Rhythms of life: antecedent and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents

This study examined antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold taxonomy of work family balance in terms of the direction of influence (work family vs. Family work) and type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation). Respondents were full-time employed parents in India. Confirmatory factor analysis results provided evidence for the discriminant validity of M. R. Frones (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work family balance. Results of moderated regression analysis revealed that different processes underlie the conflict and facilitation components. Furthermore, gender had only a limited moderating influence on the relationships between the antecedents and the components of workfamily balance. Last, workfamily facilitation was related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The global trend of increased female labor force participation, coupled with the prevalence of dual-earner and single-parent families, has precipitated considerable research interest in how members of these emergent family forms manage their work and family responsibilities. In view of the different expectations that underpin role performance in the work and family domains, the extant research has overwhelmingly focused on the conflict that members of these family forms experience in simultaneously performing their work and family responsibilities. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined workfamily conflict as a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (p. 77). In addition to highlighting the bidirectional nature of workfamily conflict in terms of work interfering with family and family interfering with work (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991), researchers have examined the prevalence, antecedents, and outcomes of workfamily conflict (Barnett, 1998; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, & Crouter, 2000; Voydanoff, 2002; Zedeck, 1992). Although this stream of research has illuminated researchers understanding of the work family interface, there is recognition that it represents a partial depiction of the experiences of individuals who are involved in the daily negotiation of work and family demands. In particular, the conflict and stress inherent in managing work and family responsibilities have been shown to be counterbalanced by the social psychological benefits that stem from participating in the work and family domains (Barnett, 1998; Burke & McKeen, 1994; Thoits, 1983; Verbrugge, 1983). Consequently, researchers have drawn attention to the need to complement the focus on conflict by examining how work and family experiences enrich the lives of individuals through the conceptual lens of workfamily balance or integration (Barnett, 1998; Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz & Marks 2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992; Pittman, 1994). Barnett (1998) for example, noted that workfamily balance (fit) is the lived experience of combining work and family and the resulting multiple dimensions of compatibility and conflict. Operating within the workfamily balance perspective, Frone (2003) suggested that a comprehensive understanding of the work family interface should include both components of conflict and facilitation. He defined workfamily facilitation as the extent to which participation at work (home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills, and opportunities gained or developed at home (work) (p. 145).

He further suggested a fourfold taxonomy of workfamily balance along the primary dimensions of (a) direction of influence between work and family roles (work to family vs. family to work) and (b) the type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation). Although Frones (2003) fourfold taxonomy of workfamily balance provides a potential conceptual lens through which to examine work and family not only as mutually constraining but also as mutually reinforcing, a paucity of research has examined his fourfold taxonomy (Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Given the emphasis on a balanced life, perhaps as a result of the career success personal failure syndrome (Evans & Bartolome, 1980; Kofodimos, 1993), it is important to understand how work and family roles can be integrated. A balanced life conceives of work and family as mutually reinforcing with family experiences as part of what workers bring to enrich their contributions to work and organizations (Gallos, 1989), and vice versa. Against this background, Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) urged researchers to go beyond the study of workfamily conflict to identify the mechanisms that integrate work and family lives. Accordingly, in this study, we examined the antecedents and outcomes of the facilitation and conflict components of Frones taxonomy of workfamily balance in employed parents in India. This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, in view of the growing number of organizations that have implemented familyresponsive human resource policies and practices (Glass & Estes, 1997; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000), a more complete understanding of workfamily balance should provide organizations with the knowledge base to design more effective policies to promote the workfamily balance of the growing number of employees who have family responsibilities. Second, by drawing on a sample of employed parents in India, this study highlights the influence of sociocultural variables on the operation of the work family interface and addresses the glaring underrepresentation of samples from developing economies in the research literature on work and family. Last, this study provides evidence for the construct validity of Frones (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work family balance. Although the two primary dimensions of his fourfold taxonomy (direction of influence between work and family and type of effect) are conceptually plausible, a dearth of research has examined the validity of the taxonomy (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004). Given the importance of construct validation in organizational research (Hinkin, 1995; Schwab, 1980), validation evidence for Frones fourfold taxonomy will provide confidence in conclusions drawn from research that examines a more comprehensive model of the workfamily interface. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Role theory has provided the theoretical framework for research on the workfamily interface. Through role enactment, roles provide not only form and structure to social relationships among individuals but also the means to achieve important internalized life goals (Aneshensel & Pearlin, 1987). Two competing perspectives, scarcity and expansion enhancement, have been used to examine the process of participation in multiple roles. The scarcity perspective draws on research on resource drain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) and conflict theory (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). The assumption is that individuals have a fixed amount of psychological and physiological resources to expend on their role obligations, and

