Chapter 12 Defining Work and Family PDF

Chapter 12 Defining Work and Family In the work–family literature, "work" is traditionally defined as paid employment, including self-employment and entrepreneurial activities. "Family" typically refers to living with a partner and/or children, though it can also extend to caregiving for aging paren...

Chapter 12 Defining Work and Family In the work–family literature, "work" is traditionally defined as paid employment, including self-employment and entrepreneurial activities. "Family" typically refers to living with a partner and/or children, though it can also extend to caregiving for aging parents or close friends. However, because the term "family" excludes individuals without traditional family structures, broader terms such as "non-work," "home," and "private life" are increasingly used. As societal definitions of "family" evolve, these terms are expected to gain prominence. Despite these nuances, most theoretical models and concepts in the literature continue to use the term "family." Framework of Work–Family Interaction Work–family interaction is described using three primary aspects: 1. Degree The degree of interaction refers to the extent of segmentation versus integration between work and family domains. o Segmentation: Work and family domains are kept distinct through physical, temporal, functional, and psychological boundaries. For example, commuting from home to work and avoiding work tasks at home represent segmentation. o Integration: Work and family domains are blended in terms of time, location, behaviors, and emotions. For instance, remote work or home-based work tasks exemplify integration. 2. Direction Work–family interaction is bi-directional: o Work-to-family direction: The impact of work on family life. o Family-to-work direction: The influence of family on working life. 3. Valence The valence refers to whether the interaction between work and family is negative or positive. Combining direction and valence produces four types of interactions: o Negative work-to-family interaction o Negative family-to-work interaction o Positive work-to-family interaction o Positive family-to-work interaction Negative Work–Family Interaction Negative work–family interaction is rooted in role stress theory and the scarcity approach to multiple roles: Role stress theory: Conflicting expectations and pressures from multiple roles can cause psychological conflict and role overload.  Scarcity approach: Finite individual resources like time and energy lead to strain when demands exceed availability. This interaction is often conceptualized as work–family conflict (WFC), defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from work and family are mutually incompatible” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). WFC occurs through three mechanisms: Time-based WFC: Conflicting schedules make fulfilling both roles challenging. Strain-based WFC: Stress and fatigue from one domain hinder performance in the other. Behavior-based WFC: Differing behavioral expectations in work (e.g., formality) and family (e.g., tenderness) create difficulties in adjusting behavior across domains. Positive Work–Family Interaction Positive work–family interaction is derived from the role accumulation theory and expansion approach, which assert that having multiple roles is beneficial. Barnett and Hyde (2001) further developed this into the expansionist theory of multiple roles, emphasizing four principles: 1. Benefits of Multiple Roles: Both men and women generally benefit from holding multiple roles, leading to better mental, physical, and relational health. 2. Mechanisms of Benefit: Stress in one role can be offset by success in another, and dual incomes can reduce financial strain. 3. Role Quality and Quantity: The number and quality of roles influence health. Five roles, when satisfying and manageable, may be optimal. 4. Gendered Nature of Roles: Despite the potential for equitable role distribution, work–family issues remain gendered. Women report worse career prospects, more emotional demands, and earn less than men, on average (Eurofound, 2022). The most commonly used concept to describe positive interactions is work–family enrichment, defined as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Related terms include positive spillover, enhancement, and facilitation, all emphasizing bi-directional benefits. Resources from one domain can enhance experiences in the other, such as transferring skills or emotional support between work and family. This chapter explores the theoretical models that help explain the dynamics between work and family roles. These models are broadly categorized into two types: antecedent– outcome models and spillover models. Both offer unique insights into how work and family domains interact, focusing on different aspects of this interaction. Antecedent–Outcome Models Antecedent–outcome models aim to identify the factors that contribute to either negative or positive work–family interactions and their resulting outcomes. These models focus on the antecedents (causes) and outcomes (effects) of perceived compatibility or incompatibility between work and family roles. A key framework for this approach is presented by Frone et al. (1997), and its principles are visualized in Figure 12.1. Four Dimensions of Work–Family Interaction The model identifies four key dimensions of work–family interaction: 1. Work-to-Family Conflict (WFC): When work demands interfere with family responsibilities. 2. Family-to-Work Conflict (FWC): When family demands interfere with work responsibilities. 