Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms

  • Published on
    21-Dec-2016

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

  • http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

    http://jom.sagepub.com/content/39/3/792The online version of this article can be found at:

    DOI: 10.1177/0149206311435103 2013 39: 792 originally published online 22 February 2012Journal of Management

    Samuel Aryee, Chris W. L. Chu, Tae-Yeol Kim and Seongmin RyuInvestigation of Mediating Mechanisms

    Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An

    Published by:

    http://www.sagepublications.com

    On behalf of:

    Southern Management Association

    can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

    http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

    http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

    What is This?

    - Feb 22, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

    - Feb 25, 2013Version of Record >>

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Journal of ManagementVol. 39 No. 3, March 2013 792-813

    DOI: 10.1177/0149206311435103 The Author(s) 2012

    Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

    Family-Supportive Work Environment and Employee Work Behaviors: An Investigation

    of Mediating Mechanisms

    Samuel AryeeAston University

    Chris W. L. ChuUniversity of Surrey

    Tae-Yeol KimChina Europe International Business School

    Seongmin Ryu Kyonggi University

    This study examined psychological mechanisms that underpin the relationships between perceived organizational family support (POFS) and a family-supportive supervisor (FSS) on employee work behaviors. Based on data from employed parents and their supervisors (N = 230) in 12 South Korean organizations, structural equation modeling results revealed three salient findings: (1) POFS and FSS are indirectly related to contextual performance through control over work time, (2) FSS is indirectly related to both contextual performance and work with-drawal through organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), and (3) control over work time is indi-rectly related to the two work outcomes through OBSE. The authors interpret these findings as indicating support for the focus on informal workplace family support and the need for research to examine the psychological resources they engender if we are to understand why these forms of support have their demonstrated outcomes.

    Keywords: family-supportive work environment; control over work time; organization-based self-esteem; contextual performance; work withdrawal

    792

    Acknowledgment: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer.

    Corresponding Author: Samuel Aryee, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, England, B4 7ET, UK.

    E-mail: s.aryee@aston.ac.uk

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 793

    Recognition of employees as a source of competitive advantage has provided a renewed impetus to the perennial efforts of organizational scholars to understand the motivational basis of employee work-related attitudes and behaviors. However, the changing context of the labor market, particularly in terms of demographic shifts such as growth in the number of employees with significant work and family responsibilities, contemporaneous with the prevalence of a long-hours work culture and job insecurity have collectively created a situation in which a significant number of employees have difficulties integrating their work and family responsibilities (Cappelli, 1999; Moen & Roehling, 2005; Watanabe, Takahashi, & Minami, 1997). Research evidence suggests that the resulting workfamily conflict or the interference of work demands with family demands has deleterious consequences not only for the performance of employees but also for their well-being (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Carr, Boyar, & Gregory, 2008; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Consequently, a major focus in human resource management in the past two decades or so has been the adoption of family-friendly policies to assist employees to better manage their work and family responsibilities (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Glass & Finley, 2002; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Kossek & Nichol, 1992; Lambert, 2000; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). The literature distinguishes between formal and informal family-supportive practices, with the former focusing on actual practices (Neal, Chapman, Ingersoll-Dayton, & Emlen, 1993) such as policies (e.g., flexible working arrangements), services (e.g., resource and referral information about dependent care options), and benefits (e.g., child care subsidies), while the latter describes a family-supportive work environment defined by a family-supportive organizational culture and a family-supportive supervisor (Allen, 2001; Jahn, Thompson, & Kopelman, 2003; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).

