RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Work–Family Interface as a Mediator between Job Demands and Employee Behaviour Jade S. Jenkins*†, Camille J. Heneghan, Sarah F. Bailey & Larissa K. Barber Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

Abstract In this investigation, we draw from the job demands–resource model and conservation of resources theory to examine the relationship between job demands, the work–family interface and worker behaviours. Data collected from an online survey of workers revealed that hindrance demands indirectly increase interpersonal and organizational deviance through work interference with family and family interference with work. Challenge demands indirectly predict interpersonal and organizational deviance through work interference with family. Finally, hindrance demands indirectly decreased individual-directed organizational citizenship behaviours through work-to-family enrichment. Taken together, these results stress the relevance of job demand management and resource drain/acquisition to counterproductive and extra-role behaviours. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 21 August 2013; Revised 8 April 2014; Accepted 22 April 2014 Keywords employee deviance; organizational citizenship behaviours; job demands; work–family interference; work–family enrichment *Correspondence Jade S. Jenkins, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA. † E-mail: [email protected] Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smi.2586

Job demands have been a central focus of organizational stress theories as they may become a source of stress when workers are unable to recover from efforts expended to meet demands (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Such stress is likely to be associated with worker behaviours, including workplace deviance behaviours (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) and organizational citizenship behaviours (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Drawing from the job demands– resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we examine the role of work–family conflict and work– family enrichment as mechanisms for the relationship between job demands and workplace deviance and citizenship behaviours. The job demands–resources model and conservation of resources theory According to the job demands–resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006), job demands consist of organizational, social, psychological and physical components in one’s job that require sustained efforts to meet those demands. As the amount of effort necessary to meet job demands increases, so do the costs associated with such effort expenditure. Chronic or excessive job demands can deplete employees’ energies and lead to job strain and other consequences (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However, the availability of job resources can help Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

employees meet job demands and prevent subsequent costs associated with attempts to meet those demands (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005). Resources are entities that are valued by an individual or that serve as a means for additional resource attainment. According to Hobfoll (1989), resources can include objects, conditions, personal characteristics and energy. When resources have been depleted, people may address the resource loss rather than continue to address job demands. Indeed, according to COR (Hobfoll, 1989), people are motivated to preserve their resources, to recover from resource loss and to accumulate more resources. Stress increases in response to resource loss and decreases in response to resource gain. One’s current resource supply also has implications for subsequent resource loss and gain: a large supply reduces susceptibility to resource loss and increases the likelihood of resource gain, whereas a small supply increases susceptibility to resource loss and decreases the likelihood of resource gain (Hobfoll, 2011). Both the JD-R model and COR theory suggest that excessive or chronic job demands are associated with negative psychological states (e.g. stress). However, these frameworks differ in their conceptualizations of how these psychological states emerge in response to job demands: stress may emerge as a psychological cost commensurate with the effort one must expend to meet job demands

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

(JD-R) or in response to resource depletion (COR). More importantly, coping with job demands may involve engaging in withdrawal behaviours (JD-R) and/or resourceseeking behaviours (COR). Workplace deviance behaviours and job demands: the mediating role of work– family conflict Workplace deviance behaviours include ‘voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both’ (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). Deviance may manifest as passive withdrawal behaviour intended to escape job demands (Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010) or active resource-seeking behaviour that indirectly has counterproductive consequences (Tunstall, Penney, Hunter, & Weinberger, 2006). Indeed, organizational deviance behaviours include patterns of withdrawal (e.g. withholding effort) or counterproductive attempts at resource building (e.g. theft). Interpersonal deviance behaviours indicative of withdrawal may emerge when depletion inhibits workers’ ability to have civil interactions (DeBono, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2011; Van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Employees may also lash out toward others as a way to improve productivity (Tunstall et al., 2006) or assert power (Cortina, Magley, Willims, & Langhout, 2001). One mechanism for the relationship between job demands and workplace deviance behaviours may be work–family conflict, which arises when role demands in one domain interfere with one’s ability to effectively meet role demands in another competing domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work–family conflict consists of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). Research suggests a positive relationship between WIF and deviance (Darrat, Amyx, & Bennett, 2010). Job stressors have also been linked to FIW (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011), suggesting that strain reactions due to high job demands may carry over into the home domain. Given that FIW affects workplace deviance (Ferguson, Carlson, Hunter, & Whitten, 2012), FIW also represents another indicator of resource loss that can have negative consequences for workplace behaviour. Consistent with the JD-R Model, WIF/FIW may indicate resource loss and motivate a counterproductive resource conservation/compensation response. In turn, employees may engage in deviant work behaviours because they lack the energy/resources necessary to effectively perform in-role behaviours and manage social interactions. The relationship between job demands and workplace deviance behaviours may depend upon demand type. Hindrances—characterized by constraints on personal development—may be positively associated with workplace deviance behaviours, whereas challenges—characterized by stretch opportunities for personal growth—may be either negatively or positively associated with workplace

