 2005a, p. 828). There are two mechanisms of work-family conflict. First, the fit between work demands-family resources and the fit between family demands and work resources have direct relationships with work-family conflict. Second, boundary-spanning strategies such as reducing hours, or reducing family or work demands may mediate or moderate the relationship between work-family fit and work-family conflict to enhance fit (Voydanoff, 2005a).

Life-Course Perspective

The life-course perspective (Elder, 1998) provides a unique framework and concepts such as historical time, transitions, or linked lives to examine work-family conflict. First, the concept of historical time and social context captures shifts in workforce and career zeitgeist from the past. Contemporary workers are less likely to spend their whole career and regularly advance in one organization, and feel secure in their jobs than workers from previous decades. Yet they are more likely to customize their timing of retirement, pursue flexible work arrangements such as reduced workload and telework, and seek work-family balance (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). Given these historical and life-course changes, it is likely to expect changes in work-life conflict processes. Blair-Loy (2003) found that younger cohorts of female executives reported less work-family conflict than older cohorts, partly because they are more likely to hire someone to do domestic chores. Second, the concept of transition also helps us to understand how changing family demands over time may affect work-life conflict processes. For example, the child care demands for a newborn baby are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of an adolescent and may require different types of resources. Furthermore, with the growing elderly population, more people provide informal care to elder family members. These elder care responsibilities may delay retirement to ensure financial and health care coverage, which in turn decrease job satisfaction and increase conflict (Dentinger & Clarkberg, 2002). Third, the concept of linked lives allows researchers to examine the crossover effect of family member strain from work-family conflict (Westman, 2001). For example, husbands’ work stress can decrease the sense of work-family balance in wives (Fagan & Press, 2008). Positive crossover effects can also occur as support from a partner can decrease individuals’ work-family conflict (Becker & Moen, 1999; van Daalen, Willemsen, & Sanders, 2006; Thorstad, Anderson, Hall, Willingham, & Carruthers, 2006). Now we turn to methodological issues related to definitions, measurement, and study designs, and then to mechanisms of work-family conflict.

Work-Family Conflict vs. Work-Family Balance

One main methodological issue is the issue of construct overlap, such as the work-family conflict and work-life conflict issues noted earlier. Work-family conflict and work-family balance are also closely related concepts. While there seems to be a consensus among scholars that work-family balance is distinct from work-family conflict, empirical evidence is scarce (Greenhaus & Allen, 2010). One recent study (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009) found that work-life balance explained work and family outcomes beyond the variance explained by work-family conflict, supporting the argument that work-family balance is a distinct concept.

Although work-family balance frequently has been defined as the absence of work-family conflict (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007), a growing number of researchers are conceptualizing work-life balance independent of work-family conflict. Work-family balance is defined as equal commitment to and equal satisfaction in work and family (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Marks & MacDermid, 1996). Some scholars focus on satisfaction with work-family balance defined as “an overall level of contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work and family role demands” (Valcour, 2007, p. 1512). However, Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) criticized these definitions arguing (1) that individuals do not seek to achieve equality in their work and family; and (2) that using satisfaction to define work-life balance reinforces the individualist views on work-family balance, making it an individual problem. Instead, they proposed the definition of work-family balance as “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or her role-related partners in the work and family domains” (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007, p. 458).

Conflict and balance are conceptually overlapping because these concepts are defined or imply the absence of the other. Although not overlapping, a new stream of research focuses on work-family enrichment to understand the positive dynamics between work and family to augment the conflict view, which examines negative dynamics. Work-family enrichment is defined by Greenhaus and Powell (2006, p. 73) as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” Work-family enrichment theory maintains that positive processes and outcomes can occur from being involved in both work and family. They theorize that three possible mechanisms may foster these benefits: the positive additive effects of multiple roles for well-being; the opportunity to buffer roles so that when something is going wrong in one role, the other role can compensate; and the transfers of positive emotions and skills between roles.

Measurement Issues

Cross-Sectional vs. Longitudinal Designs

While there have been many studies identifying antecedents, mediators/moderators, and consequences of work-family conflict, scholars cannot assume causal relationships because most are cross-sectional. Although some longitudinal studies have confirmed some causal relationships between antecedents, work-family conflict, and consequences (Dormann & Zapf, 2002; de Jonge et al., 2001; Wong, Hui, & Law, 1998), other studies found reciprocal or reverse relationships. For example, in a one-year longitudinal study (Kinnunen, Geurts, & Mauno, 2004), work-family conflict and well-being variables (job, family, and physical well-being) at time 1 predicted each other at time 2. In another study, general distress predicted work-to-family interference six months later but work-to-family interference did not predict general distress over time (Kelloway, Gottlieb, & Barham, 1999). More longitudinal studies are needed to understand causal processes of work-family conflict.

Yet sometimes longitudinal designs are not always appropriate or practical. There are several issues to consider when deciding to design a longitudinal work-family conflict study: (1) whether the research question is related to continuity and change over time, (2) time involved, (3) money involved, and (4) how to deal with missing data (Crouter & Pirretti, 2006). Work-family conflict also may be episodic as opposed to an on-going continuous phenomenon. Work-family researchers need to more carefully select the most appropriate study design based on the research question and practical issues.

Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict

Mediators and Moderators of Work-Family Conflict

There is not a clear research literature clarifying identified mediators and moderators of work-family conflict, mostly due to the lack of longitudinal studies. A related issue in work-family conflict research is that the same variables have been used as antecedents and mediators/moderators in different (often cross-sectional) studies, potentially confusing the conceptualization of the mechanisms rather than helping to unveil new mechanisms.

Take personality as an example, which has been identified as an antecedent of work-family conflict. Yet personality has also been included as a mediator and a moderator between antecedents and work-family conflict (Stoeva et al., 2002) as well as between work-family conflict and consequences including job exhaustion and depression (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Mäkikangas, 2003). Stoeva and colleagues (2002) found that trait negativity mediated the relationship between stress and work-family conflict. Trait negativity also moderated the relationship so that the relationship between stress and work-family conflict was stronger for individuals with high negativity than individuals with low negativity. In another study (Kinnunen et al., 2003), emotional stability of fathers moderated the relationship between work-to-family conflict and well-being (e.g., job exhaustion and depression) and agreeableness moderated the relationship between family-to-work conflict and marital satisfaction. The relationships were stronger for emotionally unstable fathers and less agreeable fathers than their counterparts respectively.

Social support has also been included in work-family conflict studies as an antecedent, a mediator, and a moderator. Citing this as a limitation, Carlson and Perrewé (1999) tested four different models (social support as a mediator, a moderator, an antecedent of work-family conflict, and as an antecedent of stress) and confirmed that the antecedent to the stress model fit the data the best. However, their findings are not robust because they used cross-sectional data.

Individualism versus collectivism is another example. The relationships between work-family demands (antecedents) and work-to-family conflict found to be stronger in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures (Lu et al., 2010). Collectivism also moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and depression in the same pattern (Fackrell, Galovan, Hill, & Holmes, 2013).

In most studies, individual characteristics such as gender, parental status, and marital status have been used as control variables. However, some meta-analysis studies included these as moderators and some of their findings have practical implications (Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011). For example, Michel and colleagues (2011) found that married individuals and parents may benefit more from family-supportive organizations (e.g., coworker social support, work schedule flexibility, family-supportive policies) than their counterparts.