    While research has shown formal family-supportive practices to be instrumental in ameliorating the negative consequences of workfamily conflict, there is recognition that many of these practices, such as provision of child care, are expensive to implement and that employees tend to be reluctant to use them because of concerns about the career penalties associated with their use (Allen, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Thompson et al., 1999). Consequently, research focus has now shifted from formal to informal practices (Allen, 2001; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011; Thompson et al., 1999). Although this research stream has enhanced our understanding of informal family supports on employee work outcomes, there are still a number of unanswered questions. First, while research has shown supportive aspects of the work environment to reduce deviant behaviors and promote contextual performance (Baran, Shanock, & Miller, 2011; Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009), it is not yet clear whether informal family-specific supports impact these two forms of discretionary behavior. Second, although much of this research has been grounded in organizational support theory, it has not examined socioemotional needs, such as affiliation and esteem needs, as mechanisms through which informal family-specific supports influence employee work behaviors. Consequently, our study seeks to contribute to this stream of research by proposing and testing a model of the mechanisms underlying the influence of family-supportive environment on employee work-related behaviors. Specifically, we examined control over work time and organization-based

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 794 Journal of Management / March 2013

    self-esteem (OBSE) as mediators of the influence of a family-supportive supervisor (FSS) and perceived organizational family support (POFS) on the work behaviors of contextual performance and work withdrawal. Additionally, we posit control over work time as indirectly influencing these work behaviors through OBSE.

    Our study contributes to the literature in three significant ways. First, by examining socioemotional needs as mechanisms that underpin the influence of a family-supportive environment on its documented outcomes, we provide a more complete test of organizational support theory by tapping into the socioemotional content of workplace social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Furthermore, we extend previous research by proposing the demonstrated influence of control over work time on employee work outcomes (Lapierre & Allen, 2010; Thompson & Prottas, 2005) to be indirect through OBSE, and more generally, we extend the antecedents of OBSE to include workplace informal family supports (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). The criticality of self-esteem to psychological functioning was underscored by Locke, McClear, and Knight:

    Self-esteem is a requirement of a healthy consciousness in the same way that food and water are requirements of a healthy body. . . . Many people live for a long time with some self-doubt but none can long tolerate a conviction of total worthlessness. (1996: 1)

    Understanding why informal workplace family supports influence employee outcomes will provide actionable knowledge to create an environment that will foster employee behaviors that are critical to the recognition of employees as a source of competitive advantage. Second, although a family-supportive work environment has been defined in terms of FSS and POFS, research has focused primarily on either FSS or POFS. By simultaneously examining the influence of both forms of informal support on these two work-related behaviors, our study provides an insight into potential differences in the mechanisms through which these forms of informal workplace family supports influence employee outcomes. This knowledge will be beneficial in helping organizations decide how to foster family-supportive work environments. Lastly, by examining two work-related discretionary behaviors (Bagger & Li, 2011; Lambert, 2000; Muse, Harris, Giles, & Field, 2008), we extend previous research that has focused predominantly on employee well-being indicators. Although we acknowledge the importance of employee well-being, the business case for implementing workfamily initiatives can be strengthened by research that examines work-related behaviors (Jahn et al., 2003). Our focus on contextual performance and withdrawal behaviors provides a more complete conceptualization of the discretionary behaviors that underpin the definition of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).

    Theory and Hypotheses Development

    Organizational support theory draws its conceptual heritage from March and Simons (1958) conceptualization of the employment relationship as one of exchange whereby employees exchange their contributions for inducements offered by the organization.

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 795

    Underpinning these contributions and their interpretation is the tendency of employees to anthropomorphize the organization by assigning to it humanlike traits that enable them to infer the extent to which the organization and its representatives care about them and are concerned about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002). To the extent that organizational support meets the needs of employees and enhances their psychological functioning, it is akin to workplace social support, which House (1981) describes as an interpersonal transaction that may include instrumental assistance, emotional expression of concern, or information. Increasingly, workplace social support has been conceptualized in terms of general support and workfamily-specific support (Hammer et al., 2009; Kossek et al., 2011). In the context of this study, we focus on workfamily-specific support, or the degree to which employees perceive supervisors or employers care about their ability to experience positive workfamily relationships and demonstrate this care by providing helpful social interaction and resources (Kossek et al., 2011: 292). Underpinning workplace support is the idea that it constitutes a resource for enhancing individual psychological functioning (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Voydanoff, 2004). As workfamily-specific forms of support and given their resource implications, POFS and FSS should enhance employees control over work time and OBSE, leading to contextual performance and work withdrawal behaviors. As a psychological resource, control over work time may enable employees to experience self-determination at work, which should have implications for their self-concept, leading to enhanced levels of OBSE. In addition to its predicted direct influence on work outcomes, we predicted that control over work time would indirectly influence these work outcomes through OBSE. These relationships are depicted in Figure 1.

