This article was originally published in a journal published byElsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the

author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, fornon-commercial research and educational use including without

limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specificcolleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s

administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including withoutlimitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,

or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’swebsite or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission

may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation andmodel of primary antecedents and consequences

Julie Holliday Wayne a,⁎, Joseph G. Grzywacz b,1,Dawn S. Carlson c,2, K. Michele Kacmar d,3

a Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7285, Calloway School of Business and Accountancy, 319 Kirby Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, United Statesb Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, United States

c Baylor University, Department of Management, Hankamer School of Business, One Bear Place #98006, Waco, TX 76798-8006, United Statesd Durr-Fillauer Chair of Business Ethics The University of Alabama, Management and Marketing Department,

Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, United States

Abstract

Researchers have begun to test the idea that work and family can benefit, rather than just conflict with one another; yet, theoreticaldevelopment is lacking. In this paper, we define work–family facilitation— or the positive influence of an individual's engagement ina domain on functioning of another life system. We merge and extend ideas from Positive Organizational Scholarship [Cameron,K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of Positive Organizational Scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn, (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler], EcologicalSystems Theory [Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press] and Conservation of Resources Theory [Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A newattempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44, 513–524] to develop the Resource–Gain–Developmentperspective. Using this perspective, we explain why and how facilitation occurs, what contributes to it, and why it relates to domainoutcomes. We use this perspective to draw broad constructs representing predictors, moderators, and consequences of facilitation. Toillustrate how onemight test these theoretical propositions and to provide an agenda for research, we provide specific exemplars of thework-to-family direction. Implications for human resource research and practice are discussed.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Work-family facilitation; Resource-gain-development perspective; Conservation of Resources Theory; Positive organizational scholarship;Ecological systems theory

In order to effectively manage a firm's human resources, it is important to understand the interplay between workand family. We are witnessing a shift in the work–family literature away from the focus on conflict to one that

Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76www.socscinet.com/bam/humres

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 336 758 5733.E-mail addresses: waynej@wfu.edu (J.H. Wayne), grzywacz@wfubmc.edu (J.G. Grzywacz), Dawn_Carlson@Baylor.edu (D.S. Carlson),

mkacmar@cba.ua.edu (K.M. Kacmar).1 Tel.: +1 336 716 2237.2 Tel.: +1 254 710 6201.3 Tel.: +1 205 348 8931.

1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

incorporates the positive synergies between work and family. The seminal article defining work–family conflict andarticulating its dimensions (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) was written nearly twenty years ago, and from this foundation,empirical research on conflict grew abundantly. In 2003, Frone commented that work–family facilitation “…awaits thesame level of research interest devoted to work–family conflict” (p. 159), and he recommended new conceptual modelsfor facilitation because it would be a mistake to substitute facilitation into established models of conflict. This area ofresearch desperately needs theoretical development and a foundation for empirical inquiry.

Recently, some empirical and theoretical attention has focused on work–family enrichment, or the influence of anindividual's involvement in one domain on the individual's performance and quality of life in another domain(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Yet, Frone (2003) and others (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005)have encouraged work–family scholars to move beyond the individual level of analysis to one that focuses on higherlevels of analysis such as the family or work group. In the present paper, we answer this call and focus on work–familyfacilitation, a construct which broadly reflects the positive influence of involvement in one domain on the functioningof the other system. There is great potential in the facilitation construct for human resource scholars and practitioners,but it will not be realized until theoretical and empirical development occurs.

In the present paper, we provide needed theoretical attention to the topic of facilitation. We first provide an explicitdefinition of the construct. Next, we combine and extend the theoretical perspectives of Conservation of ResourcesTheory (Hobfoll, 1989); Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and Positive Organizational Scholarship(Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) to provide a theoretical explanation for what work–family facilitation is and why itoccurs. We use this theoretical basis to develop propositions about facilitation. Then, to illustrate how one might testthese theoretical propositions, we provide specific exemplars of antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of the work-to-family direction.

1. Work–family facilitation: a conceptual overview and definition

At its essence, work–family facilitation is the notion that work and family are interdependent and complementary(Werbel & Walter, 2002). In other words, involvement in one domain can positively and beneficially influencefunctioning of the other domain. We formally define work–family facilitation as: the extent to which an individual'sengagement in one life domain (i.e., work/family) provides gains (i.e., developmental, affective, capital, or efficiency)which contribute to enhanced functioning of another life domain (i.e., family/work).

Work–family facilitation can occur bidirectionally, meaning that work can provide gains that enhance functioning ofthe family domain (work-to-family facilitation or WFF) or family can provide gains that enhance functioning of thework domain (family-to-work facilitation or FWF). Although it is posited that work-to-family and family-to-workfacilitation are distinct (Frone, 2003), henceforth, we use the term “facilitation” to refer to the overall phenomenon,including both of its directions.

There are three central components to our definition of facilitation: engagement, gains, and enhanced functioning.Engagement, which refers to the degree to which individuals invest themselves in domain-related activities, isimportant because individual action is the foundation of facilitation. Through individuals' active engagement in a lifedomain, they experience privileges, benefits, or gains that can help functioning of the other domain. Researchers fromseveral disciplines (e.g., Crouter, 1984; Sieber, 1974; Stephens, Franks, & Atienza, 1997) have suggested numerousgains that work and family can provide to the individual worker/family member. Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, andGrzywacz (2006) conceptually identified and empirically validated four broad categories capturing the majorindividual gains acquired in a life domain: (1) developmental gains, or the acquisition of skills, knowledge, values, orperspectives, (2) affective gains, or alteration in moods, attitudes, confidence, or other aspects of emotion, (3) capitalgains, or the acquisition of economic, social, or health assets, and (4) efficiency gains, or the enhanced focus orattention induced by multiple role responsibilities. Facilitation occurs when the gains acquired in one domain aretransferred to and subsequently enhance functioning of another domain. Enhanced functioning refers to improvementsin basic processes vital to domain performance, such as problem solving or interpersonal communication.