J. S. Jenkins et al.

deviance behaviours (Rodell & Judge, 2009). This effect may be explained by COR theory, in that hindrances can lead to resource loss spirals by interfering with employee achievement, whereas challenges can lead to resource gain by motivating employee achievement (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). A resource drain perspective (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000) may suggest that types of demands may lead to perceived drain on resources via conflict—resources that are needed to maintain appropriate standards of work behaviour. From this perspective, we expect that work–family conflict will serve as a linking mechanism between job demands and workplace deviance. However, it is unclear whether challenge demands and hindrance demands lead to different relationships with work–family conflict given inconsistencies in past research (Culbertson, Huffman, & Alden-Anderson, 2009; Rodell & Judge, 2009). Thus, we kept demand type separate in analyses and predict the following: Hypothesis 1 : Work-to-family conflict (WIF) will mediate the relationship between hindrance demands and deviance behaviours (interpersonal and organizational). Hypothesis 2 : Family-to-work conflict (FIW) will mediate the relationship between hindrance demands and deviance behaviours (interpersonal and organizational). Hypothesis 3 : Work–family conflict (WIF) will mediate the relationship between challenge demands and workplace deviance behaviours (interpersonal and organizational Hypothesis 4 : Family-to-work conflict (FIW) will mediate the relationship between challenge demands and workplace deviance behaviours (interpersonal and organizational).

Organizational citizenship behaviours and job demands: The role of work–family enrichment When faced with excessive job demands, employees may offset their resources and work efforts to conserve energy (Hobfoll, 1989). Doing so may have implications for the likelihood of workers performing organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs; Smith et al., 1983), which are extra-role behaviours that contribute to organizational effectiveness but are not recognized by the formal reward system. Individual-directed citizenship behaviours (OCB-I) can include acts such as assisting colleagues with heavy workloads, whereas organizationdirected citizenship behaviours (OCB-O) may include demonstrating above-average-work attendance. Engaging in OCBs is an opportunity for workers to use their current resources (e.g. available time to help a supervisor) to gain more resources (e.g. status) in a manner consistent with the goals of the organization (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Conservation and accumulation of resources are crucial factors for enrichment processes (Hakanen, Peeters, & Perhoniemi, 2011), defined as ‘the extent to which experience in one role improves the quality of life, namely performance or affect, in another role’ (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 78). Enrichment of development, affect, capital and efficiency can occur when work experiences enrich family life (work-to-family enrichment; WFE) or when family experiences enrich work life (family-to-work enrichment; FWE). Consistent with COR theory, WFE and FWE may be disrupted by excessive job demands, thus decreasing workers’ likelihood of performing OCBs. Although job demands have a stronger negative impact on WFE, FWE may also be impacted (Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005). WFE may increase OCBs because employees may direct positive efforts towards the source of enrichment (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). FWE has been associated with positive work outcomes (McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010), and OCBs may be a behavioural outcome of FWE. Whereas challenge demands have been shown to have both positive and negative indirect effects on OCBs, hindrance demands may have a negative indirect effect on OCBs (Rodell & Judge, 2009). These findings suggest two possibilities. First, challenges could be perceived as an opportunity for resource gain, whereas hindrances are perceived as obstacles to resource gain. As such, hindrances may be more likely than challenges to disrupt WFE/FWE and decrease OCBs. Second, despite different implications for resource gain, meeting demands may still be difficult and resource draining. Thus, attempts to meet challenges and hindrances will both disrupt WFE/FWE and decrease OCBs. Thus, we predict the following: Hypothesis 5 : Work-to-family enrichment will mediate the relationship between hindrance demands and both OCB-I and OCB-O. Hypothesis 6 : Family-to-work enrichment will mediate the relationship between hindrance demands and both OCB-I and OCB-O. Hypothesis7 : Work-to-family enrichment will mediate the relationship between challenge demands and both OCB-I and OCB-O. Hypothesis 8 : Family-to-work enrichment will mediate the relationship between challenge demands and both OCB-I and OCB-O.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