    Family-Supportive Work Environment and OBSE

    As previously noted, we conceptualized family-supportive work environment in terms of POFS and FSS, which describe informal rather than formal family-supportive practices. We followed Kossek and colleagues and defined POFS in terms of an employees perception that the organization (a) cares about an employees ability to jointly effectively perform work and family and (b) facilitates a helpful social environment by providing direct and indirect workfamily resources (2011: 293). POFS conveys a message regarding the organizations interest in helping employees integrate their work and family roles. The perception of the organization as care centered reflects a deep underlying value system geared toward fulfilling employee desires to balance their work and family roles and can be growth enhancing, thereby implicating POFS in the formation of the self-concept of employees.

    FSS describes supervisors who empathize with the employees desire to seek balance between work and family responsibilities (Thomas & Ganster, 1995: 7). Examples of FSS behaviors include accommodating an employees flexible schedule, being understanding when an employee occasionally leaves early to pick up a child from child care, and allowing personal calls from home after a child returns from school. While organizations may adopt family-friendly policies, it is the immediate supervisor who is responsible for the actual

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 796 Journal of Management / March 2013

    enactment of these policies; therefore, the supervisor has a critical role in the effectiveness of these policies. A supervisors role in promoting an informal family-supportive work environment is even more critical when an organization does not have these formal policies (Bagger & Li, 2011). As an instrumental and emotional resource, FSS should enable employees to integrate their work and family roles. Because integration of work and family roles will lead to an improvement in an employees psychological functioning, FSS should improve his or her self-concept.

    We conceived of self-concept in terms of OBSE and defined it as the self-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organizational members acting within an organizational context (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989: 625). Thus, OBSE describes an individuals perception of himself or herself as important, competent, and capable within his or her employing organization: High-OBSE employees have come to believe I count around here (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Although the influence of a family-supportive work environment on OBSE has not been examined, there is a strong theoretical rationale for expecting them to be related. From a social support or resource perspective, both POFS and FSS should contribute to making an employee feel valued as a whole person, providing self-esteem as well as family-related resources including time, flexibility, and advice (Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007: 462). Pierce and colleagues (1989) suggest that OBSE stems from a history of organizational, interpersonal, and systemic experiences. We contend that POFS and FSS constitute such experiences and by meeting the socioemotional needs of employees express an employee-need-centred focus [that] provides the integrated experiential base upon which employee beliefs about self-worth, including organization-based self-esteem, develop (McAllister & Bigley, 2002: 896). In support of our arguments, researchers have reported conceptually related constructs such as organizational care (McAllister & Bigley, 2002), perceived organizational support (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005), and leadermember exchange (Pierce & Gardner, 2004) to be related to OBSE. Thus, we predict:

    Figure 1The Hypothesized Model

    Organization-BasedSelf-Esteem

    Work Withdrawal

    ContextualPerformance

    Family-SupportiveSupervisor

    Perceived OrganizationalFamily Support

    Control Over WorkTime

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 797

    Hypothesis 1a: POFS will positively relate to OBSE.Hypothesis 1b: FSS will positively relate to OBSE.