involvement in multiple roles will exhaust these resources and ultimately impair ones functioning. With a fixed amount of resources to meet the expectations of multiple roles, individuals make trade-offs to reduce role strain. Underlying much of the research on the conflict dimension of workfamily balance (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) is the notion that work and family domains have distinct norms and requirements such that satisfaction or success in one domain entails sacrifices in the other (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). In contrast, the expansionenhancement perspective focuses on the net positive gains to be obtained from involvement in multiple roles (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974). In essence, this perspective posits that instead of depleting an individuals psychological and physiological resources, involvement in multiple roles provides a number of benefits that may outweigh the costs, leading to net gratification rather than strain. In a study of the benefits of multiple roles for managerial women, Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, and King (2002) reported that managerial women found juggling multiple personal responsibilities to promote efficiency, focus, and organization at work. This suggests that resources, learning opportunities, and support gained in the work (family) domain can be used to enhance ones psychological functioning in the family (work) domain. Although the expansionenhancement perspective focuses on the benefits of involvement in multiple roles and their transfer from one role to another, it acknowledges the potential for role overload and role conflict that stems from multiple roles. Therefore, the expansionenhancement hypothesis represents a response to the overemphasis on the dysfunctions of negative consequences. Because conflict and enhancement are inherent in involvement in multiple roles, a better understanding of the workfamily interface requires an integration of both the scarcity and the expansion enhancement perspectives (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Rothbard, 2001). The Indian Context The transition of gender inequality and gender roles away from traditional to modern gender role expectations has been observed to constitute cultural universals that affect the workfamily interface (Watanabe, Takahashi, & Minami, 1997). The growing number of educated women in India who participate in the urban, organized, industrial sector in technical, professional, and managerial positions has been accompanied by a steady growth in dual-earner families (Komarraju, 1997; Sekaran, 1992). Gender role expectations and gender-based socialization have led men to identify themselves in terms of the work role, whereas women have identified themselves with the family role. The participation of women in paid employment has therefore been hailed as a harbinger of changes in gender relations within the family, reflected in the term new families. As a concept, new families describes family systems defined by three characteristics: (a) egalitarian norms of family relationships, (b) equitable distribution of domestic labor, and (c) shared decision-making patterns and gender-free perceptions. In her review of the evidence for the emergence of new families in terms of gender roles, domestic division of labor, and decision making, Bharat (2003) noted that working women and their spouses continue to regard breadwinning as essentially a mans job and home management as a womans job (Bharat, 1995; Ramu, 1989). Hence, Indian women continue to bear the burden of household responsibility regardless of their employment status (Bharat, 1992; Ramu, 1989). Despite evidence that men in dual-earner families have

assumed household responsibilities for less taxing and masculine responsibilities, such as repairs and keeping monthly accounts (Bharat, 1992), Bharat (2003) concluded that the emergence of new families in India is a distant reality. Specifically, she noted that While social, legal, and economic reforms have helped women in a small measure to join the work force, the continuing influence of normative attitudes and values have prevented them from altering societys and their own perceptions of sex roles and demand an equal distribution of domestic responsibilities. (Bharat, 2003, pp. 168169) Although emergence of new families may be a distant reality, the direction of the changes suggests that family relations in India are characterized by a coexistence of traditional and modern gender role expectations. Consequently, compared to the West, there will be similarities and differences in mens and womens experiences of the workfamily interface. Thus, the hypothesized relationships we examined in this study are informed by the modern and traditional gender role expectations that underpin the operation of the workfamily interface in India. Antecedents of WorkFamily Balance We examined three sets of antecedents of workfamily balance in this study (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999): (a) personality, (b) role environment comprising role experiences, and (c) role involvement In this section, we discuss our hypotheses relating role experiences and role involvement to the components of workfamily balance that reflect modern gender role expectations as encapsulated in egalitarian marriages. Personality Personality characteristics have been noted to not only influence how individuals interpret and react to a situation but also to proactively shape the environment (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Watanabe et al., 1997). The three personality characteristics we examine here are (a) proactive personality, (b) neuroticism, and (c) optimism. Bateman and Crant (1993) asserted that a prototypical proactive personality is an individual who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces and who effects environmental changes. Proactive individuals tend to identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, and persevere until meaningful change occurs. In contrast, less proactive individuals are passive and reactive, preferring to adapt to circumstances rather than to change them. In the context of workfamily balance, individuals with proactive personalities will take steps to elicit support and/or engage in role restructuring or negotiation to minimize work family conflict and promote workfamily facilitation. We therefore expected that proactive personality would be negatively related to workfamily conflict and positively related to work family facilitation. Neuroticism, one of the Big Five personality dimensions, has been noted to constitute the negative pole of self-esteem (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) and represents the core trait of negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984). Costa and McCrae (1988) described neurotic individuals as being prone to anxiety and as possessing a tendency to be fearful of novel situations and susceptible to feelings of dependence and helplessness. Empirical research has linked neuroticism (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004) and negative affectivity (Carlson, 1999) to workfamily and familywork conflict and to workfamily

