Is More Commitment Always Better? A Study on the Side Effects of Excessive Organizational Commitment on Work

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in and efforts for work–family balance, actual improvements in work–family balance have not been that significant in South Korea (e.g., increase in karoshi). This study considers an overly organization-oriented perspective as one of the reasons for this, and focuses on the side effects of excessive organizational commitment (OC) on work–family conflict (WFC), unlike most previous studies focusing on the positive effects of OC. Using the Korean Civil Service Survey, we found that OC has a significant U-shaped relationship with WFC and this U-shaped relationship appeared only in dual-income families. The results showed that when OC is too high, a negative transfer of resources from work to family overwhelms a positive transfer, thereby encroaching upon individuals’ personal lives. Therefore, organizational supports for employees to successfully perform their roles in the family while maintaining a high level of OC are needed.

Keywords

organizational behavior/development family friendly workplace international public personnel administration federal government HRM workplace environment/culture job stress

Introduction

Work and family are the two most important areas of an individual’s life. In many societies today, the increase in female economic activities has led to the growth of dual-income families, which has caused work and family to be considered not as an either-or-not area but as areas that need to be harmonized and coexist (Newman & Mathews, 1999). As the traditional gender-role boundary has blurred, a number of employees, regardless of their gender, have thought of both work and family as important areas of life and have struggled to juggle the competing demands of the two areas (Byron, 2005, p. 170). In this context, studies on work–family conflict (WFC) have been steadily increasing (e.g., Fiksenbaum, 2014; Matthews, Winkel, & Wayne, 2014; Nohe, Meier, Sonntag, & Michel, 2015; Wadsworth & Owens, 2007), and both the theoretical and practical efforts to balance work and family have been intensifying globally.

Especially, governments, as an exemplary employer, have actively introduced many initiatives to improve work–family balance (WFB) and have been leading efforts to create family friendly workplaces (Newman & Mathews, 1999; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001; Wadsworth & Owens, 2007). However, although the public sector has been committed to WFB (Persaud, 2001), there are serious questions about the actual level of WFB in the public sector. Despite many family friendly programs in the public sector, they are not utilized enough by public employees (Saltzein et al., 2001). Previous studies suggest that a managerial attitude or an organizational culture that values workaholic behavior could be one of the major reasons for this underutilization of WFB policies and little improvement in WFB in the public sector (Newman & Mathews, 1999).¹

In this regard, this study focuses on the organization-oriented perspective of WFB in the public sector—which tends to regard WFB as a simple management tool for organizational effectiveness, rather than as a means of improving an individual’s quality of life (Daley, 1998)—as the possible reason why there has been little improvement in WFB in the public sector even with the increased efforts. Maxwell and McDougall’s (2004) case study also found that the main drivers for WFB policies and practices in the U.K. public sector were to attract, recruit, and retain good employees, which implies that the WFB initiative in the public sector was based on the organization’s perspective, not on the individual’s perspective.

The specific location of this study is South Korea where the government has been actively pursuing policy efforts to improve WFB. South Korea implemented the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act in 2008, which is an example of government-level efforts toward WFB. The purpose of this act is to improve the quality of all the people’s lives by assisting workers in maintaining a WFB. This act includes protections for parenthood (e.g., maternity and paternity leave) and assistance for child and family care (e.g., child care leave, family care leave, subsidies for the living expenses of leaving workers, and provisions for flexible working hours), and applies to all businesses with employees. Yet, despite such progress in South Korea’s work–family policy, actual improvements in WFB are actually not that significant. According to Park, the number of employees who died from overworking was 205, which was an increase over the number in 2012 (133), despite the implementation of the Work-Family-Balance Act (Park, 2018). This irony was why we selected South Korea as the subject of this study.

In the case of South Korea where collectivist culture is strong, unlike Western countries where individualism is high, it is taken for granted that people will tend to prioritize groups over individuals. Thus, the dark side of an organization-oriented perspective on individuals’ WFB can be especially evident in South Korea. Therefore, we chose to analyze the Korean public sector, which has an organization-oriented perspective based on a collectivist culture and has shown little improvement in actual WFB despite the symbolic improvement (e.g., passage of the Act). This makes it a useful context to examine how an organization-oriented perspective impedes individuals’ WFB. In this study, we see organizational commitment (OC) as an attitudinal variable that strongly reflects an organization-oriented perspective, and we examine the relationship between OC and WFC.

The organization-oriented perspective has also been reflected in previous research trends of WFC. Given the growing concern about WFC, much attention has been paid to work-related outcomes of WFC (Fiksenbaum, 2014, p. 654): job satisfaction (e.g., Facer & Wadsworth, 2008; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), OC (e.g., E. G.Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse-Tolar, Jennings, & Baker, 2006), burnout (e.g., Boles, Johnston, & Hair, 1997), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; e.g., Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki, Kutcher, Indovino, & Rosner, 2005), absenteeism (e.g., Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003), turnover (e.g., Greenhaus, Collins, Singh, & Parasuraman, 1997), and work performance (e.g., Witt & Carlson, 2006). In addition, previous studies investigating antecedents of WFC have been actively conducted, many of which were aimed toward providing practical implications for improving organizational management tools from an organization-oriented perspective (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011).

Given that a more individual-oriented perspective is required to improve the collective understanding of WFC and substantially reduce WFC, this study focuses on side effects of excessive OC, which were partly derived from the dominance of the organization-oriented perspective. Most previous studies have emphasized the positive effects (e.g., increase in job satisfaction, OCB, job performance; and decrease in absenteeism, turnover) of OC, thus they have been criticized for favoring the organization’s perspective (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002, p. 22). Also, some researchers have raised concerns about side effects of excessive OC on individuals such as WFC, stress, and poor health (e.g., Reilly, 1994). Yet, little research has been conducted to address these concerns.

This study aims to broaden the horizons of OC research by considering side effects of excessive OC on WFC. The main research questions of this study are the following: (1) How does OC affect WFC? (2) How is the relationship between OC and WFC different across the family types (single-income or dual-income family)? To answer these questions, the present study attempts to explain the relationship between OC and WFC through the concept of resources transfer between work and family based on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). This study highlights the possibility that the undue emphasis on OC from an organization’s perspective can make the negative transfer overwhelm the positive transfer between work and family, which leads to an increase in WFC of individuals.

The “Theoretical Backgrounds and Hypotheses” section elaborates on the possibility of both negative and positive relationships between OC and WFC from the perspective of resources transfer. Subsequently, we suggest two main hypotheses, proposing a curvilinear or U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC on the basis of COR theory. The “Method” section explains the sample, data, measurements, and statistical approach. The results of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions including a square term are presented in the “Results” section. Finally, in the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” section, we summarize the findings and provide various implications for practice and theory, followed by limitations and suggestions for future studies.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Conceptualizing WFC

WFC is one of the most studied concepts in the work–family literature. WFC has been conceptualized as “a type of inter-role conflict² in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77), and WFB, another key concept in work–family literature, has been defined as “the absence of WFC” (Frone, 2003). Some researchers suggest that WFC is conceptually distinct from WFB, which is a more global concept (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; Frone, 2003).³ However, the purpose of this study is to analyze the overall level of WFC, or the cumulative effects of individual conflicts in various arenas. Thus, below we use these two concepts interchangeably and our literature review addresses both WFC and WFB.

