دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 34178
عنوان فارسی مقاله

توجه به نقش شخصیتی در تجربه کار و خانواده: روابط پنج عامل بزرگ برای تعارض کار ـ خانواده و آسان سازی

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
34178 2004 23 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict and facilitation
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 64, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 108–130

کلمات کلیدی
تعارض کار - خانواده - تسهیل کار - خانواده - بزرگ و پنج - شخصیتی - رضایت شغلی -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله توجه به نقش شخصیتی در تجربه کار و خانواده: روابط پنج عامل بزرگ برای تعارض کار ـ خانواده و آسان سازی

چکیده انگلیسی

Using a national, random sample (N=2130), we investigated the relationship between each of the Big Five personality traits and conflict and facilitation between work and family roles. Extraversion was related to greater facilitation between roles but was not related to conflict, whereas neuroticism was related to greater conflict but only weakly related to facilitation. Conscientiousness was related to less conflict, presumably reflecting efficient time use and organizational skills. In general, conflict was negatively related to work–family outcomes (e.g., lower job and family effort and satisfaction) whereas facilitation was positively related to the same outcomes. Conflict and facilitation were shown, however, to be orthogonal rather than opposite constructs. Implications for work–family theory, for the understanding of personality traits, and for enhanced responsibilities of organizations are discussed.