3. Work-to-Family Enrichment (WFE): When experiences at work improve performance or satisfaction in family life. 4. Family-to-Work Enrichment (FWE): When family experiences enhance performance or satisfaction in work life. These dimensions often coexist within their respective categories: WFC and FWC frequently occur together, as both reflect conflict. WFE and FWE also tend to coexist, representing positive interaction or enrichment. Key Relationships Between Conflict and Enrichment There is a negative relationship between conflict and enrichment: Increased conflict (WFC or FWC) tends to reduce enrichment (WFE or FWE). Higher enrichment (WFE or FWE) is typically linked to less conflict (WFC or FWC). Role of Demands and Resources Work- and family-related demands (e.g., heavy workloads, long hours, or caregiving responsibilities) are likely to increase conflict (WFC and FWC) while reducing enrichment (WFE and FWE). Work- and family-related resources (e.g., social support, financial stability, or autonomy) tend to decrease conflict (WFC and FWC) and enhance enrichment (WFE and FWE). Mediating Role of Work–Family Interaction The four dimensions act as mediators, connecting work and family characteristics to their outcomes in terms of stress, health, and well-being. WFC and FWC negatively impact well-being within specific life domains (work or family) and overall life satisfaction.  WFE and FWE positively influence well-being in specific domains and overall life satisfaction. Domain-Specificity Principle The domain-specificity principle, also proposed by Frone et al. (1997), suggests that the primary antecedents of work–family interaction originate within the respective domains: Work characteristics primarily influence WFC and WFE, which then affect well- being in the family domain. Family characteristics primarily influence FWC and FWE, which in turn affect well- being in the work domain. This principle emphasizes the reciprocal influence of work and family domains on each other, highlighting how demands or resources in one domain can lead to changes in the other. Role of Individual Characteristics Individual characteristics, such as gender, socioeconomic status, personality traits, and coping strategies, play a dual role: 1. Antecedents: They directly influence the frequency and intensity of WFC, FWC, WFE, and FWE. o For instance, individuals high in neuroticism (a personality trait associated with anxiety, stress, and depression) are more prone to experiencing both WFC and FWC. 2. Moderators: They shape how work and family characteristics interact with the four dimensions of work–family interaction. o For example, individuals with effective coping strategies, such as strong time management skills, may experience less WFC and FWC, even when facing high work-related demands like time pressure or overload. This dual role of individual characteristics demonstrates that the experience of work–family interaction is not uniform but depends on personal traits and skills. Spillover Models In contrast to antecedent–outcome models, spillover models focus on the mechanisms that create similarities between work and family domains. These models describe how various elements—such as moods, values, skills, resources, and behaviors—transfer between domains. Mechanisms of Spillover Spillover occurs when experiences in one domain affect the other. This transfer can be either positive or negative: Positive Spillover: Skills or resources developed in one domain enhance performance or satisfaction in the other.  o For instance, good time management skills learned at work may lead to better time management at home. Negative Spillover: Stress or negative emotions from one domain carry over into the other. o For example, frustration with a spouse may lead to irritation with colleagues or clients at work. Core Distinction Between the Models The key difference between antecedent–outcome models and spillover models lies in their focus: Antecedent–outcome models emphasize the causes and effects of compatibility (or incompatibility) between work and family roles. Spillover models explore the processes through which experiences in one domain influence the other, creating continuity between work and family domains. Summary of Spillover Models Spillover models focus on how both negative and positive experiences transition from one life domain (work or family) to another without the mediating effects of work–family conflict (WFC) or enrichment. This transition results in a similarity of experiences across work and family domains. A defining characteristic of spillover is the positive correlation between a construct in the work domain and a related construct in the family domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). For example, a stressful day at work may lead to a worker coming home in a bad mood, which can create tense family interactions and a poor family climate. Thus, work-related stress directly correlates with family stress. Types of Spillover Initially, two forms of spillover were identified: 1. Direct Spillover: o Occurs when objective conditions in one life domain (e.g., low wages) directly affect outcomes in another domain (e.g., family poverty and strain). o Example: A low wage directly leads to financial strain on the family. 2. Indirect Spillover:  o Involves subjective reactions to objective conditions mediating their effect on outcomes in another domain. o Example: Dissatisfaction with a low wage may lead to marital discord through financial disagreements with one’s spouse. Finer-Grained Spillover Models Over time, more detailed models have been developed to explain the mechanisms of spillover. These models focus on how experiences, skills, or emotions transfer between domains, generating similarity across them. Two prominent examples are: 1. Greenhaus and Powell’s Model of Work–Family Enrichment (2006): o Concentrates on positive spillover and explains how resources gained in one role improve performance in another role. o Resources include psychological, physical, social, and material assets. o The model identifies two pathways for performance improvement in another domain: ▪ Instrumental Path: Resources from Role A directly improve performance in Role B. ▪ Affective Path: Resources from Role A enhance performance in Role B indirectly by creating positive affect. o Example: Skills acquired at work (Role A) may directly improve parenting (Role B) through better organizational skills or indirectly improve parenting through enhanced mood. 2. Work–Home Resources Model by Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012): o Covers both positive and negative spillover. o Describes how demands and