$0.25 upon completion of the survey. A total of 640 participants initially accessed the survey. Of these participants, approximately 217 participants were removed prior to analyses because of being a part-time worker, reporting a low level of comfort with the English language, failing to complete the survey or missing two or more attention checks. Our final sample consisted of 423 participants (61.9% women; 79% Caucasian). Average age was 34 years (SD = 11.64). The average reported weekly working hours was 40 h (SD = 7.12). Measures Challenge and hindrance job demands Participants completed a self-report measure of stressors used by Cavanaugh et al. (2000). Six items represent the challenges subscale (α = 0.87; e.g. ‘The volume of work that must be accomplished in the allotted time’), and five items measure the hindrances subscale (α = 0.69; ‘The amount of red tape I need to go through to get my job done’). Participants rated the stressfulness of each item on 1 (Produces no stress) to 5 (Produces a great deal of stress) scale.1 Work–family conflict The work–family conflict scale (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000) consisted of 18 items. The WIF subscale consisted of nine items (α = 0.89, e.g. ‘Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy’). The FIW subscale consisted of nine items (α = 0.88, e.g. ‘Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work’). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) scale. Work–family enrichment Work to family enrichment and family to work enrichment were assessed using the Work–family Enrichment Scale (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006). Participants were presented with the stem sentence ‘My involvement in my work ________.’ To complete the statement, participants were presented with nine WFE subscale items (α = 0.94; e.g. ‘Provides me with a sense of accomplishment and this helps me be a better family member’) and nine FWE subscale items (α = 0.92; e.g. ‘Puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better worker’). Participants provided responses to each item using a 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) scale.

Method 1

Participants and procedure Participants were recruited through a survey link posted on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Only participants from the United States were eligible to complete the survey and were compensated with Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for this two-factor model 2 of job demands showed acceptable fit (N = 517), χ (42) = 91.49, 2 χ /d.f. = 2.18, Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) = 0.97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.97, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.038, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.048, (90% CI = 0.034; 0.061).

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

Workplace deviance behaviours Workplace deviance behaviours were assessed using the organizational deviance scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Interpersonal deviance was assessed using seven items (α = 0.86; e.g. ‘Acted rudely towards someone at work’), whereas organizational deviance (α = 0.89; e.g. ‘Worked on a personal matter instead of working for your employer’) was assessed using 12 items. Respondents indicated how frequently they engaged in deviance behaviours on a 1 (Never) to 7 (Daily) scale. Organizational citizenship behaviours Organizational citizenship behaviours were measured using the organizational citizenship behaviours scale (Lee & Allen, 2002). OCB-I was measured using eight items (α = 0.85; e.g. ‘Help others who were absent’) and OCB-O (α = 0.89; e.g. ‘Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the group’) was measured using eight items. Participants rated the frequency that they engaged in each behaviour using a 1 (Never) to 5 (Every day) scale. Control variables In addition to sex, age, challenge demands (in models where hindrance demands was the predictor) and hindrance demands (in models where challenge demands was the predictor), we also controlled for workload and interpersonal justice. Workload was measured by asking participants, ‘On average, how many hours do you work per week?’ Controlling for workload conceptualizes job demands as stressors in the context of work responsibilities, rather than hours worked (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Participants also completed four items (α = 0.93) from the interpersonal justice subscale of the organizational justice scale (Colquitt, 2001). Participants rated the extent to which an organizational authority figure has engaged in various behaviours (e.g. ‘treated [them] in a polite manner’). Each of these items was rated on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (To a small extent) to 5 (To a large extent). Interpersonal justice shared relationships with other variables of interest in the current dataset and was included to control for the relationship broad interpersonal mistreatment shares with interpersonal deviance (Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004) and OCBs (Mathur & Padmakumari, 2013). Indeed, interpersonal justice may be relevant to work–life conflict (Judge & Colquitt, 2004) and may help examine the impact challenges and hindrances have above and beyond the context of interactions within the organization. Participants provided demographic information and indicated their level of comfort with the English language. Furthermore, three attention checks (“When you get to this item, please select ‘Strongly disagree’”) were included the survey. Participants were expected to select ‘strongly disagree’ each time using a 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) scale.

