Living a Calling and Work–Family Interface: A Latent Profile Analysis

Abstract

The positive outcomes of calling have been examined in a large and growing number of studies, yet little is known about how calling relates to the work-family interface. In this study, we adopted a person-centered approach using latent profile analysis to explore how living a calling relates to different work-family interface profiles. With a sample of 267 Chinese university counselors, we found three work-family interface profiles: slightly conflictual (51%), experiencing slightly higher than average levels of work-to-family conflict (WFC) and family-to-work conflict (FWC) and slightly lower than average levels of work-to-family enrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE); work-to-family conflictual (15%), with higher levels of WFC and lower levels of FWC, WFE, and FWE; and enriched (34%), indicated by higher levels of WFE and FWE and lower levels of WFC and FWC. The results revealed that the greater the extent to which participants were living their calling, the more likely they were to be classified into the enriched profile. Our findings contribute to the literature on calling by offering person-centered insights on the relation between calling and the work-family interface.

Keywords

Living a calling work-family interface work-family conflict work-family enrichment latent profile analysis

Calling—a career orientation that stems from a transcendent or guiding force, aligns with one’s personal meaning framework, and is motivated by a desire to help others or contribute to society—is well-established as a positive predictor of beneficial career development and general well-being outcomes (for reviews, see Dik et al., 2020; Duffy & Dik, 2013; Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). These positive relationships are particularly pronounced among people who are living a calling (Duffy et al., 2018). However, the manner in which living a calling relates with some key criterion variables—notably, aspects of the work-family interface—is still poorly understood (Hirschi et al., 2019). Examining this question is important because research on calling has predominantly focused on the work role, but has largely ignored how it may spill over to other roles. Thus, exploring the relation between living a calling and work-family interface is an important step in broadening our understanding of how calling may relate to nonwork roles.

In this study, we adopted a person-centered approach to examine the relation between living a calling and the work-family interface. A person-centered approach focuses on how a set of chosen variables combines within individuals, extracting distinct subpopulations (i.e., profiles or classes) from these variables (Howard & Hoffman, 2018). We are only aware of one other study which has focused on the relation between perceiving a calling and the work-nonwork interface; it used a variable-centered approach (e.g., regression, Hirschi et al., 2019). While a useful starting point, this approach fails to account for different patterns of work-family interface that exist, and the possibility that a sense of calling might be associated with some but not others. Recognizing this typological view of the work-family interface, our goal was to identify work-family interface profiles and examine how living a calling relates to these profiles. According to expansionist theory (Barnett & Hyde, 2001) and work-family enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), both of which assert that positive experiences and affect in one role promote high performance in another role, we hypothesize that living a calling relates to an enriched work-family interface rather than to a conflictual interface, because living a calling enhances positive experiences and affect in the work role.

We focused our investigation on living a calling and the work-family interface among Chinese university counselors. We did so for three primary reasons. First, several aspects of the work-family interface were regarded as saliently different in Western and Chinese contexts (Aycan, 2008; Powell et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2000), due in part to unique aspects of China’s collectivist culture, work and family role integration, and rapid economic growth (Aycan, 2008; Powell et al., 2009). Accordingly, work-family interface profiles in China may reflect some of these cultural distinctives, yielding different results from what may be observed in Western cultures. Second, the work of university counselors in China can be extremely demanding and emotionally taxing at times given the nature of their job responsibilities. For example, they are charged with supporting university students’ mental health, providing career guidance, helping students develop their ideological and political identities, and assisting with numerous other issues in students’ daily university life (Zou & Tian, 2012). Given the impact (both positive and negative) these kinds of responsibilities may have on their well-being, the link between calling and the work-family interface may be especially relevant to university counselors. Third, research on calling in China has predominantly concentrated on perceiving a calling (e.g., C. Zhang et al., 2018; C. Zhang et al., 2021), ignoring the fact that living a calling is also critical for achieving positive outcomes (Duffy et al., 2018). Therefore, exploring work-family interface profiles and their relation to living a calling among Chinese university counselors offers an important way to gain unique insights into the nature of the work-family interface and how living a calling may facilitate this interface in this non-Western context.

Our study makes two important contributions to the literature. First, this research links the calling literature with important outcomes rooted in the work-family interface, extending extant research by adopting a person-centered perspective to shed light on the relation between living a calling and work-family interface profiles. Second, our study contributes to the work-family interface literature by adopting an LPA approach to identify the possible profiles of work-family interface in the Chinese context.

Living a Calling

There is a distinction between perceiving a calling and living a calling. Chinese individuals might feel driven (e.g., by a sense of passion, a social need, a family legacy) to a particular kind of work through which they can achieve meaningfulness and contribute to the greater good (C. Zhang, Dik, et al., 2015; C. Zhang, Herrmann, et al., 2015). However, a sense of calling may not play a positive role in their work and life unless they ultimately live it out (Duffy et al., 2018). Thus, in work as a calling theory (WCT, Duffy et al., 2018), living a calling is the key mediator linking perceiving a calling to the resulting outcomes. Research has demonstrated that living a calling has stronger positive relationships with work-related well-being variables than does perceiving a calling (e.g., work meaning, work engagement, job satisfaction, Duffy et al., 2012; Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2020). In part for this reason, living a calling has attracted substantial scholarly attention in recent years. However, WCT also argued that living a calling may relate to negative work outcomes, such as workaholism, for some individuals or in some circumstances (Duffy et al., 2018; Hirschi et al., 2019). Thus, it is important to further explore the mechanisms through which living a calling relates to broader outcomes.

Work-Family Interface Profiles

Work-family interface is bidirectional and commonly refers to four experiences: work-to-family conflict (WFC), work-to-family enrichment (WFE), family-to-work conflict (FWC), and family-to-work enrichment (FWE; Rantanen et al., 2013). WFC and FWC represent two directions of work-family conflict, “a form of interrole conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Specifically, WFC occurs when participation in the work role results in difficulties within the family role, whereas FWC occurs when participation in the family role results in difficulties within the work role. Furthermore, WFE and FWE are two directions of work-family enrichment, or “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73). WFE occurs when work experiences improve the quality of family life, and FWE occurs when family experiences improve the quality of work life.