facilitation (Wayne et al., 2004). Neuroticism operates as a negative cognitive lens through which life experiences are interpreted. The negative cognitive style of neurotic individuals inhibits efforts to elicit social support to cope with stress or initiate actions that will facilitate the integration of work and family roles. Accordingly, we expected that neuroticism would be positively related to work family conflict and negatively related to workfamily facilitation. The final personality characteristic we examined is optimism. Zellars and Perrewe (2001) found extraversion to be related to emotional support. On this basis, and given the natural tendency of extraverted individuals to remain optimistic, they urged Researchers to focus on optimism. As a disposition, optimism rests on the expectation that one will have positive outcomes in life even if one is at present facing adversity (Carver & Scheier, 1999). Optimism has been shown to be related to problem-solving coping in that stressful situations are perceived to be controllable, and positive reframing in that such situations are perceived to be uncontrollable (Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). Central to dispositional optimism is confidence, a generalized positive expectation about outcomes that propels optimists into action and helps them remain engaged in effort (Carver & Scheier, 1999). Consequently, we expected that optimists would elicit social support and adopt appropriate coping strategies to deal with stressful experiences. On the basis of a meta-analysis of studies that used the Life Orientation Test (a measure of optimism), Anderson (1996) found optimism to be positively related to coping and negatively related to negative affect. Optimistic individuals experience more positive emotions, repair mood more effectively, and are more adept at regulating emotions and stress. For example, an individual who agrees with the statement I always look on the bright side of things may be more attuned to positive elements of conflicting and ambiguous situations and may be better able to maintain balance or manage conflict in such situations. Furthermore, a high level of confidence has been noted to promote a high level of psychological well-being, which in turn buffers one against lifes stresses and strains (Baruch, Barnett, & Rivers, 1983). We therefore expected that optimism would be negatively related to work family conflict and positively related to workfamily facilitation. Hypothesis 1a: A proactive personality will be positively related to facilitation and negatively related to the conflict component of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 1b: Neuroticism will be negatively related to facilitation and positively related to the conflict component of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 1c: Optimism will be positively related to facilitation and negatively related to the conflict component of workfamily balance. Role Environment The role-related antecedents of workfamily balance we examined are role overload, role involvement, and social support. Role overload describes a perception of having too many things to do and not enough time to do them (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975). Work overload has been found to be positively related to workfamily and family work conflict (Aryee, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996). Similarly, parental overload has been reported to be positively related to workfamily and familywork conflict (Frone et al., 1997). As a negative role experience (stressor), role overload leads to a psychological preoccupation with uncompleted tasks even while one is responding to the demands of other roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Furthermore, role overload may cause exhaustion or fatigue, which may

negatively influence ones motivation to respond to the demands of other domains. The influence of role overload on work family facilitation, however, has not been examined. As a negative role experience, role overload undermines an individuals ability to integrate his or her work and family roles. This is because the fatigue and role-related dissatisfaction that role overload precipitates will spill over from work (family) to family (work), there by preventing an individual from enjoying his or her participation in that role. We therefore expected that role overload would be positively related to workfamily conflict and negatively related to workfamily facilitation. Hypothesis 2a: Work overload will be positively related to the conflict component, and negatively related to the facilitation component, of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 2b: Parental role overload will be positively related to the conflict component, and negatively related to the facilitation component, of workfamily balance. Role involvement describes ego or psychological involvement and entails a preoccupation with that domain, making one unavailable to perform the demands or responsibilities of the other domain. There is research evidence linking job involvement to workfamily conflict and family involvement to familywork conflict (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone et al., 1992). High involvement in a role may be related to work family conflict because it increases the focal persons awareness of and preoccupation with problems within that role, there by increasing the likelihood of perceiving that role as interfering with the demands of other roles. Although role involvement may lead to workfamily conflict, it can potentially enable individuals to integrate their work and family roles. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) argued that involvement in a role provides an opportunity to learn new skills that could be used in another role. Furthermore, individuals who are involved in a role (family) may be able to obtain support from members of that role set that will facilitate the integration of the focal role with that individuals other role (work). On the basis of the evidence that involvement in one role is accompanied by a reduced involvement in the less salient role, Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) suggested that linkages between work and family involvement offer stronger support for a conflict perspective than for an integration perspective. Although role involvement is generally conceptualized as ego or psychological involvement, it can denote an intrinsically motivated interest in role activities, leading to absorption in a role (Rothbard, 2001). Role involvement will therefore motivate individuals to acquire the necessary resources, such as skills and support, that will enhance not only work role performance but also family role performance. Accordingly, we expected that role involvement would be positively related to the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 3a: Work involvement will be positively related to the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 3b: Family involvement will be positively related to the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance. Social support describes an interpersonal transaction that involves emotional concern, instrumental aid, information, or appraisal (House, 1981), and is generally conceived of as a coping mechanism in the stress literature (Gore, 1987). In the work context, social support may be obtained from supervisors or coworkers. Work support has been reported to be negatively related to workfamily conflict (Frone et al., 1997; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Similarly, family support (e.g., from a spouse) has been reported to be negatively related to familywork conflict (Adams et al., 1996; Frone et al., 1997; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Social