resources in one domain influence outcomes in the other via changes in personal resources. o Conflict: Occurs when demands like overload, multitasking, or conflicts in one domain deplete personal resources (e.g., energy, mood, skills), impairing functionality in the other domain. o Enrichment: Occurs when resources such as support, autonomy, and feedback in one domain replenish personal resources, enhancing functionality in the other domain. o Example: Support at work can increase energy levels, leading to better performance at home, while stress at work can drain energy, negatively impacting family interactions. Contrast with Antecedent–Outcome Models Spillover models differ significantly from antecedent–outcome models. Antecedent–outcome models emphasize: Identifying demands that increase WFC. Recognizing resources that foster work–family enrichment. These models aim to enhance well-being by reducing WFC and promoting enrichment. Spillover models, on the other hand: Focus on the transfer of experiences, moods, skills, and behaviors across life domains. Do not incorporate WFC or enrichment as concepts. Explain how demands or resources in one domain influence well-being or performance in another domain through spillover mechanisms. In essence, spillover models illuminate the dynamic processes through which work and family experiences are interrelated, highlighting how resources or demands from one domain can positively or negatively affect outcomes in another domain. Work–Family Balance The concept of work–family balance has gained prominence in both everyday language and academic research, complementing related concepts like work–family conflict (WFC), enrichment, and spillover. Despite its frequent usage, there is no strong theoretical consensus on its precise definition. Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) classified the definitions of work–family balance into two main approaches: 1. A unidimensional view: This approach treats work–family balance as an overall, subjective appraisal of an individual’s work–family situation. 2. A multidimensional view: This approach sees balance as comprising several components or sub-dimensions that give meaning to the work–family situation. Overall Appraisal of Work–Family Balance The unidimensional perspective views work–family balance as a global assessment of how well an individual manages both work and family demands. Two key definitions illustrate this perspective: Voydanoff (2005): Defines balance as the perception that work and family resources are sufficient to meet demands in both domains, enabling effective participation in both.  Greenhaus and Allen (2011): Defines balance as the overall appraisal of how well individuals' effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles align with their life values at a specific point in time. In this approach, the focus is on the individual’s subjective judgment of their ability to fulfill roles and maintain harmony between work and family. Components Approach to Work–Family Balance The multidimensional perspective emphasizes that work–family balance consists of distinct sub-dimensions. This approach often incorporates WFC and enrichment as critical factors shaping balance. Frone (2003): Proposes that balance is achieved when individuals experience high work–family enrichment alongside low WFC. Typology of Balance Types (Grzywacz et al., 2008; Rantanen et al., 2011): This framework categorizes work–family balance into four types: o Beneficial Balance: High enrichment and low conflict. o Harmful Balance: High conflict and low enrichment. o Active Balance: High levels of both conflict and enrichment. o Passive Balance: Low levels of both conflict and enrichment. Research on this typology has yielded mixed results. Some studies, such as Moazami- Goodarzi et al. (2019), have identified all four balance types, while others, like Rantanen et al. (2013), only observed the beneficial and active types. A more recent multidimensional framework by Casper et al. (2018) extends the concept of work–family balance through a comprehensive definition that incorporates three distinct dimensions: 1. Affective Balance: The presence of more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions in highly valued work and non-work roles. 2. Effectiveness Balance: The perception of performing well in these valued roles. 3. Involvement Balance: Adequate engagement in highly valued work and non-work roles. According to this definition, a healthy work–family balance arises when individuals feel emotionally positive, perform effectively, and are sufficiently engaged in the work and family roles they value most. Lack of Theoretical Consensus Although the concept of work–family balance is widely discussed, theoretical agreement on its definition remains elusive. Scholars interpret balance in varied ways, such as: A unidimensional, overall appraisal. A multidimensional construct with dimensions like effectiveness, satisfaction, fit, and involvement. A combination of WFC and enrichment experiences. This diversity highlights the complexity of defining work–family balance and its significance in understanding the interaction between work and family roles. Antecedents of Work–Family Conflict (WFC) The antecedents of WFC and family-to-work conflict (FWC) are closely aligned with the domain-specificity principle: Work-related antecedents primarily predict WFC. Family-related antecedents predominantly influence FWC. This expectation has been supported by empirical studies, including a meta-analysis by Michel et al. (2011b), which categorizes potential antecedents into five groups: 1. Role Stressors o Role overload (having too many tasks to manage) and role conflict (incompatible demands within a domain) are significant predictors of higher WFC. o Time demands (a large amount of time devoted to work) also correlate strongly with WFC. 2. Social Support o Organizational support (the belief that an organization values employee contributions and cares for their well-being) is a critical factor. It is associated with lower WFC, as confirmed by French et al. (2018). o Other forms of social support, such as supervisor and coworker support, also mitigate WFC but to a lesser extent. 