    Family-Supportive Work Environment and Control Over Work Time

    Central to an employees experience of strain and time-based workfamily conflict is the lack of control over work time. Consequently, a common denominator in organizational efforts to assist employees in integrating their work and family roles is a flexible work arrangement such as telework or flexitime (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Despite the importance of control over work time in mitigating the effects of stress and enhancing individual functioning, there is a paucity of research that has examined its antecedents (Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Pottras, 2005). Ganster and Fusilier (1989) define control as the belief that one can exert some influence over the environment, either directly or indirectly, so that the environment becomes more rewarding or less threatening. Control over work time entails having a choice in how much to work, when to schedule work, being able to interrupt work when needed to respond to family demands, and, sometimes, where the work is done (Kelly et al., 2008; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Valcour, 2007). As Kelly and colleagues (2008) observed, control over work time draws on job control in the job demandsresources theories, in which it refers to control over how work is done (Karasek, 1979).

    POFS describes a work environment in which the culture allows employees to feel that integrating work and family roles is an acceptable part of the work experience and in which the ideal employee is not one who devotes his or her entire waking hours to the work role. Such a family-supportive environment can increase employees perceptions of control not only over their work hours but also over their work roles. As POFS entails an organization putting money and effort into showing its support of employees and their families, as well as being understanding when an employee has a conflict between work and family roles (Jahn et al., 2003), it should contribute to enhancing an employees perception of control over his or her work time. From a social support perspective, POFS constitutes an important resource that can enhance employees integration of their work and family roles by enhancing their control over work time. Although research has not examined the influence of POFS on control over work time, POFS has been shown to negatively influence the experience of workfamily conflict, one of the indicators of lack of control over work time (Allen, 2001; Grandey et al., 2007; Kossek et al., 2011).

    We also posit FSS to relate to control over work time. Much research has shown that the enactment of family-supportive policies such as hours worked, flexitime, and work scheduling depends on the discretion of supervisors. This is because since supervisors determine employee workload, they play a critical role in employees experience of work-related stress. The criticality of supervisor discretion in the enactment of flexible work arrangements suggests that they are an important source of workplace social support or resource in giving employees latitude over when they work, how many hours they work, and where they work. Denying an employees request to leave work early to pick up a child from day care or for time off to attend to a family emergency will minimize his or her perceptions of control over work time, while granting such requests will increase perceptions of control. There is research

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 798 Journal of Management / March 2013

    evidence suggesting that FSS positively relates to control over work time (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and negatively relates to indicators of lack of control over work time such as workfamily conflict or work distress (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Thus, we predict:

    Hypothesis 2a: POFS will positively relate to control over work time.Hypothesis 2b: FSS will positively relate to control over work time.

    Accounting for Outcomes of Family-Supportive Work Environment

    Much research has shown POFS and FSS to relate to myriad organizational and individual outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors, task performance, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, absenteeism, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, workfamily conflict, and physical health (Allen, 2001; Bagger & Li, 2011; Cook, 2009; Grandey et al., 2007; Hammer et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2008; Kossek et al., 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). While these findings underscore the utility of informal workplace family supports, much of the research has focused on direct effects. Consequently, we have only a limited understanding of the mechanisms that underpin these relationships. In the succeeding paragraphs, we examine OBSE and control over work time as mediators of the influence of POFS and FSS on the work outcomes of contextual performance and work withdrawal.

    Borman and Motowidlo (1993) defined contextual performance as a form of discretionary behavior that constitutes a set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the social and motivational context in which organizational work is accomplished. The construct has since been noted (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) to comprise the dimensions of interpersonal facilitation (cooperation, consideration, and helpful acts that assist coworker performance) and job dedication (self-disciplined, motivated acts such as working hard and taking initiative). In contrast, work withdrawal describes behaviors that are designed to undermine organizational goal attainment efforts and therefore are counterproductive acts (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Examples of such behaviors include absence from work without a tangible reason, taking longer breaks, calling in sick when one is not actually sick, and making excuses to get out of work. Specifically, Hanisch and Hulin (1990) note that work withdrawal describes behaviors employees use to minimize the time spent on specific work tasks while maintaining organizational membership. By examining contextual performance and work withdrawal as indicators of work outcomes, we provide a more complete conceptualization of the behaviors that underpin the definition of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).

