Effects of Informal Work-Family Support on Job Performance: Mediating Roles of Work-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction

Transcription

1 Effects of Informal WorkFamily Support on Job Performance: Mediating Roles of WorkFamily Conflict and Job Satisfaction Aminah Ahmad & Zoharah Omar, Universiti Putra Malaysia ABSTRACT This article presents a model which examines the mechanism through which informal support, provided by organizations to help employees manage work and family roles, affects employees job performance using the conservation of resources theory, social exchange theory and related studies. This model proposes that this informal support has a direct effect on job performance. Besides this, the informal support has an indirect effect on job performance through workfamily conflict and job satisfaction. The model implies that there is a need to realize the importance of informal workfamily supportive practices, besides formal benefits, and the positive outcomes arising from such supportive practices. Keywords: informal workfamily support practices; workfamily conflict, job satisfaction, job performance INTRODUCTION In an organization, informal support that is familyfriendly affects employee behavior (such as job performance) and attitudes toward their job (such as job satisfaction) more than formal support (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Behson, 2005). Informal support includes practices such as providing employees greater autonomy and discretion to manage their work (Behson, 2005) and providing support to employees such as permission to meet for work later on another day, permission to leave work earlier to attend to personal or family matters (Roehling, Roehling, & Moen, 2001), while the formal support includes practices such as parental leave provisions, flexible work schedules, parttime work, compressed work week schedules, job sharing, dependent care benefits and telecommuting (Strachan & Burgess, 1998). The informal support has more impact on employee ability to balance work and family demands, or reduce workfamily conflict, than the formal benefits (Allen 2001; Hammer, Neal, Newsome, Brckwood, & Colton, 2005). The conflict occurs when the demands of work and family roles are incompatible in some respects as a result of which participation in one role makes it difficult to meet the demands of the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Besides reducing workfamily conflict, studies have shown that informal workfamily support practices play a significant in improving workrelated outcomes including job performance and job satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2002; Behson, 2005). THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The proposed research model was developed based on the conservation of resources theory, the social exchange theory as well as previous related studies. Conservation of Resources Theory According to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) individuals seek to acquire and maintain resources they can use to overcome stress. Stress is a reaction to an environment in which there is the threat of a loss of resources, including social support, or an actual loss of resources. Individuals could acquire resources, such as social support, to overcome stress, such as workfamily conflict. Stress can also occur if resource investment does not result in the expected resource gain. When there is a reduction of stress such as conflict, improvements in job satisfaction and performance levels are expected. 202

2 Social Exchange Theory The social exchange theory, proposed by Homans (1961), posits that social behavior (such as job performance) is the result of an exchange process. The exchange is regulated by the norm of reciprocity. This exchange process aims at maximizing benefits and minimizing costs or risks. According to this theory, individuals weigh the benefits and risks of this exchange process or social relationships. Positive relationships refer to those in which the benefits outweigh the risks. When the risks outweigh the benefits, individuals will terminate that relationship. The exchange is based on the norm of reciprocity such as improving job performance in return for organizational support. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INFORMAL WORKFAMILY SUPPORT AND OUTCOME VARIABLES Informal WorkFamily Support and Job Performance Empirical studies have focused on examining the relationship between workfamily support practices and organizational performance such as profitability, product quality, ability to grow, ability to attract essential employees, market value, and managementemployee relations (Konrad & Mangel, 2000; PerrySmith & Blum, 2000; Meyer, Mukerjee & Sestero, 2001). However, few studies have examined the relationship between workfamily support especially informal support and job performance. One of these studies is conducted by Brummelhuis and van der Lippe (2010) who examined worklife balance support including informal support and its relationship with job performance using a sample of employees from 24 organizations. Informal support was defined as organization s positive attitude toward integrating work and family responsibilities and this support was referred to as family responsive culture. The results showed that family responsive culture improved job performance among working parents. Based on these results and the social exchange theory, the following hypothesis is proposed. Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between informal workfamily support and job performance. Informal WorkFamily Support and WorkFamily Conflict Informal workfamily support can be used as resources in solving problems and managing challenging familyrelated issues, in order to balance the demands of work and family roles (Anderson, et al. 2002). Previous studies have shown that informal workfamily support practices are important not only because they help employees manage their work and family roles, but also help employees reduce the levels of workfamily conflict experienced. Thompson and Pottras (2005) did a study to examine whether workfamily conflict experiences of American employees depend on familyfriendly benefits available to them or the extent to which they received informal family support in the work environment. Data were obtained from the 2002 Study of the Changing Workforce. They found that familyfriendly benefits were not significantly related to the level of conflict employees experienced, whereas the informal family support was significantly related to levels of conflict experience by these employees. In another study, Behson (2005) used the dominance analysis statistical technique to compare the contribution of formal benefits and informal support to workfamily conflict experienced by employees from the 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. They found the dominance of informal support over formal benefits in explaining conflict experiences. Informal support explained 95% of the total variance in conflict, whereas formal benefits explained less than 5% of the variance. Gordon, WhelanBerry and Hamilton (2007) examined the relationship between informal work and family supportive perception and work to family conflict. The results of their study indicated that favorable work and family culture has negative effects on workfamily conflict. In Malaysia, Aminah & Zoharah (2010) conducted a study on employees from private organizations and they found in organizations that are familysupportive less workfamily conflict was experienced by employees. Similar results have been reported by Thompson and Pottras (2005), Behson (2005), and Gordon, Whelan Berry and Hamilton (2007). Based on the literature review, the following hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 2: There is a significant negative relationship between informal workfamily support and workfamily conflict The Journal of International Management Studies, Volume 7 Number 2, October,