3. Family Role Stressors o For FWC, family role stressors—such as role conflict, role overload (e.g., excessive family tasks), and role ambiguity (lack of clarity about family responsibilities)—are the strongest predictors of conflict. o Spousal support, while theoretically helpful, has shown only a weak relationship with reduced FWC. 4. Cross-Domain Effects o Unexpectedly, role stressors in one domain also affect the other: ▪ Work role conflict and overload are linked to higher FWC in addition to WFC. ▪ Similarly, family role conflict and overload predict higher WFC alongside FWC. o Furthermore, French et al. (2018) found that organizational support, while primarily related to lower WFC, also reduces FWC, challenging the domain- specificity principle. 5. Personality Characteristics  o Personality traits, particularly neuroticism, have a moderate relationship with both WFC and FWC. Individuals with higher neuroticism are more likely to experience conflicts in both directions. o Locus of control also plays a role: ▪ An internal locus of control (the belief that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) is associated with lower levels of both WFC and FWC. ▪ Conversely, individuals with an external locus of control (attributing outcomes to external factors like chance) are more prone to conflicts. o Other traits from the Big Five personality model—extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—have been studied but are less influential compared to neuroticism. Key Predictors of WFC and FWC WFC: o Best predicted by work role stressors (e.g., role overload and role conflict) and low organizational support. FWC: o Strongly linked to family role stressors (e.g., role conflict, role overload, and role ambiguity). In both cases, personality traits like neuroticism and locus of control contribute, but their impact is relatively minor compared to role stressors and social support. Outcomes of Work–Family Conflict Traditionally, work–family research operated under the assumption that Work–Family Conflict (WFC) primarily affects the family domain (the receiving domain) and that Family– Work Conflict (FWC) predominantly impacts the work domain. This assumption is referred to as the cross-domain principle. However, a review by Allen et al. (2000), one of the first comprehensive assessments of the consequences of WFC, revealed that the situation is more complex than initially thought. Their findings indicated that WFC is linked to a wide range of negative outcomes, impacting not only the family domain but also the work domain and individual well-being. Findings Challenging the Cross-Domain Principle Allen et al. (2000) found that WFC is associated with several detrimental outcomes: Increased turnover intentions Life dissatisfaction Increased burnout and stress symptoms These results suggest that for many employees, WFC is closely tied to higher risks of stress and burnout, affecting both their work and personal lives. Meta-Analyses and Cross-Domain Principle Further meta-analyses, including those by Amstad et al. (2011) and Shockley & Singla (2011), also challenge the cross-domain principle. These studies found that both WFC and FWC are more strongly related to within-domain outcomes (outcomes related to the originating role, whether work or family) than to cross-domain outcomes (impacts on the receiving role). Specifically: WFC was more strongly associated with work-related outcomes (such as job dissatisfaction and burnout) than with family-related outcomes. FWC was more strongly linked to family-related outcomes (such as stress at home) than with work-related outcomes. These findings can be understood through cognitive attributions regarding the source of the conflict. For instance, when an employee experiences WFC (feeling drained by work and unable to fulfill family obligations), they are likely to attribute their dissatisfaction to work, thus leading to lower job satisfaction and a more negative view of the work role. Longitudinal Studies and Cross-Domain Effects It has been suggested that the cross-domain principle might be more applicable in longitudinal studies, where outcomes are assessed at a later time after the experience of WFC. A review by Peeters et al. (2013) focusing on longitudinal studies found that WFC could have consequences in both the originating domain (work) and the receiving domain (family), with health consequences being notable in both contexts. This supports the notion that WFC may lead to negative outcomes in both work and family life, including physical and psychological health issues. In contrast, the effects of FWC in longitudinal studies were less clear. However, the available evidence suggests that employee health is particularly susceptible to the negative effects of FWC, as the strain from family responsibilities can spill over and affect physical and mental well-being. A further meta-analysis of longitudinal studies by Nohe et al. (2015) reinforced the idea that WFC has a stronger effect on work-specific strain (e.g., burnout, exhaustion, irritation at work) than FWC. This finding supports the within-domain relations/matching hypothesis, which posits that conflict within a specific domain (work or family) is more likely to cause negative outcomes within the same domain. Antecedents of Work–Family Enrichment In line with enrichment models (discussed in Section 12.2), empirical research suggests that various resources are key factors in facilitating Work–Family Enrichment (WFE) and Family–Work Enrichment (FWE). These resources are typically categorized into three groups: 1. Resource-providing contextual characteristics 2. Resource-depleting contextual characteristics 3. Personal characteristics A meta-analysis by Lapierre et al. (2018) organized these resources into categories in both the work and family domains. The primary findings, summarized in Table 12.3, highlight how different resources influence enrichment experiences. Antecedents of Work–Family Enrichment (WFE) In the case of Work–Family Enrichment (WFE), resources from both the work domain and work-related personal characteristics are the most influential predictors. The findings from the meta-analysis reveal: 1. Work-related resources: o Social support from supervisors and co-workers: These forms of social support are positively related to higher WFE, indicating that supportive work relationships enhance enrichment. o Job autonomy: The freedom employees have to make decisions about their work is associated with greater enrichment, as autonomy fosters a sense of control and satisfaction.  