The "I believe" and the "I invest" of Work-Family Balance: The indirect influences of personal values and work engagement via perceived organizational climate and workplace burnout

Work-Family Conflict (WFC) refers to an employee's experience that his or her work pressures or efforts to optimize job ments interfere with the ability to meet family demands ( Frone, 2000; Judge et al., 2006 ), also addressed as work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) ( Amstad et al., 2011 ). Work-Family Conflict is the term most commonly used in the literature to describe this phenomenon, although the trend today is to focus the discourse on Work-Family Balance rather than Conflict.

Recent meta-analyses of WFC pointed to several workplace and personal variables as its antecedent sources such as task variety, job autonomy, family-friendly organizational climate/policies, role conflict and ambiguity, role overload, time demands, job involvement, work centrality, organizational support, family-(un)supportive supervision, coworker support, individual internal locus of control, negative affect and neuroticism, family centrality, family social support, and family climate ( Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011 ). Moreover, gender differences were found, indicating that workplace factors such as shift work, job insecurity, and conflicts with coworkers or supervisor on the one hand and responsibility for housekeeping or caring for family members on the other hand were significant factors contributing to WFC among men. For women, physical demands, overtime work, commuting time to work, and having dependent children were main WFC engendering factors ( Jansen, Kant, Kristensen, & Nijhuis, 2003 ).

Past research has recognized WFC as an important factor that affects not only employees’ well-being but also their employers’ ( Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011; Lapierre et al., 2008 ), and has been demonstrated to have detrimental impact on diverse work-related outcomes such as burnout, fatigue, and need for recovery from work ( Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998 ), productivity, work performance, risk of accidents, interpersonal conflicts at work, turnover rates, marital satisfaction, and physical and mental health conditions ( Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, & Marshall, 1995; Frone, 2000; Jansen et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2006 ). On the other hand, when WFC is reduced, employees exhibit greater job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, less turnover intentions ( Butts, Caspar, & Yang, 2013 ), and report greater family satisfaction as well as overall life satisfaction ( Lapierre et al., 2008 ). Specifically relevant to the present work is the role of individual dispositions as predictors of work-family conflict. Examples of such personal factors are internal locus of control, negative affect, and neuroticism ( Allen et al., 2012).

Following this line of research, the present investigation sought to shed further light on the role of individual psychological orientations in WFC, borrowing the personal values perspective along with the notion of work engagement. In other words, we aimed to examine whether employees’ values and work engagement may explain individual differences in the experiences of conflict and balance between workplace ments and family pressures.

A widely acknowledged theory of individual variables which has inspired a considerable number of studies is Schwartz's (1992, 1994) theory of ten basic human values: “openness to change” values (hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction), “conservation” values (conformity, tradition, and security), “self-transcendence” values (universalism and benevolence), and “self-enhancement” values (achievement and power). The basic values explain individual decision-making, attitudes, and behavior, defined as beliefs charged with affect, and reflect desirable goals unspecified to certain contexts or actions, as personal standards, and are ordered by importance relative to one another ( Schwartz, 2012 ). According to Schwartz, the ten values are universal values, and yet individuals and groups may differ in the relative importance they attribute to them. Furthermore, given the different psychological meaning of the ten values, some of them conflict with one another (e.g., benevolence and power), whereas others are compatible (e.g., conformity and security) ( Schwartz, 1992, 2006, 2012 ). Schwartz's values were found to have implications on various organizational factors such as citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (OCB-I) and toward the group (OCB-O) ( Arthaud-Day, Rode, & Turnley, 2012; Seppälä, Lipponen, Bardi, & Pirttilä-Backman, 2012 ), preferences for transformational and transactional leadership behaviors ( Fein, Vasiliu, & Tziner, 2011 ), perceptions of relational-type contracts ( Cohen, 2012 ), and workplace commitment ( Cohen, 2011 ). Past research has indicated that values should be considered when examining experienced work-family conflict ( Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Smelser, 1998 ), as they may explain why certain individuals are more prone to experience WFC while others, in similar circumstances, are not. For example, materialistic values were found to be related to higher work-family conflict ( Promislo, Deckop, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2010 ), and high WFC was found among employees characterized by “obsessive passion” towards work ( Caudroit, Boiche, Stephan, Le Scanff, & Trouilloud, 2011 ).

In the present research, we referred to Schwartz's (1992, 1994) basic human values. We addressed these values as psychological pre-dispositions that may increase the potential to experience work-family conflict. Specifically, we predicted that given the psychological meaning embedded in the different values, personal values which are egocentric and indicative of willingness to achieve-openness to change and self-enhancement values (i.e., hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, power, and achievement) would be especially relevant to WFC, as such values may be expressed in willingness to excel and remain in control of both work and family demands. Specifically, following past research on positive relations between materialistic values and increased passion towards work and WFC (e.g., Caudroit et al., 2011; Promislo et al., 2010 ), we expected that these values would positively predict WFC. Accordingly, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1 . There will be a significant positive relation between personal egocentric values and WFC: employees characterized by high levels of hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, power, and achievement personal values will express higher level of WFC relatively to those characterized by low levels of these values. Values of conformity, tradition, security, universalism, and benevolence will be less related to WFC .