    Mediating Influence of OBSE

    Drawing on Kormans (1970) cognitive consistency theory, we posit that OBSE will be related to contextual performance and work withdrawal. Korman argued that all other things being equal, individuals will engage in and find satisfying those behavioral roles which

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 799

    minimize their sense of cognitive balance or consistency (1970: 32). Reflective of high-OBSE individuals image of themselves as competent and contributing members of the organization, they will demonstrate behaviors that promote the goal attainment efforts of the organization, resulting in high levels of contextual performance and lower levels of work withdrawal. The satisfaction of employee self-esteem needs that stems from informal family workplace supports such as POFS and FSS will foster a sense of belonging that will motivate high-OBSE employees to engage in organizationally beneficial behaviors. In support of our argument, research has reported OBSE to be positively related to organizational citizenship behavior (Chen et al., 2005; Pierce & Gardner, 2004) but negatively related to organizational deviance (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009). We previously posited POFS and FSS to relate to enhanced levels of OBSE, which in turn mobilizes employees to take action reflected in high levels of performance and low levels of work withdrawal. Thus, we predict:

    Hypothesis 3a: OBSE will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance.Hypothesis 3b: OBSE will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on work withdrawal.

    Mediating Influence of Control Over Work Time

    As previously noted, control over work time is critical to the ability of employees to participate in multiple roles and constitutes an underlying objective of formal and informal workplace family supports. Although control has been shown to be a critical resource in the stress literature (Karasek, 1979), its influence in explicating why these forms of workplace family supports relate to their demonstrated outcomes has not been widely examined (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). As a psychological resource, control over work time should enable employees to function effectively in the context of work by enhancing their ability to focus attention on their work roles or demonstrate a high degree of work engagement. It is our submission that this ability to focus attention on the work role consequent upon the experience of control enables employees to improve their work role performance, leading to enhanced levels of contextual performance and reduced levels of work withdrawal. Employees with limited control over their work time may experience stress and strain, which will lead to work withdrawal behaviors as a coping mechanism. Further, in their stressoremotion model of counterproductive work, Spector and Fox (2002) posited control as a major determinant of this form of work behavior. This is because controllable situations are less likely to be perceived as stressors and therefore less likely to precipitate the negative emotions that lead to work withdrawal or counterproductive work behavior in general (Spector & Fox, 2002: 162). As control over work time mitigates the experience of workfamily conflict, it constitutes a critical resource in enhancing psychological functioning, thereby leading to reduced levels of work withdrawal. In support of our arguments, Thompson and Prottas (2005) reported the conceptually similar construct of perceived control to mediate the influence of informal workplace family supports on turnover intentions, a form of work withdrawal behavior. As POFS and FSS relate to control over work time, which in turn, leads to contextual performance and work withdrawal, POFS and FSS will indirectly relate to these work behaviors through control over work time. Thus, we predict:

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 800 Journal of Management / March 2013

    Hypothesis 4a: Control over work time will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on contextual performance.

    Hypothesis 4b: Control over work time will mediate the influence of POFS and FSS on work withdrawal.

    In addition to directly influencing contextual performance and work withdrawal, as shown in Figure 1, we posit control over work time to indirectly influence these work outcomes through OBSE. As a psychological resource, control over work time enhances an individuals psychological functioning in multiple roles. An improved functioning in the work role will lead to a positive view of the self, a view of oneself as a competent and contributing member of the organization, leading to enhanced OBSE. This dovetails with Pierce and Gardners (2004) suggestion that self-esteem stems from direct and personal experiences in that individuals who feel efficacious and competent as a result of personal experiences come to develop a positive self-image or high OBSE. Thus, we expect control over work time to influence the two work outcomes indirectly through OBSE.

    Hypothesis 5: Control over work time will influence contextual performance and work withdrawal indirectly through OBSE.