2. Work-related personal characteristics: o Work engagement: Employees who are psychologically invested and enthusiastic about their work tend to experience more enrichment in their family lives as well. o Work centrality and work involvement: These overlapping personal characteristics, which capture an individual's level of psychological commitment and investment in their work, are also positively linked to WFE. The more central work is to an individual’s identity, the more likely they are to experience benefits in their family life as well. 3. Family-related antecedents: o Support from family: As in the work domain, receiving support from family members is linked to higher WFE. Family support helps employees manage the demands of both work and family, enhancing their ability to integrate the two roles. Antecedents of Family–Work Enrichment (FWE) For Family–Work Enrichment (FWE), the most significant predictors are resources from the family domain and family-related personal characteristics. These resources are structured similarly to those for WFE: 1. Family-related resources: o Support from family: Similar to its role in WFE, family support also plays a crucial role in enhancing FWE. Family members provide emotional and practical support that enables individuals to perform better in their work roles. 2. Family-related personal characteristics: o Family involvement and family centrality: These characteristics reflect an individual's psychological investment and sense of importance placed on family. The more involved and central family life is to an individual’s identity, the more likely they are to experience positive enrichment effects in their work life. 3. Additional work-related resources: o Support from co-workers: In particular, family-focused support from co- workers—where colleagues express understanding and help employees balance family demands—contributes to FWE. o Work engagement: Work engagement is not only beneficial for WFE but also plays an important role in facilitating FWE. Employees who are highly engaged in their work tend to find ways to bring positive resources and energy back to their family life. Influence of Personality Characteristics In addition to contextual and personal characteristics related to work and family, personality characteristics also play a significant role in work–family enrichment:  Extraversion: This personality trait, characterized by sociability, dominance, and positive emotionality, has the strongest association with positive work–non-work enrichment, which includes both work and family life. Extraverted individuals are more likely to experience high levels of enrichment because they tend to elicit positive emotions, explore new ideas, and seek out resources and solutions that help reduce Work–Family Conflict (WFC). Other Big Five personality traits: The other traits of the Big Five (neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) were only weakly related to enrichment experiences, except for neuroticism, which showed no significant relation. Outcomes of Work–Family Enrichment The outcomes of Work–Family Enrichment (WFE) and Family–Work Enrichment (FWE) are diverse, with effects that span multiple life domains. A meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (2018) classified these outcomes into four broad categories: 1. Affective outcomes 2. Resource outcomes 3. Performance outcomes 4. General well-being These categories help organize the varied ways in which work and family enrichment can affect individuals, and the results of the meta-analysis are summarized in Table 12.4. 1. Affective Outcomes Both WFE and FWE contribute to emotional and psychological well-being, as they influence how individuals feel about different aspects of their lives. Work-related affective outcomes: WFE has been shown to positively affect job satisfaction, work engagement, and work performance. Employees who experience work-to-family enrichment are more likely to feel satisfied with their jobs, be highly engaged in their work, and perform better at work due to the positive emotional and resource benefits transferred from their family life. Family-related affective outcomes: FWE, on the other hand, most strongly influences family satisfaction and family performance. When family life enhances work, individuals tend to experience higher satisfaction with their family life, and their family performance improves as they have the resources and emotional support to fulfill their family roles effectively. 2. Resource Outcomes Both WFE and FWE contribute to the accumulation of resources that individuals can draw on in various life domains. Work-related resource outcomes: As a result of WFE, employees are likely to gain resources such as energy, motivation, and psychological well-being, which they can bring back to their work roles. This creates a positive cycle of enrichment, where work resources can further benefit from the support and energy derived from family life. Family-related resource outcomes: Similarly, FWE enables individuals to gain resources within their family life, including emotional support and strengthening of family bonds. These resources, in turn, enhance their ability to engage with and perform in their work roles, reinforcing the reciprocal nature of enrichment. 