3 Workfamily conflict and job performance Several studies have examined the relationship between workfamily conflict and job performance with mixed results. Using a selfrated measure of job performance, Aryee (1992) and Frone, Yardley and Markel (1997) found that job performance was related to jobparent conflict. Karatepe & Sokmen (2006), in their study on frontline hotel employees in Turkey, found workfamily conflict was negatively associated with job performance, while Netemeyer, Maxham III and Pullig (2005), in their study on customer service employees, customers and supervisors, found a significant effect of workfamily conflict on employee performance. Since the association between workfamily conflict and job performance has been supported by a number of findings, the following hypothesis is proposed. Hypothesis 3: There is a significant negative relationship between workfamily conflict and job performance Workfamily conflict and job satisfaction Many researchers have demonstrated a significant negative correlation between workfamily conflict and job satisfaction. For example, in a study conducted in Malaysia among single mother employees, workfamily conflict was negatively associated with job satisfaction (Noryati, Aminah & Tengku Aizan, 2010). Lu, Kao, Chang, Wu and Cooper (2008) examined the relationship between workfamily conflict and workrelated outcomes including job satisfaction in the cultural context of Chinese society. They found that workfamily conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction. Similarly, in a study of nurses in Turkey, work family conflict was found to decrease nurses job satisfaction (Yildirim & Aycan, 2008). Based on previous research findings, it is expected that workfamily conflict lead to lower job satisfaction among employees and the following hypothesis is proposed. Hypothesis 4: There is a significant negative relationship between workfamily conflict and job satisfaction. Informal WorkFamily Support and Job satisfaction (Allen 2001) Work family research has begun to recognize that informal work family are more useful than formal work family support in explaining variance in employee affective and behavioral outcomes (Behson, 2005). Anderson, et al. (2001) examined the extent to which employees perceive their organization as familysupportive. The study was conducted on employees from various occupations and organizations. Perceptions of familysupportive work environments explained a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction. The relative contribution of formal and informal workfamily support was examined by Behson (2005) using data from the Families and Work Institute's 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. Formal organizational policy, work schedule flexibility and work family benefit availability were used as indicators of formal work family support while job autonomy, manager support and career impact concerns as indicators of formal work family support. The respondents for this study were from 48 states in the United States. The results provide evidence that informal work family support explains a greater proportion of variance in employee outcomes including job satisfaction than formal mechanisms do. Organizations that foster environments that promote supervisors to be supportive of employee work family issues, and refrain from penalizing employees for attending to family needs would benefit from increased employee satisfaction. Based on the results of these studies the following hypothesis is proposed. Hypothesis 5: There is a significant positive relationship between informal workfamily support and job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Job satisfaction and job performance are significant behavioral outcomes in organizations. Tuten and Neidermeyer (2004) conducted a study at two call centers in the utilities industry in the southeastern United States and reported that employee job satisfaction has a significant influence on performance. Carmeli (2003) found a significant positive relationship between senior managers job satisfaction and performance. Similar results were reported by Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom (2005) in their study on sale managers and by Babin and Boles (1996) in their study on service providers. Based on these findings the following hypothesis is proposed. Hypothesis 6: There is a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. 204