Analysis strategy Eight parallel mediator models were used to explain the combined effect of each stressor (hindrances vs challenges) and each mediator (WIF/FIW and WFE/FWE) on interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, OCB-I and OCB-O. Each model was also used to test the direct effect of each demand on all behaviours and then to test the indirect effects of the mediators on the relationship between demands and behaviours. Bootstrap confidence intervals were used via the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). For all models, workload, interpersonal justice, sex and age were used as covariates. Furthermore, the challenges variable was included as a covariate for models including hindrances (and vice versa). All variables were standardized prior to analysis to generate standardized beta coefficients. In order, models one through four examined WIF/ FIW as mechanisms for the relationship between the following: (a) hindrances and interpersonal deviance; (b) hindrances and organizational deviance; (c) challenges and interpersonal deviance; and (d) challenges and organizational deviance. Models five through eight examined WFE/FWE as mechanisms for the relationship between the following: (a) hindrances and OCBI; (b) hindrances and OCB-O; (c) challenges and OCB-I; and (d) challenges and OCB-O.

Results Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations among all variables can be seen in Table I. Models 1 through 4: Workplace deviance behaviours Results focused on hindrances as the predictor of workplace deviance behaviours can be seen in Table II, whereas results for challenges can be seen in Table III. In regard to models where hindrance demands was the predictor, results were in support of an indirect effect for interpersonal deviance (model 1): WIF/FIW combined contributed to predicting interpersonal deviance (β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.08). Additionally, both WIF (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.05) and FIW (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.05) contributed uniquely to the mediating effect. In model 2, the combination of WIF/FIW contributed to predicting organizational deviance (β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.07). However, only FIW contributed significantly to the indirect effect (indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.06). Taken together, these findings are somewhat consistent with Hypothesis 1 and consistent with Hypothesis 2. For interpersonal deviance (model 3) in models where challenge demands was the predictor, WIF/FIW combined contributed to predicting interpersonal deviance (β = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.09). Additionally, both WIF (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.07) and FIW (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.05) uniquely contributed to the mediating effect. Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

33.94 1.38 40.59 3.86 3.09 2.90 2.76 2.42 3.18 3.44 1.42 1.56 3.34 2.98

M

11.64 0.49 8.78 1.16 0.96 0.90 0.86 0.79 0.94 0.80 0.57 0.56 0.81 0.96

SD

2 — 0.15** 0.02 0.11* 0.01 0.07 0.14** 0.09 0.10* 0.24** 0.16** 0.13** 0.07

1 — 0.10* 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.13** 0.14** 0.08 0.09 — 0.05 0.17** 0.08 0.17** 0.11* 0.02 0.05 0.15** 0.14** 0.04 0.06

3

0.93 0.16** 0.28** 0.26** 0.17** 0.44** 0.13** 0.16** 0.12* 0.13** 0.21**

4

0.87 0.39** 0.42** 0.31** 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.11* 0.07 0.02

5

0.69 0.35** 0.30** 0.25** 0.06 0.08 0.13** 0.05 0.05

6

0.89 0.71** 0.29** 0.17** 0.25** 0.24** 0.04 0.11*

7

0.88 0.16** 0.21** 0.26** 0.29** 0.12* 0.08

8

0.94 0.50** 0.09 0.11* 0.32** 0.46**

9

0.92 0.09 0.13** 0.34** 0.31

10

0.86 0.68** 0.07 0.04

11

0.89 0.08 0.09

12

0.85 0.65

13

0.89

14

Sex—1: female; 2: male. IJ: interpersonal justice; WIF: work interference with family conflict; FIW: family interference with work; WFE: work-to-family enrichment; FWE: family-to-work enrichment; I DEV: interpersonal deviance; O DEV: organizational deviance; OCB-I: individual-directed citizenship behaviours; OCB-O: organization-directed citizenship behaviours. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal in bold. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

1. Age 2. Sex 3. Workload 4. IJ 5. Challenges 6. Hindrances 7. WIF 8. FIW 9. WFE 10. FWE 11. I DEV 12. O DEV 13. OCB-I 14. OCB-O