Work-family interface research has primarily focused on work-family conflict and work-family enrichment independently, using variable-centered approaches (e.g., Amstad et al., 2011). Only a few studies have tested the possibility that different types of work-family interface exist based on distinct combinations of work-family conflict and enrichment experiences (e.g., Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019; Rantanen et al., 2013). Notably, Rantanen et al. (2013) proposed four types of work-family interface. The first is a passive type marked by low levels of work-family conflict (i.e., WFC and FWC) and work-family enrichment (i.e., WFE and FWE), characteristic of individuals whose work and family roles seem so segregated that they experience neither conflict nor enrichment. This type was regarded as negative due to role balance theory (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), which suggests that low engagement and indifference across both work and family roles lead to poor role balance (Rantanen et al., 2013). A second is a beneficial type with high enrichment and low conflict, which describes individuals who experience high enrichment and do not perceive high conflict between work and family roles. This is a positive type because individuals in this type predominantly perceive the work and family roles to promote rather than compete with each other.

Third, in contrast to the beneficial type, a harmful type captures high conflict and low enrichment, representing individuals who experience high conflict between work and family roles and did not perceive them to promote each other. Finally, the active type describes workers who endorse high levels of both conflict and enrichment. These active types experience work and family roles as very permeable; they exhibit high engagement and perceive high resources and demands across both the work and family roles (Ashforth et al., 2000). According to role balance theory (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), such high engagement in multiple roles is assumed to have a positive effect because it motivates a better balance across multiple roles (Rantanen et al., 2013). When testing for the presence of these hypothesized types, Rantanen et al. (2013) identified just two out of four—the beneficial and active types—along with an additional contradictory type characterized by high WFC and low WFE in combination with low FWC and high FWE. However, a recent study by Moazami-Goodarzi et al. (2019) also adopted the framework of Rantanen et al. (2013) and successfully identified all four types of work-family interface.

In the present study, we investigated these types of work-family interface in a Chinese context, positing that similar yet distinct prevalent types would exist in our sample. Unlike in Rantanen et al.’s (2013) study in which the beneficial type was found to be the most prevalent, or in Moazami-Goodarzi et al.’s (2019) study in which active and beneficial types were found to be most prevalent, we expected that the harmful type, renamed conflictual type in this study, may be the most prevalent type within our sample. In China’s contemporary economic climate, many workers experience high stress because of demanding work duties and financial pressure. Workers in China have longer work hours compared to those in many other countries (Nie et al., 2015). Indeed, a “996” work culture has emerged in China, a reference to working 12 hr a day (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.) and 6 days a week (Bloomberg, 2019). Such demands and their resulting stress likely elicit moderate or high levels of WFC among many Chinese employees (Joplin et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2000). Moreover, Chinese culture strongly values family responsibilities (Ling & Poweli, 2001) and therefore demands from the family role may be high, resulting in FWC. Because of the salience of WFC and FWC within the Chinese context, we expected a conflictual type to emerge as the most prevalent type in our sample.

We also posited that the active type would be the second-most prevalent type of work-family interface. Chinese culture emphasizes the importance of harmony between work and family. This matches a diffuse culture in China which prefers to focus on wholeness and integration (Aycan, 2008; Powell et al., 2009). Thus, unlike Western contexts in which work and family roles are often perceived to be segmented, such roles are usually regarded as integrated in China (Aycan, 2008; Powell et al., 2009). When role integration is high, individuals tend to blur the boundaries between their work and family roles (Powell et al., 2009). In China, work is viewed as a contributor to a flourishing family; similarly, family is viewed as an influence on flourishing at work (Redding, 1993; Yang et al., 2000). A Chinese proverb summarizes this well: “Harmony in the family is the basis for success in any undertaking.” In parallel, work achievements offer a key path for honoring one’s ancestors in Chinese culture. For all these reasons, the boundary between work and family in China may be permeable (Powell et al., 2009), such that high conflict and enrichment between work and family may simultaneously occur, resulting in an active type.

In contrast, we posited that the passive type may be the least prevalent type in our sample. This is because this type is regarded as a consequence of role segmentation between work and family (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019; Rantanen et al., 2013) which is more typical in Western compared to Chinese contexts (Powell et al., 2009). Finally, we expected that a beneficial type of work-family interface, renamed as the enriched type in this study, would emerge as the third most prevalent type. This is because China’s collectivist culture, in theory, offers closer relationships between employers and employees, resulting in greater opportunities for WFE (Powell et al., 2009). For example, the supportive resources from work roles have been found to benefit WFE within a Chinese context (Siu et al., 2010). Moreover, the emphasis on family in China brings with it supports and resources from family (Ling & Poweli, 2001). Accordingly, FWE may be experienced by many Chinese workers, which makes an enriched type plausible. Taken together, we expected to observe the presence, but different prevalence, of all four proposed work-family interface types in a sample of Chinese workers.
Hypothesis 1: Four profiles of work-family interface based on combinations of WFC, WFE, FWC, and FWE will emerge: conflictual as the most prevalent, active as the second, enriched as the third, and passive as the least.

