Why Work-Family Role Transition Matters for Role Strain in North America

Abstract

Individuals experience different types of role strain when managing work-family role boundaries (work-family role integrating vs. segmenting), which thus affects their perceived difficulty in work and family role demands. The current research explores whether integrating work-family role boundaries ameliorates role strain. To address the subjectthe research explored 408 full-time employees in North America using data collected from a 2005 dataset that used the e-mail method. Results show that integrating work-family role boundaries does not show lower levels of role strain and thus does not theoretically support work-family role boundary theory.

Keywords

work-family role integration work-family role segmentation work-family role strain

Introduction

According to work and family role boundary theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate 2000), people have their own work and family role boundary, which means “the scope or perimeter of a role” (p. 474). The theory fundamentally presumes that individuals have a continuum of work-family role transition, ranging from high integration to high segmentation. The theory further maintains that individuals have different levels of work-family role strain depending on how they integrate or segment work-family roles. That is, the theory (Ashforth et al. 2000) states that people who integrate work-family roles have lower role strain than those individuals who segment each work-family role boundary.

As the role boundary theory fundamentally postulates, some people tend to keep work and family roles separate, while others allow them to be integrated, and individuals can be placed along a role segmentation and integration continuum based on their contrasting work and family role identities (Ashforth et al. 2000; Nippert-Eng 1996; Rothbard, Phillips, and Dumas 2005). For example, some people bring their work home and work on it; these individuals display non-clear role boundaries between the work and family domain. In contrast, some people separately maintain their role boundaries, choosing to work only in the workplace and not bring their work home. The former types of individuals are called role integrators and the latter are called role segmentors (Rothbard et al. 2005). These different types of work-family role transitions (i.e., integrating vs. segmenting work-family roles) are called transition activity (Ashforth et al. 2000).

As Lambert (1990) lamented, without understanding the different transition activities such as role integration or segmentation, researchers cannot identify effective family-friendly programs that can help employees ameliorate their role strain. In recent years, some empirical studies have reported that managing or mismanaging work-family role boundaries can result in vastly different consequences, such as work-family role strain or enrichment. For example, increased involuntary working at home (i.e., integrating work-family roles) has a relationship with work-family role conflict (Lapierre et al. 2016). Conversely, people who have both a higher preference for segmenting work-family roles and the expectation of work and family tech use are positively related to boundary controllability; moreover, people who have higher-bound controllability show lower levels of emotional exhaustion than others (Piszczek 2017). Nonetheless, prior research has paid relatively little attention to why individuals choose to integrate or segment their work-family roles.

The current research addresses the following research questions: Do people who integrate work-family roles better than others show lower levels of role strain? Conversely, do people who segment work-family roles better than others show higher levels of role strain? Accordingly, the independent variable is work-family role transition activity (i.e., role integration vs. role segmentation), while the dependent variable is the levels of role strain, as assessed by work-family role conflict and role overload. This study examined 408 full-time employees in North America based on a dataset collected via e-mail in 2005. Polynomial regression and the response surface method were employed to assess the research hypotheses. This research provides insight into why individuals tend to have integrating or segmenting behaviors in the work-family role and illuminates the effect of those integrating or segmenting role behaviors on their strain levels.

Literature Review

Understanding Basic Concepts

As the concept of role is extremely ambiguous, no concrete agreement on the definition appears to exist. For example, roles are defined as norms that are socially constructed and expected for positions in the workplace or for parents at home (Brown 1965). Roles refer to positions individuals have within social institutions at work and at home (Macmillan and Copher 2005). Thus, a role can be defined as a set of norms that are socially constructed and are attached to a particular position. Role embodies two important properties: (a) role expectations (or demands) and (b) role obligations (Kahn et al. 1964). Role expectations are defined as perceived pressures that an individual identifies as related to role responsibilities (Cooke and Rousseau 1984). Role obligations are characterized as behaviors associated with carrying out a particular role (Goode 1960).

The concept of role conflict began with Kahn et al.’s (1964) work, which revealed that role conflict in organizational settings is a major source of organizational stress. In their book, they defined role conflict as the “simultaneous occurrence of two or more sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with the other” (p. 19). They further categorized various types of role conflict, such as (1) inter-sender conflict, (2) intra-organizational conflict, (3) role overload, (4) person-role conflict, and (5) inter-role conflict. In particular, the inter-role conflict refers to job interference with an individual’s family life (Kahn et al. 1964).