support attenuates the deleterious consequences of stress and therefore constitutes an important resource in stress prevention (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support may also enhance the integration of work and family roles. A supportive work environment may enhance flexibility, information, and direct help that will facilitate the integration of work and family roles (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Likewise, support obtained from the family, such as encouragement, information, and advice, can be used to enhance ones functioning in the work role. Indeed, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported that social support was related to work family facilitation. Accordingly, we expected that social support would be negatively related to workfamily conflict and positively related to workfamily facilitation. Hypothesis 4a: Work social support will be negatively related to the conflict component, and positively related to the facilitation component, of workfamily balance. Hypothesis 4b: Family social support will be negatively related to the conflict component, and positively related to the facilitation component, of workfamily balance. Outcomes of WorkFamily Balance Research on the workfamily interface has been precipitated by the negative consequences of workfamily conflict on individual and organizational outcomes (T. D. Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). A second objective of the present study was to examine the influence of workfamily balance on job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. We focused on the affective rather than the continuance and normative forms of organizational commitment because of research evidence linking affective commitment to job performance (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffine, & Jackson, 1989). Although the conflict dimensions of workfamily balance have been reported to be negatively related to job satisfaction, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) found workfamily conflict to be more strongly related to job satisfaction than to familywork conflict. We, however, expected both conflict dimensions to be negatively related to job satisfaction. This is because interference between work and family roles will undermine ones performance in the work domain, which will have implications for ones receipt of job rewards and, ultimately, job satisfaction. Likewise, the conflict dimensions have been reported to be negatively related to affective organizational commitment (T. D. Allen et al., 2000). Individuals who experience difficulties integrating their work and family roles will perceive their organizations as unsupportive and will therefore not feel obligated to reciprocate with commitment (Blau, 1964; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). We therefore expected that work family and familywork conflict would be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In contrast to the conflict dimensions of workfamily balance, we expected the facilitation dimensions to be positively related to the outcomes examined. Tompson and Werner (1997) reported workfamily facilitation to be related to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Although the influence of familywork facilitation on the work outcomes has not been previously examined, the ability to integrate family and work roles should positively enhance ones emotional response to the work role, leading to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment (Orthner & Pittman, 1986). Hypothesis 5a: The conflict component of workfamily balance will be negatively related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Hypothesis 5b: The facilitation component of workfamily balance will be positively related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.

Gender Differences Much of the extant literature has highlighted the asymmetrical permeability of work and family boundaries for men and women; that is, the family-to-work spillover is stronger for women, and the work-to-family spillover is stronger for men (Pleck, 1977). This has resulted in gender differences in experiences of the work family interface (Crouter, 1984; Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Rothbard, 2001). Underpinned by traditional gender role expectations, this section presents hypotheses on the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between role experiences and role involvement and the components of workfamily balance. The primacy of the work role for men, and mens dominance in managerial and professional positions, suggests that men will assume more work-related responsibility and experience more work overload than women. In view of the influence of a patriarchal value structure of the family on womens career aspirations and motivations for work, Desai (1996) noted that Indian women tend to impose restrictions on their career aspirations or personal achievements for family reasons. Specifically, she argued that: keeping a low profile in ones career enables these women to be in both the worlds of work and family. They are working, in a sense, to use their education or training and to bring their salary home for the family; that is, to look after the needs of the family and thus continue to perform their traditional role. (Desai, 1996, p. 101) The expectation that women give priority to the family suggests that they will experience higher levels of parental role overload than men. Rout, Lewis, and Kagan (1999) observed that women in India experience considerable pressure in the morning to do all that is necessary for the family before going out to work and after work. Furthermore, Komarraju (1997) noted that the relative absence of an infrastructure that provides a reliable supply of electricity, water, and time-saving, modern-day kitchen and other household appliances (p. 111) renders the performance of domestic responsibilities a burden, particularly for women in dual-earner families. The preceding discussion suggests that role overload will influence men and womens experience of the workfamily interface differently. Hypothesis 6a: Gender will moderate the influence of work overload on the conflict and facilitation components of work family balance such that the relationship will be stronger for men than for women. Hypothesis 6b: Gender will moderate the influence of parental role overload on the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance such that the relationship will be stronger for women than for men. The internalization of gender role ideology prescribes different life options for men and for women. For men, this life option implies a prioritization of work over family, whereas for women it implies a prioritization of family over work. In the context of India, Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar (2000) reported that men are more committed to the work or occupational role than women are. This has implications for the way men and women allocate time and energy resources to work and family roles. Given that men identify with the work role more than the family role, they will be motivated to invest more time and resources to enhance their performance in the work role. Although investment in the work role will lead to conflict with the family role, it will also lead to facilitation of the work and family roles. Similarly, in the West, Rothbard (2001) reported that men but not women experienced enrichment from work to family