Measure

Table I. Intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of all variables

J. S. Jenkins et al. Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

Table II. Mediation results for deviance with covariate effects for models 1 and 2 (hindrances) Interpersonal deviance Beta

Organizational deviance

SE

t-value

Beta

SE

t-value

Covariate partial effects Sex Age Workload Interpersonal justice Challenges

0.13 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.02

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

4.48*** 2.34* 2.26* 2.64** 0.60

0.08 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.05

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

2.80** 3.01** 2.11* 1.46 1.34

Direct mediator effects WIF FIW

0.11 0.09

0.06 0.05

1.92 1.85

0.03 0.14

0.05 0.05

0.65 2.99**

IV effects on mediators WIF FIW

0.19 0.22

0.05 0.06

3.68*** 3.84***

0.19 0.22

0.05 0.06

3.68*** 3.84***

0.03 0.02 Beta 0.04 0.02 0.02

0.05 0.05 SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 2 R 0.11

0.07 0.03 Beta 0.04 0.03 0.03

0.04 0.04 SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 2 R 0.08

1.66 0.77 95% Bca CI (0.02; 0.07) ( 0.01; 0.02) (0.01; 0.06) F(6, 416) 6.404***

IV effects on DV Hindrances (total) Hindrances (direct) Indirect effects Total WIF FIW Model statistics

0.57 0.34 95% Bca CI (0.02; 0.08) (0.01; 0.05) (0.01; 0.05) F(6, 416) 8.208***

Sex—1: female; 2: male. Bca CI: bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval for 5000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% level of confidence. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Regarding organizational deviance (model 4), both WIF/ FIW combined contributed to predicting organizational deviance (β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.08). However, only FIW (indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.07) was a unique contributor to the indirect effect. These results are somewhat consistent with Hypothesis 3 and consistent with Hypothesis 4. Models 5 through 8: OCBs Results focused on hindrances or challenges as the predictor can be found in Tables IV and V, respectively. Beginning with OCB-I (model 5), only the indirect effect of hindrances on OCB-I through the mediating mechanism of WFE was significant (indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.01). Regarding OCB-O (model 6), both WFE and FWE combined contributed to predicting OCB-O (β = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.02). However, only WFE (indirect effect = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.02) was a unique contributor to this effect. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 5 and not supportive of Hypothesis 6. In models where challenge demands was the predictor, results first revealed that the indirect effects of WFE (indirect effect = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.04) and FWE (indirect effect = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.04 to

0.01) were not significant in regard to OCB-I (model 7). Furthermore, for OCB-O (model 8), deviance was predicted by WFE, β = 0.40, p < 0.001, as well as FWE, β = 0.11, p < 0.05. The indirect effect of WFE (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.07) as well as FWE (indirect effect = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.01) was not significant. These results are not supportive of Hypotheses 7 and 8.2

Discussion Drawing from the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), this investigation demonstrates the importance of the work–family interface as a mechanism for the relationships between job demands and worker behaviours. We found that both challenges and hindrances indirectly increased interpersonal deviance behaviours through increases in WIF/FIW. 2 Interpersonal deviance models including WIF/FIW subscales found that behaviour-based and strain-based WIFs were primary drivers of the indirect effect. Organizational deviance models including WIF and FIW subscales found that strain-based FIW was the primary driver of the indirect effect. Finally, the OCB-I and OCB-O models including WFE and FWE subscales found that WFE development was a primary driver of the observed indirect effects.

Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

Table III. Mediation results for deviance with covariate effects for models 3 and 4 (challenges) Interpersonal deviance Beta

Organizational deviance

SE

t-value

Beta

SE

t-value

Covariate partial effects Sex Age Workload Interpersonal justice Hindrances

0.13 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05

4.48*** 2.34* 2.26* 2.64** 0.57

0.08 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.07

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

2.80** 3.01** 2.11* 1.46 1.66

Direct mediator effects WIF FIW

0.11 0.09

0.06 0.05

1.92 1.84

0.04 0.14

0.05 0.05

0.65 2.99**

IV effects on mediators WIF FIW

0.31 0.23

0.04 0.05

6.92*** 4.68***

0.31 0.23

0.04 0.05

6.92*** 4.68***

0.02 0.03 Beta 0.06 0.02 0.02

0.04 0.04 SE 0.02 0.01 0.01 2 R 0.11

0.05 0.01 Beta 0.04 0.01 0.03

0.04 0.04 SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 2 R 0.08

1.34 0.15 95% Bca CI (0.02; 0.08) ( 0.02; 0.04) (0.01; 0.07) F(6, 416) 6.404***

IV effects on DV Challenges (total) Challenges (direct) Indirect effects Total WIF FIW Model statistics