Living a Calling and Work-Family Interface Profiles

An important perspective on understanding the work-family interface is how individuals participate in their work and family roles (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). A scarcity hypothesis assumes that when left with limited time and resources due to participating in multiple roles (i.e., work and family), conflict will occur (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Contrary to this perspective, an expansionist hypothesis assumes that engaging in multiple roles is generally positive because the advantages of doing so likely outweigh the disadvantages (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Specifically, Barnett and Hyde (2001) proposed an expansionist theory in which the main principle is that multiple roles are beneficial. Strong commitment to one role does not preclude strong commitment to another. Instead, positive experiences in one role can buffer the negative effects of stress in another role. Thus, according to this theory, role quality is more important than number of roles or time spent in a role. That is, spending more time in a work role does not result in work-family conflict if the worker experiences enjoyment, satisfaction, or fulfillment in that role. In line with this theory, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) proposed a work-family enrichment framework, asserting that positive affect in one role promotes high performance in another role. These theories, taken together, offer conceptual support for the notion that positive experiences in the work role promote positive outcomes in the family role, and vice versa. Accordingly, we argue that living a calling promotes positive rather than negative types of work-family interface.

Although the scarcity hypothesis may suggest that living a calling would increase the likelihood of experiencing negative work-family interface because of the added time investment in work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Clinton et al., 2017), we draw on expansionist theory (Barnett & Hyde, 2001) and work-family enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) to posit the reverse. That is, living a calling may increase one’s likelihood of experiencing an enriched work-family interface. According to these theories (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), role quality or positive affect in a role promote performance in another role. They are more important than time spent in a role. Although individuals who are living a calling may invest more time in work (Clinton et al., 2017), they experience greater role quality and positive affect in their work role, which may promote positive experiences in the family role. People who are living a calling are highly engaged in their work role (Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2020) and perceive greater meaningfulness (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy et al., 2012), satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2012; Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2020), positive mood (Conway et al., 2015), and less strain (Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2020) in their work. These positive work experiences have been found to promote both WFE and FWE (e.g., Bakker et al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2019; Siu et al., 2010) but not WFC (e.g., Bakker et al., 2013; Conte et al., 2019), supporting the expansionist hypothesis (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Thus, the positive and fulfilling experiences people experience in their work, which are promoted by living a calling, may enhance the quality of the family role. In turn, positive experiences within the family role enhance performance in work role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Thus, living a calling may positively relate to both WFE and FWE. Indeed, Nielsen et al. (2020) found that calling moderately positively related to work-family enrichment and slightly negatively related to work-family conflict.

For these reasons, we expected that people who are living a calling are more likely to be classified into work-family interface profiles which are predominantly characterized by high WFE and FWE (i.e., enriched and active profiles), rather than by low WFE and FWE or by high WFC and FWC (i.e., conflictual and passive profiles). Accordingly, we expected that living a calling would be negatively associated with the conflictual and passive profiles and positively associated with the enriched and active profiles.
Hypothesis 2: Individuals who are living a calling are more likely to have an enriched or active profile than they are to have a conflictual or passive profile.

To ensure that the relations between living a calling and profiles of work-family interface are unique rather than arising from the confounding effects of other variables (Li, 2021), we considered several control variables which relate to both living a calling and work-family interface and may potentially produce a confounding bias. In WCT, several variables indicative of a marginalized social status are considered to reduce the likelihood of living a calling, such as gender (Duffy et al., 2018), given that women may have fewer opportunities to live out their calling. Gender is also a predictor of work-family interface, particularly in the Chinese context (Chen & Powell, 2012; Yang et al., 2000). Efforts to promote gender equality in China (e.g., Wang et al., 2020) have led to one of the highest female labor force participation rates in Asia at 60% (Asian Development Bank, 2017), yet Chinese traditional gender norms are still ingrained. Women’s family responsibilities, such as caring for children, are continuously emphasized (Li et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). Thus, Chinese women may be stressed by the mutual conflict between work and family roles. By comparison, Chinese traditional gender norms encourage men to spend more time on work (Ho et al., 2013). In fact, arguably the most salient masculine gender role expectation in Chinese society is work responsibility (Song & Liang, 2019), which is considered a family benefit given the resources work provides (Yang et al., 2000). For this reason, Chinese men have been found to experience more WFC (Chen & Powell, 2012; Yang et al., 2000). Taken together, we expected Chinese women are more likely to have a conflictual profile in which WFC and FWC are all high, whereas Chinese men’s conflictual profile is more likely to be characterized by high levels of WFC but not FWC.

We also controlled for work demands and family demands because they are long-recognized robust predictors of work-family conflict (Allen et al., 2020) and may also affect perceptions of living a calling. Research has found that individuals confronting challenging work demands may leave a job to which they had experienced a calling domain because these demands provoke self-doubt and burnout (Schabram & Maitlis, 2016). Thus, work demands may potentially decrease the perception of living a calling. Similarly, we expected that family demands also affect the enactment of a calling because according to the work-home resources model (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), contextual family demands diminish personal resources such as self-efficacy and volition, and in turn, a sense of calling as well (Duffy et al., 2018). In addition, other specific contextual demands which may diminish personal resources such as working overtime (in the form of working hours) and caring for children (in the form of number of children) were also considered as control variables because they potentially affect how individuals develop and fulfill a calling.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants were university counselors from ten universities across four provinces in China (i.e., Shaanxi, Liaoning, Tianjin, and Chongqing). We solicited their participation via personal contacts who worked in these universities; they advertised our survey in their universities’ WeChat working groups¹ for counselors by sending a brief invitation letter and an online survey link to these groups. A total of ten WeChat groups were reached and approximately 900 university counselors were invited. No compensation was offered as an incentive. We received 273 valid responses (30% response rate). Of the 273 respondents, 6 participants were removed because perceiving a calling is a precondition of living a calling but they answered “Not applicable – I don’t have a calling,” resulting in a total of 267 participants who were included in the analysis. Slightly more than half (58%) of the participants self-identified as women. The sample reported a mean age of 31.33 years (SD = 5.91, ranging from 23 to 58). All participants in the sample reported receiving an undergraduate degree; 90% also earned a masters degree, and 4% earned a PhD.