The WFC construct has two primary characteristics as follows (Michel et al., 2011, p. 691): First, role pressures are directional and researchers have distinguished between conflicts due to work interfering with family and conflicts due to family interfering with work (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). Second, the WFC construct has been categorized into time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflicts, depending on the sources of the conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Time-based conflict occurs when time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another; strain-based conflict occurs when increased stress or tension in one domain hinders role performance in the other; and behavior-based conflict occurs when specific patterns of in-role behavior may be incompatible with expectations regarding behavior in another role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, pp. 76−82).

Theoretical Approaches of WFC

Traditionally, the WFC literature has relied on one of the three theories to explain how work and family life are linked: segmentation, compensation, or spillover (S. J. Lambert, 1990, p. 241). The earliest view of the relationship between work and family life is segmentation, which assumes that work and family life are separate and independent, such that the two domains do not affect each other (S. J. Lambert, 1990; Zedeck, 1992). Meanwhile, the idea that workers actively respond to occurrence in both domains led to the view that people may try to compensate for dissatisfaction in one domain by seeking more satisfaction in the other (S. J. Lambert, 1990, p. 241). This view of compensation may be conceived as the reallocation of importance, time, or attention from a dissatisfying domain to a potentially satisfying domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), and it posits that there might be an opposite relationship between work and family roles (Fiksenbaum, 2014, p. 654). Finally, the most popular view of the relationship between work and family is that their effects spill over into each other (S. J. Lambert, 1990, p. 242). These spillover effects generate similarities between the two domains in terms of emotions, attitudes, values, skills, and behaviors (Evans & Bartolomé, 1986; Lambert, 1990; Zedeck, 1992).

COR Theory

These three views of the relationship between work and family life (i.e., segmentation, compensation, and spillover), although partially supported, have not been integrated into one comprehensive theory to guide work–family research (Kelley & Streeter, 1992). Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) suggest a more generalized stress model could offer an appropriate framework for work–family studies; the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) might be a fruitful theoretical guide for comprehending the work–family literature and understanding WFC (Fiksenbaum, 2014, p. 654).

The COR theory proposes that individuals pursue obtaining and retaining resources consistently. When people feel threatened by a loss of resources or actually lose their resources, stress occurs as a response (Hobfoll, 1989). Resources include objects (e.g., one’s home), conditions (e.g., marriage, tenure, and seniority), personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem), or energies (e.g., time, money, and knowledge) that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means of attaining these resources (Hobfoll, 1989, pp. 516-517). According to the COR theory, as more resources are lost in one domain, there might be shortage of resources to perform one’s required roles well enough in other domains (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Conversely, as more resources are gained in one domain, the individual might be able to offset the loss of other resources and gain a greater capacity to perform a role in another domain (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999, pp. 353-356).

Antecedents of WFC and COR Theory

As mentioned before, COR theory can comprehensively explain both positive and negative relationships between the work and family domains through the mechanism of resource transfer. Thus, we reviewed previous studies on WFC and WFB using COR theory as a framework. The antecedents of WFC (WFB) found in prior work are classified as work-related factors, family-related factors, and individual factors (Byron, 2005; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011).

Figure 1 demonstrates the relationships examined in previous studies. Work-related factors such as job involvement (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005), organization-based self-efficacy (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2006), work support (Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau, 2001), family-friendly policies (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006), salaries, and job security (Batt & Valcour, 2003) were associated with lower WFC. Job stress (Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002), job characteristics such as decision latitude, variety, and complexity (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005), and hours spent at work (Byron, 2005) were associated with greater WFC. According to COR theory, factors decreasing WFC cause a generally positive transfer of resources from the work to family domains, whereas factors increasing WFC primarily cause a negative transfer.

Figure 1.

Antecedents of WFC/WFB in previous studies.

Family-related factors include family support (Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995), which was negatively associated with WFC, and family involvement (Allis & O’Driscoll, 2008), hours spent with family (Gutek et al., 1991), family stress (Stoeva et al., 2002), family conflict, and number of children (Byron, 2005), which were positively associated with WFC. According to COR theory, except for family support, all factors mentioned above cause more negative than positive transfer of resources from family to work, leading to increased WFC.

Last, individual factors include demographic variables such as gender, income, and spousal employment (Byron, 2005), and dispositional variables such as life values, personalities (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005; Sumer & Knight, 2001; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004), and coping style and skills (Rotondo & Kincaid, 2008). Previous studies mainly focused on the effects of demographic variables on WFC, but recently the effects of dispositional traits on WFC have also received much attention.

Individual differences have also been examined in work–family research as moderators. In particular, gender as a moderator has been thoroughly explored in WFC research. The reason researchers have focused on gender is they assume traditional gender roles still persist, despite the many changes in this arena. Traditional gender roles suggest different emphases for men and women: work is for men; family responsibilities and home maintenance is for women (Gutek, Nakamura, & Nieva, 1981, p. 1). According to this perspective on gender roles, hours expended in one’s “own” domain (e.g., more housework hours for women or more work hours for men) should be considered less of an imposition than hours expended in the other’s domain (Gutek et al., 1991 p. 561). Thus, their claim is that the effects of work-related factors on WFC is stronger for women than for men, and the effects of family-related factors on WFC is stronger for men than for women. Hill (2005) found the positive relationship between work hours and WFC was stronger for working mothers than for working fathers, which implies that gender still plays an important role in WFC issues. However, in Byron’s (2005) meta-analysis on antecedents of WFC, gender was a very weak predictor, which implied that traditional gender-role boundaries have blurred and WFC has become a common experience among employees regardless of their gender. Ryu (2015) also found that role stressors’ cross-domain effects (i.e., work role stressors’ effects on life satisfaction and family stressors’ effects on job satisfaction) were not significantly different according to gender.

On the other hand, family type (dual-income or single-income) is also an important moderator in WFC research. Higgins and Duxbury (1992) found a significant moderating effect of dual-income family status, in that the positive relationship between work-related conflict and WFC was stronger for males in dual-income families than for males in single-income families. This implied that belonging to a dual-income family, which is indicative of an interconnectedness between the work and family domains, can affect the degree of demands experienced and resources transferred from the two domains and moderate the relationships between them and WFC. According to COR theory, the moderating effects of individual factors mean that the transfer of resources caused by work-related or family-related factors differ depending on these individual factors (e.g., gender and family types).

WFC in the Public Sector: Organizational Context

The focus of this study is on the effects of OC on WFC and the moderating effects of family type in the public sector. These relationships should be analyzed with consideration of organizational contexts and the nature of the public sector, because organizational contexts and the nature of the public sector can influence and shape one’s work–family ideologies (Leslie, King, & Clair 2019). Depending on the context in which individuals are exposed, their beliefs on whether work and family compete with (versus enhance) each other and whether to prioritize work over family (versus prioritize family over work) can be differently shaped (Leslie, King, & Clair, 2019, pp. 77-78).