As noted above, the concept of work-family role conflict refers to employees’ perceived type of role conflict that results from simultaneously demanding role obligations at work and at home coupled with limited time and energy. Work and family role conflict theory (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985) postulates that work and family roles are competitive and conflicting, and people with an additive role involvement in either work or family or both will inevitably experience role conflict, resulting in negative consequences of multiple role involvements since individuals have limited time and energy. Three major types of work and family role conflict have been classified: (1) time-based conflict, (2) strain-based conflict, and (3) behavior-based conflict.

Individuals may experience strain when they perceive higher levels of role demands from both domains (i.e., work and family) than they can complete (Duxbury and Higgins 1991). Role strain occurs when individuals have (1) role overload and (2) role conflict (Voydanoff 2002). Role overload takes place when the total role demands are beyond the level of role obligation, and role conflict refers to conflicting role demands that make it difficult to fulfill both work and family roles (Voydanoff 2002). Work and family role conflict and overload can be associated with role strain in two ways. First, role expectations surrounding either of these work and family roles may generate role conflict when a person perceives high conflicting role demands or expectations associated with other roles. Second, these dual or double role expectations from both work and family can lead to a feeling of role overload (Cooke and Rousseau 1984).

Work-Family Role Boundary Theory

Individuals have three different linkage patterns in the work-family role interface or nexus: (1) spillover, (2) segmentation, and (3) compensation (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Lambert 1990; Sumer and Knight 2001). First, spillover refers to the

effects of work and family on one another that generate similarities between the two domains in terms of work and family affect (i.e., mood and satisfaction), values (i.e., the importance ascribed to work and family pursuits), skills, and overt behaviors. (Edwards and Rothbard 2000:180)

Second, segmentation means “the separation of work and family, such that the two domains do not affect one another” (Edwards and Rothbard 2000:181). Finally, compensation represents “efforts to offset dissatisfaction in one domain by seeking satisfaction in another domain” (Edwards and Rothbard 2000:180).

In general, for people who employ the linkage pattern of spillover, if they are satisfied in one domain, then they are satisfied in another domain (Liou, Sylvia, and Brunk 1990; Sumer and Knight 2001). More specifically, as a result of the spillover effect, individuals display similar moods within work and family domains (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Ilies, Wilson, and Wagner 2009). In contrast, people who employ the linkage pattern of segmentation actively maintain work and family domains separately, and as a result, moods or affection in one domain does not affect moods or affection in another domain (Edwards and Rothbard 2000). When individuals have a greater tendency to segment work and family roles, it is more difficult for role components to cross work-family role boundaries (Ashforth et al. 2000). Thus, spillover effects do not occur (Heller and Watson 2005; Staines 1980).

In a similar vein, Ashforth et al. (2000) have proposed the work-family role boundary theory. The theory fundamentally postulates that people have their own role boundaries of work and family. The work-family role boundaries can be affected by flexibility, which refers to “the degree to which the spatial and temporal boundaries are pliable” (p. 474), and permeability, which refers to “the degree to which a role allows one to be physically located in the role’s domain but psychologically and/or behaviorally involved in another role” (p. 474). Moreover, the theory maintains that role identity also affects two compositions of work-family role boundaries as it is related to self-concept in the identity’s central role versus peripheral role—that is, which of the two roles, family or work, is more important to them.

In addition, the role boundary theory maintains that for an individual, a given pair of work and family roles from the combination of the transition activity with role identity can fall within a continuum ranging from high role integration to high role segmentation. Role segmentation occurs when people have relatively high impermeability and inflexibility in the role transition activity and when they have a highly contrasting work-family role identity. By contrast, role integration occurs when they have relatively high permeability and flexibility in the transition activity and when they have a blurred and overlapping work-family role identity. Each role integration and segmentation has its own costs and benefits (Ashforth et al. 2000).

Work-Family Role Transition and Role Strain

The boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000) posits that the primary objective of individuals when choosing work and family role integration or segmentation is to minimize role transition difficulty resulting from barely meeting both home and work role demands. Individuals manage the boundary of work and family roles to attain role balance, defined as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum of role conflict” (Clark 2000:751). Individuals may employ different linkage patterns to cope with role strains caused by heavy work and family role demands or pressure (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Lambert 1990; Rothbard et al. 2005).

