ارتباط منابع تیمی به غنی سازی و رضایت کار و خانواده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|4455||2010||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 5990 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 77, Issue 2, October 2010, Pages 304–312
Work–family scholars now recognize the potential positive effects of participation in one life domain (i.e., work or family) on performance in other life domains. We examined how employees might benefit from team resources, which are highly relevant to the modern workplace, in both work and nonwork domains via work–family enrichment. Using the Resource–Gain–Development model (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007), we explored how team resources contribute to enrichment and resulting project and family satisfaction. Using multilevel structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) to analyze student data (N = 344) across multiple class projects, we demonstrated that individuals with team resources were more likely to experience both work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment. Further, enrichment mediated the relationship between team resources and satisfaction with the originating domain.
Work–family enrichment describes the process by which experiences in one role of an individual's life improve their performance in other roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Enrichment between work and family roles can occur in both directions—family-to-work and work-to-family. Employees who experience enrichment between work and family tend to demonstrate improved physical health, lower absenteeism, and higher job performance (Van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009). Furthermore, enrichment is positively related to job, family, and life satisfaction and lower intentions to turnover (Aryee et al., 2005, Carlson et al., 2009, Hill, 2005, McNall et al., 2010 and Wayne et al., 2004). Despite these positive outcomes, scholars have only begun to explore the many aspects of the work domain that contribute to the experience of enrichment. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of team-based resources in contributing to work–family enrichment and subsequent domain satisfaction. As organizations increasingly rely on teams (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009), it is critical to understand the role of this dimension of the work domain in developing work–family enrichment. Using the Resource–Gain–Development model (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007) as a theoretical foundation, we suggest that teams may offer resources at work that contribute to the experience of work–family enrichment and subsequent satisfaction. Therefore, we develop a model that posits work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment as mediators between team resources (i.e., cohesion, familiarity, and similarity) and satisfaction with both the team project and with family. This study contributes to the understanding of work–family enrichment in a number of ways. First, this is the first study to our knowledge that examines the work–family interface in relation to a set of social resources particularly relevant for modern workers–resources garnered from involvement in teamwork. As organizations increasingly rely on teams (Tekleab et al., 2009), examining this set of resources holds practical implications for managers who wish to help their employees experience greater work–family enrichment, especially in light of the positive outcomes that can result. Second, we utilize a unique sample because many of our team members participate in multiple teams with differing team members and differing experiences of resources, allowing us to test this phenomenon across multiple situations for each of these participants. Finally, whereas a resource-based framework has been widely applied to the study of work–family conflict (Geurts et al., 2009, Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999 and Halbesleben et al., 2009), Wayne et al. (2007) proposed that such a framework can also contribute to our understanding of work–family enrichment. Thus, we provide an empirical test of the Resource–Gain–Development model, which has not yet been empirically tested. In doing so, we incorporate both antecedents and consequences of work–family enrichment.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
We utilized a resource-based framework to explain how team resources are associated with project and family satisfaction via work–family enrichment. Consistent with the Resource–Gain–Development model (Wayne et al., 2007), we demonstrated that resources gained from participation in resource-rich teams (i.e., cohesion, familiarity, similarity) enhanced enrichment in both directions between work and family. Furthermore, results demonstrated that work-to-family enrichment partially mediated the relationship between team resources and project satisfaction, while family-to-work enrichment fully mediated the relationship between team resources and family satisfaction. Thus, team resources have both a direct and indirect effect on satisfaction in the work domain, while team resources have only an indirect effect on satisfaction in the family domain through family-to-work enrichment. Regarding satisfaction, we found that enrichment was only related to satisfaction with the originating role (e.g., work-to-family enrichment originates at work and affects work-related satisfaction). This is consistent with two previous studies (Carlson et al., 2009 and Wayne et al., 2004), suggesting that work-to-family enrichment may only be associated with satisfaction in the work (or team) domain and family-to-work enrichment may only be associated with satisfaction in the family domain. Thus, individuals appear to attribute the benefits of enrichment to the source of that enrichment. We encourage researchers to further explore how employees cognitively and affectively process work–family boundaries. 