Although others have used the term “facilitation” (Frone, 2003; Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Wayne, Musisca, &Fleeson, 2004), they have done so interchangeably with positive spillover and work–family enrichment with a focus onthe individual as the unit of analysis. Greenhaus and Powell (2006), for example, theorized how an individual'sinvolvement in a life domain positively influences his or her own performance or affect in another domain viainstrumental and affective pathways. An important distinction between positive spillover, work–family enrichment,

64 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

and our definition of facilitation is that, as called for by Frone (2003) and others (Eby et al., 2005), we specify thesystem as the functional unit of analysis. Thus, the defining feature of facilitation is that it occurs when the transfer ofgains creates an improvement in system level functioning.

Each domain is a social system comprised of interacting elements that creates distinguishable subsystems(Bronfenbrenner, 1989). The family system is composed of multiple subsystems such as the marital dyad or parent–child dyads. Similarly, the work domain has definable subsystems such as supervisor–subordinate dyads or workgroups. Facilitation occurs when individual gains acquired through engagement in a “sending” domain introduce andultimately lead to change in the “receiving” domain, whether it be for a dyad, subgroup, or the entire system (Aldwin &Stokols, 1988). As elaborated above, facilitation reflects changes to the work or family system as a consequence of anindividual's engagement in the other domain.

2. Theoretical foundations of facilitation

Whereas most work–family research has focused on conflict and the negative side of work and family, the notion offacilitation captures the positive side and the possibility of synergy between domains. Unfortunately, work–familyresearchers have few theories for understanding and studying these synergies. Indeed, despite the burgeoning literature,independent reviews of the multi-disciplinary literature lament the a-theoretical nature of most research (Barnett, 1998;Frone, 2003). To help fill this void, we draw upon and integrate three complementary frameworks to build a theoreticalfoundation for facilitation which we call the Resource–Gain–Development perspective. First, we draw on PositiveOrganizational Scholarship (POS; Cameron et al., 2003), which focuses on the best of the human condition andgenerally underscores the importance of the study of the positive potential of the work–family interface. Second, wedraw on Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), an emerging theory within the work–family literature(Geurts & Demerouti, 2003; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2001) that emphasizes that people naturally desireand have the capacity for growth and development. Finally, we draw on Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll,1989) which also has been applied to the work–family interface. From it, we borrow an organizing heuristic tohighlight the primary antecedents of facilitation.

2.1. Positive Organizational Scholarship

Positive Organizational Scholarship is concerned with the study of the positive processes and outcomes oforganizations and the individuals within them (Cameron et al., 2003). Essentially, it represents a new lens bywhich to viewold phenomena and “purposely illuminates how contexts and processes, and their interactions, are related to positive statesin individuals, groups, and organizations” (Cameron et al., 2003, p. 5). It focuses on enablers such as the individualcapabilities and organizational processes that contribute to positive organizational outcomes. Facilitation, because itfocuses on enhanced functioning within the work or family domain, clearly fits within the nomological network of POS.

Basic assumptions of POS provide an explanation of the purpose of facilitation and its potential for affectingoutcomes in social systems like work and family. One assumption of POS is that living systems are subject to theheliotropic effect which is an inclination toward the positive and away from the negative. Positivity is viewed asfunctional because it can activate a variety of forces that promote individual and organizational strengths (Cameron,Dutton, Quinn, & Wrzesniewski, 2003; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Thus, according to POS, individuals are drawnto positive experiences and are inclined to develop and utilize strengths within their environments which, whennurtured and sustained, benefit the systems in which they operate.

2.2. Ecological systems theory

Ecological systems theory has been used as a framework for offering insight into work–family experiences(Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2001) and provides a compelling framework for informing facilitation as weconceptualize it here. First, ecological theory echoes the reasons provided by POS as to why facilitation occurs. Akin tothe assumption of heliotropism from POS, EST argues that individuals have natural tendencies toward higher levels offunctioning (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Ecological systems theory is also instructive for explaining how facilitationoccurs and broadly, its likely antecedents. According to EST, individual development results through ongoinginteractions between the individual and his/her environment (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Recognizing that

65J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

individual development or the acquisition of “gains” is the lynchpin of our conceptualization of facilitation, ESTsuggests that resources within an individual's environment are the primary source of facilitation because they are themeans by which individuals “interact” with their environment.

Ecological theory also suggests the importance of “demand characteristics” (Bronfenbrenner &Morris, 1998) whichare individual characteristics that operate in ways to “demand” particular responses from the environment. These arerelevant to facilitation in that certain individual characteristics result in more or different types of resources beingavailable or allow some individuals to obtain more benefit from available resources (Grzywacz, 2002). According toEST, demand characteristics can indirectly influence facilitation or serve to moderate the relationship betweenenvironmental resources and facilitation. Thus, the theoretical concepts from EST suggest that individuals arepredisposed to achieve higher levels of growth and development, and they actively acquire and use individual andenvironmental resources as a primary means to achieve growth. Finally, the degree to which these environmentalresources yield growth is a function of individuals' demand characteristics.