Work and family role transition is defined as a “boundary-crossing activity, where one exits and enters roles by surmounting boundaries” (Ashforth et al. 2000:472). This concept is variously termed role interface (Voydanoff 2002), role interaction, and role linking mechanism (Edwards and Rothbard 2000). The extent to which transaction activity occurs depends upon the permeability and flexibility of work and family roles. Permeability refers to the degree to which one role component from one domain may enter into another domain, and flexibility refers to the extent to which the boundary of a role may contract or expand (Ashforth et al. 2000).

People who effectively integrate work and family roles are generally believed to display lower strain than others because greater role integration provides role boundary flexibility and enables individuals to easily cope with multiple role demands (Ashforth et al. 2000; Barnett 1994). Furthermore, individuals may desire greater role integration because blurring role boundaries allows them to accommodate multiple role components, which leads to higher role strains (Meyerson and Scully 1995; Rothbard et al. 2005). One empirical study reported that people with higher work and family role balance—depicted as behaviors crossing work and family role boundaries—showed lower levels of depression than people with less balanced work-family roles (Marks and MacDermid 1996). Based on these findings, people who employ patterns of integration (i.e., spillover) may have lower strain levels than others.

Based on the work-family role boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000), this research hypothesized that people who have higher role integration in the transition activity may have lower levels of strain for two reasons. Some scholars have consistently maintained that positive spillover effects are a prerequisite for work-family role enrichment, which leads to higher levels of psychological feelings of masterly achievement, both at work and at home (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Moreover, people will typically show higher levels of role strain if they perceive that work-family roles are incompatible (Voydanoff 2002). Consequently, it is to be expected that people who have work-family role integration in the transition activity have lower levels of role strain (role conflict and role overload) than others.

Hypothesis 1: People who better integrate work-family roles (i.e., people with work-family role integration) will have lower levels of work-family role strain than others.

Hypothesis 1(a): People who better integrate work-family roles will have lower levels of work-family role conflict than others.

Hypothesis 1(b): People who better integrate work-family roles will have lower levels of work-family role overload than others.

Conceptual Framework to Identity Work-Family Role Integration versus Role Segmentation

Prior research on work-family linkage patterns has noted the need for measurement of spillover and segmentation (e.g., Lambert 1990; Sumer and Knight 2001). However, Sumer and Knight (2001) noted three problems tied to the measurement of the three concepts: (1) two concepts may not be mutually exclusive; (2) both life/family and job satisfaction might be related to each other by a third factor, such as personal dispositions or traits; and (3) the conventional job and life satisfaction approach does not permit researchers to assess three unique combinations of family/life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and their strains.

The research suggests using a conceptual framework to identify the degree to which people have role integration and segmentation in the continuum of the relationship between job and life/family satisfaction. Similar to prior studies (e.g., Judge and Watanabe 1994; Zedeck and Mosier 1990), this study maintains that the transition activity of work-family roles such as integration and segmentation can be identified based on the relationship between life/family satisfaction and job satisfaction. People with role integration tendencies display a positive relationship between life/family satisfaction and job satisfaction, whereas people with segmentation tendencies have a negative or no relationship between life/family satisfaction and job satisfaction because of spillover effect (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Judge and Watanabe 1994; Zedeck and Mosier 1990). Accordingly, it is possible to utilize an integrated model to incorporate the transition activity of role integration versus segmentation based on the relationship between job satisfaction and life/family satisfaction. Furthermore, the concepts of role integration and segmentation are based on differences between individuals rather than within-individual differences (Ashforth et al. 2000; Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Lambert 1990; Staines 1980). That is, people will show different levels of role integration and segmentation in the transition activity in their behaviors.

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed framework for identifying the transition activity. In the proposed model, Quadrants I and III refer to the spillover zone since people within the zone have a positive correlation between job satisfaction and life/family satisfaction. Quadrants II and IV refer to the segmentation zone because people within the zone have a negative or insignificant correlation between job satisfaction and life/family satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework to identifying role integration versus role segmentation.