    Method

    Sample and Procedure

    Data were collected from employees and their supervisors in 12 organizations in South Korea. We obtained the participation of the organizations with the support of the Korea Labor Institute, which is the research institution of the South Korean government. The organizations consist of 4 manufacturing firms, 2 financial service firms, 4 public firms, and 2 other service firms. To initiate the investigation, human resource managers at each organization compiled a list of employees who have a child (or children) as well as the immediate supervisors of these employees. We invited a total of 300 employeesupervisor pairs to participate in the study. Enclosed in each subordinate questionnaire package was a stamped self-addressed envelope for returning completed questionnaires to one of the authors. Supervisor-completed questionnaires were returned directly to a survey coordinator in the human resource department of the participating organization. To ensure the matching of subordinate and supervisor responses, code numbers were written at the top right-hand corner of the first page of the questionnaire, as well as the name of the subordinate in the case of the supervisor questionnaire. Attached to each questionnaire was a cover letter that explained the purpose of the survey, informed respondents of the volitional nature of participation in the survey, and assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. The objective of the survey was explained as being concerned with examining employed parents experiences of the focal organizations human resource practices. With the exception of data on contextual performance that were obtained from supervisors, data on the other study variables were obtained from subordinates.

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 801

    Of the 300 questionnaires distributed, a total of 240 matched employeesupervisor questionnaires were returned, but 10 respondents were excluded because they reported not having a child who is under 18 years. This resulted in an effective sample size of 230. Seventy-seven percent (177) of respondents were men; they reported a mean age of 37.9 years (SD = 5.89) and organizational tenure of 10.6 years (SD = 6.74). All respondents were married and worked an average of 47.83 hours (SD = 8.22) a week. The modal educational attainment was an undergraduate degree. Eighty-nine percent (204) of supervisors were men; they reported an average age of 43.96 years (SD = 6.58), organizational tenure of 16.48 years (SD = 7.67), and an average supervisorsubordinate tenure of 3.04 years (SD = 3.12).

    Measures

    In order to use prevalidated measures, surveys were initially written in English and translated into Korean using the back translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1986). Two bilingual translators who were blind to the studys hypotheses independently translated the survey from English to Korean, while a third translator, a bilingual academic, back translated the Korean-language version into English. We then pilot tested the Korean version on a sample of 30 employees who were not included in the final sample. Feedback obtained from the pilot test was used to reword a few items to ensure clarity.

    FSS. We used a nine-item scale by Thomas and Ganster (1995) to measure FSS. Respondents indicated the frequency with which their supervisors engaged in each of these behaviors, with response options ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Sample items include Was understanding or sympathetic of my efforts to integrate my work and family responsibilities, Juggled tasks or duties to accommodate my family responsibilities, Shared ideas or advice about handling work and family responsibilities, and Showed resentment of my needs as an employed parent. The scales alpha reliability in this study is .79.

    POFS. We used an eight-item version of a scale by Jahn and colleagues (2003) to measure POFS. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items that represent the three dimensions of instrumental, informational, and emotional support are My organization puts money and effort into showing its support of employees and families, My organization makes an active effort to help employees when there is a conflict between work and family life, and My organization helps employees with families find the information they need to balance work and family. The scales alpha reliability is .95.

    Control over work time. We used a 10-item scale adapted from Thomas and Ganster (1995) to measure control over work time. Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much) the extent of control they had over aspects of work time. Sample items include when you begin and end each workday or each work week, when you take vacations or days off, when you can take a few hours off, the number of hours you work each week, and the number of times you make or receive personal phone calls when you are at work. The scales alpha reliability in this study is .83.

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 802 Journal of Management / March 2013

    OBSE. A 10-item scale developed by Pierce and colleagues (1989) was used to measure OBSE. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are I count around here in this organization, There is faith in me in this organization, and I am valuable in this organization. The scales alpha reliability in this study is .94.

    Work withdrawal. We measured work withdrawal with a 12-item scale by Hanisch and Hulin (1990). Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 8 (more than once per week). Sample items include Making excuses to go somewhere to get out of work, Ignoring those tasks that will not help your performance review or pay raise, and Taking frequent or long lunch breaks. The scales alpha reliability in this study is .72.