0.60 0.78 95% Bca CI (0.03; 0.09) (0.01; 0.07) (0.01; 0.05) F(6, 416) 8.208***

Sex—1: female, 2: male. Bca CI: bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval for 5000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% level of confidence. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Furthermore, both challenges and hindrances indirectly increased organizational deviance behaviours through increases in FIW (but not WIF). These results are consistent with the JD-R model: when high job demands lead to increased WIF and/or FIW, employees may actively choose to engage in deviance behaviours to offset future costs associated with attempts to meet excessive job demands. In this regard, both WIF and FIW may signal costs associated with these efforts and may lead to interpersonal deviance. However, organizational deviance may be more likely to emerge as a result of passive withdrawal, perhaps because FIW may prompt employees to use work time for personal matters. Indeed, employees may lack the energy or conditions necessary to fulfil in-role responsibilities (consistent with COR theory). Our findings on the relationship between job demands and OCBs are also consistent with COR theory: high hindrance demands—which may be perceived as obstacles to resource acquisition —indirectly lead to decreases in OCB-I and OCB-O through decreases in WFE (but not FWE). These findings corroborate past research (e.g. Rodell & Judge, 2009) on the relationship between hindrances and negative worker outcomes. While past research has also suggested that challenges may have a positive or negative indirect effect on OCBs, we found that Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

challenges did not indirectly affect either OCB-I or OCB-O through changes in WFE/FWE. Challenges are not as likely as hindrances to be perceived as obstacles to resource gain and, as such, do not disrupt WFE/FWE. Implications for organizations Despite the fact that stress and other negative outcomes are associated with high job demands (e.g. Cavanaugh et al., 2000), it is not always possible for organizations to offset these costly consequences by reducing job demands. Nonetheless, our results suggest that organizations could first benefit from developing and implementing initiatives to help employees manage and cope with high job demands. For example, providing workers with more job resources (e.g. greater control over how much time they spend on a work task, when they take a break or when they start and stop work) may enable them to handle job demands more efficiently (e.g. Grawitch & Barber, 2010; Grawitch, Barber, & Justice, 2010). Investing in training and development may also enable workers to improve the efficiency of their work and accumulate more resources through advancement. Our results also suggest that pairing these job resources with work–family initiatives could be very successful in decreasing costly worker

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

Table IV. Mediation results for citizenship with covariate effects for models 5 and 6 (hindrances) Individual citizenship Beta

SE

Organizational citizenship t-value

Beta

SE

t-value

Covariate partial effects Sex Age Workload Interpersonal justice Challenges

0.08 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.04

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05

2.50* 1.01 1.04 3.04** 0.84

0.05 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.04

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05

1.20 1.39 1.49 4.06*** 0.76

Direct mediator effect WFE FWE

0.15 0.21

0.05 0.05

3.13** 4.46***

0.35 0.11

0.05 0.05

6.75*** 2.03*

IV effects on mediators WFE FWE

0.19 0.05

0.06 0.05

3.22** 0.87

0.19 0.02

0.06 0.06

3.22** 0.35

0.06 0.01 Beta 0.03 0.03 0.01

0.05 0.05 SE 0.02 0.01 0.02 2 R 0.05

0.02 0.05 Beta 0.07 0.07 0.01

0.06 0.06 SE 0.03 0.03 0.01 2 R 0.06

IV effects on DV Hindrances (total) Hindrances (direct) Indirect effects Total WFE FWE Model statistics

1.18 1.89 95% Bca CI ( 0.08; 0.01) ( 0.06; 0.01) ( 0.04; 0.03) F(6, 416) 3.471**

0.38 0.86 95% Bca CI ( 0.13; 0.02) ( 0.12; 0.02) ( 0.02; 0.01) F(6, 416) 4.192***