Public management studies related to WFC have also been interested in the effects of organizational contexts on WFC (e.g., Clark, Rudolph, Zhdanova, Michel, & Baltes, 2017; Feeney & Stritch, 2017; Fiksenbaum, 2014; Foucreault, Ollier-Malaterre, & Ménard, 2018; Wadsworth & Owens, 2007). Feeney and Stritch (2017) found that an organizational culture of family support is positively related to public employees’ WFB in U.S. state governments. Wadsworth and Owens (2007), using data from public employees in the United States, found that support from the organization and supervisors diminishes WFC. These results imply that a family-supportive organizational culture enables employees to shape their work–family ideologies and make choices that facilitate their WFB.

However, given the nature of the public sector—such as an organizational culture that values diligence and expects sacrifices from public servants—especially prominent in South Korea (the location of this study), the organizational contexts of the public sector is likely to shape ideologies that increase WFC (e.g., work priority ideology). This is also the background upon which this study focuses on the effects of excessive OC on WFC.

OC and WFC: A U-shaped relationship

In this study, we explore the positive and negative transfer of resources from work to family caused by OC in light of the COR theory. We assume their relationship could change depending on whether the positive or negative transfer occurs with greater strength; it is not a given that their relationship will always be solely positive (i.e., compensation) or negative (i.e., spillover). As a result, the main hypotheses on the curvilinear relationship between OC and WFC, which show changes to the relative level of positive to negative transfer depending on the level of OC, are suggested with the following rationales.

OC could increase personal resources available for performing one’s role in the family in a variety of ways, which leads to a decline in WFC. First, the higher OC individuals have, the more inclined they are to remain with an organization in an effort to assist in the realization of the organization’s goals (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604). Such an intention to remain with the organization could reinforce the conditions (e.g., employment, seniority, and tenure), types of personal resources, which strengthen an individual’s stress-resistance potential (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 517) and this could contribute to reduced WFC. In addition, high OC could increase organization-based self-esteem (OBSE)⁴, which in turn could lead to global self-esteem; they are both personal characteristics considered as resources that enhance the capacity for one to effectively fulfill a given role (Rosenberg, 1979). Highly committed people may have more opportunities to have experiences that make them feel worthwhile within their organizations (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989, p. 625). According to the COR theory, one’s self-esteem as a resource may affect how individuals react to stress (or the loss of other resources). Those with high self-esteem may not be bothered by the potential loss of resources in their work or family domain because they know they can cope with such a loss (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999, p. 352). OC, therefore, could ease WFC by shaping one’s self-esteem, which is a positive characteristic that may be used as a personal resource.

Finally, those with high OC could create energy—such as mental and physical health, experience, knowledge, and skills—that can be used as a resource to improve one’s role in the family domain. Recently, there has been increasing emphasis on positive interdependencies between work and family life (Grzywacz, 2002). Participation in work roles based on high OC can buffer individuals from distress in family roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73) and may help improve mental health, which is a helpful resource in both work and family domains. In addition, a variety of personal resources (e.g., experience, knowledge, skills) obtained in the work domain may also apply to the role in family life (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, p. 186), and those with high OC are more likely to gain more resources in the workplace due to their strong effort, consistency, and conscientiousness (Meyer & Allen, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

However, there is also the opposing possibility OC could decrease the personal resources available to fulfill one’s role in the family domain, which leads to an increase in WFC. This approach assumes that the work and family domains are in a zero-sum relationship, both drawing on individuals’ limited resources. According to this approach, personal resources such as time, attention, and energy are finite, and resource exhaustion in one domain limits the use of resources in other domains (Eckenrode & Gore, 1990). If assuming the finiteness of personal resources, this constraint generates a negative direct relationship between work and family resources, such that devoting resources to one domain diminishes the quantity of resources available for the other domain (Piotrkowski, 1979; Repetti, 1987; Small & Riley, 1990). In this light, the higher one’s OC, the more likely it becomes for one’s limited resources to be devoted to work, leading to difficulties in performing one’s role in the family domain. Commitment is defined as a willingness to assign one’s limited resources to a particular domain and to be involved with that domain (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982); thus, when individuals have strong OC, demands in the work domain encroach on the family domain, resulting in a rise in WFC (Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk, 2001, p. 105). For example, time or attention transferred from the family to the work domain facilitates role performance at work but hinders role performance in the family domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, p. 192). Also, high OC may produce similar levels of fatigue or tension, as the organization is regarded as important and drains one’s physical or psychological energy, which interferes with the individual’s ability to meet the demands of the family domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, one’s successful role performance in one’s work-life, which is based on high OC and for which the sacrifice of family life is a prerequisite (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990), can cause the transfer of resources from family to work, leading to an increase in WFC.

As previously shown, there is a possibility for both positive and negative transfer of resources between work and family, and the relationship between OC and WFC could be different depending on which transfer is greater, positive or negative. Given the properties of each transfer, the strength of the transfer of resources may change, contingent on an individual’s level of OC. The key driver of a negative transfer of resources caused by OC is an overly one-sided devotion of limited resources. Therefore, it is expected that a negative transfer of resources from work to family would drastically increase when an individual’s OC exceeds a certain level. On the other hand, the key point of positive transfer is complementarity between work and family domains. Accordingly, it is expected that if OC is too high, then the positive transfer of resources from work to family will be weaker.

Taken together, we expect that before an individual’s OC reaches a certain level, the strength of the positive transfer from work to family would exceed that of the negative transfer, leading to a negative relationship between one’s OC and WFC. In contrast, if an individual’s OC exceeds a certain level, the negative transfer from work to family will surpass the positive transfer as a side effect of excessive OC, which leads to a positive relationship between one’s OC and WFC. Hence, this study hypothesizes that OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC.

Hypothesis 1: OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC of public officers who are married.

WFC could be intensified when the role pressures from each domain are intense, when work and family roles are important to the person’s self-perception, and when there are strong negative impacts accompanied by one’s failure to fulfill the demands of the role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). In the case of dual-income families, employees have a more significant burden from their family domain, and the negative effects caused by failure in role performance in the family domain could be stronger compared with single-income families, in which the partner in the home mostly takes charge of roles in the family domain. Therefore, it is predicted that when an individual’s level of OC is excessive, the negative transfer of resources from work to family offset and exceed the positive transfer to a greater extent when compared with single-income families. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: OC has a stronger U-shaped relationship with WFC of married public officers in dual-income families compared with those in single-income families.

Method

Sample and Data

This study used the Korean Civil Service Survey (KCSS), which was administered in 2011 to 1,500 central and local government bureaucrats in 35 ministries and 16 local governments.⁵ The survey was conducted by the Korea Institute of Public Administration. The questionnaire included 77 structured questions asking about various aspects of government organizations, including the extent of WFC, OC, job characteristics, and organizational culture. For most of the questions, the respondents answered on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.

The analysis was conducted among 1,020 public officers who were married. We focused on married officers whose interconnectedness between work and family domains were high. The final sample size (n = 1,020) reflects a reduction in the initial number of married respondents (n = 1,196) who were eliminated due to incomplete responses; respondents with missing data on any of the variables (n = 176) were excluded from the analysis.⁶ Table 1 shows basic summary statistics for personal and job characteristics of the respondents.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics.