2.3. Conservation of resources theory

Whereas POS and EST (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) provide a foundation for why and how facilitation occurs andsuggests the importance of resources, Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998, 2001) provides aheuristic for identifying the specific type of resources. Hobfoll (1989, 1998, 2001) defined resources as properties ofthe environment that can be acted upon. Resources may include personal characteristics, objects, conditions, energies,and support. Personal characteristics are those traits or skills that result from one's orientation to the world such asself-esteem and optimism. Objects are valued because of their physical nature or the status obtained through theirownership such as one's car, home, clothes, food, or other material goods. Energy resources, such as time, money, andknowledge, are those that aid in the acquisition of other resources such as time for work or family and opportunities foradvancement. Conditions are resources that are sought after such as marriage, employment, or seniority. Finally,support such as loyalty or intimacy preserves other types of resources.

2.4. The Resource–Gain–Development perspective

Positive Organizational Scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003), EST (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), and COR(Hobfoll, 1998) do not individually and directly inform models of facilitation. POS and EST have theoretical notionsthat address why facilitation might occur but do not articulate a guiding heuristic for a framework of correlates. CORtheory provides such a guiding heuristic but, as a stress-based theory that addresses people's efforts to conserve andprotect resources to minimize stress, it does not directly or explicitly consider motive forces behind growth anddevelopment. Yet, collectively, they provide a solid foundation for facilitation. By integrating concepts and ideas fromthem, we offer the Resource–Gain–Development perspective to explain facilitation and also to identify its primaryantecedents, consequences, and moderators.

The basic premise of the RGD perspective is that individuals have natural tendencies to grow, develop, and achievethe highest levels of functioning for themselves and the systems in which they participate including families andorganizations. Because of this natural tendency toward positivity and development, when engaged in a role, individualsobtain resources that enable growth and development. We propose that individuals maximize and exploit availableresources so that they can experience positive gains. When gains from one domain are applied, sustained, andreinforced in another (Crouter, 1984; Kirchmeyer, 1992), the end result is improved system functioning or facilitation.

The RGD perspective posits that key enablers of facilitation are those personal characteristics and environmentalresources (objects, conditions, energies, and support) that contribute to the development of new skills and perspectives(developmental gains), positive emotion (affective gains), economic, social, or health assets (capital gains), and greaterefficiency (efficiency gains) in one system which enhance functioning of the other system. The greater of any singleresource an individual has, the greater the potential for facilitation; likewise, the greater the overall accumulation ofresources, the greater the potential for facilitation.

Empirical findings support the notion that domain resources are the primary enablers of facilitation. For example,Voydanoff (2004) hypothesized and found that work demands were primary contributors to work interfering withperformance in the family (work-to-family conflict), whereas work resources were primary contributors to individuals'perceptions that their work benefited their family. Likewise, Grzywacz and Butler (2005) documented that work-

66 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

related resources, specifically greater opportunities to exercise decisions at work and jobs that require effective socialskills, were associated with greater perception that work benefited family.

The RGD perspective specifies broad categories of personal characteristics and environmental resources that enablefacilitation, and these are depicted in Fig. 1. Personal characteristics are aspects of one's self that promote positivity andcause the individual to more readily experience positive emotional states, seek positive developmental experiences, andearn status and other assets. As elaborated later, one's tendency to experience positive affect and one's self-efficacy aretwo notable personal characteristics that promote positive emotion, skill development and learning, and other gains.These changes or gains contribute to better functioning in another life domain, thereby completing the facilitationprocess.

Proposition 1. Personal characteristics that promote positive domain experiences and the acquisition of gains arekey enablers of facilitation.

Above and beyond aspects of the individual, environmental resources that promote positive, dynamic, and enrichingenvironments enable facilitation. For example, working in an enriched job and having a supportive work environmentpromote personal emotional and intellectual development that can facilitate functioning of another domain. Broadlyspeaking, when an individual exploits more object, condition, energy, or support resources that enrich the environmentand provide growth and development (i.e., gains), the individual is more likely to experience facilitation.

Proposition 2. Environmental resources including object, condition, energy, and support resources that promotepositive domain experiences and the acquisition of gains are key enablers of facilitation.

Although it is generally the case that the greater the availability and exploitability of environmental (object,condition, energy, and social support) resources, the greater the potential for facilitation, it is important to recognize thatthe nature and strength of these relationships depends upon demand characteristics of the individual (Grzywacz, 2002).Some individuals are able to obtain more resources from their environment or more effectively use resources, therebyreceiving greater benefit. For example, professionals frequently have greater access to family supportive resources thannon-professionals (Lambert & Haley-Lock, 2005) suggesting that occupational status influences the availability of

Fig. 1. Model of primary antecedents, consequences, and moderators of facilitation.

67J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

resources that would contribute to facilitation. Further, when similar resources are available, some individuals mayutilize them in ways that promote greater growth and development. For example, when family supportive resources areavailable, women as compared to men may more readily use them, resulting in greater likelihood of facilitation. Thus,we propose that demand characteristics such as occupational status and gender indirectly influence facilitation byshaping the type and degree of resources available to individuals. Demand characteristics also moderate therelationship between environmental resources and facilitation because they allow certain individuals to receive morebenefit from available resources.

Proposition 3. Demand characteristics directly influence the availability of environmental resources, and therebyinfluence the potential for facilitation.

Proposition 4. Demand characteristics moderate the relationship between environmental resources and facilitation.