Sex coded as 1: female, 2: male. Bca CI: bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval for 5000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% level of confidence. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

behaviours. For example, workplace deviance behaviours could be offset by work flexibility initiatives (e.g. telecommuting, part-time work opportunities and flextime) to reduce resource loss, such as WIF/FIW. Work flexibility initiatives may be successful because they may increase workers’ autonomy for resource allocation. Furthermore, organizations seeking to encourage OCBs should also note that work flexibility is positively related to WFE (McNall et al., 2010). Resources increase the likelihood of experiencing WFE in the long-term (Hakanen et al., 2011). Thus, giving workers more support may have a positive impact on the relationship between job demands and WFE as well. Limitations The cross-sectional, self-report methodology of this study may limit inferences regarding causality and the directions of the relationships between these variables. There could be underlying subjective, within-person explanations for perceptions of job demands and instances of deviance or OCBs due to common method variance. However, the self-report method used in this study is consistent with methods used in hindrances/ challenges research and is advantageous for measuring the intensity of reactions to organizational stressors linked to employee strain (Spector, 1994).

Furthermore, individuals disclose more in self-reports than observers may detect (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012). Finally, when the causal ordering of independent and mediator variables is reversed for all models, indirect effects are non-significant. Thus, analyses provide support for our mediating mechanisms. Another set of limitations may concern the lack of additional control variables (e.g. personality, fatigue) in our models and the known characteristics of our MTurk sample. Knowledge of additional sample characteristics (e.g. number of dependents) could have been helpful for demonstrating the generalizability of our findings to other worker samples. Nonetheless, research on the characteristics of MTurk workers suggests that they are an appropriate sample for research on the workplace (Barger, Behrend, Sharek, & Sinar, 2011). Finally, the two-factor conflict and enrichment models we used in this investigation demonstrated somewhat poor fit. However, use the two-factor models is consistent with past research practices (e.g. Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009) and our conceptualization of conflict and enrichment. Future directions Despite the contributions of this investigation, research on challenges and hindrances remains an understudied Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour

Table V. Mediation results for citizenship with covariate effects for models 7 and 8 (challenges) Individual citizenship Beta Covariate partial effects Sex Age Workload Interpersonal justice Hindrances Direct mediator effect WFE FWE IV effect on mediators WFE FWE IV effects on DV Challenges (total) Challenges (direct) Indirect effect Total WFE FWE Model statistics

Organizational citizenship

SE

t-value

0.08 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.06

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06

2.50* 1.01 1.04 3.04** 1.18

0.15 0.21

0.05 0.05

0.07 0.05

0.05 0.05

0.04 0.04 Beta 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.05 0.04 SE 0.02 0.01 0.01 2 R 0.05

Beta

SE

t-value

0.05 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.02

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06

1.20 1.39 1.49 4.07*** 0.38

3.13** 4.46***

0.35 0.11

0.05 0.05

6.75*** 2.03*

1.32 0.87

0.07 0.05

0.05 0.05

1.32 0.87

0.04 0.02 Beta 0.02 0.02 0.01

0.05 0.05 SE 0.02 0.02 0.01 2 R 0.06

0.84 0.87 95% Bca CI ( 0.03; 0.04) ( 0.01; 0.04) ( 0.04; 0.01) F(6, 416) 3.471***

0.76 0.42 95% Bca CI ( 0.03; 0.07) ( 0.01; 0.07) ( 0.03; 0.01) F(6, 416) 4.192***

Sex—1: female, 2: male. Bca CI: bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval for 5000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% level of confidence. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

the impact of family demands and one’s ability to perform in-role and extra-role behaviours at home.

area. More research is especially needed on additional mechanisms that may explain the relationship between challenge/hindrance demands, workplace deviance behaviours and OCBs. Furthermore, we believe that researchers should take a moderated mediation approach to identify variables that may exacerbate or eliminate the relationship between challenges and hindrances, workplace deviance behaviours and OCBs. Indeed, increasing the availability of job resources could curtail the effects of challenges and hindrances on workplace deviance behaviours and OCBs. Finally, despite our inclusion of ‘both sides’ of work–family conflict and work–family enrichment, the scope of this investigation was focused on the relationship between job demands and worker behaviours. Future research should consider the ‘other side’ of the demands-behaviours relationship by examining

REFERENCES Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2006). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180.