Total	Frequency	%
Total	1,020	100
Gender
Male	760	74.5
Female	260	25.5
Age
20-29 years	13	1.3
30-39 years	266	26.1
40-49 years	464	45.5
50-59 years	277	27.2
Single/Dual Income
Single-income family	336	32.9
Dual-income family	684	67.1
Children
With children	952	93.3
Without children	68	6.7
Family income (month)
<3,000,000 (won)	216	21.2
3,000,000-6,000,000 (won)	673	66.0
>6,000,000 (won)	131	12.8
Job grade
Grade 4-5	123	12.1
Grade 6-9	868	85.1
Research, Specialized service, etc.	29	2.8
Job group
Administrative service group	805	78.9
Technical service group	215	21.1

Measures

Dependent variable

This study defined WFC as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77), and WFC was measured with a single question: “I could combine the demand of my work-life and the demands of my family-life enough” (Cartwright, 1978, p. 187). Response categories ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were reverse-coded to create the WFC scale.⁷

Independent variable

To measure OC, this study used Meyer and Allen (1991)’s affective commitment, “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67).⁸ OC was measured by calculating the average score from three questionnaire items that asked about the respondents’ sense of belonging in the organization, pride as a member of the organization, and similarity between the organization’s values and those of a given respondent, as shown in the appendix. These items were based on the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979), and used a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Control variables

To reduce the possibility of spurious results, this study included several control variables that can influence public officials’ WFC and be correlated with OC, based on prior studies. First, this study controlled for respondents’ personal characteristics, including demographic variables—such as gender (male = 1, female = 0)⁹, age, equalized family income (natural log of equalized monthly family income), and the number of children—and public service motivation (PSM) (Byron, 2005). To measure PSM, we employed a shortened version of Perry’s (1996) PSM scale, using three out of four dimensions (commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice; we did not use attraction to policy making).¹⁰ We used the average value of the answers to the six questions related to PSM to capture the degree of PSM.

This study also controlled for work experience variables, such as government level (local = 1, central = 0), job performance (last year’s performance grade; very bad = 1, bad = 2, neutral = 3, good = 4, very good = 5), job autonomy, satisfaction with pay, and leadership (Burke, Weir, & DuWors, 1980; Jones & Butler, 1980). Job autonomy was measured through respondents’ answers to the two questions about work method autonomy and work criteria autonomy (Breaugh, 1985), pay satisfaction was measured through answers to the single question about the degree of satisfaction with pay (Alderfer, 1967), and leadership was measured through answers to the three questions about the degree that their leader presents a vision for the future, motivates employees to work harder, and encourages new views on work (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).

We also controlled for organizational characteristics by including group culture and rational culture, since organizational culture shapes beliefs and expectations about role demands and how to meet them, and this potentially affects WFC (Nikandrou, Panayotopoulou, & Apospori, 2008, p. 581).¹¹ Group culture, defined as the culture possessing high affiliation and concern with teamwork, communication, and participation, was measured through answers to the two questions about the degree of friendliness and sharing in their organization; rational culture, defined as the culture with focuses on achievement, productivity, and efficiency, was measured through answers to the two questions about the degree of emphasis given to achievement and production in their organization (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991).¹²

Finally, family interference with work (FIW), meaning that activities related to the family interfere with work responsibilities (Gutek et al., 1991), was controlled to diminish the spurious influence that OC might have on WFC due to its correlation with FIW (Frone et al., 1992). FIW was measured through respondents’ answers to the single question about the defgree to which the family members understand and support their work-life (Breaugh, 1985). The response scale of all the questions ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were reverse-coded. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for all variables in this study.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	N	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
WFC	1,020	1	5	2.46	.880
Organizational commitment	1,020	1	5	3.37	.786
Gender(1 = male, 0 = female)	1,020	0	1	0.75	.436
Age	1,020	26	60	43.97	7.22
Ln(family income)	1,020	4.32	7.05	5.26	.405
# of children	1,020	0	5	1.80	.763
PSM	1,020	2	5	3.83	.483
Local government	1,020	0	1	0.62	.486
Job autonomy	1,020	1	5	3.29	.828
Pay satisfaction	1,020	1	5	2.45	.911
Leadership	1,020	1	5	2.97	.872
Job performance	1,020	1	5	3.61	.932
Consensus culture	1,020	1	5	3.03	.795
Achieve culture	1,020	1	5	3.00	.783
FIW	1,020	1	5	2.02	.817

Note. WFC = Work–family conflict; PSM = public service motivation; FIW = family interference with work.

Reliability and validity

A measurement model was used to test the internal consistency and validity of the measures. The results show that all reliability coefficients are above the recommended level of 0.70 (0.749-0.904), indicating that internal consistency is adequate (Nunnally, 1978). The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) show that all measures have significant loadings and loaded higher than or near the suggested threshold (loading > 0.50) on related latent variables (0.454-0.956), thus showing convergent validity for all latent variables (Bagozzi & Yi, 1998). Discriminant validity is also supported for all constructs because all average variance extracted (AVE) values as compared with correlation square are positive (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The detailed questionnaire items and the results of CFA are given in the appendix.

Statistical Approach

This study estimated multiple OLS regression models with a square term to test the U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC. In this model, we used standard errors clustered at the organizational level to reflect the fact that officials within the same organization may be more likely to answer similarly. Also, public officers in dual-income families and those in single-income families were analyzed separately to compare the relationship between OC and WFC, and all analysis was performed using STATA software (version 14.0.). This study tested the hypotheses using the following regression equation:

\begin{array}{l} {WFC}_{i} = α + β_{1} (organizational {commitment}_{i}) + β_{2} {(organizational {commitment}_{i})}^{2} \\ + β_{3} ({gender}_{i}) + β_{4} ({age}_{i}) + β_{5} (family {income}_{i}) + β_{6} ({children}_{i}) + β_{7} ({PSM}_{i}) \\ + β_{8} (local {government}_{i}) + β_{9} (job {autonomy}_{i}) + β_{10} (pay {satisfaction}_{i}) \\ + β_{11} ({leadership}_{i}) + β_{12} (job {performance}_{i}) \\ + β_{13} (group {culture}_{i}) + β_{14} (rational {culture}_{i}) + β_{15} ({FIW}_{i}) + ε_{i} \end{array}

Results

Table 3 presents correlations for the main variables. WFC has a statistically significant negative correlation with OC (r = −.250, p < .05). Some controlled variables, such as age (r = −.174), family income (r = −.093), PSM (r = −.141), job autonomy (r = −.182), pay satisfaction (r = −.167), leadership (r = −.147), and group culture(r = −.126), are also negatively correlated with WFC, whereas FIW (r = .438) is positively correlated with WFC (p < .05). Thus, we performed OLS multiple regression analyses to control other variables that affect WFC and to isolate the effects of OC.

Table 3.