    Contextual performance. Supervisors rated the likelihood of their focal subordinates engaging in each of the 15 items developed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) to measure contextual performance. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely). Sample items are Praise co-workers when they are successful, Say things to make people feel good about themselves or the work group, Take the initiative to solve a work problem, and Exercise personal discipline and self-control. Consistent with recent practice (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002), we combined scores on the two dimensions of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication to form a composite measure of contextual performance. The scales alpha reliability is .95.

    Data Analysis

    To minimize Type 1 error rates while enhancing statistical power, we followed MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheetss (2002) suggestion and used structural equation modeling (SEM) to simultaneously test the hypothesized relationships depicted in Figure 1. We adopted Anderson and Gerbings (1988) two-stage procedure and, first, conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the distinctiveness of our study variables using LISREL 8.8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006). We compared our hypothesized six-factor model to a series of nested theoretically plausible alternative models. Second, and as previously noted, we tested our structural model using SEM. Following Kelloway (1998), we compared our hypothesized model to a series of theoretically nested models by adding or deleting paths from the antecedents to OBSE or from control over work time to the two outcomes. Lastly, we compared the best-fitting model with a series of nonnested models using the Akaike information criterion (AIC). We chose the best-fitting model by comparing the goodness of the fit of the models using the chi-square difference test. Because supervisors rated the contextual performance of a single subordinate, we did not have to ascertain the nonindependence of supervisor ratings. We assessed overall fit of the models using the chi-square goodness-of-fit to degrees-of-freedom ratio, chi-square difference test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). Indices of model fit suggest RMSEA values no higher than .08, SRMR values no higher than .10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and values above .90 for CFI and NNFI (Hu & Bentler, 1998).

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • Aryee et al. / Family-Supportive Work Environment 803

    Results

    Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among our study variables. As can be seen from Table 1, both POFS (r = .60, p < .01) and FSS (r = .53, p < .01) related to control over work time. Similarly, POFS (r = .61, p < .01) and FSS (r = .52, p < .01) related to OBSE. Control over work time related to OBSE (r = .52, p < .01), contextual performance (r = .28, p < .01), and work withdrawal (r = .18, p < .01). OBSE was related to both contextual performance (r = .33, p < .01) and work withdrawal (r = .32, p < .01).

    The results of the CFA are presented in Table 2. The overall CFA indicated that our hypothesized six-factor model showed acceptable fit with the data, c2(230, 1,937) = 4,315.70, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .074, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. As shown in Table 2, we compared the fit of our hypothesized model to four alternative models, none of which fit the data as well as our hypothesized model, indicating support for the distinctiveness of the constructs in our study.

    Table 3 presents the results of the test of our structural model. We used a series of nested models to examine the fit of our structural model. This is because James, Mulaik, and Brett (2006) noted that the conditions for demonstrating mediation as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) may be inappropriate when using SEM to test for mediation. We compared our hypothesized model to six alternative partially mediated models and an additive, or nonmediated, model. Our hypothesized model, in which control over work time partially mediated the influence of FSS and POFS on OBSE and OBSE partially mediated the influence of control over work time on work withdrawal and contextual performance, fit the data well, c2(230, 1,942) = 4,318.14, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .077, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. We then compared our hypothesized model with the nested models based on the chi-square test to decide the best-fitting model. Models 2 to 7 are the partially mediated models in which we added or deleted a path or paths from control over work time to the two work outcomes (Models 2-4) or deleted a path from FSS or POFS, or both, to OBSE (Models 5-7). As shown in Table 3, comparing Models 2 to 4, the change in chi-square test showed that Model 4 was significantly better than Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3. Model 4 was therefore retained as the best-fitting model and was then used to compare with the other nested models (Models 5-7). When deleting a path or paths to the other nested models (Models 5-7), Model 7 fit the data as well as Model 4. However, based on the rule of parsimony, Model 7 was retained as the best-fitting model, c2(230, 1,944) = 4,316.43, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .080, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .95. Finally, we compared Model 7 with a series of nonnested models using the AIC. First, we deleted the path from FSS to control over work time; second, we deleted the path from POFS to control over work time but added the path from POS to OBSE; and lastly, we compared Model 7 with a model in which we had paths from FSS, POFS, and control over work time to OBSE. The results revealed that Model 7 has the smallest AIC compared with the nonnested models, which indicated that these nonnested models are worse than our best-fitting Model 7.