Measures

Table 1 shows the reliability coefficients, means, and standard deviations for scores on all measures. All measures were translated into Chinese. Specifically, the first author translated the original English items into Chinese independently. Another researcher in psychology was invited to evaluate the translated items. After a discussion and comparison, the initial Chinese versions of the measures were derived. Three doctoral students in psychology were invited to re-evaluate the original and the translated versions. The final Chinese versions of the measures were confirmed after consensus was achieved among the first author and three doctoral students.

Table 1.
Correlations, Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Assessed Variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Gender –

2. Age .05 –

3. Education .01 .13* –

4. Marital status .12* .54 .23 –

5. Number of children .12* .60 .20 .65** –

6. Daily working hours −.11 .05 .04 .13* .05 –

7. Work demands −.16** .14* .04 .09 .09 .26** .85

8. Family demands −.13* .20 −.01 .12 .34 −.01 .02 .82

9. WFC −.13* .17** .10 .15* .17 .35 .58** .10 .77

10. WFE .02 −.08 −.02 −.04 −.03 −.17* −.31 −.01 −.52 .84

11. FWC −.06 .03 .11 .03 .15* −.12 −.13* .43** −.01 −.04 .75

12. FWE .12 −.06 −.05 .03 −.04 −.07 −.19 .11 −.26 .46** −.02 .86

13. Living a calling .03 −.15* −.03 −.05 −.12* .01 −.15* −.05 −.25 .51 −.13* .31** .96

M – 31.33 – – – 10.97 3.99 2.78 3.46 3.26 2.23 3.35 4.67

SD – 5.91 – – – 2.17 .59 .80 .86 .80 .83 .83 1.17

Note. Numbers in diagonal in italic are the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married/living with partner). N = 267. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Living a calling

We used the six-item Living a Calling Scale (Duffy et al., 2012). Participants answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An additional response option—”Not applicable – I don’t have a calling”—was also provided. An example item is, “I am currently engaging in activities that align with my calling.” Several studies have reported good Cronbach’s alphas for scores on this scale (.94–.95; Duffy et al., 2012, 2013; Duffy & Autin, 2013), along with high correlations with scores on measures of career commitment, work meaning, and job satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2012).

Work-family conflict

We used the six-item short version of Carlson et al. (2000) scale to assess WFC and FWC (Matthews et al., 2010). Each subscale was measured by three items, including “I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family” (WFC) and “I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family responsibilities” (FWC). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Matthews et al. (2010) reported acceptable Cronbach’s αsfor scores on these two subscales (ranging from .71 to .80) and found these scores to be highly correlated with scores on the original 18-item scale (r = .91 for WFC subscale and r = .92 for FWC subscale). Matthews et al. (2010) also reported that WFC and FWC scores were negatively related to scores on measures of life satisfaction and positively related to scores on measures of turnover intentions and life stress.

Work-family enrichment

We used the six-item short version of Carlson et al. (2006) scale to assess WFE and FWE (Kacmar et al., 2014). Each subscale was measured using three items, including “My involvement in my work makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member” (WFE) and “My involvement in my family puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better worker” (FWE). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Kacmar et al. (2014) reported good Cronbach’s alphas for scores on these two subscales (ranging from .80 to .87) and found that scores on these short version subscales were highly correlated with scores on the original 18-item scale (r = .97 for WFE subscale and r = .97 for FWE subscale). Kacmar et al. (2014) also reported that WFE and FWE scores were positively related to scores on measures of work engagement, job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and family performance. A prior study with Chinese employees has also yielded good Cronbach’s alphas on WFE subscale scores (.88), and found the WFE scores to positively relate to family satisfaction and life satisfaction (S. Zhang & Tu, 2018).

Control variables

For reasons described above, we considered gender (0 = male, 1 = female), number of children, daily working hours, work demands, and family demands as control variables. Work demands and family demands were measured by two scales developed by Boyar et al. (2007). The perceived work demands scale consisted of five items, including “I feel like I have a lot to do at work.” The perceived family demands scale consisted of four items, including “My family requires all of my attention.” Boyar et al. (2007) reported acceptable Cronbach’s αs for scores on these two scales (ranging from .74 to .91) and found that scores on these two scales were positively related to scores on measures of work role overload, WFC, and FWC.

Analytic Approach

We used LPA analysis with maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) in Mplus (Version 7, Muthén & Muthén 1998-2012) to explore profiles of work-family interface based on the combination of WFC, FWC, WFE and FWE. As a typical person-centered analytic approach, LPA aims to find meaningful subgroups/profiles of people that represent similar patterns in measured continuous variables (Tein et al., 2013). To decide the optimal number of profiles, several fit statistics were adopted (Nylund et al., 2007; Tein et al., 2013). First, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted BIC (SABIC)—all commonly used for model selection—were examined. The BIC and SABIC statistics are especially recommended because of their good performance in selecting the correct numbers of profiles (Tein et al., 2013). Lower AIC, BIC and SABIC values indicate a better profile solution. Second, two recommended likelihood ratio statistic tests were examined: the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LRT) and bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT; Nylund et al., 2007; Tein et al., 2013). A significant probability value (e.g., p < .05) indicates that the K profiles solution provides better fit to the observed data than the K−1 profiles solution. Third, entropy was adopted to evaluate the classification accuracy. A higher entropy value indicates a better profile solution (Tein et al., 2013). Finally, we also considered whether the suggested profile solution was theoretically meaningful.

After obtaining the most appropriate number of profiles for the work-family interface, we tested how living a calling relates to these profiles by including auxiliary variables with the R3STEP command in LPA (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). This command has been demonstrated to be an effective method for testing continuous predictors of LPA profiles (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). Control variables were included in this analysis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Table 1 displays the correlation coefficients for all pairings of study variables. As the results reveal, WFC was moderately negatively related to WFE and FWE. WFE was moderately positively related to FWE. Living a calling was moderately positively related to WFE and FWE and slightly negatively related to WFC and FWC. Work demands were moderately positively related to WFC. Family demands were moderately positively related to FWC. Moreover, among demographic variables, gender, age, marital status, number of children, and daily working hours were slightly or moderately related to WFC.