Correlations of All the Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. WFC	1.000
2. Organizational commitment	−.250	1.000
3. Gender	.014	.063	1.000
4. Age	−.174	.200	.200	1.000
5. Family income	−.093	.008	−.286	.174	1.000
6. # of children	.005	.136	.111	.391	−.161	1.000
7. PSM	−.141	.272	.088	.260	−.007	.126	1.000
8. Local	−.016	−.003	−.048	.151	.047	.084	.045	1.000
9. Job autonomy	−.182	.321	.018	.036	.034	.010	.119	−.036	1.000
10. Pay satisfaction	−.167	.144	−.148	.222	.224	.094	.062	.072	.087	1.000
11. Leadership	−.147	.479	.067	.067	.020	.036	.107	−.002	.290	.122	1.000
12. Job performance	−.054	.128	.031	.052	−.048	.068	.131	−.068	.023	.041	.083	1.000
13. Group culture	−.126	.166	−.049	.019	.008	−.030	.099	−.018	.081	−.018	.109	.055	1.000
14. Rational culture	−.024	.139	.002	.004	−.071	−.005	.043	−.325	.066	−.011	.054	.040	.472	1.000
15. FIW	.438	−.234	.035	−.076	−.055	.001	−.141	.042	−.171	−.161	−.100	−.092	−.083	−.072	1.000

Note. Shadowed: p < .05. WFC = Work–family conflict; PSM = public service motivation; FIW = family interference with work.

As seen from Table 3, except for the quadratic term of OC, there is no correlation coefficient value greater than .70, and the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of all variables ranged from 1.05 to 1.52, which are well below the common cut-off threshold of 10 (Gujarati & Porter, 2009; Wooldridge, 2013), indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to be a problem in this study. There was a high correlation between the original and quadratic terms of the OC (r = .986, p < .05), and high VIFs were observed for the original and quadratic terms (37.03, 36.66). However, high correlation and VIFs are not issues in this study, because the multicollinearity in such a situation does not affect the p value for the quadratic term (Allison, 2012; Jung, Chan, & Hsieh, 2017).

Table 4 shows the results of OLS regressions for WFC. The main purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of a quadratic U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC. The analysis began with controls and the original term of OC (Model 1), then contained the quadratic term of OC (Model 2). When comparing Model 1 and Model 2, the inclusion of the quadratic term in Model 2 led to a statistically significant improvement in model fit (D $R^{2}$ = .006; Wald F = 5.91, p = .019), indicating that the relationship between OC and WFC is quadratic rather than linear.

Table 4.

OLS Regression Results Predicting WFC.

	Model 1: First term			Model 2: Quadratic term
	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value
Independent
Com	−.072**	.032	.027	−.599***	.221	.009
${(Com)}^{2}$				.082**	.034	.019
Controls
FIW	.399***	.042	.000	.400***	.041	.000
Family income	−.030	.057	.605	−.027	.057	.638
Gender	.039	.041	.347	.038	.042	.362
Age	−.017***	.003	.000	−.017***	.003	.000
Kid	.079	.051	.130	.079	.050	.125
Local	−.021	.073	.777	−.016	.074	.835
PSM	−.039	.057	.504	−.061	.058	.300
Job performance	.003	.040	.938	.001	.024	.971
Pay satisfaction	−.048	.033	.148	−.048	.033	.161
Job autonomy	−.052	.035	.143	−.056	.035	.121
Leadership	.003	.040	.938	.011	.040	.784
Group culture	−.145***	.053	.008	−.147***	.052	.007
Achieve culture	.020	.032	.530	.017	.031	.587
Cons	3.432***	.482	.000	4.295***	.525	.000
N	1,020			1,020
$R^{2}$	.255			.261
F(df)	22.82(14, 45)***			24.36(15, 45)***
△ $R^{2}$				.006
Wald test: F(df)				5.91(1, 45)**

Note. SE indicates robust standard error. OLS = ordinary least squares; WFC = Work–family conflict; FIW = family interference with work; PSM = public service motivation.

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .001

The results supported Hypothesis 1, which explores whether OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC in married public officers. The first term of OC has a negative sign and is statistically significant at a level of 5% (coefficient = −.599, p = .009), and the quadratic term of OC is significant with a positive sign (coefficient = .082, p = .019). Therefore, the relationship between OC and WFC appears to be U-shaped, implying that WFC decreases with OC up to a certain threshold but after that point, WFC increases with OC. The tipping point was determined by formula B/(–2A), in which A and B were the coefficients of the quadratic and original terms, respectively. As shown in Figure 2, the tipping point was 3.66 at which the negative transfer of resources from work to family as a function of OC exceeded positive transfer and led to an increase in WFC. This could be viewed as a side effect of excessive OC caused by extremely organization-centric perspective.

Figure 2.

Quadratic U-shaped relationship between organizational commitment and WFC: Married officers.

These results indicate that if public officers’ commitment to their organization was at a reasonable level (i.e., below the threshold) where they could pursue balanced role performance in both work and family and there was the possibility of the positive transfer of resources from work to family, their WFC weakened with the increase in OC. However, if their OC was so high (i.e., beyond the threshold) that the work domain encroached on the family domain, their WFC strengthened with the increase in OC.

Regarding the control variables, FIW had a significant positive relationship with WFC, while age and group culture were significantly associated with WFC in a negative way, which is similar to the results of previous WFC studies.

When comparing the relationship between OC and WFC in single-income and dual-income families, we divided the samples into two groups based on the employment status of their spouse. Similar to our previous analysis, Model 1 includes controls and the original term of OC, and Model 2 adds the quadratic term of OC. Table 5 shows each group’s results.

Table 5.

OLS Regression Results Predicting WFC: Comparing Single-Income and Dual-Income Families.

	Single-income						Dual-income
	Model 1: First term			Model 2: Quadratic term			Model 1: First term			Model 2: Quadratic term
	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value
Independent
Com	.045	.041	.277	−.230	.485	.639	−.142***	.040	.001	−.699***	.245	.007
${(Com)}^{2}$				.041	.072	.570				.088**	.038	.027
Controls
FIW	.379***	.052	.000	.379***	.052	.000	.416***	.050	.000	.417***	.050	.000
Family income	.039	.141	.783	.043	.143	.766	−.041	.063	.552	−.043	.062	.493
Gender	−.111	.137	.420	−.102	.137	.462	.040	.057	.490	.038	.057	.514
Age	−.016*	.008	.050	−.016*	.008	.057	−.018***	.005	.000	−.018***	.004	.000
Kid	.058	.068	.404	.059	.069	.404	.087	.058	.140	.086	.056	.132
Local	.000	.124	.999	.002	.125	.989	−.012	.078	.881	−.007	.079	.932
PSM	.018	.101	.863	.003	099	.974	−.047	.072	.521	−.068	.075	.370
Job performance	.042	.054	.449	.043	.054	.435	−.016	.031	.603	−.021	.031	.503
Pay satisfaction	−.094**	.046	.049	−.093*	.047	.053	−.017	.033	.605	−.018	.034	.595
Job autonomy	−.100*	.058	.090	−.099*	.058	.096	−.024	.045	.597	−.031	.046	.508
Leadership	.079	.071	.271	.087	.073	.239	−.034	.045	.450	−.030	.045	.512
Group culture	−.183**	.073	.017	−.188**	.076	.017	−.120*	.065	.072	−.116*	.065	.081
Rational culture	.039	.059	.508	.039	.060	516	.015	.040	.702	.011	.040	.789
Cons	2.624***	.765	.002	3.056***	.946	.003	3.696***	.586	.000	4.631***	.745	.000
N	336			336			684			684
$R^{2}$	.224			.225			.288			.295
F(df)	9.41(14, 36)***			10.10(15, 36)***			52.82(14, 45)***			49.31(15, 45)***
△ $R^{2}$				.001						.007
Wald test: F(df)				.33(1, 36)						5.26(1, 45)**

Note. SE indicates robust standard error. OLS = ordinary least squares; WFC = Work–family conflict; FIW = family interference with work; PSM = public service motivation.