3. Performance Outcomes The positive effects of work and family enrichment extend beyond emotional satisfaction and resources, influencing tangible performance outcomes. Work performance: Both WFE and FWE have a significant impact on work performance. WFE is linked to better job performance, as employees who experience enrichment from their family life are often more motivated, energized, and productive at work. FWE also has an impact on work performance, as employees who are enriched by their family life bring positive energy, focus, and satisfaction to their work roles, enhancing their productivity. Family performance: FWE is most strongly associated with family performance, as employees enriched by their work experience are better equipped to meet the demands of family life. This may include taking on more responsibilities at home, being emotionally supportive, and providing better care for family members. 4. General Well-being The most overarching and significant outcome of both WFE and FWE is an improvement in general well-being. Both forms of enrichment are positively correlated with higher life satisfaction, as individuals experience positive emotions, reduced stress, and a greater sense of fulfillment in both their work and family domains. Life satisfaction: WFE has the strongest link to life satisfaction, suggesting that individuals who experience enrichment from their work life find greater overall satisfaction in their lives. Similarly, FWE also contributes to life satisfaction, but the strongest link in this case is to family satisfaction. Job satisfaction: Both WFE and FWE are associated with increased job satisfaction, though to a lesser extent than their effects on family satisfaction and life satisfaction. Within-domain vs. Cross-domain Effects The analysis suggests that the effects of work–family enrichment are typically stronger within the originating domain (i.e., work-related outcomes from WFE and family-related outcomes from FWE) than across domains. This supports the matching hypothesis, which states that enrichment effects are most strongly felt within the domain in which the enrichment occurs. In other words, enrichment in the work domain is more likely to positively affect work-related outcomes, and enrichment in the family domain is more likely to positively affect family-related outcomes. Stronger within-domain effects: Both WFE and FWE had stronger effects on outcomes within the originating domain (work for WFE and family for FWE) than on cross-domain outcomes (family for WFE and work for FWE). This finding indicates that enrichment tends to have a more significant impact on the domain in which it originates rather than spilling over into the opposite domain. Ways of Dealing with Work and Family Demands This section discusses the strategies used by both individuals and organizations to manage the demands of work and family. The discussion is divided into two main parts: individual coping strategies and the roles of organizations and society in supporting the reconciliation of these demands. Individual Coping Strategies Coping strategies are defined as "an individual's cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). These strategies play a crucial role in managing the stress and challenges posed by the competing demands of work and family. 1. Active, Problem-focused Coping: o This approach involves solving the stressful situation directly by taking action to reduce or eliminate the source of stress. It is consistently found to be beneficial in reducing both Work–Family Conflict (WFC) and Family–Work Conflict (FWC). o The focus is on finding practical solutions to manage work and family demands, and research supports its effectiveness in lowering stress related to these domains. 2. Emotion-focused Coping: o Emotion-focused coping involves emotional regulation behaviors, such as talking to someone about feelings or expressing irritation or anxiety. This type of coping has received limited attention in work-family research, but it has been shown that emotion-focused coping leads to higher levels of WFC. o While this strategy helps to express or manage emotions, it does not directly address the core issue of balancing work and family demands, leading to greater conflict. 3. Avoidance-focused Coping: o This strategy involves behaviors like wishful thinking, denying the stressful situation, or hoping that time will resolve the problem. Avoidance-focused coping has been found to result in higher WFC and FWC. o It is generally considered less effective because it does not tackle the underlying issues of work-family balance and may prolong the experience of conflict. 4. Context-Specific or Situational Coping Strategies: o These strategies are designed to address specific work-family challenges and explain why some individuals experience more work-family conflict or less work-family enrichment than others. o Work-family coping strategies can be categorized into two types: ▪ Demand-decreasing coping strategies aim to reduce the workload or responsibilities associated with work and family. Examples include: ▪ Reducing working hours ▪ Giving up some tasks at work or home ▪ Prioritizing tasks ▪ Restricting social life  ▪ Lowering role expectations ▪ Resource-increasing coping strategies focus on obtaining additional resources to handle work-family demands. Examples include: ▪ Seeking support from family members, colleagues, or supervisors ▪ Delegating tasks to a spouse or co-workers ▪ Hiring domestic help ▪ Trying to learn from difficult situations ▪ Using proactive or future-oriented coping, such as planning one's work week or setting up a backup system within the family o Research indicates that resource-increasing coping strategies are more beneficial in managing the demands of work and family, as they help to build up resources that can be used in both domains. Work–Family Policies and Culture Organizations also play a significant role in supporting employees’ efforts to balance work and family demands. There are two key components to organizational support: 1. Formal Work–Family Policies: o These are official, often legally mandated, policies that provide employees with support in balancing work and family life. Examples include: ▪ Parental leave ▪ Reduced working hours for family reasons ▪ Flexible working hours and remote work options o The availability of these policies varies across different welfare regimes, with Nordic countries (e.g., the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands) offering strong statutory work-family policies. In contrast, more liberal or conservative welfare regimes (e.g., the United Kingdom and the United States) have weaker legislative support for such policies. 