roles. She attributed it to mens high identification with work, which increases their selfesteem and provides them with other material benefits so they can invest more time in the family role. Women, on the other hand, are expected to identify with the family and therefore invest more time and energy resources to enhance performance in that role. Although involvement in the family role may conflict with the work role, it may generate benefits, such as self-esteem and enriching experiences, that may benefit womens performance in the work role, leading to familywork facilitation (Ruderman et al., 2002). Hypothesis 7a: Gender will moderate the relationship between work role involvement and the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance such that the relationship will be stronger for men than for women. Hypothesis 7b: Gender will moderate the relationship between family role involvement and the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance such that the relationship will be stronger for women than for men. Etzion (1984) posited that social support from work buffers stress experienced by men, whereas social support from the family buffers womens experience of stress. She attributed the genderbased differences to the culturally prescribed roles for men and women. Support from the culturally prescribed role or domain helps reduce the threat to ones self-identity. The male-oriented culture that characterizes organizations in India, coupled with inflexible work hours and the absence of child care facilities, constitutes impediments rather than sources of support for employed mothers (Bharat, 2001). In addition to fitting into the maleoriented culture, mens inclusion in workplace networks enables them to obtain the social support necessary to maintain their identity as employees and breadwinners. Work social support will enhance mens but not womens workfamily balance. Although social support from the family has traditionally underpinned mens participation in the workforce, it is more critical for women. Rosenbaum and Cohen (1999) found that spousal support was extremely important for women in societies where there is low gender egalitarianism, such as India. Although Indian husbands are supportive of their wives participation in the workforce, they have yet to assume responsibility for sharing domestic chores (Ramu, 1989). Instrumental support for most employed mothers in India come in the form of hired domestic helpers or female members of the extended family. Although hired domestic helpers in urban areas of India have been noted to be expensive and unreliable (Sekaran, 1992), they still constitute a major source of support for the growing number of nuclear families who live far from relatives. Given the primacy of the family domain for women, family support will be more critical to their experience of workfamily balance than men. Hypothesis 8a: Gender will moderate the relationship between work support and the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance such that the relationship will be stronger for men than for women. Hypothesis 8b: Gender will moderate the relationship between family support and the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance such that the relationship will be stronger for women than for men. Method Sample and Procedure

Data were obtained from parents working full time in eight organizations located in five major cities in India. The participating organizations were in the financial services, manufacturing, and telecommunications industries. The human resource department in each participating organization provided us with a list of employees who were married with a child or had children living at home, and survey packages were sent to randomly selected individuals on the list with the assistance of the human resource department. It is worth noting that because our focus was on within individual rather than cross-over effects of work and family experiences among dual-earner couples, we did not explore the possibility that a dual-earner couple working for the same organization might have participated in the study. Attached to each questionnaire was a cover letter that explained the objective of the survey, assured respondents of the confidentiality of their responses, and informed them of the voluntary nature of participation in the survey. Respondents were informed that the surveys objective was to examine working parents experience of combining work and family roles and how it influences their well-being. Two weeks after the distribution of the questionnaires, a reminder was sent to respondents. Completed questionnaires were returned to a designated box in the human resource department. The survey instrument was in English because it is an official language and widely used in the Indian economy. However, because the scales were primarily developed in North America, the survey instrument was pilot tested with a sample of teachers. On the basis of feedback obtained from the pilot test, we reworded a few of the scale items to ensure clarity. Of the 450 questionnaires distributed, 267 completed and usable questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 59%. The sample was 57.6% female, with an average age of 36.5 years and an average organizational tenure of 5.7 years. With respect to marital status, 99.6% were married, and 86% reported having a working spouse (dual-earner status). In terms of educational attainment, 52% of respondents had obtained a bachelors degree, 20% had earned a postgraduate degree, 15% had a polytechnic or technical college diploma, and the rest had completed high school. Of those who indicated their occupational status, 38% were in professional/managerial positions; 46% were in administrative positions; and 15% were in skilled trades, such as technicians. The average number of children was 1.41 (range: 14). Measures Workfamily balance. We used a 16-item scale developed by Grzywacz and Marks (2000) to measure workfamily balance. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). Respondents indicated the frequency with which they had experienced each of the items, such as: Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home, Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job, The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home, and Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next days work. Proactive personality. We used an abbreviated eight-item version of Bateman and Crants (1993) scale to measure proactive personality. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I am constantly