To date, most studies that have examined consequences of facilitation-like constructs have focused on individual-levelmental and physical health outcomes such as depression, problem drinking, and obesity (Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz &Marks, 2000; Stephens & Franks, 1995; Stephens et al., 1997). One study examined the association of enrichment toindividual worker attitudes and behaviors (Wayne et al., 2004). Thus, research is growing to suggest that an individual'sinvolvement in work can benefit his or her health, performance or affect in the family and vice versa. However, researchremains focused on the individual worker/family member without speaking of the effect of “work” on “family” or viceversa. Work–family scholars (e.g., Eby et al., 2005; Frone, 2003) have emphasized the importance of considering work–family outcomes at higher levels of analysis which would also be of interest to human resource management practitioners.

As noted by POS, positive emotions, experiences, and events can promote positive system functioning (Cameronet al., 2003). That is, positive events such as when an individual perceives facilitation would be expected to promotepositive domain functioning. Importantly, the improvements in a domain would be experienced by other systemmembers, not just perceived by the focal individual. The empirical literature on crossover supports the notion that thework–family experiences of one system member influence the attitudes, behaviors, and work–family experiences ofother members (e.g., Hammer, Allen, & Grigsby, 1997). And, these crossover effects are proposed to occur for positiveas well as negative experiences (Westman, 2006). Following from these theoretical assumptions and empiricalfindings, we posit that when an individual reports experiencing gains from one domain that benefit his or her other rolesystem (i.e., facilitation), there are quantifiable enhancements to other system members' ratings of system leveloutcomes such as the quality of the relationships within the system or the system's functioning.

Proposition 5. Facilitation promotes positive system functioning as reported by other system members.

3. An exemplar model of correlates of work-to-family facilitation

For illustrative purposes of how our theoretical foundation and propositions can be applied in research, we specifyoperational level exemplars of these broad constructs that contribute to facilitation. In our illustration, we focus on thework-to-family direction because the primary antecedents of WFF reside in the work system which is of most relevanceto human resource scholars and practitioners. In Fig. 1, we provide exemplars of personal characteristics and condition,support, and energy resources that are primary enablers of WFF. The relationship of these environmental resources tofacilitation depends upon demand characteristics of the individual, and we identify two primary exemplars. Finally,when facilitation occurs, other system members should report quantifiable enhancements to system level functioning ofwhich we highlight several examples to guide future research.

3.1. Enablers of work-to-family facilitation

3.1.1. Exemplars of personal characteristics that enable work-to-family facilitation

3.1.1.1. Positive affectivity. Individuals higher on positive affectivity have a positive outlook and interpret uncertainevents more optimistically than individuals lower on this trait (e.g., Williams, Zainuba, & Jackson, 2003). Accordingly,they are more likely to experience positive affect at work which they can transfer to and benefit their family. Further,because they focus on the positives in situations, they may more readily recognize the positive benefits of work for their

68 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

family. Extraversion, a personality characteristic characterized by high levels of positive affectivity, has been associatedwith individuals' appraisals of work benefiting family and family benefiting work (Grzywacz &Marks, 2000; Wayne etal., 2004) In addition to experiencing greater affect, individuals higher on positive affectivity are motivated to improvetheir work through learning (Naquin & Holton, 2002). Thus, positive affectivity likely contributes to positive workexperiences such as generating new skills, perspectives, and other developmental gains that can be transferred to benefitthe family. Due to its relevance to the experience of affective and developmental gains, positive affectivity is expected tocontribute to WFF.

3.1.1.2. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to an individual's beliefs about his or her ability to successfully perform agiven behavior or task (Bandura, 1977; Hackett & Betz, 1981) and likely leads to gains for the worker which cancontribute to family functioning. Employees high in self-efficacy are more active in trying new things they have learnedat work and attempting more difficult on-the-job tasks (Ford, Quinones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992). Self-efficacy is also apotent factor in learning performance (Goldstein & Ford, 2002) and contributes to success at work (Judge & Bono,2001). Because individuals higher in self-efficacy seek more opportunities and experience more success, they likelyacquire new skills and perspectives, positive mood, confidence, and even economic assets for use in the family. Forthese reasons, employees higher in self-efficacy likely experience and report greater benefit of their work for theirfamily.

3.1.1.3. Work identity. Work identity refers to the degree to which an individual views work as important to his or herself-image (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965) and influences the degree of engagement in a role (Reitzes, 2003); therefore, it iscritical to consider facilitation in the context of a person's identities. Roles that are central to an individual's self-concept provide great meaning and purpose (Thoits, 1991) and promote engagement, time, and emotion invested into arole (Burke & Reitzes, 1991; Lobel & St. Clair, 1992) which likely produces gains that benefit family. Empirically,work identity is related to greater reported enrichment from work to family (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). Workidentity is theoretically and empirically distinct from job involvement (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994;Williams & Alliger, 1994) but they are correlated constructs, and job involvement has been associated with moreenrichment between work and family (Kirchmeyer, 1992). Cumulatively, this evidence indicates that individuals forwhom work is important to their identity are more engaged in the work role, experience more work-related gains for usein the family, and are likely to report greater positive connections across roles. As depicted in Fig. 1, we propose:

Proposition 1a. Positive affectivity, self-efficacy, and work identity are personal characteristics that contribute togreater WFF.