4 THE PROPOSED MODEL The proposed model was developed based on the conservation of resources theory, the theory of social exchange as well as previous related studies (Figure 1). Based on the conservation of resources theory, when there is lack of resources in the form of organizational support, employees experience stress in the form of workfamily conflict. The conflict will in turn lead to a decrease in the levels of job satisfaction and performance. Based on the social exchange theory, the norm of reciprocity regulates the exchange process between the organization and employees, whereby in return for the informal workfamily support provided by an organization to help employees accommodate work and family demands, employees would be more likely to perform well at work. This model extends previous models on job performance by examining informal workfamily supportive practices, and the mechanism through which it affects job performance of employees. This present model proposes that the consequences of informal workfamily supportive practices can be traced through four different paths. Path 1: Informal workfamily support job performance Path 2: Informal workfamily support workfamily conflict job performance Path 3: Informal workfamily support job satisfaction job performance Path 4: Informal workfamily support workfamily conflict job satisfaction job performance Informal Work Family Support WorkFamily Conlict Figure 1: Effects of Informal WorkFamily Support on Job Performance: Mediating Roles of WorkFamily Conflict on Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction Job Performance CONCLUSION This model proposes that workfamily informal support has a direct effect on job performance. Additionally, this informal support has an indirect effect on job performance through workfamily conflict and job satisfaction. The model implies that there is a need to realize the importance of informal workfamily supportive practices, besides formal benefits, and the positive outcomes arising from such supportive practices. REFERENCES Allen, T. D. (2001). Familysupportive work environments: The role of organization perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, Aminah Ahmad & Zoharah Omar. (2010). Perceived familysupportive work culture, affective commitment and turnover intention of employees. Journal of American Science, 6(12), Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to workfamily conflict and jobrelated outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6), Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 4, The Journal of International Management Studies, Volume 7 Number 2, October,

5 Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived coworker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance, and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72, Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and job outcomes in sales: A triphasic model versus a linearquadraticinteractive model. Journal of Business Research, 58, Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational workfamily support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the worklife interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, Gordon, J. R., WhelanBerry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship among workfamily conflict, and work outcome for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4), Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, Hammer, B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dualearner couples utilization of familyfriendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Karatepe, O. M., & Sokmen, A. (2006). The effects of work role and family role variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism Management 27(2), Konrad, A., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of worklife programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Chang, T. T., Wu, H. P., & Cooper. C. L. (2008). Work/family demands, work flexibility, work/family conflict and their consequences at work: A national probability sample in Taiwan. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 121. Meyer, C. S., Mukerjee, S., & Sestero, A. (2001). Workfamily benefits: Which ones maximize profits? Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(1), Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham III, J. G., & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the WorkFamily Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer Purchase Intent. Journal of Marketing 69(2), Noryati Ngah, Aminah Ahmad, Tengku Aizan Tengku Abdul Hamid & Azahari Ismail. (2010). The mediating role of workfamily conflict in the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 4(11), PerrySmith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Workfamily human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., & Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between worklife policies and practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, Strachan, G., & Burgess, J. (1998). The family friendly workplace: Origins, meaning and application at Australian workplaces. International Journal of Manpower, 19 (4), Brummelhuis, L. L. & van der Lippe, T. (2010). Effective worklife balance support for various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49(2), Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of familysupportive work variables on work family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, Tuten, T. L. & Neidermeyer, P. E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 57(1), Yildirim, D. & Aycan, Z. (2008). Nurses work demands and workfamily conflict: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45,