on the look out for new ways to improve my life and If I see something I do not like, I fix it. Neuroticism. We used the 12-item scale component of the NEO FiveFactor Inventory (Form S; Costa & McCrae, 1991) to measure neuroticism. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I often feel inferior to others; I often get angry at the way people treat me; and Too often when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.1 Optimism. We used the eight-item Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985) to measure optimism. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I always look on the bright side of things, Things never work out the way I want them (reverse scored), and I feel good about my future. Parental overload. We used a five-item scale, one item of which was developed by Frone et al. (1997) and the others by Aryee et al. (1999), to measure parental overload. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Sample items are How often do you feel you have too much work to do as a parent? and How often do you feel that your child(ren) is(are) making too many demands on you? Family involvement. We used a four-item scale modeled after Lodahl and Kejners (1965) job involvement scale to measure family involvement. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are The most important things that happen to me involve my family and The major satisfactions in my life come from my family. Family support. We used a nine-item adaptation of a scale created by Etzion (1984) to measure family support. Following Carlson and Perrewe (1999), the last three items correspond to the quality of the relationships respondents have with spouses, family, and friends. For the other items, respondents indicated the amount (ranging from 1 [very little] to 5 [very much]) of support they receive from their family in terms of feedback, appreciation, emotional support, and recognition. Work overload. We used a five-item scale, of which two items were from Beehr, Walsh, and Taber (1976) and the remaining three from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979), to measure work overload Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I never seem to have enough time to get everything done in my job and I have too much work to do in my job to do everything well. Job involvement. We used Lodahl and Kejners (1965) four-item scale to measure job involvement. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are The most important things that happen to me involve my work and The major satisfactions in my life come from my work. Work support. We used a nine-item version of Etzions (1984) scale to measure work social support. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of several support

features is present in their work, such as appreciation, recognition, feedback, and the opportunity to take it easy at work when *you+ need to. Response options ranged from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much). Job satisfaction. We used a five-item abbreviated version of a scale developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) to measure job satisfaction. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are Most days, I am enthusiastic about my job and I am seldom bored with my job. Organizational commitment. We used a six-item revised version of an affective commitment scale (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) originally developed by N. J. Allen and Meyer (1990) to measure organizational commitment. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own and This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Controls. We measured with separate single items the control variables of gender, age, spouses employment status, and number of children under 12 years of age. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Age was measured with one item that asked respondents to write in their age at their last birthday. A single item that asked respondents to indicate whether their spouse has normally worked was used to measure spouse employment status. Responses were coded 0 for no and 1 for yes. We measured spouse employment status this way rather than asking whether the respondents spouse was currently working because it reflects a recognition and acceptance of participation in paid employment and the concomitant modern gender role expectations that are supposed to characterize dual-earner families. Last, in response to the question How many of your children are aged 12 years or below? respondents wrote in the number of their children in this age bracket. Although having a preschool-aged child is different from having a schoolaged child, there is a lack of agreement about the point at which the age of a child increases parental role demands. We focused on preteen children because parental role demands are generally highest at this stage of the family life cycle (cf. Parasuraman et al., 1996). Data Analysis We analyzed the data in stages. In the first stage, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the factor structure of the work family balance items. We compared the fit of four plausible alternative models. Specifically, we compared the fit of a hypothesized four-factor model to a one-factor model (all items loaded on a single latent construct), twofactor Model 1 (facilitation and conflict are different but workfamily and familywork items loaded on the same latent construct) and two-factor Model 2 (workfamily and familywork are distinct but facilitation and conflict items loaded on the same latent construct). In addition to chisquare difference tests, we assessed model fit with commonly used indicators of fit: the comparative fit index, the nonnormed fit index, and the root-mean-square error of approximation. In general, fit indices of .90 and above (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and rootmean-square error of approximatio of .08 or below (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), are considered indicators of good fit. In the second stage, we performed t tests to examine significant gender differences. In the third stage, we used moderated regression analysis to examine the hypothesized relationships. Each of the components of work family balance was regressed onto the

control variables and the hypothesized antecedents. The control variables were first entered into the regression equation and, following an assumed order of causal priority, we then entered gender, personality, work, and family variables (Parasuraman et al., 1996) and, last, the interaction terms of gender and the hypothesized antecedents. Following Aiken and West (1991), we centered the variables used in the interaction terms. In the last stage of analysis, we used a similar order of variable entry to examine the hypothesized influence of the workfamily balance components on the work outcomes. Specifically, the four components of work family balance were entered as a block controlling for the demographics (including gender), personality, work, and family domain variables. We used regression analysis to examine the hypothesized influence of the components of the workfamily balance on the work outcomes, because we did not have a compelling rationale to expect gender differences in these relationships. Discussion In this study, which is underpinned by the scarcity and expansionenhancement perspectives, we examined antecedents and outcomes of Frones (2003) fourfold taxonomy of work family balance in employed parents in India. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the discriminant validity of the taxonomy. Specifically, work family balance may be conceptualized in terms of the direction of the influence between work and family roles (work to family vs. family to work) and the type of effect (conflict vs. facilitation), as Frone hypothesized. Previous research that has examined the factor structure of the fourfold taxonomy of work family balance used exploratory factor analysis (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004). The use of confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the taxonomy provided an opportunity to compare our hypothesized four-factor model to theoretically plausible alternative models, thereby yielding a more conclusive evidence for the fourfold taxonomy of workfamily balance. Given that the previous research that examined the factor structure of Frones fourfold taxonomy was based on Western specifically, U.S.samples, the findings of this study demonstrate the generalizability of Frones taxonomy of workfamily balance to India. WorkFamily and FamilyWork Facilitation Although we examined conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance, our emphasis is on facilitation because of the relative absence of research on this component of workfamily balance. We found job involvement to be positively related, and family involvement to be negatively related, to workfamily facilitation. It appears that job involvement constitutes a source of intrinsic motivation that leads individuals to invest time and effort in their job. Similarly, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported decision latitude, a source of intrinsic motivation, to be related to workfamily facilitation. The increased investment in the job that involvement engenders leads to enhanced work role performance and positive moods. This positive mood then spills over into the family domain, enhancing performance in that domain and there by fostering work family facilitation (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). The negative influence of family involvement on work family facilitation, a cross role effect, suggests that in a collectivistic society like India, where the family role takes precedence over the work role, family involvement may lead individuals to limit involvement in the work role, resulting in work family facilitation.