Conclusions The impact of job stress on the work–family interface has consequences for worker behaviours that are likely to be costly to organizations. To the extent that workers’ ability to meet and manage job demands is associated with greater WIF/FIW or less WFE, employees may be more likely to engage in workplace deviance behaviours and less likely to perform OCBs. Understanding work–family conflict and work–family enrichment as mechanisms and monitoring opportunities for positive experiences can help enhance organizational culture, promote OCBs and decrease the likelihood of deviance behaviours.

Barger, P., Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., & Sinar, E. F.

behavior provide an incremental contribution over

(2011). IO and the crowd: Frequently asked questions

self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of

about using Mechanical Turk for research. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 49, 11–17.

Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636. Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney,

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a

K. D. (2005). Extending the demands–control

measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied

model: A daily diary student of job characteristics,

Psychology, 85, 349–360.

work–family conflict and work–family facilitation.

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do

Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

other-reports

of

counterproductive

work

Journal

of

Occupational

Psychology, 78, 155–169.

and

Organizational

J. S. Jenkins et al.

Job Demands, Work–Family Interface, and Behaviour Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work–family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 1459–1486.

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(3), 169–188.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry

Grawitch, M. J., Barber, L. K., & Justice, L. (2010).

(Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., &

Rethinking the work–life interface: It’s not about

psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Hove, England:

Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side

balance, it’s about resource allocation. Applied

of the work–family interface: Development and

Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(2), 127–159.

validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of

A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecendents of work–

conflict between work and family roles. Academy of

family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., &

Psychology Press. Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M.

Management Review, 20, 76–88. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258214

Organizational Behavior, 32, 689–725. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and

deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional

family are allies: A theory of work–family enrich-

scale study. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

ment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.

555–572.

Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination

Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R. (2011).

Rodell, J. B. & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors

of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers.

Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at

spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.

home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of

emotions in links of challenge and hindrance

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 8–30.

stressors with citizenship and counterproductive

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moder-

behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Willims, J. H., &

ation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-

1438–1451. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands,

based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new

job resources, and their relationship with burnout

Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health

attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,

and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of

Psychology, 6, 64–80.

44, 513–524.

Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.

Culbertson, S. S., Huffman, A. H., & Alden-Anderson,

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983).

R. (2009). Leader–member exchange and work–

resource theory: Applications to stress and management

Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

family interactions: The mediating role of self-

in the workplace. In T. R. Golembiewski (Ed.),

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,

reported challenge-and hindrance-related stress. The

Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd edn),

653–663.

Journal of Psychology, 144, 15–36.

(pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires

Darrat, M., Amyx, D., & Bennett, R. (2010). An investi-

Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans

in OB research: A comment on the use of a contro-

gation into the effects of work–family conflict and job

and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and

versial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

satisfaction on salesperson deviance. Journal of

Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122.

15, 385–392.

Personal Selling and Sales Management, 30, 239–252.

Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D.

DeBono, A., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2011).

justice and stress: The mediating role of work–

(2004). Moderators of the relationships between

Rude and inappropriate: The role of self-control

family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,

coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior

in following social norms. Personality and Social

395–404.

and

Psychology Bulletin, 37, 136–146.

Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010).

fellow

employees’

attitudes.

Journal

of

Applied Psychology, 89, 455.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., &

Can counterproductive work behaviors be produc-

Tunstall, M. M., Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., &

Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources

tive? CWB a emotion-focused coping. Journal of

Weinberger, E. (2006). A closer look at CWB:

model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154–166.

Emotions, targets, and outcomes. Poster presented

499–512.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms

behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect

linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship

and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199. Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Hunter, E. M., & Whitten,

131–142.

and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional

Mathur, S., & Padmakumari, P. (2013). Organizational

exhaustion in the relationship between customer

justice and organizational citizenship behavior among

and employee incivility. Journal of Management, 36,

D. (2012). A two-study examination of work–family

store

conflict, production deviance and gender. Journal of

Research, 3, 124–149.

Vocational Behavior, 81, 245–258.

at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial

executives.

Human

Resource

Management

1486–1504. Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar,

McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010).

K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical

Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Work flexibility

Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turn-

explanation and model of primary antecedents and

or nonwork support? Theoretical and empirical

over intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family

consequences. Human Resource Management Review,

distinctions for work–life initiatives. Consulting

enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144, 61–81.

17, 63–76.

Stress and Health (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.