It is reasonable to assume that personal values do not affect work-family balance in isolation of organizational perceptions. Recent meta-analyses indicated that organizational variables indicative of the support given to the employees, such as managerial support and perceived organizational work-family support, have clear relations with work-family conflict. The reports of WFC are lower when the employees perceive that their organization cares about reducing work-family conflicts and supports the ability to balance work and family demands ( Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011 ). Similarly, additional characteristic that we considered relevant to employees’ experience of work-family balance is the overall organizational environment or “organizational climate”. Organizational climate concerns employees’ perceptions of the social climate in a workplace, relevant to its policies, practices, and procedures ( Schneider, 2000; Schulte, Ostroff, & Kinicki, 2006 ), and therefore a multidimensional impression the employees form of their workplace which reflects their impressions of the behaviors that are expected and rewarded ( Armstrong, 2003; Zohar and Luria, 2005 ). Specifically, Litwin and Stringer (1968) differentiated between nine dimensions of organizational climate: (1) structure - employees’ feelings about the organizational constraints, amount of rules, regulations, and procedures; (2) responsibility - employees’ feelings such as “being your own boss” and not having to double-check personal decisions; (3) reward - employees’ feelings that the organization emphasizes positive rewards rather than punishments, and the perceived fairness of promotion policies; (4) risk - employees’ feelings about riskiness or challenge in the job/organization; (5) w armth - feelings of general good fellowship at the workplace, and the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups; (6) support - the perceived helpfulness of managers and other employees, and emphasis on mutual support; (7) s tandards - the perceived importance of implicit and explicit goals, and performance standards; (8) conflict - the feeling that managers and other workers are open to different opinions, and emphasis is placed on getting problems out in the open rather than ignoring them; and (9) identity - employees’ feelings that they belong to the organization and that they are valuable members of a working team.

Each of these dimensions, as well as an overall impression of organizational climate, may have immediate influence on employees’ experiences of the ability to balance between work and family ments. For example, organizational climate perceptions were found to affect employees’ levels of stress, job satisfaction, commitment, and performance, which, in turn, have implications for productivity ( Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003; Schulte et al., 2006 ). The “support” dimension, i.e., supervisor support and organization support, were found to be related to work-to-family conflict ( Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Kossek, Pichler et al., 2011; Van Der Pompe & Heus, 1993 ), and relations were found between employees’ shared perceptions of an organization's value and work-family support and diminished WFC ( Major, Fletcher, Davis, & Germano, 2008 ). Following this line of findings, in the present research we drew on the assumption that negative organizational climate perceptions reflected in lower job satisfaction, lower productivity, and lower perceptions of organizational support may raise employees’ dissatisfaction with their ing at work, increasing the tension between work and family, as they strive to fulfill both work and family demands. Therefore, in the present research we predicted that perceived organizational climate would be associated with employees’ experiences of work-family conflict and/or balance.

Hypothesis 2 . There will be a negative relation between the favorability of perceived organizational climate and WFC: employees characterized by unfavorable perceptions of organizational climate will express higher level of WFC relatively to those characterized by favorable organizational climate perceptions.

Moreover, we assumed that perceptions of organizational climate would be initially affected by employees’ personal values. As employees’ values were found to affect their perceptions of different organizational factors (e.g., perceptions of relational-type contracts and workplace commitment; Cohen, 2011, 2012 ) we expected to find that the values would also affect overall perceptions of organizational climate. Specifically, we assumed that organizational climate components – constraints, rules, regulations, procedures, challenges, and goals, as well as rewards, relations with co-workers, and feelings of belonging to the organization, might be affected by a high level of egocentric personal values emphasizing ambition and personal good. We predicted that this influence would be negative, supposing that such values may increase the employee's criticism of organizational practices and environment. In sum, in the present research, personal values categorized in Schwartz's (1992, 1994, 2012) conceptualization as “openness to change” and “self-enhancement” values were predicted to be indirectly related to work-family conflict via perceived organizational climate:

Hypothesis 3 . There will be a negative relation between personal egocentric values and the favorability of perceived organizational climate: high levels of hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, power, and achievement will be associated with unfavorable perceptions of organizational climate.

Hypothesis 4 . Perceptions of organizational climate will mediate the relations between the level of personal values and WFC.

As mentioned earlier, along with predispositions derived from personal values and perceived organizational climate, in the present research we were also interested in exploring the influences of daily workplace experiences relevant to employees’ ing, specifically the degree of investment in the workplace (i.e., “work engagement”), and whether these influences on WFC are mediated by burnout (see Figure 1).

Work or job engagement may be defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” ( Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 , pp. 295). In other words, work engagement reflects the willingness to invest effort in work and to persist in spite of difficulties (addressed as “vigor”); a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (“dedication”); and concentration and engrossment in work (“absorption”) ( Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ). Employees characterized by high work engagement are said to identify with their work, and to perceive their work as meaningful, inspirational, and challenging ( Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 ). Past research has shown that “engaged employees” tend to experience high personal initiative, active approach, and motivation to acquire knowledge ( Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007; Sonnentag, 2003 ), and that this engagement may amplify employees’ performance and organizational success in general ( Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Richman, 2006 ).