Next, we tested a measurement model in which seven study variables (i.e., work demands, family demands, WFC, WFE, FWC, FWE, living a calling) were indicated by their specific items as latent constructs. This model fit the data acceptably (see Table 2). As suggested, the comparative fit index (CFI) values were greater than .90, and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) values were lower than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We also tested four alternative six-factor models, such as combining work demands with WFC or combining family demands with FWC. These models fit significantly worse than the seven-factor model given that the corrected scaled difference tests were significant (p < .001; Satorra & Bentler, 2001), thus demonstrating that the study variables were distinct constructs. All factor loadings were above .57, showing moderate to strong relations between items and latent variables.

Table 2.
Fit Information for the Measurement Models.

Models S-Bχ² df CFI RMSEA SRMR △S-Bχ² △df

Measurement model – 7-factor 598.46 278 .91 .07 .07

Measurement model – 6-factor-a 721.26 284 .87 .08 .08 113.44* 6

Measurement model – 6-factor-b 684.51 284 .88 .07 .07 85.47* 6

Measurement model – 6-factor-c 750.69 284 .86 .08 .08 164.56* 6

Measurement model – 6-factor-d 929.60 284 .84 .09 .07 169.87* 6

Note. ***p < .001. 6-factor-a = work demands + WFC, family demands, WFE, FWC, FWE, living a calling; 6-factor-b = family demands + FWC, work demands, WFC, WFE, FWE, living a calling; 6-factor-c = FWC + FWE, work demands, family demands, WFC, WFE, living a calling; 6-factor-d = WFE + FWE, work demands, family demands, WFC, FWC, living a calling.

Determining Profiles of Work-family Interface

We specified LPA models ranging from two to seven profiles. Table 3 presents their fit indices and likelihood ratio statistic tests. Values of AIC, BIC, and SABIC dramatically declined until the three-profile model. The LRT suggested that a three-profile solution fit better than a two-profile solution, but a four-profile solution did not fit significantly better than a three-profile solution and the five-profile model did not show a better fit than the four-profile model. Considering the fit indices, interpretability, and parsimony, the three-profile model was regarded as the best solution to describe the data.

Table 3.
Results of Latent Profile Analysis With Work-family Interface.

No. of profiles LL FP Scaling AIC BIC SABIC LRT p BLRT p Entropy

2 −1261.85 13 1.21 2,549.71 2596.34 2,555.12 .02 .00 .60

3 −1230.94 18 1.16 2,497.88 2562.45 2,505.38 .02 .00 .81

4 −1218.19 23 1.11 2,482.39 2564.89 2,491.97 .26 .00 .85

5 −1201.67 28 1.20 2,459.35 2559.79 2,471.01 .20 .00 .92

6 −1192.18 33 1.09 2,451.18 2569.56 2,464.93 .14 .03 .93

7 −1182.98 38 .95 2,441.95 2578.27 2,457.78 .07 .05 .93

Note: N = 267. LL = model log-likelihood; FP = number of free parameters; Scaling = scaling correction factor of the robust maximum likelihood estimator; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; SABIC = sample-size adjusted BIC; LRT p = significance of Lo, Mendell, & Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; BLRT p = significance of bootstrap likelihood ratio test. The best solution is presented in boldface.

As shown in Table 4 and Figure 1, the first profile included 135 (51%) participants, and was best described as a slightly conflictual profile in which the levels of WFC and FWC were all slightly higher than average and the levels of WFE and FWE are all slightly lower than average. The second profile included 92 (34%) participants, and represented an enriched profile in which the levels of WFE and FWE were all higher than average and the levels of WFC and FWC were all lower than average. The third profile included 40 (15%) participants, and was a work-to-family conflictual profile in which the level of WFC was much higher than average and the levels of FWC, WFE, and FWE were all lower than average. Taken together, these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1, supporting two out of four hypothesized profiles and confirming that a conflictual profile (including slightly conflictual and work-to-family conflictual profiles) is the most prevalent type. However, the hypothesized passive and active profiles were not extracted in our data.

Table 4.
Characteristics for the Three Latent Profiles for Work–Family Interface.

Latent Profiles N (%) WFC WFE FWC FWE

M SE M SE M SE M SE

1. Slightly conflictual 135 (51%) 3.62 .07 3.07 .05 2.34 .09 3.25 .07

2. Enriched 92 (34%) 2.87 .09 4.09 .05 2.16 .08 3.85 .07

3. Work-to-family conflictual 40 (15%) 4.28 .13 2.01 .12 2.02 .20 2.58 .19

Figure 1.
Latent profiles of work-family interface with WFC, WFE, FWC, and FWE as profile indicators.

Living a Calling and Work–Family Interface Profiles

We then applied the R3STEP command in Mplus by including auxiliary variables for testing the relation between living a calling and work-family interface profiles. We used the slightly conflictual and work-to-family conflictual profiles as the reference groups. Results of multinomial logistic regression indicated that living a calling was significantly related to the classification into profiles of work-family interface. Specifically, participants with higher scores on living a calling had a significantly higher likelihood of being classified into the enriched profile than into the slightly conflictual profile (estimate = 1.01, SE = .25, t = 4.03, p < .001, odd ratios = 2.75) and work-to-family conflictual profile (estimate = 1.74, SE = .35, t = 4.96, p < .001, odd ratios = 5.70). These results partly supported Hypothesis 2, that employees with high living a calling are more likely to be categorized in the enriched profile than in the conflictual profile.

Among control variables, only gender and work demands were significantly related to the classification into work-family interface profiles. Women had a significantly lower likelihood of being classified into the enriched profile than into the slightly conflictual profile (estimate = −1.36, SE = .42, t = −3.22, p < .001, odd ratios = .26). Participants with higher work demands had a significantly lower likelihood of being classified into the enriched profile than into the slightly conflictual profile (estimate = −1.28, SE = .41, t = −3.09, p < .01, odd ratios = .28) and work-to-family conflictual profile (estimate = −2.55, SE = .55, t = −4.64, p < .001, odd ratios = .08).