The particular exemplars of work resources that we include in our model (Fig. 1) are drawn from organizational modelsof enrichment and POS (Cameron et al., 2003), and they represent distinct types of resources identified by Hobfoll (1989)that lead to positive, enriching work environments. The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) capturesstructural characteristics such as feedback or acknowledgement of accomplishments (Hobfoll, 2001) that enrich jobs andas such, are important resources for facilitation. Other environmental resources that contribute to enriched workenvironments are those that actively develop human capacities such as advancement in education and training (Hobfoll,2001) and promote positive human relations such as social support (Hobfoll, 2001; Walton, 1980). Finally, POS alsohighlights the importance of human connections and organizational design (Cameron et al., 2003). These resources enablepositive dynamics and energy and are important contributors to growth (Dutton&Heaphy, 2003).We do not presume thatthese are the onlywork resources related to facilitation. Rather, within the broad constructs recognized byRGD, these linesof thinking converge to suggest the importance of several key enablers of WFF. Specifically, as highlighted in Fig. 1, weelaborate the role of energy resources (e.g., enriched jobs and developmental opportunities), support resources (e.g.,supervisor and coworker support and work–family culture), and condition resources (e.g., job prestige).

3.2. Exemplars of energy resources that enable work-to-family facilitation

3.2.1. Enriched jobsResearch generally supports the notion that individuals in enriched jobs are more satisfied than those in

unenriched jobs (Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985), and Kahn (1990) found that challenging, varied, andsomewhat autonomous work contributed to psychological meaningfulness which contributed to greater engagement

69J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

at work. The Job Characteristics Model suggests that in particular, skill variety, task identity, and task significanceall contribute to experienced meaningfulness of one's work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and can benefit one'sfamily. For example, working on a complex project demands the use of routine and new skills which allow people toexperience both a sense of competence and a sense of growth and learning (Kahn, 1990), providing gains that canbenefit a worker's family. Likewise, autonomy and feedback enable facilitation. Job autonomy has been linked withhigher marital quality (Hughes, Galinsky, & Morris, 1992) and better parent–child interactions (Stewart & Barling,1996) through its influence on job-related affect. Thus, having enriched jobs increases the likelihood that anindividual will develop skills and experience positive emotion at work which can benefit the family.

3.2.2. Developmental opportunitiesDevelopmental opportunities, such as participation in training and development, are energy resources that promote

gains in the work domain that benefit functioning of the family. When these energy resources fostering individualdevelopment are successfully exploited by the individual, WFF occurs.

Learning and development experiences are potent sources of individual stimulation (Goldstein & Ford, 2002)that enable employees to thrive in ways that can improve family functioning. The acquisition of new skills,concepts, or attitudes in training is consistent with the individual gains necessary for facilitation to occur, and it ispossible that these gains from work are used to benefit the family environment. Crouter (1984), for example, foundthat employees applied participative management skills learned at work with their family. When individualsparticipate in assignments that develop one's capacities, self-esteem can be enhanced (Friedman & Greenhaus,2000). Participation in training may create additional social connections or lead to promotions, both of which cancreate economic and social assets to benefit one's family. Although empirical research linking developmentalopportunities to facilitation-like constructs is scarce, one recent study found that self-reported learning opportunitieson the job were associated with more work–family enrichment (Voydanoff, 2004). Developmental opportunities canpromote skills development, asset acquisition, and emotional benefits, and ultimately functioning of the familysystem.

Proposition 2a. Enriched jobs and developmental opportunities are energy resources that enable WFF.

3.3. Exemplars of support resources that enable work-to-family facilitation

3.3.1. Supportive work environmentHumans are innately inclined to form strong, harmonious relationships with others (Berscheid, 2003), and when job

tasks include meaningful interpersonal interactions, people are more likely to engage themselves at work (Kahn, 1990).Thus, a supportive work environment, including supportive coworkers, supervisors, and culture, promote gains thatbenefit one's family.

Social support, which is grounded in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), is the amount of emotional andinstrumental assistance received from another that leads a person to believe that he or she is cared for and loved,esteemed and valued, and a member of a network of mutual obligation (Cobb, 1976; House, 1981). Socialsupport at work from coworkers and supervisors is a resource that can enhance performance and well-being inthe family (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Research has consistently demonstrated the positive consequencesof social support such as reduced perceptions of role stressors and time demands at work and increasedsatisfaction and well-being (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992). Further,social support from the supervisor and coworkers can decrease one's negative feelings about the job andincreased coworker support has been associated with decreased depression (Baker, Israel, & Schurman, 1996).More broadly, a supportive work–family culture likely influences facilitation. A supportive and flexible workenvironment relates to family functioning such as performance, satisfaction, and well-being in the familydomain and for men, quality of interaction with infants (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Frone et al., 1997; forreview see Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001). Having fewer organizational time demands is anaspect of culture related to more enrichment from work to family (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006). Thus,having supportive coworkers, employers, and/or a family–friendly work environment may lead to more positiveaffect, a sense of energy (Marks, 1977), or confidence from work which carries over and enhances functioningof the family (i.e., WFF).

70 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

Proposition 2b. Coworker and supervisor social support and a supportive work–family culture are support resourcesthat contribute to WFF.

3.4. Exemplars of condition resources that enable work-to-family facilitation

3.4.1. Job prestigeBecause WFF occurs when work resources promote gains that help family functioning, jobs that provide people

with greater economic, social, emotional, or intellectual wherewithal are likely to create greater WFF. Individualsin more prestigious jobs often have more complex jobs that provide greater opportunity for development of newknowledge, skills, and perspectives. Prestigious jobs offer greater opportunities for financial success and feelingsof accomplishment, which can promote self-esteem and feelings of positive mood. Furthermore, job prestigeis associated with better mental and physical health and greater life satisfaction (Sanders & Walters, 1985).Thus, job status/prestige is a condition resource that influences gains at work that enhance family functioning.Accordingly, as depicted in Fig. 1, we propose that people in higher-paying and more prestigious jobs experiencegreater WFF.