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .001

In the case of officers in dual-income families, Model 2, which included the quadratic term of OC, had a better fit than Model 1 (D $R^{2}$ = .7; Wald F = 5.26, p = .027) and it appeared that OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC in married public officers in dual-income families. The first term of OC was significant with a negative sign (coefficient = −.699, p = .007) and the quadratic term of OC was significant with a positive sign (coefficient = .088, p = .027). The threshold at which the negative transfer of resources from work to family as a function of OC exceeded positive transfer was 3.97 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Quadratic U-shaped relationship between organizational commitment and WFC: Married officers in dual-income families.

On the other hand, for officers in single-income families, there was no statistically significant difference in model fit between Model 1 and 2 (D $R^{2}$ = .001; Wald F = .33, p = .570) and the first term of OC in Model 1 was also statistically nonsignificant at a level of 5% (coefficient = .045, p = .277). These results indicate that officers in single-income families, whose role performance was commonly focused on the work domain, feel that their work and family domains were less intertwined than those in a dual-income family, leading to a nonsignificant association between OC and WFC.

Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 2,¹³ which explores whether OC has a stronger U-shaped relationship with WFC for married officers in dual-income families than for those in single-income families.

Discussion

For most individuals, work and family are the most dominant life domains. Juggling the domains of work and family has become a part of everyday life for many individuals, regardless of gender, due to changes in traditional gender roles and an increase in the number of dual-income families (Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011).¹⁴ Accordingly, both theoretical and practical interest in WFC has steadily increased over the past few decades (e.g., Fiksenbaum, 2014; Matthews et al., 2014; Nohe, Meier, Sonntag, & Michel, 2015; Wadsworth & Owens, 2007). Based on the critical idea that the excessive organization-centric perspective hinders a well-developed understanding and actual improvement in WFC, this study focused on the possibility of the side effects of excessive OC on WFC from an individual-centric perspective. Drawing on the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and by using survey data from a large number of married Korean public officers, we demonstrated a U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC. The summary of the results and implications are discussed below.

First, we found OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC in married public officers, which demonstrates the side effect of excessive OC. This result indicates that when OC increases above the threshold, the negative transfer of resources from work to family overtakes the positive transfer, thereby encroaching upon employees’ family domains. In the Korean public sector, there is a culture that pressures public servants to prioritize missions as a public servant over their personal lives and to feel justified in sacrificing their personal lives for their organization. This result shows that such an organization-oriented perspective, which prevails in the Korean public sector, can encroach upon public servants’ personal lives. Second, a U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC appeared only in officers in dual-income families, while OC was not significantly associated with WFC for officers in single-income families. These results may be explained by the difference in the way officers shared role demands between work and family domains with their spouse. Those in single-income families usually divided their role demands with their spouse in such a way that each assumed full charge of the role demands from only one domain. Meanwhile, those in dual-income families share the role demands from both domains with their spouse and fulfill both roles together. Thus, the degree of intermingling between work and family domains is much more significant in dual-income families, thereby leading to these results.

The results from our analysis provide practical implications for human resource management. Organizational efforts are required to support employees in successfully performing their roles in their family while also maintaining a high level of commitment to their organization. That is to say, a U-shaped relationship between OC and WFC needs to be changed to reflect a simple negative relationship with no side effects of excessive OC by maximizing the positive transfer of resources and minimizing the negative transfer of resources from work to family. First, in terms of physical resources, organizational support for increasing the positive transfer of resources from work to family is needed. Expanding a variety of human resouce management (HRM) supports for employees’ family life, such as allowances for child care, workplace child care, and support for nursing family members, can increase the positive transfer of physical resources from work to family. In addition to the tangible support of physical resources, boosting the flexibility for employee use of limited resources in the work domain (e.g., work-from-home, smart-work, time-selective working) can also buffer the negative transfer of resources from work to family by relieving stress caused by a shortage of time or the depletion of an individual’s physical energy.

Second, organizational support related to psychological resources is also important. Psychological resources do not directly lessen the demands from the work and family domains, but it can mitigate WFC by strengthening individuals’ stress-resistance potential (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 517), which is helpful in juggling the competing demands from the two domains. Organizational programs geared toward improving employees’ mental health, such as psychological counseling and work stress diagnoses, can reduce the exhaustion of psychological resources in the work domain. On the other hand, an individual’s commitment to the work domain can strengthen psychological resources by relieving stress (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006); this type of positive transfer may become stronger when the pleasure or satisfaction derived from work itself, which leads to a sense of achievement or self-esteem, is high. Therefore, organizational efforts to motivate employees intrinsically are required as a means of strengthening the psychological resources afforded in the family domain, such as providing enough opportunities for capability development and self-realization (e.g., quality training, and high job autonomy; Deci, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Katz & Kahn, 1978).¹⁵ Finally, an environment in which all of the aforementioned policy methods can be fully utilized should be created. A new HRM policy itself does not guarantee the success of its operation and only when there is a psychological infrastructure in which the policy can be used successfully will it operate effectively. Therefore, for the diverse policies imposed with the intention of balancing work and family to work well, there is a need for foundational work to prevent decoupling (e.g., family-friendly organizational culture and superviser’s supports) (T. Kim & Mullins, 2016).

The core of these organizational efforts is to change the approach to addressing WFC from an overly organization-centric perspective to a more individual-centric one. Thus, not only are organizational efforts needed, but also individuals, as the subjects of their own lives, should also seek to improve the quality of their own lives. Individuals must guard against allowing themselves to be burnt out as tools for organizations and try to manage their resources effectively for the quality of the both their work and family lives. The key to such resource management is that employees should independently decide for themselves how to use their resources in their lives, rather than this being decided by organizations. Such efforts are needed not only for resource reallocation but also for resource expansion, especially in the case of psychological resources. Employees should realize that increased pleasure and satisfaction at work can function as a psychological resource for improving their quality of life. Thus, employees should seek to continually expand their personal resources at work, rather than exhausting a limited supply of resources. Therefore, efforts by both organizations and individuals themselves to cultivate intrinsic motivation at work are needed (e.g., efforts to increase individuals’ own work engagement, OBSE, self-efficacy, and PSM). In addition, psychological resources can also be increased in the family domain through a variety of family supports. Therefore, efforts from organizations, individuals themselves, and families overall to provide supports for the employees should be made at the same time. In summary, the attainment of WFB through the positive transfer of resources between work and family is only possible when accompanied by effort from organizations, families, and individuals.