In this sense, accommodation (Lambert, 1990) serves as a strategy for ensuring workfamily facilitation in India. Consistent with findings in the Western literature (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), we found that family support was significantly related to familywork facilitation. A global measure of family support, as used in this study, may encompass instrumental (e.g., direct assistance and advice) and emotional (empathic understanding, listening, and sensitivity) sources of support. Instrumental support in India takes the form not only of household help but also of child care assistance by elderly relatives (Rajadhyaksha & Bhatnagar, 2000). Supportive family experiences may allow individuals to work longer hours and avail themselves of developmental opportunities (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999), leading to familywork facilitation. Contrary to Grzywacz and Markss findings (2000), work support was not related to workfamily facilitation in our study. Perhaps in a high power distance society like India, a global measure of work support does not adequately reflect the relationship employees have with their coworkers and supervisors that may differentially influence workfamily facilitation. Future research may need to examine specific sources of support, such as supervisor and coworker. The moderated regression found gender differences to be present for antecedents of familywork facilitation only. Specifically, gender moderated the influence of optimism and job involvement on familywork facilitation such that the relationships were stronger for men than for women. In view of the centrality of confidence to dispositional optimism, men may have positive expectations and may cope better in conflict situations, leading to facilitation. That this was observed for familywork facilitation rather than work family facilitation may be indicative of the greater discretion that men enjoy in the family domain relative to women in India (Bharat, 2003; Ramu, 1989). The influence of job involvement on familywork facilitation for men rather than women is again explicable in terms of traditional gender role expectations. Intrinsically motivated interest in work activities may enhance the work role performance of men. The rewards consequent to work role performance may enable men to ensure the financial security of their families. Given that Indian men (much like men elsewhere) tend to define themselves in terms of the breadwinner role (Bharat, 1995), the ability to satisfactorily perform this role will lead to familywork facilitation. We found only weak support for the impact of personality variables on the facilitation component of workfamily balance. Although previous findings in the Western literature (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004) have revealed that personality variables are related to the facilitation component of workfamily balance, with the exception of Neuroticism, the personality variables examined in the present study had not been previously examined. Wayne et al. (2004) reported a rather weak relationship between Neuroticism and workfamily facilitation but a strong relationship between three of the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and family work facilitation and between Agreeableness and workfamily facilitation. Similarly, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported Neuroticism to be unrelated but Extraversion to be related to both types of workfamily facilitation. It may be that the Big Five offers a conceptually rich perspective for examining the influence of personality on the facilitation component of workfamily balance. Taken together, the findings of this study and those reported in the extant Western literature (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Wayne et al., 2004) underline the utility of examining personality, role involvement, and role experiences as antecedents of the facilitation component of workfamily balance across cultures. Furthermore, our findings suggest that