Proposition 2c. Greater condition resources, such as higher-paying, more prestigious jobs, enable greater WFF.

4. Moderators of the resource–facilitation relationship

4.1. Exemplars of demand characteristics relevant to work-to-family facilitation

As illustrated in our examples earlier, two demand characteristics highly relevant to work–family experiences aregender and social class; therefore, we focus on these as exemplars of moderators in work–family facilitation.

4.1.1. GenderMen and women may seek, create, or be selected into different job contexts that have varying levels of job resources.

Men view work as a means to success and tend to emphasize money, status, and power; in contrast, women valuegrowth, challenge, and the opportunity to care for others in their work (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Moreover, menand women may experience or interpret the same work context differently, respond differently to it, or the individuals inthe contexts may respond differently to them. Mothers, for example, experience more positive emotional states inactivities away from home, including work, than do fathers (Larson, Richards, & Perry-Jenkins, 1994). Also, men andwomen use work resources in different ways (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). For example, women value socialrelationships at work and utilize those relationships more for the betterment of their families than do men. Finally,resources at work directed to help employees with their family lives, such as family leave policies, may be moreaccessible to women than to men because of cultural ideologies (Pleck, 1993; Wayne & Cordeiro, 2003). Thus, womenand men are likely to be in jobs with different kinds of resources and even when the resources are the same, theyexperience and utilize them differently. Collectively, this evidence suggests that some environmental resources do notcontribute to WFF in the same way for men and women.

Theoretically, we posit that work resources that are more accessible to and of greater value to women or to men willbe differentially exploited and used for the betterment of family. For example, environmental resources relevant tosocial relationships at work, such as social support, would contribute more strongly to WFF for women than men.Likewise, other environmental resources, such as those emphasizing income or job status, would contribute morestrongly to WFF for men than women.

4.1.2. Social classIndividuals with lower socioeconomic status have fewer job-related resources. Employers may not extend

opportunities relevant to WFF to some workers based upon various social status indicators (Christensen, 1998;Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002; Lambert & Haley-Lock, 2005), or these individuals may be less able to actupon these resources because of other environmental pressures (Grzywacz, 2002). Individuals with lowersocioeconomic status also have less income, an important resource which can enable them to acquire services fortheir families, but they are also less likely to have other work resources such as autonomy and opportunities for

71J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

development. Further, members of lower social classes generally do not have work roles carrying status or influencewhich contribute to a sense of meaningfulness, feeling valued and needed, which increases engagement at work (Kahn,1990). For any of these reasons, individuals in lower social classes are less likely to experience WFF. Indirect evidencesupports the notion that individuals in higher-level organizational positions and socioeconomic status experience thingsat work which indirectly benefit their families. Individuals in higher-level positions have healthier children who do wellin school and those with a higher income are more satisfied with childcare arrangements and have healthier children(Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000).

In sum, demand characteristics such as gender and social class elicit from the social environment differentialopportunities for and conditional effectiveness of resources that enable WFF. Fig. 1 captures that these characteristicscan influence the availability of resources in the work environment thereby indirectly influencing WFF or they canmoderate the relation of work resources to WFF.

Proposition 3a. Gender and social class are demand characteristics that directly influence the availability of workresources, and thereby influence the potential for WFF.

Proposition 4a. Gender and social class are demand characteristics that moderate the relationship between workresources and WFF.

5. Consequences of work-to-family facilitation

5.1. Exemplars of consequences of work-to-family facilitation

5.1.1. System member ratings of family functioningBy definition, it would seem that WFF should result in enhanced outcomes within the family system. Individuals

who report high levels of facilitation (e.g., WFF) acknowledge that their involvement in one domain (the sendingdomain; i.e., work) contributes to enhanced functioning of the other role system (the receiving domain; i.e., family). Byextension, other members of the receiving system should experience and report enhanced functioning in that system.For example, when an employee acquires new skills or perspectives, more confidence or esteem, or income, which isbrought home and used in interactions, experiences, or situations that better the family, then other family membersshould report positive outcomes for the family. Generally speaking, for example, when gains from work benefit one'sfamily, then system members should report enhanced dyadic and system level outcomes such as quality of marital andparent–child interactions and overall family well-being.

Proposition 5a. Work-to-family facilitation positively relates to system members' evaluations of functioning in thefamily domain, such as ratings of quality of marital and parent–child interactions and overall family well-being.

5.1.2. System member ratings of work functioningMoreover, when individuals report that their work has benefited their families, they likely make cognitive attributions

regarding the source of facilitation. In the case of reported WFF, for example, they realize that better functioning of theirfamily is achieved due to psychological, intellectual, emotional, or other gains stemming from work. Based on socialexchange theory (Blau, 1964) and norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), individuals who experience WFF should havepositive affective and behavioral reactions toward work in that they try to reciprocate the benefits they have gained fromwork. In fact, the limited empirical research suggests that when people experience enrichment, they report greatersatisfaction with and effort into their work (Wayne et al., 2004). Consequently, it would be expected that these positivechanges in worker attitudes and behaviors due to WFF then contribute to the overall functioning of the work system. Forexample, for employees who report greater WFF, their supervisors will likely report enhanced quality of the supervisor–subordinate relationship and greater display of subordinate citizenship behaviors. Likewise, coworkers will likely reportgreater workgroup cohesion and perceived group effectiveness. Thus, we put forth the following proposition:

Proposition 5b. Work-to-family facilitation positively relates to system members' evaluations of functioning in thework domain, such as supervisors' ratings of the quality of the dyadic relationship and employee display of citizenshipbehaviors and coworkers' ratings of workgroup cohesion and perceived group effectiveness.