Conclusion

Along with practical implications, this study is also theoretically significant in three ways. First, the previous studies have largely focused on the positive effects of OC but have often ignored the possibility of its negative effects. This study focuses on the side effects of excessive OC and shows that OC has a U-shaped relationship with WFC, broadening the horizon of research on OC. Second, the previous literature has mostly treated WFC as an antecedent of OC, based on the organization-centric perspective that the proper management of WFC is important for organizational effectiveness, but this study attempted to explain the relationship between OC and WFC from a more individual-centric perspective. Third, traditional theoretical approaches of WFC, such as segmentation, compensation, and spillover, only partially explain the intricately intertwined link between work and family in the real world. This study explained in greater detail how work and family life are linked and how OC affects WFC by applying the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which is a fruitful theoretical guide for comprehending the work–family literature and understanding WFC (Fiksenbaum, 2014, p. 654).

Yet, it is worth pointing out for future researchers that there are several limitations in this study. First, this cross-sectional analysis did not provide enough evidence about the causal relationship between OC and WFC.¹⁶ In addition, tracking how WFC changes over time and how specific life change events or transitional periods (e.g., organizational restructuring) affect WFC is not easy (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000, p. 303). Therefore, for more accurate analysis and more useful implications, a longitudinal design is needed in future studies. Second, this study used a single survey and may suffer from a self-report and common method bias (CMB) (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Although U-shaped relationships in OLS regression cannot be artifacts of CMB (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010)¹⁷, it would be worth revalidating these results with other more comprehensive data derived from several sources. Third, this study explained the relationship between OC and WFC based on the transfer of personal resources from work to family, and the resources transfer in this study simply referred to the transfer of resources between domains regardless of the impetus for the transfer (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, p. 182). In contrast, diverse mediators or moderators (e.g., leadership styles, organizational culture), which could lift up or take down the U-shaped relationship, may exist; these could be meaningful topics for future studies. Last, the present finding could be unique to the sample of public officers in South Korea. Regarding the generalization of this finding, we believe that side effects of excessive OC can also occur in other countries or other sectors, especially where collectivist culture and an organization-oriented perspective is strong like South Korea. Thus, whether this finding can be applied to other Eastern countries with highly collectivist cultures and how it might be different in highly individualistic Western countries would be interesting issues for future studies. If the side effects of OC are prominent in countries where collectivist culture is strong, like South Korea, it will allow us to verify whether the location of this study has been appropriately selected. This is because we selected South Korea considering its strong collectivist culture, which is likely largely associated with an organization-oriented perspective and its side effects.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Questionnaire Items and Statistics.

Construct and items	Factor loadings	Cronbach’s alpha
WFC
“I could combine the demand of my work-life and the demands of my family-life enough.”	—	—
Organizational commitment		.835
“I am extremely glad that I choose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.”	.906
“I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.”	.844
“I found that my values and the organization’s values are very similar.”	.669
Public service motivation		.790
“I empathize with other people who face difficulties.”	.787
“I am willing to risk personal loss to help society.”	.709
“Meaningful public service is very important to me.”	.568
“It is important for me to contribute to the common good.”	.539
“I feel sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged.”	.473
“I’m prepared to make sacrifices for the good of society.”	.454
Job autonomy		.749
“I am able to choose the way to go about my job.”	.820
“I have opportunities to use my personal thoughts and judgement in my job”	.730
Pay satisfaction
“I am satisfied with my pay”	—	—
Leadership		.904
“My supervisor stimulates me to always see a new perspective on my work.”	.956
“My supervisor encourages me to work harder.”	.881
“My supervisor presents a firm vision of what I am going to do in the future.”	.875
Group culture		.791
“My organization is very humane and acts as a family.”	.829
“The members of my organization share a lot of their own.”	.794
Rational culture		.783
“Orientation to achievement and production is shared in my orientation.”	.869
“The power that unites my organization is an emphasis on achievement of tasks and goals.”	.746
WIF
“My family members understand and support my work-life” (Reverse-coded)	—	—
Gender	Male(1), Female(0)
Age	Age
Family income (won)	$\begin{array}{l} Ln (equalization monthly household income) \\ \times monthly family income/ \sqrt{number of family} \end{array}$
Children	Number of children
Local	Local(1), State(0)
Job performance	Last year’s performance grade (very good = 5, good = 4, neutral = 3, bad = 2, very bad = 1)

Note. $\begin{array}{l} χ^{2} = 621.584 (d f = 119, p = . 000), RMSEA = . 064, SRMR = . 042, CFI = . 940, TLI = . 923 Ln \\ (equalization monthly household income) Ln (equalization monthly household income) \end{array}$ . WFC = Work–family conflict; WIF = work-interfere-family; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Hayoung Lee

Author Biographies

Hayoung Lee is a PhD student in the Graduate School of Public Administration at Seoul National University. Her research interests include public management, organizational theory and behavior, behavioral public administration, and government performance.

Soo-Young Lee is a professor in the Graduate School of Public Administration and research fellow of Korea Institute of Public Affairs at Seoul National University. He is interested in public personnel administration, organization theory, organizational behavior, and so on.

References

Alderfer

C. P.

(1967). Convergent and discriminant validation of satisfaction and desire measures by interviews and questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 509-520.

Allen

T. D.

Herst

D. E.

Bruck

C. S.

Sutton

(2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.

Allis

O’Driscoll

(2008). Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-being in work, family and personal domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 273-291.

Allison

(2012, September 10). When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? [Blog]. Statistical Horizons. Retrieved from http://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity

Aryee

Srinivas

E. S.

Tan

H. H.

(2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132-146.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.

Batt

Valcour

P. M.

(2003). Human resource practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42, 189-220.

Boles

J. S.

Johnston

M. W.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. (1997). Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17, 17-28.

Bragger

J. D.

Rodriguez-Srednicki

Kutcher

E. J.

Indovino

Rosner

(2005). Work-family conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 303-324.

10.

Breaugh

J. A.

(1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551-570.

11.

Buelens

Van den Broeck

(2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67, 65-74.

12.

Burke

R. J.

Weir

DuWors

R. E.

(1980). Perceived Type A behaviour of husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 139-150.

13.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.

14.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

15.

Campbell

J. J.

Dunnette

M. D.

Lawler

E. E.

Weick

K. E.

(1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

16.

Carlson

D. S.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Zivnuska

(2009). Is work—family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human relations, 62(10), 1459-1486.

17.

Cartwright

L. K.

(1978). Career satisfaction and role harmony in a sample of young women physicians. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12(2), 184-196.

18.

Clark

M. A.

Rudolph

C. W.

Zhdanova

Michel

J. S.

Baltes

B. B.

(2017). Organizational support factors and work–family outcomes: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1520-1545.

19.

Coursey

D. H.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007). Public service motivation measurement: Testing an abridged version of Perry’s proposed scale. Administration & Society, 39(5), 547-568.

20.

Daley

D. M.

(1998). An overview of benefits for the public sector: Not on the fringes anymore. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 5-22.

21.

Deci

E. L.

(1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

22.

Donaldson

S. I.

Grant-Vallone

E. J.

(2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245-260.

23.

Eckenrode

Gore

(1990). Stress between work and family. In Eckenrode

Gore

(Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. 205-218). Boston, MA: Springer.

24.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178-199.

25.

Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, No. 8781 (2008).

26.