Discussion

We aimed to explore in this study how living a calling related to the work-family interface. By using a person-centered approach with LPA analysis among Chinese university counselors, we identified three work-family interface profiles based on distinct combinations of WFC, WFE, FWC, and FWE: slightly conflictual, work-to-family conflictual, and enriched. The results indicated that the greater the extent to which participants lived a calling, the more likely they were to be classified using the profile of enriched. These findings expand our understanding of work as a calling and the work-family interface in several important ways.

First, by integrating work-family conflict with work-family enrichment, we found three profiles of work-family interface: (1) a slightly conflictual profile in which individuals’ WFC and FWC are all slightly higher and their WFE and FWE are all slightly lower; (2) a work-to-family conflictual profile in which individuals perceived a high level of WFC and low levels of FWC, WFE, and FWE; and (3) an enriched profile in which individuals experienced high levels of WFE and FWE paired with lower levels of WFC and FWC. Two-thirds of the participants exhibited the slightly conflictual and work-to-family conflictual profiles, indicating that a conflictual work-family interface is most prevalent among Chinese university counselors. They experienced less work-family enrichment and more work-family conflict. The prevalence of this profile was much higher than that found in previous studies with Western samples (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019). This may be because the university counselor role in China comes with high work demands or duties, and may to some extent reflect increased work demands in China’s contemporary work context in general (Yang et al., 2000), as well as increased family responsibilities (Ling & Poweli, 2001). However, still one-third of the participants perceived that their work role enhances the quality of their family role, and vice versa, and did not perceive their work role to interfere with the family role or the family role to interfere with the work role. The prevalence of this profile was similar to that found in one previous study (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019) but lower than that found in another (Rantanen et al., 2013). Contrary to our hypothesis, the passive and active profiles found in studies with Western samples (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019; Rantanen et al., 2013) were not supported in our study. The absence of a passive profile may reflect how boundaries between work and family roles have become more permeable in Chinese culture (Powell et al., 2009). However, an active profile hypothesized as prevalent in China was not found, either. Future research should re-examine these profiles using more diverse samples within China. These results extend prior findings of Rantanen et al. (2013) and Moazami-Goodarzi et al. (2019) by demonstrating that different types of work-family interface exist in the Chinese population, and different prevalence rates as well, compared to those in the West.

Second, results indicated that living a calling increased the chance that participants would be characterized with the enriched work-family interface profile. These findings revealed that people who expressed that they are living a calling were more likely to enrich their work and family roles instead of harm them. Causal inferences are precluded by the study’s cross-sectional design, but results are consistent with the possibility that living a calling generally promotes an enriched work-family interface. This may be because living a calling generates positive experiences in the work role, such as engagement, meaningfulness, satisfaction, and positive mood (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Conway et al., 2015; Duffy et al., 2012; Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2020), which in turn enhance the quality of the family role. In turn, positive experiences in the family role also promote work performance. This activates a mutually enriched spiral of work and family roles. As noted earlier, this reasoning is in line with expansionist theory (Barnett & Hyde, 2001) and work-family enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), both of which posit that role quality or positive affect in one role promote performance in another role. Of course, it is also possible that the reverse is true, and that an enriched work-family interface makes a person more likely to endorse living a calling. Our findings are also partly in line with previous research using variable-centered approach (Hirschi et al., 2019) in supporting calling’s positive association with work-nonwork enrichment. However, our results did not demonstrate a negative effect of calling on work-nonwork interface, which Hirschi et al. (2019) found. Although calling can motivate individuals to work excessively (Clinton et al., 2017; Hirschi et al., 2019), investing excessive time or effort in one’s work does not necessarily lead to conflict between the work role and the family role if doing so promotes positive experiences at work (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). Taken together, our results extend earlier research (e.g., Hirschi et al., 2019) by providing a person-centered approach to understanding the relation between living a calling and the work-family interface.

Third, results indicated that participants who are women had a significantly lower likelihood of being classified into the enriched profile than into the slightly conflictual profile but not into the work-to-family conflictual profile. This indicates that besides the effect of living a calling, women are still more vulnerable to experiencing a conflictual work-family interface which is characterized by slightly high levels of WFC and FWC but not by predominantly high levels of WFC. An important reason may be that although gender equality has been largely promoted in China, Chinese traditional gender norms (e.g., family responsibilities) still saliently influence Chinese women’s work and family lives (Li et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), leading women to experience mutual conflict between work and family roles. We advocate future research to specifically focus on how women with callings, particularly those in nonwestern countries, balance their work and family roles. In addition, results revealed that work demands decreased the chance that participants would be characterized with the enriched work-family interface profile. This is in line with the consistently-demonstrated negative effect of work demands on the work-family interface (Allen et al., 2020). This effect is particularly salient in Confucian Asia countries such as China, which emphasize performance and achievement (Allen et al., 2020). Given these emphases and the fast-paced economic development in China, we expect work demands remain a salient predictor of conflictual work-family interface in Chinese workers.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite this study’s strengths, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting our results. First, our findings were based on a sample of Chinese university counselors. This group was in many ways an ideal sample for investigating our research questions, but the generalizability of our results to workers in other contexts should be made with caution and evaluated using subsequent research, recognizing that the work-family interface in Chinese culture is different from that in Western contexts (Ling & Poweli, 2001; Spector et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000). Second, our sample size was relatively small, resulting in subsequent small sample sizes for each profile, particularly for the work-to-family conflictual profile. Although sufficient power (over 80%) to detect at least three latent profiles is achieved for the BLRT (α = 0.05) when the sample size is slightly over 100 (Dziak et al., 2014), future research to use larger samples to explore the profiles of the work-family interface. Third, our findings are based on a cross-sectional design. Thus, causal inferences cannot be made. Future research should use longitudinal designs to address this limitation. Fourth, we collected data via self-report instruments, and common method variance may have resulted in slightly inflated magnitudes of our observed relationships among variables. Future research would benefit from using informant reports, particularly spouse reports, because work-family interface in people with a high calling may be perceived differently from the perspective of themselves and their spouses. For example, even when individuals who have lived a calling do not think their work investment interferes with their family role, their spouses may have a different perception.