72 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

6. Discussion

Researchers have explicitly called for greater attention to the positive side of the work–family interface andgreater attention to level of analysis of the system (Barnett, 1998; Eby et al., 2005; Frone, 2003; Geurts &Demerouti, 2003; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). The primary purpose of this paper was to elaborate a model offacilitation, a construct reflecting the synergies between work and family, emphasizing the system as the primaryunit of analysis. We merge and extend research and theory from Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner,1989), Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and Positive Organizational Scholarship (Cameron et al.,2003) to create a theoretical backdrop to explain why and how facilitation occurs as well as broad constructsrepresenting the enablers, outcomes, and moderators of facilitation. From this theoretical background, we providespecific construct domains and exemplar variables at the operational level that are posited to contribute to work-to-family facilitation. This conceptual and theoretical development provides a foundation on which future research andtheoretical development can be built. Additionally, the ideas put forth have implications for human resourcepractitioners.

Rather than choosing antecedents of facilitation a-theoretically as in the past (Frone, 2003), our model is informed bysolid theory which is useful for guiding future research. Consistent with other theories promoting positive humantendencies, the RGD perspective explains that facilitation occurs because individuals are innately driven to maximizetheir growth, development, and potential, and they are motivated to apply this growth to other areas of their lives (or lifesystems). Thus, through engagement in a life domain, they acquire gains which enhance functioning of the other system.

The primary driver of facilitation is the acquisition and utilization of individual and environmental resources.Particularly, building from the RGD perspective, we suggest that personal characteristics such as positive affectivity,self-efficacy, and work identity promote positive emotions, events, and individual development that enable facilitation.We also propose that object, condition, energy, and support resources relevant to the development of new skills, affect,capital, or efficiency gains are environmental resources that enable facilitation. Specific exemplars of work resourceswhich might affect the incidence of WFF include job characteristics, developmental opportunities, social support fromone's coworkers and boss and a supportive culture, and job prestige. These resources, if related to WFF, would befeatures of the job or work environment under the control of management which could be altered to foster facilitation.And, fostering WFF likely yields positive benefits to the organization (Wayne et al., 2004) and family, as would beevidenced by system member ratings of domain functioning.

As indicated in our model, the experience of facilitation may be more applicable to individuals who have greaterresources available for exploitation. We include gender and social class as example demand characteristics thatmoderate the potential for environmental resources and thereby create differences in facilitation across different groupsof workers. From a research and theoretical perspective, it is imperative that research be conducted with heterogeneousgroups of participants, including various organizations, occupations, occupational levels, demographic groups, socialclasses, as well as family situations, so that subgroup differences can be examined and generalizability maximized.From a managerial perspective, this theoretical backdrop suggests that when interventions are designed to increaseWFF, they should be created and evaluated with consideration of gender, social class, and occupational level in mind.

Finally, to better understand the implications of facilitation for organizations, a study of the consequences of WFF isneeded and the model presented here can direct such a study. Clearly, if this study's propositions are supported inempirical research, the practical utility to organizations would be worthwhile. If WFF positively predicts uniquevariance in important workgroup or organizational outcomes as measured by other workgroup members, it wouldsuggest that human resource professionals develop efforts to maximize WFF in order to ultimately enhance theirorganizations’ bottom-lines.

The specific variables presented in this model might not be directly transportable to the family-to-work direction;yet, importantly, the theoretical foundation and the model's underlying theoretical constructs would be. Forexample, these same personal characteristics such as positive affectivity, self-efficacy and family identity likelyrelate to FWF. Also, object, condition, energy, and support resources in the family that promote development,positive emotion, and positive interpersonal relationships would be expected to foster FWF. Thus, these broadtheoretical constructs presented in our model form the basis for future facilitation research. Although we discussrelevant examples of each construct to exemplify how researchers might apply the theoretical perspective provided,we encourage researchers to consider other variables representative of and consistent with the theoretical descriptionof enablers of facilitation.

73J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

6.1. Future directions

Self-report measurement ofWFF allows for the assessment of the absolute level of facilitationwhich is necessary to testthe model proposed here and is also useful for evaluating interventions targeted at increasing facilitation. Although a well-developed scale exists for positive spillover (Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006) and enrichment (Carlson et al., 2006), nosuch scale exists for facilitation. Scale development for WFF is needed before research can advance, and we provide aconceptual definition of facilitation which can form the basis of scale development and construct validation efforts.

Geurts and Demerouti (2003) called for greater attention to the mechanisms that underlie work–family interactions,and this paper and subsequent work would contribute to that objective by revealing the basic, underlying dimensions offacilitation. Moreover, if independent dimensions are found, it is plausible that they have different antecedents andconsequences. For example, support resources might relate most strongly to WFF occurring through affective gainswhereas energy resources such as developmental opportunities might relate most strongly to WFF occurring throughdevelopmental gains.