Evans

Bartolomé

(1986). The dynamics of work-family relationships in managerial lives. Applied Psychology, 35, 371-395.

27.

Facer

R. L.

Wadsworth

(2008). Alternative work schedules and work–family balance: A research note. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 166-177.

28.

Feeney

M. K.

Stritch

J. M.

(2017). Family-friendly policies, gender, and work–life balance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0734371X17733789

29.

Fiksenbaum

L. M.

(2014). Supportive work–family environments: Implications for work–family conflict and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 653-672.

30.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

31.

Foucreault

Ollier-Malaterre

Ménard

(2018). Organizational culture and work–life integration: A barrier to employees’ respite? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 2378-2398.

32.

Frone

M. R.

(2003). Work-family balance. In Quck

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 13-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

33.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Cooper

M. L.

(1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78.

34.

Grandey

A. A.

Cropanzano

(1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350-370.

35.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Allen

T. D.

(2011). Work–family balance: A review and extension of the literature. In Quick

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 165-183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

36.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

37.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Collins

K. M.

Singh

Parasuraman

(1997). Work and family influences on departure from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 249-270.

38.

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.

39.

Grzywacz

J. G.

(2002, November). Toward a theory of work-family facilitation. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, Houston, TX.

40.

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.

41.

Gujarati

D. N.

Porter

D. C.

(2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

42.

Gutek

B. A.

Nakamura

C. Y.

Nieva

V. F.

(1981). The interdependence of work and family roles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 1-16.

43.

Gutek

B. A.

Searle

Klepa

(1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568.

44.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 162, 250-279.

45.

Hammer

L. B.

Bauer

T. N.

Grandey

A. A.

(2003). Work-family conflict and work-related withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419-436.

46.

Harman

(1967). A single factor test of common method variance. Journal of Psychology, 35(1967), 359-378.

47.

Higgins

C. A.

Duxbury

L. E.

(1992). Work—family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(4), 389-411.

48.

Hill

E. J.

(2005). Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work-family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793-819.

49.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

50.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.

51.

Jones

A. P.

Butler

M. C.

(1980). A role transition approach to the stresses of organizationally induced family role disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 367-376.

52.

Jung

C. S.

Chan

H. S.

Hsieh

C. W.

(2017). Public employees’ psychological climates and turnover intention: Evidence from Korean central government agencies. Public Management Review, 19, 880-904.

53.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress. New York, NY: Wiley.

54.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley.

55.

Kelley

Streeter

(1992). The roles of gender in organizations. Advances in Psychology, 82, 285-337.

56.

Kim

Mullins

L. B.

(2016). How does supervisor support and diversity management affect employee participation in work/family policies? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 80-105.

57.

Kossek

Ozeki

(1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.

58.

Lambert

E. G.

Pasupuleti

Cluse-Tolar

Jennings

Baker

(2006). The impact of work-family conflict on social work and human service worker job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Administration in Social Work, 30, 55-74.

59.

Lambert

S. J.

(1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239-257.

60.

Leslie

L. M.

King

E. B.

Clair

J. A.

(2019). Work-life ideologies: The contextual basis and consequences of beliefs about work and life. Academy of Management Review, 44, 72-98.

61.

Matsui

Ohsawa

Onglatco

M. L.

(1995). Work-family conflict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178-192.

62.

Matthews

R. A.

Winkel

D. E.

Wayne

J. H.

(2014). A longitudinal examination of role overload and work–family conflict: The mediating role of interdomain transitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 72-91.

63.

Mauno

Kinnunen

Ruokolainen

(2006). Exploring work- and organization-based resources as moderators between work–family conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work & Stress, 20, 210-233.

64.

Maxwell

G. A.

McDougall

(2004). Work–life balance: Exploring the connections between levels of influence in the UK public sector. Public Management Review, 6, 377-393.

65.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Viswesvaran

(2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 27, 555-574.

66.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

67.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

68.

Michel

J. S.

Kotrba

L. M.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Clark

M. A.

Baltes

B. B.

(2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 689-725.

69.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

70.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

71.

Newman

Mathews

(1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers to effective implementation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 34-48.

72.

Nielson

T. R.

Carlson

D. S.

Lankau

M. J.

(2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364-381.

73.

Nikandrou

Panayotopoulou

Apospori

(2008). The impact of individual and organizational characteristics on work-family conflict and career outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 576-598.

74.

Nohe

Meier

L. L.

Sonntag

Michel

(2015). The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the relationship between work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 522-536.

75.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

76.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

77.

Park

C. G.

(2018, July 5). Overworked deaths: Could shortening working hours be a solution? Edaily. Retrieved June 28, 2019, from https://www.edaily.co.kr/news/read?newsId=01315286619271568&mediaCodeNo=25729

78.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5-22.

79.

Perry

J. L.

Brudney

J. L.

Coursey

Littlepage

(2008). What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 445-458.

80.

Persaud

(2001, September 1). Does the private sector believe that work-life balance is for wimps? Human Resources-London, pp. 38-45.

81.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Cummings

L. L.

Dunham

R. B.

(1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648.

82.

Piotrkowski

C. S.

(1979). Work and the family system: A naturalistic study of working-class and lower-middle-class families. New York, NY: The Free Press.

83.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

84.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

Mowday

R. T.

Boulian

P. V.

(1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

85.

Quinn

R. E.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1991). The psychometric of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

86.

Reilly

N. P.

(1994). Exploring a paradox: Commitment as a moderator of the stressor-burnout relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 397-414.

87.

Repetti

R. L.

(1987). Linkages between work and family roles. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 7, 98-127.

88.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

89.

Rotondo

D. M.

Kincaid

J. F.

(2008). Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the work and family domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 484-506.

90.

Ryu

(2015). The cross-domain effects of work and family role stressors on public employees in South Korea. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 238-260.

91.

Saltzstein

A. L.

Ting

Saltzstein

G. H.

(2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61, 452-467.

92.

Shaffer

M. A.

Harrison

D. A.

Gilley

K. M.

Luk

D. M.

(2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27, 99-121.

93.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

94.

Small

S. A.

Riley

(1990). Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover into family life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 51-61.

95.

Stoeva

A. Z.

Chiu

R. K.

Greenhaus

J. H.

(2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1-16.

96.

Sumer

H. C.

Knight

P. A.

(2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 653-663.

97.

Valcour

(2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1512-1523.

98.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Owens

B. P.

(2007). The effects of social support on work–family enhancement and work–family conflict in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 67, 75-87.

99.

Wayne

J. H.

Musisca

Fleeson

(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.

100.

Witt

L. A.

Carlson

D. S.

(2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343-357.

101.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

102.

Zedeck

Mosier

K. L.

(1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240-251.

103.

Zedeck

S. E.

(1992). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Is More Commitment Always Better? A Study on the Side Effects of Excessive Organizational Commitment on Work–Family Conflict

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Conceptualizing WFC

Theoretical Approaches of WFC

COR Theory

Antecedents of WFC and COR Theory

WFC in the Public Sector: Organizational Context

OC and WFC: A U-shaped relationship

Method

Sample and Data

Measures

Dependent variable

Independent variable

Control variables

Reliability and validity

Statistical Approach

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References