familywork facilitation may be susceptible to traditional gender role expectations, whereas workfamily facilitation is susceptible to modern gender role expectations or egalitarian norms and values. The susceptibility of familywork facilitation to traditional gender role expectations in this study has been attributed to the sociocultural reality of Indian society which is hierarchically arranged and in the complex network of family bonds and obligations in which womens position is governed by a set of traditional values and patriarchal norms (Bharat, 2003, p.168). If successfully replicated, this latter finding (i.e., susceptibility of workfamily facilitation to egalitarian norms) will debunk the view that organizational family-friendly initiatives constitute benefits for employed mothers. Accordingly, the implementation of these initiatives will need to be pursued in tandem with the promotion of a family-supportive culture to enhance the utilization of these initiatives by employed parents in general (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). WorkFamily and FamilyWork Conflict The results pertaining to workfamily and familywork conflict corroborated evidence relating work overload and neuroticism to the conflict component of workfamily balance (Aryee et al., 1999; Carlson, 1999; Wayne et al., 2004) and revealed job involvement to be negatively related to familywork conflict. The positive influence of neuroticism on the conflict component of workfamily balance led Wayne et al. (2004) to assert that the conflict component is primarily related to negative stimuli. The negative influence of job involvement on familywork conflict is consistent with the view that in collectivistic societies such as India job involvement is considered instrumental to the performance of the family role: that of ensuring the material well-being of the family. As earlier noted, this is more the case for men than for women. The nonsignificance of the relationship between the antecedents of parental role overload, work and family support, and the conflict component of workfamily balance is inconsistent with findings in the extant literature (Aryee et al., 1999; Frone et al., 1997). Future research may need to examine how contextual factors act on these variables to shape their influence on the conflict component of workfamily balance. Outcomes Our findings that workfamily facilitation was positively related to job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment echoes Tompson and Werners (1997) study, which was based on a U.S. sample. However, their conceptualization of workfamily facilitation was not informed by Frones (2003) fourfold taxonomy of workfamily balance, and they did not control for the other components of workfamily balance. Control over work and family roles may enhance performance, leading to self-esteem and the receipt of valued material rewards and, ultimately, job satisfaction. The influence of workfamily facilitation on organizational commitment is explicable in terms of social exchange (Blau, 1964). It describes reciprocal acts between two interacting individuals. A social exchange mechanism in an organizational context is perceived organizational support. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) defined POS as employee beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (p. 501). If employees attribute integration of their work and family roles to a demonstration of the organizations care and concern for their well-being (POS), then they will feel an obligation to reciprocate with commitment to

the organization (Aryee, Tan, & Debrah, 2003; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). POS and its underlying principle of reciprocity have been noted to influence work outcomes across cultures (Aryee et al., 2003; Yoon & Thye, 2002). In view of the demonstrated negative consequences of work family conflict on work outcomes (T. D. Allen et al., 2000), organizational family-friendly initiatives have focused on reducing workfamily conflict. However, if our finding that workfamily facilitation rather than workfamily conflict is related to work outcomes is replicated, particularly in a Western context, it would have implications for organizational efforts to assist employed parents balance their work and family roles. In essence, these family-friendly initiatives may need to focus not only on reducing workfamily conflict but also on increasing workfamily balance by enhancing workfamily facilitation. Together with Grzywacz and Markss (2000) finding that decision latitude was related to workfamily facilitation, our finding that job involvement was related to workfamily facilitation suggests that organizational familyfriendly initiatives should be combined with intrinsically motivating jobs as a way of enhancing workfamily facilitation. Limitations and Future Research Although we examined a comprehensive model of workfamily balance, this study has a number of limitations that should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings. First, the cross-sectional data constrain inferences about causality. A longitudinal study design has traditionally been suggested for demonstrating causality. However, it has been noted that such data are useful only when one knows a priori the optimal time lag for a given relationship. Otherwise, longitudinal data can lead to more biased estimates than those obtained from cross-sectional data (Frone et al., 1992; Gollub & Reichardt, 1987; Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). Second, the use of self-report data has implications for method variance and consistency bias. However, alternative methods of data collection, such as an interview, in an area as sensitive as the workfamily interface are likely to be problematic (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991). A final limitation is the implicit assumption that the predictors of workfamily conflict and workfamily facilitation are similar (Frone, 2003, p. 152). Unlike Grzywacz and Marks (2000), we examined parallel work and family predictors. This notwithstanding, our findings suggest that different processes may underlie the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance. Following Frone (2003), future research should develop integrative models of workfamily facilitation that do not simply substitute workfamily conflict with workfamily facilitation. In addition, given the demonstrated consequences of the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance, future research should examine job characteristics and organizational and individual initiatives that enhance control over the work and family roles leading to facilitation. Research should also examine the individualand organizational-relevant outcomes of facilitation. These limitations notwithstanding, the present study adds to the sparse research that has examined the conflict and facilitation components of workfamily balance (Kirchmeyer, 1992; Rothbard, 2001; Wayne et al., 2004). Our findings, which are based in a non-Western context, attest to the generalizability of the multidimensionality of the workfamily balance construct. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate the utility of examining personality and parallel work and family variables as antecedents of workfamily balance and should constitute a basis for

developing integrative models of the construct (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Last, the coexistence of traditional and modern gender role expectations in a transitional society like India suggests similarities and differences in the processes leading to Work family balance for men and women. We join Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) in urging researchers to supplement our study of workfamily conflict with an equally vigorous effort to understand workfamily integration: such an approach will provide a more balanced view of the linkages between the worlds of work and family for both women and men. (p. 412) Increased globalization, coupled with the recognition that balancing work and family is a challenge for employed parents in almost all modern societies, suggests that this program of research should be conducted in different cultural contexts. This is necessary if researchers are to understand the culture-specific and universal influences on the operation of the workfamily interface and there by develop the knowledge base to assist multinational companies to design effective family-friendly initiatives that enhance, across cultures, employed parents workfamily balance and, ultimately, the work outcomes that it engenders.