2. Informal Work–Family Culture: o This refers to the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values within an organization regarding the integration of work and family lives. A supportive work-family culture includes: ▪ Managerial support: Managers show social support and sensitivity to employees' family responsibilities. ▪ Career consequences: The perception of negative career development opportunities if employees utilize work-family benefits or spend time on family-related activities.  ▪ Organizational time demands: Expectations that employees prioritize work over family time. o A positive work-family culture is important because it provides informal support that can make it easier for employees to integrate their work and family responsibilities. Comparing Policies and Culture Studies have shown that both supportive work–family policies and a supportive work– family culture positively impact work-family interaction. However, when comparing the two, organizational culture has a stronger impact than formal policies. Research indicates that if the organizational culture is not supportive of work-family balance, then work-family policies are largely ineffective because the culture discourages the use of these policies. Chapter 13 13.1 Introduction The start and end times of our working day play a crucial role in shaping how we experience our jobs, our effectiveness at work, and our overall health and well-being. Key Points: o Night Work: ▪ Sleep Disruption: Night shifts can cause significant sleep loss and extreme fatigue. ▪ Health and Performance: This fatigue negatively impacts job performance and may lead to health problems. o Non-Standard Working Hours: ▪ Evening Work: Working during the evening can disrupt personal life, affecting family and social engagements. ▪ Well-being Impact: These disruptions may lower job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and psychological well-being. o Overtime and Evening Work: ▪ Extended Hours: Working late provides extra time to complete tasks but reduces time to unwind. ▪ Restoration Deficit: Lack of relaxation time hampers the body's repair and restoration processes. Blurred Boundaries Between Work and Non-Work Life o The traditional clear boundaries between work and personal life are becoming less defined. Factors contributing to this include: ▪ Mobile Technology: Enables constant connectivity, making it harder to switch off from work. ▪ Changing Expectations: The evolving psychological contract between employers and employees reflects shifting norms around work-life integration. ▪ Work from Home (WfH): Flexibility Benefits: WfH is often seen as a benefit and a recruitment tool.  Visibility Risks: Potential drawbacks include reduced visibility within the organization, leading to marginalization or missed promotion opportunities. 13.2 Shiftwork Forms of Shiftwork o Rotating Shifts: Workers alternate between different shifts (e.g., morning, evening, night) in a regular sequence. o Fixed Shifts: Workers consistently perform the same type of shift, such as permanent night shifts. o Terminology: While "shiftwork" and "nightwork" are often used interchangeably, not all shiftwork involves night shifts. Some workers rotate between early morning and late evening shifts without working nights. Prevalence of Shiftwork o Global Estimates: 10%-20% of workers in many countries engage in night work. o Europe: ▪ 21% of the working population involved in shiftwork. ▪ 19% perform night work at least once a month. o United States: ▪ 38% of workers involved in shiftwork. ▪ 30% perform night work monthly. o Gender Differences: Minor gender differences in Europe, but men are more likely to work night shifts. Health and Safety Risks of Shiftwork o Circadian Rhythm Disruption: The primary health and safety concern is the disruption of the natural human activity-rest cycle. ▪ Human circadian rhythms are designed for daytime activity and nighttime rest, controlled by the body clock in the hypothalamus. ▪ Environmental factors like light exposure, work, and meals influence these rhythms. o Challenges of Night Work: ▪ Night work necessitates altering the natural sleep/wake cycle. ▪ Most individuals struggle to fully adjust their circadian rhythms to night shifts, leading to difficulty staying alert at night and poor daytime sleep. Impact on Health o Incomplete Recovery: Shiftwork often results in incomplete recovery due to: ▪ Reduced sleep duration and quality. ▪ Disruption of biological rhythms. ▪ Stress from a disrupted social and family life. o Potential Health Issues: These disruptions can manifest in various health problems and illnesses, ranging from fatigue to more serious conditions over time. Empirical evidence on the impact of shiftwork o Sleep Disruption and Fatigue ▪ Night and Early Morning Shifts: Associated with significant sleep issues, such as disturbed or short sleep (Kecklund & Axelsson, 2016). ▪ Cumulative Fatigue: Repeated shifts lead to fatigue accumulation, increasing errors, accidents, and injury risks (Fischer et al., 2017).  