However, work engagement was also found to have negative consequences. Especially relevant to the present study are its effects on WFB – high work engagement was found to be associated with higher levels of work-family conflict due to the increased resources that engaged employees invest in their work, such as organizational citizenship behaviors ( Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009 ). Drawing on the same rationale and theoretical background, in the present research we also predicted a negative effect of work engagement on WFC. Yet, we hypothesized different indirect influence of work engagement, namely, via excessive workplace burnout. We should note that there may be other possible variables which affect employees’ high job involvement, for example workaholism. Yet, workaholism has a different conceptual meaning as it is defined as “… the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly” ( Oates, 1971 , p. 11), or an irresistible inner drive to work ( McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Burke, 2003 ). Such definitions are said to exclude considering workaholism as a positive state (e.g., Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997 ). Moreover, workaholism may initially imply that the balance between work and family does not exist or is interrupted as the balance is skewed towards work.

In the present research, we sought to look at allegedly “healthy” work involvement phenomena (i.e., work engagement) that similarly to personal values may also have negative implications for WFC. The theoretical background for the prediction of negative relations between work engagement, burnout, and WFC was the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory ( Hobfoll, 1988, 1998, 2001 ). COR theory emphasizes people's willingness to acquire and protect resources (psychological, social, and material), while acquired resources are invested to obtain additional resources. The striving to obtain and protect resources is so important that psychological stress occurs when those are lost, threatened with loss, or if individuals cannot replenish resources after significant investment. Employees characterized by high work engagement are supposed to be preoccupied with reinvesting their resources in the workplace (knowledge, skills, energy, etc.). However, work demands threaten employees’ resources, and continued exposure to such demands leads to emotional exhaustion ( Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993 ), especially as resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource gain ( Hobfoll, 2001 ). Eventually, such a state of affairs limits employees’ competence to meet family ments, and therefore gives rise to experiences of work-family interference (see Halbesleben et al., 2009 ). Accordingly, we expected that though work engagement may lead to positive organizational consequences, it could also contribute to work family conflict.

Hypothesis 5 . There will be a positive relation between work engagement and WFC: employees characterized by high levels of work engagement will express higher WFC relatively to those characterized by low levels of work engagement.

The experiences of psychological stress and emotional exhaustion following high and continued work engagement, consistent with the definition of “work burnout”. Work burnout is described along three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, experienced distance from others, and diminished personal accomplishment ( Maslach, 1982 ). Burnout was addressed as the “dark side” of work engagement, leading employees to inferior job performance and sacrificing different aspects of personal life ( Maslach, 2011 ). Work burnout has different negative outcomes for employees, such as absenteeism ( Ahola et al., 2008), chronic work disability ( Ahola, Toppinen-Tanner, Huuhtanan, Koskinen, & Väänänen, 2009 ), turnover ( Shimizu, Feng, & Nagata, 2005 ), poorer job performance (Taris, 2006), working safety ( Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011 ), and even depressive symptoms and decreased life dissatisfaction ( Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012 ). In the context of work-family balance, we expected that burnout would increase the perceived interference between work and family, particularly given its characteristic of emotional exhaustion ( Johnson & Spector, 2007 ). Following COR theory, emotional exhaustion signals that the employee is deprived of his or her resources, and therefore may experience increased tension in an attempt to meet both work and family ments. Accordingly, we predicted negative relations between work burnout and WFC. Finally, we hypothesized that as burnout may constitute the negative consequence of high work engagement, it should be assessed in the present research model as a mediator of the relations between work engagement and work-family conflict. In sum, our next hypotheses were as following:

Hypothesis 6 . There will be a positive relation between burnout and WFC: the higher the experienced work burnout, the higher the reports of WFC will be.

Hypothesis 7 . There will be a positive relation between work engagement and burnout: high work engagement will be associated with higher reports of work burnout.

Hypothesis 8 . Work burnout will mediate the relations between work engagement and WFC.

In the present research, we aimed to examine two psychological paths to experiences of work-family conflict. First, we assessed the “I believe” path, i.e., the way personal values predict WFC, while exploring whether values affect employees’ perceptions of organizational climate and subsequently WFC (Study 1). Past research has highlighted the need to consider the factor of values in relation to work-family balance (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Promislo et al., 2010; Smelser, 1998 ), yet there is relatively little research on the association between personal values and WFC. Specifically, as far as we know, no previous research has examined the role of basic human values in predicting proneness to experience work-family conflict via their implications on employees’ perceptions of their workplace organizational climate. Second, we examined the “I invest” path, i.e., the influences of employees’ work engagement on WFC via its associations with work burnout (Study 2) 1 1

The data for the present studies were collected during the years 2013-2014 in a large cellular provider company, two high-tech companies, and a communication company, as described in Study 1 & Study 2 Method sections.