4.1. Research implications The results of this study contribute to the literature in at least two ways. First, we contribute to the work–family literature by exploring the characteristics of teams that act as resources to influence work–family outcomes. Team resources have not yet been extensively explored, especially in conjunction with work–family enrichment. Therefore, our study may shed some preliminary light on the team-oriented, resource-based processes involved in both work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment. Second, we provide empirical evidence for the validity of the Resource–Gain–Development perspective for explaining the development and outcomes of work–family enrichment (Wayne et al., 2007). Although resource-based theoretical frameworks have been extended to work–family conflict research (e.g., Geurts et al., 2009, Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999, Halbesleben et al., 2009 and Wayne et al., 2007), they have rarely been applied to the positive aspects of work–family research. By showing that team resources affect both work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment, we provide support for the assertions put forth in the Resource–Gain–Development model. Consistent with the propositions surrounding support resources in that model, the results of our study suggest that team-based resources are important in enhancing at least one positive indicator of a healthy work-life interface–enrichment. 4.2. Practical implications Managers may benefit from the results of this study as well. First, our results suggest that teams may provide valuable resources to individual members, particularly if members are cohesive, familiar, and similar to one another. Although it may be a challenge to achieve all of these characteristics in every team, managers may significantly enhance employee work–family enrichment and satisfaction outcomes if they focus on building such teams. For instance, managers might provide ongoing team-building support, invest time to help teams develop cohesion and familiarity early in the life of the team, or assign teams based on similarity among members. Moreover, in efforts to gain benefits of diversity in conjunction with the benefits of similarity (Hobman et al., 2003 and Tsui et al., 1992), managers might conduct individual difference assessments and training to help dissimilar members achieve a comparable level of communication and camaraderie as similar members naturally enjoy. Second, the results of this study suggest that managers might enhance satisfaction among employees by enabling enrichment. Satisfaction is affiliated with other important and costly outcomes, including burnout, turnover, and performance (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004, Judge et al., 2001 and Lee & Ashforth, 1996), so it may behoove managers to help employees increase individual enrichment across work and family domains. Our study suggests that both work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment influence employee satisfaction with the domain from which the enrichment originated. 4.3. Limitations and future directions Our study had several limitations worthy of note. First, all variables were measured using self-report. However, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) note the value of using self-report measures in work–family enrichment research because it is the perception of the individual experiencing the enrichment that may be most valid in determining its level. Moreover, perceptions of one's own cohesion, familiarity, and similarity with other team members may be the most accurate source of these constructs as we defined them. As opposed to measuring them at the team-level, we assessed individual-level perceptions and hypothesized that those perceptions would enable individuals to work efficiently with teammates, resulting in individual-level enrichment. As always, however, replication using other sources may be valuable, such as supervisor reports of team constructs or spouse reports of work–family issues. Second, we used student data that may not readily generalize to employees, although it has been argued that student samples can be valuable when studying underlying processes of work-related experiences (Greenberg, 1987). To increase generalizability to the business world, however, our sample was comprised of only business majors and just over half MBA students (n = 185). In addition, we have some evidence to suggest many participants had a moderate level of professional work experience (M = 5 years), suggesting that many were real-world employees in addition to being students. An advantage of this study design is that many students, particularly graduate students, may perceive a significant sense of ownership and investment in their personal educational experience. Therefore, the processes that occur in class projects may impact them at least as much as the processes impact employees in organizations. Indeed, the latter group may experience greater variance in their sense of ownership and investment in a particular job or organization. Still, an important next step is to analyze the same research question in an organizational setting. Finally, although we collected data across multiple projects per person, all study scales were collected at the same point in time for each project. Therefore, cross-sectional data are a limitation of this research. Thus, it is plausible that satisfaction was a cause rather than an effect of work–family enrichment. We encourage future researchers to assess perceptions of resources, enrichment, and satisfaction at different time points whenever possible. We also urge scholars to continue to build an empirical body of research on the Resource–Gain–Development perspective (Wayne et al., 2007) by exploring other forms of resources in addition to team resources. Individual differences likely affect the impact of the utilization of resources (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2009), so efforts to distinguish moderators, including emotional stability and conscientiousness, in conjunction with resources and enrichment would also be valuable. Finally, organizations and managers are clearly interested in financial outcomes. Therefore, it is important to pursue similar research questions with other outcomes of enrichment (in addition to satisfaction), including employee performance, team productivity, and overall organizational effectiveness. In conclusion, this research provides early insight into the development of work–family enrichment and satisfaction in conjunction with team-based resources. We found that team resources are a valuable resource for both directions of enrichment and that enrichment contributes to both project and family satisfaction. We urge scholars to pursue additional research on this important topic as organizations increase their emphasis on team-based work and employees strive to balance and enhance their work and family domains.