Night shifts have a 36% higher risk of accidents and injuries compared to morning shifts. Contributing Factors: Poor sleep, circadian disruption, and longer wakefulness before night shifts. o Cognitive Impairment ▪ Acute Cognitive Impairment: Strong evidence linking disturbed sleep on shifts to acute cognitive deficits (Kecklund & Axelsson, 2016). ▪ Chronic Cognitive Impairment: Mixed evidence on long-term cognitive impacts. ▪ Neurodegenerative Diseases: Mixed findings, though a genetic predisposition might increase the risk of Alzheimer's in shiftworkers (Leso et al., 2021). o Psychological and Emotional Stress ▪ Psychosocial Strain: Shiftwork leads to stress, partly due to work/non-work conflict (Moreno et al., 2019). ▪ Mental Health Disorders: Small but significant associations between night work and diagnosed mental health conditions (Albertsen et al., 2022). o Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs) ▪ Increased Risk: Shiftworkers are at higher risk for CVDs due to multiple mechanisms: Lack of Recovery: Limited recovery time exacerbates psychosocial strain. Behavioral Factors: Unhealthy habits like smoking, poor diet, alcohol consumption, and lack of exercise. Physiological Changes: Altered metabolism and stress reactions, including inflammation and autonomic nervous system activation. o Other Health Disorders ▪ Cancer: Increased risks linked to circadian disruption. ▪ Gastrointestinal Issues: Problems like indigestion and ulcers are more common. ▪ Maternity and Musculoskeletal Problems: Women face higher risks of maternity issues, and both genders are susceptible to musculoskeletal disorders. o Individual Differences in Impact ▪ Personal Characteristics: "Morning types" struggle more with night shifts compared to "evening types." ▪ Age: Middle-aged shiftworkers (40-50 years) may face greater health problems, though evidence is mixed. Selection effects suggest healthier older shiftworkers remain in the workforce (Ritonja et al., 2019). o Gender Differences ▪ Metabolic and Mental Health Risks: Women show stronger associations with metabolic disorders and mental ill-health. ▪ Sleep Impact: Evidence is inconclusive on gender differences in sleep disruption. ▪ Gender Roles and Job Types: Women's dual burden of work and domestic responsibilities, combined with potentially more demanding jobs in health and care sectors, may exacerbate the negative impacts of shiftwork (Tucker, 2021). Mitigation strategies  o Designing effective shift schedules can significantly mitigate the disruptions caused by shift work to sleep, biological rhythms, and life outside of work (Kecklund & Axelsson, 2016). Below are the detailed strategies and considerations: o Shift Schedule Design ▪ Rapidly Rotating Shifts: Empirical evidence suggests that rapidly rotating shifts (1-3 consecutive shifts of the same type) are beneficial. This approach minimizes circadian disruption, promoting better sleep and reducing fatigue compared to slower rotations. ▪ Forward vs. Backward Rotation: Forward rotation (morning → afternoon → night shifts) is more favorable than backward rotation. It aligns better with the natural tendency of the body clock, which prefers delaying sleep onset rather than advancing it. ▪ Recovery Time: Adequate recovery time (at least 11 hours) between shifts is crucial to avoid "quick returns," which can negatively impact health and performance. ▪ Participatory Scheduling: Allowing workers to have input on their shift timings can improve health and recovery (Garde et al., 2012). Permanent or Fixed Shifts o Circadian Adjustment Challenges: ▪ Permanent night shifts rarely lead to sufficient circadian adjustment for most people, causing ongoing circadian disruption and disturbed sleep (Folkard, 2008). o Suitability for Certain Individuals: ▪ Permanent night shifts may benefit those with a strong evening orientation or those who can maintain a nocturnal rhythm, such as workers on oil rigs (Bjorvatn et al., 2006). Light Exposure Management o Artificial Bright Light: ▪ Exposure to artificial bright light in the evening and reduced exposure in the morning helps adjust the body clock. ▪ Blue-green light is particularly effective in this adjustment process. o Potential Unknowns: ▪ The long-term health effects of repeated circadian adjustments using light treatments remain unclear (Lowden et al., 2019). Pharmacological Interventions o Melatonin Supplements: ▪ Properly timed melatonin can increase sleep length for night workers by influencing melatonin secretion. o Wakefulness-Promoting Agents: ▪ Modafinil and armodafinil can enhance night-time alertness without disrupting daytime sleep but have reported side effects (Liira et al., 2014). Napping Strategies o Night Shift Naps: ▪ Naps during night shifts help counteract dips in alertness and cognitive performance.  ▪ Short naps avoid sleep inertia, while longer naps sustain performance over extended periods (Patterson et al., 2021). o Prophylactic Naps: ▪ Naps taken before night shifts reduce sleepiness and accident risks, especially when combined with caffeine (Wright et al., 2013). 13.3 Long Work Hours and Overtime Work Definition of Long Work Hours: o EFILW and ILO Definition: Long work hours are defined as 48 hours or more per week. o International Variation: ▪ In 2012, 33% of countries set the 48-hour threshold, including overtime. ▪ 42% allowed 49+ hours, with some permitting over 60 hours. ▪ 16% had no statutory maximum, leaving workers without legal protection. Definition of Overtime: o General Understanding: Overtime refers to hours worked beyond normal or contractual work hours. o Comparison with Long Work Hours: ▪ Long work hours may involve overtime, but overtime doesn’t always equate to long work hours. ▪ Example: Part-time workers can accumulate overtime without hitting the long work hour threshold. Prevalence of Long Work Hours: o Global Variation: ▪ More common in developing countries and among males. ▪ High prevalence (24%-30%) in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey. ▪ Lower prevalence (4%-10%) in countries like Russia, France, Italy, and Germany. Health and Safety Risks: o Increased Exposure to Stressors: ▪ Physical stressors: Temperature, noise, chemicals. ▪ Psychosocial stressors: Time pressure, high workload, poor leadership, bullying. o Allostatic Load: Continuous exposure to stressors can lead to wear and tear on the body. o Recovery Needs: ▪ Essential for mitigating negative effects of stress. ▪ Long hours reduce time for active recovery (exercise, hobbies, social life) and passive recovery (sleep). o Recovery Paradox: When work demands are high, the need for recovery is greatest but hardest to achieve. o Sleep and Health Risks: ▪ Inadequate sleep increases risks of health issues and accidents. ▪ Poor recovery and sleep are linked to insomnia and other health problems.  Empirical evidence on the impact of long work hours and overtime work o Sleep Impairment and Long Work Hours ▪ A study of civil servants showed increased risk of short sleep duration (