Practical Implications

Our results suggest a few key implications for organizational and career counseling practice. First, our results indicate that a conflictual work-family interface is prevalent in Chinese employees. Organizations, human resource professionals, and career counselors in China should recognize the negative outcomes of a conflictual work-family interface (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2019) and provide various supportive strategies for their employees and clients, particularly for women because our results suggest that they are more likely to exhibit a slightly conflictual type of work-family interface. Second, practitioners and individuals should realize that living a calling does not increase the possibility of experiencing a conflictual work-family interface despite its link to working longer hours in the job (Clinton et al., 2017). In fact, this study’s results suggest that the reverse is true: living a calling is linked to an enriching work-family interface. Thus, promoting and assisting employees or clients to live out their sense of calling may offer benefit not only within their career lives, but for their families as well. Although individuals may invest more time and effort in a job to which they feel called, they still can generally achieve an enriched work-family interface because the perceived enjoyment and meaningfulness in their calling may be more important to their work and family roles than time spent in their work.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Gender	–
2. Age	.05	–
3. Education	.01	.13*	–
4. Marital status	.12*	.54**	.23**	–
5. Number of children	.12*	.60**	.20**	.65**	–
6. Daily working hours	−.11	.05	.04	.13*	.05	–
7. Work demands	−.16**	.14*	.04	.09	.09	.26**	.85
8. Family demands	−.13*	.20**	−.01	.12	.34**	−.01	.02	.82
9. WFC	−.13*	.17**	.10	.15*	.17**	.35**	.58**	.10	.77
10. WFE	.02	−.08	−.02	−.04	−.03	−.17*	−.31**	−.01	−.52**	.84
11. FWC	−.06	.03	.11	.03	.15*	−.12	−.13*	.43**	−.01	−.04	.75
12. FWE	.12	−.06	−.05	.03	−.04	−.07	−.19**	.11	−.26**	.46**	−.02	.86
13. Living a calling	.03	−.15*	−.03	−.05	−.12*	.01	−.15*	−.05	−.25**	.51**	−.13*	.31**	.96
M	–	31.33	–	–	–	10.97	3.99	2.78	3.46	3.26	2.23	3.35	4.67
SD	–	5.91	–	–	–	2.17	.59	.80	.86	.80	.83	.83	1.17

Models	S-Bχ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	△S-Bχ²	△df
Measurement model – 7-factor	598.46	278	.91	.07	.07
Measurement model – 6-factor-a	721.26	284	.87	.08	.08	113.44***	6
Measurement model – 6-factor-b	684.51	284	.88	.07	.07	85.47***	6
Measurement model – 6-factor-c	750.69	284	.86	.08	.08	164.56***	6
Measurement model – 6-factor-d	929.60	284	.84	.09	.07	169.87***	6

No. of profiles	LL	FP	Scaling	AIC	BIC	SABIC	LRT p	BLRT p	Entropy
2	−1261.85	13	1.21	2,549.71	2596.34	2,555.12	.02	.00	.60
3	−1230.94	18	1.16	2,497.88	2562.45	2,505.38	.02	.00	.81
4	−1218.19	23	1.11	2,482.39	2564.89	2,491.97	.26	.00	.85
5	−1201.67	28	1.20	2,459.35	2559.79	2,471.01	.20	.00	.92
6	−1192.18	33	1.09	2,451.18	2569.56	2,464.93	.14	.03	.93
7	−1182.98	38	.95	2,441.95	2578.27	2,457.78	.07	.05	.93

Latent Profiles	N (%)	WFC	WFE	FWC	FWE
1. Slightly conflictual	135 (51%)	3.62	.07	3.07	.05	2.34	.09	3.25	.07
2. Enriched	92 (34%)	2.87	.09	4.09	.05	2.16	.08	3.85	.07
3. Work-to-family conflictual	40 (15%)	4.28	.13	2.01	.12	2.02	.20	2.58	.19

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by China Association of Higher Education (2019FDYYB25) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (71702092).

ORCID iD

Chunyu Zhang

Note

References

Allen

T. D.

French

K. A.

Dumani

Shockley

K. M.

(2020). A cross-national meta-analytic examination of predictors and outcomes associated with work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6), 539–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000442

Amstad

F. T.

Meier

L. L.

Fasel

Elfering

Semmer

N. K.

(2011). A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022170

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

Fugate

(2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3363315

Asian Development Bank. (2017). Gender equality and the labor market: Women, work, and migration in the People’s Republic of China. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS178937-2

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181

Aycan

(2008). Cross-cultural perspectives to work-family conflict. In Korabik

Lero

Whitehead

(Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 359–371). Cambridge University Press.

Bakker

A. B.

Shimazu

Demerouti

Shimada

Kawakami

(2013). Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-05-2013-0148

Barnett

R. C.

Hyde

J. S.

(2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781

Bloomberg. (2019). In China tech, “996” means work, work and more work. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-11/in-china-tech-996-means-work-work-and-more-work-quicktake

10.

Boyar

Carr

Mosley

Jr Carson

(2007). The development and validation of scores on perceived work and family demand scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288173

11.

Bunderson

J. S.

Thompson

J. A.

(2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32−57. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32

12.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Williams

L. J.

(2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

13.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Wayne

J. H.

Grzywacz

J. G.

(2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

14.

Chen

Powell

G. N.

(2012). No pain, no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.003

15.