    Figure 2 presents the standardized path estimates for the best-fitting model (Model 7). As the best-fitting model estimates only an indirect effect from POFS to OBSE, Hypothesis 1a, which states that POFS relates to OBSE, did not receive support. However, Hypothesis 1b, which states that FSS (b = .36, p < .01) relates to OBSE, received support. Hypothesis 2a, which

    at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

  • 804

    Tab

    le 1

    Des

    crip

    tive

    Sta

    tist

    ics

    and

    Zer

    o-O

    rder

    Cor

    rela

    tion

    s

    MSD

    12

    34

    56

    78

    910

    1112

    1. S

    ubor

    dina

    tes

    sex

    a1.

    23 (

    1.11

    )0.

    42 (

    0.32

    )

    2. S

    ubor

    dina

    tes

    age

    37.9

    (43

    .96)

    5.89

    (6.

    58)

    .24

    ** (

    .48

    **)

    3.

    Sub

    ordi

    nate

    s e

    duca

    tion

    2.57

    (2.

    80)

    0.90

    (0.

    76)

    .28

    ** (

    .29

    **)

    .11

    (.2

    5**)

    4.

    Sub

    ordi

    nate

    s te

    nure

    10.6

    (16

    .48)

    6.74

    (7.

    67)

    .12

    (.

    22**

    ).7

    0**

    (.68

    **)

    .03

    (.2

    5**)

    5.

    Sup

    ervi

    sor

    subo

    rdin

    ate

    tenu

    re3.

    043.

    12.

    10.1

    6*.

    16*

    .19*

    *

    6. S

    ubor

    dina

    tes

    num

    ber

    of

    chil

    dren

    und

    er 1

    81.

    590.

    60.

    11.3

    2**

    .00

    .30*

    *.0

    2

    7. F

    amil

    y-su

    ppor

    tive

    su

    perv

    isor

    3.36

    0.54

    .03

    .14*

    .25*

    *.1

    2.

    11.1

    0

    8. P

    erce

    ived

    org

    aniz

    atio

    nal

    fam

    ily

    supp

    ort

    3.18

    0.83

    .02

    .18*

    *.1

    0.2

    1**

    .08

    .01

    .53*

    *

    9. C

    ontr

    ol o

    ver

    wor

    k ti

    me

    2.58

    0.68

    .17

    **.1

    8**

    .10

    .13*

    .06

    .18*

    *.5

    3**

    .60*

    *

    10. O

    rgan

    izat

    ion-

    base

    d

    self

    -est

    eem

    3.56

    0.60

    .09

    .18*

    *.1

    8**

    .17*

    .06

    .14*

    .52*

    *.6

    1**

    .52*

    *

    11. W

    ork

    wit

    hdra

    wal

    2.04

    0.77

    .08

    .14

    *.0

    8.

    20**

    .03

    .16

    *.

    22**

    .21

    **.

    18**

    .32

    **

    12. C

    onte

    xtua

    l per

    form

    ance

    3.86

    0.67

    .02

    .06

    .06

    .07

    .01

    .11

    .36*

    *.3

    8**

    .28*

    *.3

    3**

    .16

    *

    Not

    e: N

    = 2

    30. F

    igur

    es in

    par

    enth

    eses

    are

    sup

    ervi

    sor

    s de

    mog

    raph

    ic in

    form

    atio

    n.a.

    Cod

    ed 1

    = m

    ale

    and

    2 =

    fem

    ale.

    *p

Recommended

View more >