مقدمه انگلیسی

All employees must balance the demands of their work and nonwork lives. Despite important advances in the work–family literature, two important gaps in our knowledge still exist. First, individual differences in the way people balance work and family have largely been ignored (Sumer & Knight, 2001). And, “few studies have acknowledged the possibility that work and family roles can have positive or enriching effects on one another” (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999, p. 395). The purpose of the present study is to advance previous research in three ways. Using a large, nationally representative sample, we examine personality as an antecedent to conflict; we consider the facilitation employees may experience between work and family in addition to the more commonly studied conflict, and we examine the relation of conflict and facilitation to role outcomes. Work–family research has relied almost exclusively on the scarcity perspective which suggests that engaging in work and family roles results in interrole conflict (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work–family conflict (WFC) is defined as when participation in one role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The WFC model developed by Kopelman, Greenhaus, and Connolly (1983) and adopted by many researchers suggests that structural factors within work and family domains are of primary importance to the experience of WFC. We propose that although structural features may be the primary contributors, they are likely not the only ones and that personality of the individual is likely to be an important contributor. Researchers have begun to address the predictive power of personality variables and have found negative affectivity to be directly related to greater WFC (Carlson, 1999) and related to WFC through its indirect effect on job stress (Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). The results for Type A have been mixed (Burke, 1988; Burke, Weir, & DuWors, 1980; Carlson, 1999). Initial success with these few specific traits suggests it is time to use a comprehensive assessment of personality, such as the Big Five (McCrae & John, 1992), to more fully investigate the role of personality in WFC (Carlson, 1999). Because of the focus on the conflict perspective, most researchers use scales that emphasize the negative implications of one role for the other (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Researchers, and particularly sociological theorists (e.g., Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974), however, have persuasively argued for the benefits of multiple role occupation such as providing security, a sense of purpose in life, enhanced self-esteem (Thoits, 1987), social support, and buffering against role failure (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Research documents the benefits of engaging in work and family roles to mental, physical, and relationship health (Barnett & Hyde, 2001), and the rewards of combining personal and professional lives may outweigh the costs (Barnett, 1998). Rather than experiencing only conflict, facilitation between roles may also occur which we define as occurring when participation in one role is made better or easier by virtue of participation in the other role. The degree to which an employee experiences facilitation is likely to be influenced by his or her personality. It would be informative to examine the personality antecedents to and the consequences of facilitation on work and family outcomes. Finally, broadly representative samples are needed to conclusively generalize findings to diverse types of organizations and families. Although research on WFC is extensive, much of the research to date has studied dual career couples and often focuses on one or two occupations within a study (e.g., Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Cooke & Rousseau, 1984; Greenglass, Pantony, & Burke, 1988; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). Kossek and Ozeki (1998) urged researchers to use large heterogeneous populations with individual and organizational diversity to have more confidence that findings are generalizable. The present study was intended to address these needs in the work–family literature. First, we examine the predictive power of the Big Five personality traits in relation to conflict and facilitation. Second, we do so using a comprehensive framework that includes both directions of influence (i.e., work-to-family and family-to-work) and both valences (i.e., conflict and facilitation). Third, we examine the consequences of conflict and facilitation on job and family effort and satisfaction. A final contribution is the use of a large, national random sample such that the results should allow generalization across organizations and occupations. 1.1. Work–family conflict According to the traditional view of multiple role occupation, conflict is expected to occur when too many demands are placed on one’s limited time and energy (Sieber, 1974). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggested that conflict arises when (i) time pressures associated with one role make it difficult to comply with expectations from the other role or produce a preoccupation with one role while physically attempting to fulfill the other role, (ii) exposure to stress in one domain leads to tension, fatigue, and irritability (i.e., strain) which affects one’s ability to perform in the other domain, or (iii) the behaviors required in one role are incompatible with the behaviors needed in the other role. They also proposed that conflict occurs bidirectionally such that WFC is the negative interference from one’s work role to his or her family role. Family–work conflict (FWC) is the negative interference from one’s family role to his or her work role. In the present study, our measure captures conflict created by two of the forms of role pressure incompatibility proposed by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985): time and strain. Theoretically, then, personality traits that enable an employee to use his or her time more efficiently, to engage in roles with more energy, to perceive less stress, or to adopt coping mechanisms that reduce stress, should be related to less conflict. 1.2. Work–family facilitation Unlike conflict, there is no single established definition of facilitation, set of theoretical processes by which it is expected to occur, and no widely used or readily accepted scales, either. Therefore, for purposes of the present study, work–family facilitation was defined as occurring when, by virtue of participation in one role (e.g., work), one’s performance or functioning in the other role (e.g., family) is enhanced. Although there is no consensus as to the processes by which facilitation occurs, researchers have theorized facilitation as arising from several potential sources. Facilitation might arise, for example, when involvement in one role leads to privileges, resources, security from role failure, and/or personality enrichment (Sieber, 1974) which then lead to improved functioning in the other domain. Others have suggested that facilitation can occur when the activities and performance in one role energize employees for the other role, when the social support they receive (Barnett & Hyde, 2001) or the skills and attitudes they acquire in one role are useful in the other (Crouter, 1984), or when they have “greater confidence and better moods in one role as a result of experiences in the other role…” (Stephens, Franks, & Atienza, 1997, p. 32). Through processes such as these, involvement in one role serves to positively influence the other role. Given that facilitation theory and research are in their infancy, no single process that has been discussed likely captures it in its entirety. Therefore, in our conceptualization, we incorporated several of the processes by which others have suggested that facilitation can occur. Also, we conceptualized facilitation as occurring bidirectionally. Work–family facilitation (WFF) was operationalized in the present study as occurring when one’s involvement in work provides skills, behaviors, or positive mood which positively influences the family. Family–work facilitation (FWF) was operationalized as occurring when one’s involvement in family results in positive mood, support, or a sense of accomplishment that helps him or her cope better, work harder, feel more confident, or reenergized for one’s role at work. 1.3. The role of personality As personality researchers have indicated, one comprehensive description of an individual’s traits is known as the Big Five (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor model is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five orthogonal dimensions including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (McCrae & John, 1992). The basic dimensions of the five factors have been shown to organize the hundreds of personality traits proposed by theorists (McCrae & Costa, 1991), to have convergent and discriminant validity, to endure across decades in adults (McCrae & Costa, 1990), to describe individual differences in behavior (Fleeson, 2001), and to be at