Clinton

M. E.

Conway

Sturges

(2017). “It’s tough hanging-up a call”: The relationships between calling and work hours, psychological detachment, sleep quality, and morning vigor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000025

16.

Conte

J. M.

Aasen

Jacobson

O’Loughlin

Toroslu

(2019). Investigating relationships among polychronicity, work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and work engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(7), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-01-2018-0046

17.

Conway

Clinton

Sturges

Budjanovcanin

(2015). Using self-determination theory to understand the relationship between calling enactment and daily well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1114–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2014

18.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

Autin

(2020). Calling, meaning, and volition: Emerging perspectives. In Brown

Lent

(Eds), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work (3rd ed., pp. 237–270). New York: Wiley.

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

(2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031934

20.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006

21.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Bott

E. M.

(2013). Calling and life satisfaction: It’s not about having it, it’s about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030635

22.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026129

23.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Velez

B. L.

(2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000276

24.

Dziak

J. J.

Lanza

S. T.

Tan

(2014). Effect size, statistical power and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919819

25.

Ehrhardt

Ensher

(2020). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and calling outcomes: How mentoring matters. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000513

26.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

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

27.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625

28.

Hirschi

Keller

A. C.

Spurk

D. M.

(2019). Calling as a double-edged sword for work-nonwork enrichment and conflict among older workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 114, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.004

29.

M. Y.

Chen

Cheung

F. M.

Liu

Worthington

E. L.

(2013). A dyadic model of the work–family interface: A study of dual-earner couples in China. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030885

30.

Howard

M. C.

Hoffman

M. E.

(2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 846–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021

31.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

32.

Joplin

J. R. W.

Shaffer

M. A.

Francesco

A. M.

Lau

(2003). The macro-environment and work-family conflict. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003003004

33.

Kacmar

K. M.

Crawford

W. S.

Carlson

D. S.

Ferguson

Whitten

(2014). A short and valid measure of work-family enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035123

34.

(2021). Uses and abuses of statistical control variables: Ruling out or creating alternative explanations? Journal of Business Research, 126, 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.037

35.

Cao

Curran

M. A.

Fang

Zhou

(2020). Traditional gender ideology, work family conflict, and marital quality among Chinese dual-earner couples: A moderated mediation model. Sex Roles, 83, 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01125-1

36.

Ling

Poweli

G. N.

(2001). Work-family conflict in contemporary China: Beyond an American-based model. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580113006

37.

Marks

S. R.

MacDermid

S. M.

(1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 417. https://doi.org/10.2307/353506

38.

Matthews

R. A.

Kath

L. M.

Barnes-Farrell

J. L.

(2010). A short, valid, predictive measure of work–family conflict: Item selection and scale validation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017443

39.

Moazami-Goodarzi

Nurmi

J.-E.

Mauno

Aunola

Rantanen

(2019). Longitudinal latent profiles of work–family balance: Examination of antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000093

40.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

L. K.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

41.

Nie

Otterbach

Sousa-Poza

(2015). Long work hours and health in China. China Economic Review, 33, 212–-229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.02.004

42.

Nielsen

J. D.

Thompson

J. A.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Vallett

J. D.

(2020). The moderating role of calling in the work–family interface: Buffering and substitution effects on employee satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(7), 622 https://doi.org/637. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2469

43.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

44.

Powell

G. N.

Francesco

A. M.

Ling

(2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.568

45.

Rantanen

Kinnunen

Mauno

Tement

(2013). Patterns of conflict and enrichment in work-family balance: A three-dimensional typology. Work and Stress, 27, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.791074

46.

Redding

S. G.

(1993). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. de Gruyter.

47.

Satorra

Bentler

(2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192

48.

Schabram

Maitlis

(2016). Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 584–609. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0665

49.

Siu

O.-l.

J.-f.

Brough

C.-q.

Bakker

A. B.

Kalliath

O’Driscoll

Phillips

D. R.

Chen

W.-q.

Sit

Shi

(2010). Role resources and work–family enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.007

50.

Song

Liang

C. T. H.

(2019). Masculine gender role expectations in China: A consensual qualitative research-modified study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000196

51.

Spector

P. E.

Allen

T. D.

Poelmans

S. A. Y.

Lapierre

L. M.

Cooper

C. L.

Michael

Sanchez

J. I.

Abarca

Alexandrova

Beham

Brough

Ferreiro

Fraile

C.-Q.

Moreno-Velázquez

Pagon

Pitariu

Salamatov

Shima

Simoni

A. S.

… Widerszal-Bazyl

(2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 805–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00092.x

52.

Tein

J.-Y.

Coxe

Cham

(2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781

53.

ten Brummelhuis

L. L.

Bakker

A. B.

(2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67, 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974

54.

Thompson

J. A.

Bunderson

J. S.

(2019). Research on work as a calling…and how to make it matter. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015140

55.

Wang

H. M.

A. L.

Guo

T. T.

(2020). Gender concept, work pressure, and work–family conflict. American Journal of Men’s Health, 14(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988320957522

56.

Yang

Chen

C. C.

Choi

Zou

(2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556390

57.

Zhang

Dik

B. J.

Wei

Zhang

(2015). Work as a calling in China: A qualitative study of Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714535029

58.

Zhang

Herrmann

Hirschi

Wei

Zhang

(2015). Assessing calling in Chinese college students: Development of a measure and its relation to hope. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(4), 582–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715595804

59.

Zhang

Hirschi

Dik

B. J.

Wei

You

(2018). Reciprocal relation between authenticity and calling among Chinese university students: A latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.005

60.

Zhang

Hirschi

You

(2021). Trajectories of calling in the transition from university to work: A growth mixture analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720931010

61.

Zhang

(2018). Cross-domain effects of ethical leadership on employee family and life satisfaction: The moderating role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 1085–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3306-4

62.

Zou

Tian

(2012). An analysis of college counselor’s job burnout and its countermeasures. Education Science, 28(1), 71–74.