In conclusion, we defined the facilitation construct and provided a theoretical foundation for facilitation and itscorrelates. Without a theoretical foundation, research will proceed in an a-theoretical and disjointed manner. Moreover,we elaborated a theoretically based model and provided operational exemplars of correlates of the work-to-familydirection. We outlined specific areas needing further theorizing and empirical inquiry, and it is hoped that such a modelwill guide and stimulate future research on this topic. Clearly, there is more work to do on facilitation than can beachieved in a single paper, but the foundation offered in this paper will allow human resource researchers andpractitioners to more fully understand facilitation and, more importantly, to undertake activities to enhanceorganizations and families.

References

Aldwin, C., & Stokols, D. (1988). The effects of environmental change on individuals and groups: Some neglected issues in stress research. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 8, 57−75.

Baker, E., Israel, B., & Schurman, S. (1996). Role of control and support in occupational stress: An integrated model. Social Science and Medicine,43, 1145−1159.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191−215.Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,

124, 125−182.Berscheid, E. (2003). The human's greatest strength: Other humans. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths:

Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 37−47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development. Annals of child development: A research

annual, Vol. 6 (pp.187–249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological

Review, 101, 568−586.Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Ed.), (5th ed.). Handbook of child psychology,

Vol. 1 (pp. 993–1028). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 239−251.Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of Positive Organizational Scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E.

Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., Quinn, R. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Developing a discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. In K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development andvalidation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68, 131−164.

Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict.Journal of Management, 25, 513−540.

Christensen, K. (1998). Countervailing human resource trends in family-sensitive firms. In K. Barker & K. Christensen (Eds.), Contingent work:American employment relations in transition (pp. 103−125). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300−314.Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work–family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425−442.Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive

Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

74 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of theliterature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 127−197.

Ford, J. K., Quinones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. PersonnelPsychology, 45, 511−527.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678−686.Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000).Work and family— Allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices.

New York: Oxford University Press.Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143−162).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., &Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 50, 145−167.Geurts, S., & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. In M. J. Schabracz, J. A. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper

(Eds.), The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology (pp. 279−312). Oxford, England: John Wiley.Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth/

Thomson.Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161−178.Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76−88.Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work family enrichment. Academy of Management Review,

31, 72−92.Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work–family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion,

14, 236−243.Grzywacz, J. G. (2002). Toward a theory of work–family facilitation. Paper presentation, 34th Annual Theory Construction and Research

Methodology Workshop (November).Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work–family fit. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 65, 248−261.Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a

construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 97−109.Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and

negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111−126.Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18,

326−339.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 16, 250−279.Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and

family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185−203.Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive

spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 249−265.Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513−524.Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and philosophy of stress. New York: Plenum.Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory.

Applied Psychology, 50, 337−422.House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Reading.Houston, T. X., Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in

the adult labor-force. Family Relations, 51, 28−36.Hughes, D., Galinsky, E., & Morris, A. (1992). The effects of job characteristics on marital quality: Specifying linking mechanisms. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 54, 31−42.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits–self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional

stability–with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80−92.Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692−724.Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Journal of

Basic and Applied Psychology, 13, 231−249.Lambert, S. J., & Haley-Lock, A. (2005). The organizational stratification of opportunities for work–life balance: Addressing issues of equality and

social justice in the workplace. Community, Work, and Family, 7, 179−195.Larson, R.W., Richards, M. H., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1994). Divergent worlds: The daily emotional experience of mothers and fathers in the domestic

and public spheres. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1034−1046.Lobel, S., & St. Clair, L. (1992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes. Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 1057−1069.Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 24−33.Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 70, 280−289.Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42,

921−936.

75J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76

Autho

r's

pers

onal

co

py

Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2002). The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve work through learning.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 357−376.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Management Review,12, 299−312.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support and well-being among two-career couples. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 13, 339−356.

Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and workcentrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224−228.

Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are “family-supportive” employer policies relevant to men? In J. C. Hood (Ed.),Men, work and family (pp. 217−237). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Reitzes, D. D. (2003). Social and emotional engagement in adulthood. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. Keyes, & K. M. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course. Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology (pp. 425−447). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sanders, G., & Walters, J. (1985). Life satisfaction and family strengths of older couples. Lifestyles, 7, 194−206.Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567−578.Stephens, M. A., & Franks, M. M. (1995). Spillover between daughters' roles as caregiver and wife: Interference or enhancement? Journals of

Gerontology, 50, 9−17.Stephens, M. A., Franks, M. M., & Atienza, A. A. (1997). Where two roles intersect: Spillover between parent care and employment. Psychology and

Aging, 12, 30−37.Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers' work experiences effect children's behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 17, 221−232.Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101−112.Voydanoff, P. (2001). Conceptualizing community in the context of work and family. Community, Work, and Family, 4, 133−156.Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66.Walton, R. (1980). Quality of work life activities: A research agenda. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 11, 484−494.Wayne, J. H., & Cordeiro, B. (2003). Who is a good organizational citizen? Perceptions of male and female employees using Family Leave. Sex

Roles, 49, 233−246.Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to

work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108−130.Wayne, J. H., Randel, A., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work-related

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 445−461.Werbel, J., & Walter, M. H. (2002). Changing views of work and family roles: A symbiotic perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 12,

293−298.Westman, M. (2006). Crossover of stress and strain in the work–family context. In F. Jones, R. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work–life balance: A

psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press.Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work–family conflict in employed parents. Academy of

Management Journal, 37, 837−868.Williams, S., Zainuba, M., & Jackson, R. (2003). Affective influences on risk perceptions and risk intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18,

126−137.

76 J.H. Wayne et al. / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 63–76