least somewhat replicable in some other cultures (DeRaad, 1998). Thus, the Big Five seems appropriate for capturing a broad picture of an individual’s personality. Personality, and specifically the Big Five, has been shown to influence behavior patterns and interpretations of objective situations in a variety of life domains (Matthews & Deary, 1998). To develop the study’s hypotheses, we discuss the potential influence of traits on conflict by virtue of their influence on one’s use of time and/or the perception or experience of strain, as reflected in our operationalization of conflict. Regarding facilitation, we discuss the influence of traits on the transfer of positive mood, enhancement of self-esteem and confidence, support received, and transfer of skills and behaviors from one domain to another. Conscientiousness includes achievement orientation, dependability, orderliness, efficiency, organization, planfulness, responsibility, thoroughness, and hardworkingness ( Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Higgins, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). Careful planning, effective organization, and efficient time management may allow an individual to accomplish more in the time available, which should reduce incompatible time pressures, and also, possibly reduce stress and strain, thereby reducing conflict. Thus, we predict a negative relationship between conscientiousness and conflict (Hypothesis 1). Conscientious individuals are more likely to thoroughly and correctly perform tasks. Successful accomplishment in a role is likely to result in positive mood, enhanced self-esteem, and appreciation by role partners, and hence, facilitation. Thus, conscientiousness is expected to be positively related to facilitation (Hypothesis 2). Neuroticism generally refers to anxiety, insecurity, defensiveness, tension, and worry ( Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Higgins, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). Such characteristics may lead individuals to experience more job and family stress which, in turn, increases the degree of conflict experienced ( Stoeva et al., 2002). Neurotics may also have less time available to accomplish work and family tasks because they spend time worrying or focusing on negative affect. Because neuroticism is likely to be related to less efficient time use, greater preoccupation with role demands, and increased perceptions of or experience of stress, neuroticism is expected to be positively related to conflict (Hypothesis 3). However, neuroticism has generally been found to have no relationship to positive events rather than a negative relationship (David, Green, Martin, & Suls, 1997), so we predict that neuroticism is not related to facilitation (Hypothesis 4). Extraversion describes someone who is active, assertive, energetic, enthusiastic, outgoing, and talkative ( McCrae & John, 1992). Two characteristics of extraverts, positivity and energy, are most likely to be relevant to conflict and facilitation. Due to higher energy levels, extraverts may accomplish more tasks in a given amount of time and may also experience less fatigue than do introverts. Moreover, by focusing on the positive aspects of situations, they may perceive situations as less stressful. Because the positivity and energy of extraverts likely results in less strain and fewer time pressures, we predict that extraversion is negatively related to conflict (Hypothesis 5). With regards to facilitation, extraverts experience more positive affect ( Diener & Lucas, 1999), more readily attend to positive events and react more strongly to them ( Rusting & Larsen, 1998), and have more energy than do introverts so that they are likely to have more positive mood and energy to transfer across domains. Thus, we predict a positive relationship between extraversion and facilitation (Hypothesis 6). Agreeableness is described by cooperation, likeability, forgivingness, kindness, sympathy, and trust ( McCrae & John, 1992). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggest that strain, conflict, and the absence of support contribute to work–family conflict. The characteristics associated with agreeableness may lead to less interpersonal conflict and greater support which should consequently reduce work–family conflict. Thus, we predict a negative relationship between agreeableness and conflict (Hypothesis 7). Persons higher in agreeableness are more likely to experience success at work ( Zellars & Perrewe, 2001) and receive greater emotional support from coworkers ( Zellars & Perrewe, 2001) or family members. As such, we expect agreeableness to be positively related to facilitation (Hypothesis 8). Openness to experience is characterized by intelligence, unconventionality, imagination, curiosity, creativity, and originality ( Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae & John, 1992). Much less is known about openness than the other four traits. Persons higher in openness are more accepting of change, not stifled by tradition, and are likely to be creative in developing solutions when conflict arises, all of which may reduce conflict. Similarly, individuals higher in openness might be more willing to transfer new skills and behaviors learned in one domain to benefit another. Thus, we predict that openness is negatively related to conflict (Hypothesis 9) and positively related to facilitation (Hypothesis 10). 1.4. Consequences of conflict and facilitation In addition to examining personality antecedents to conflict and facilitation, it is important to consider the relationship of each to work and family outcomes. The scarcity perspective states that individuals do not have the resources to fulfill various roles and that they must participate in one role at the expense of the other (Barnett, 1998). In research examining the consequences of conflict, the primary hypothesis has been that WFC is negatively related to both job and family outcomes, but a precise explanation has not been offered other than that conflict is a type of stressor and that stressors are related to affective outcomes ( Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Frone, Yardley, and Markel (1997), however, put forth a conceptual model in which they hypothesize that, for each direction of conflict (e.g., WFC), antecedents exist in the originating domain of the conflict (e.g., work) whereas the outcomes exist in the receiving domain (e.g., family). They reasoned that when involvement in one role frequently interferes with involvement in the other role, performance and the quality of life in the second role suffers. Consistent with Frone et al.’s (1997) argument, some studies have found that WFC is negatively related to family satisfaction whereas FWC is negatively related to job satisfaction (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000; Frone et al., 1992 and Frone et al., 1997). Other research, however, has found relationships that contradict this hypothesis. For example, WFC is positively related to withdrawal from work responsibilities (MacEwen & Barling, 1994) and negatively related to organizational commitment (e.g., Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Netemeyer et al., 1996), job performance (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Frone et al., 1997), and job and life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). In their meta-analytic review, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) found that WFC is more strongly related to job and life satisfaction than is FWC. Although the empirical support is mixed, we relied on Frone et al.’s rationale to make predictions in the present study. Thus, we predicted that WFC would be negatively related to family effort and satisfaction (Hypothesis 11) and that FWC would be negatively related to job effort and satisfaction (Hypothesis 12). To date, no empirical research documents the relationship of facilitation to work attitudes or behaviors. Sociological theory (e.g., Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974) suggests that multiple roles may energize workers and enhance performance rather than drain energy away from roles (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, Kirchmeyer, 1992b and Kirchmeyer, 1993). In the absence of empirical research and theoretical development of facilitation, it is difficult to speculate how specific directions of facilitation might influence work and/or family outcomes. Applying Frone et al.’s (1997) rationale to facilitation, though, suggests that when involvement in one role (e.g., work) frequently enhances one’s involvement in the other role (e.g., family), then performance and quality of life in the second role should improve. Because conflict and facilitation are likely not opposite constructs (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999), whether Frone et al.’s (1997) rationale holds for facilitation is an empirical question addressed in the present study. We hypothesized that WFF would be positively related to family effort and satisfaction (Hypothesis 13) and that FWF would be positively related to job effort and satisfaction (Hypothesis 14).

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.