The proposed framework has several strengths in terms of measurement of the different linkage patterns. First, when scholars conceptualize the transition activity at the within-individual level (i.e., recognizing that an individual sometimes has spillover tendencies but other times has segmentation tendencies), then it is impossible to correctly measure the concepts, not only because instances of both integration (i.e., spillover) and segmentation simultaneously occur among the same individuals (Piotrkowski 1979) but also because the two concepts are not mutually exclusive (Sumer and Knight 2001). However, the proposed model seeks to solve the issue by conceptualizing the transition at the between-individual level of analysis.

Second, Sumer and Knight (2001) noted that the conventional job and life/family satisfaction approach does not permit researchers to assess three unique combinations of family/life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and their strains. However, we can assess an overall relationship among three variables by employing the response surface method because it makes it possible to depict a joint relationship among three variables by simultaneously assessing the effect of X and Y on Z (Edwards 1994; Edwards and Parry 1993).

In summary, individuals have different work-family role transition activities, such as integration and segmentation. When people employ the linkage pattern of spillover, they have a significantly positive relationship between life/family satisfaction and job satisfaction. When people employ the pattern of segmentation, they have a significantly negative or insignificant relationship between life/family satisfaction and job satisfaction. Based on the relationship between life/family and job satisfaction, role segmentation—meaning people with higher job satisfaction and lower family satisfaction, or vice versa—can be identified at the between-individual level.

Methods

Data and Samples

This research compiled a secondary dataset from a study response project conducted at a university by Stanton (2006; please refer to the Web site—http://www.studyresponse.net—for details). That survey project initially recruited 90,000 volunteers online across the North American continent. In 2005, the survey response project staff sent e-mail links of surveys to volunteers who had already registered on the home page of the response project. For this research study, an e-mail was initially sent with a survey link to 450 members who were randomly selected (i.e., simple random sampling method) from the 90,000 volunteers; those members who were selected were married and working on a full-time basis, and the potential respondents were offered $10 for their participation in the project. The survey respondents had a structured survey questionnaire in the computer system. In accordance with Institutional Review Board protocol, the survey respondents were told the purpose of the study and that their responses would be kept confidential. If they agreed to participate, they could log onto the online survey system, and their ID number would be automatically generated.

As a result, 408 participants completed the survey (response rate = 90.7 percent). Among the respondents, 48.62 percent were female. The mean age was 40.78 years (SD = 10.54). The racial breakdown of the respondents was as follows: 83.5 percent were Caucasian, 8.3 percent were Hispanic, 6.1 percent were African American, and 2.1 percent were Asian. In terms of educational attainment, 67.1 percent had a college education or less, 10.9 percent had master’s degrees, 18.4 percent had professional degrees, and 3.6 percent had PhD degrees.

Measurements

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured through three survey items adapted from Cammann et al. (1983). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item from this category was “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” ( $α = . 941)$ .

Family satisfaction

Family satisfaction was measured using three survey items. The response scale, which paralleled the job satisfaction scale, ranged from 1 to 5. An example item from this category was “All in all, I am satisfied with my family life” ( $α = . 892)$ .

Role conflict

Role conflict was measured via three items adapted from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Participants responded to statements such as “I have to do things that should be done differently,” and they responded using the same 5-point scale ( $α = . 920) .$

Role overload

Role overload was measured using three survey items adapted from Caplan et al. (1975). A sample item was “The number of projects or assignments that you have,” and responses were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (very great) ( $α = . 894) .$

Control variables

Ethnicity, age, gender, and educational level were controlled in the research.

Data Analysis

As Heller and Watson (2005) warned, measuring work-family role behaviors should take into account the level of analysis (i.e., the between-individual vs. within-individual levels). In this research, the between estimator was employed as the concept of role integration and segmentation is conceptually based on the between-individual level rather than the within-individual level in terms of analysis. Moreover, an inauthentic relationship between life/family satisfaction and role strain at the within-individual level may exist because of common factors such as personal dispositions or personal traits (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Judge et al. 1998; Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson 2004). The between estimator can take into account this spurious problem because it purges the effect of personal traits or dispositions on the strain within individuals. Accordingly, this study employed a between-estimator method for data analysis.

In addition, the response surface method (RSM) was employed to determine joint relationships among three variables—for example, job and family satisfaction and strain measurements such as role conflict and role overload—in a three-dimensional space, simultaneously assessing the differences in strain levels between compensators and others (Edwards 1994; Edwards and Parry 1993). In the research on fit or congruence, RSM is typically used because it allows the researcher to assess the effect of congruence, for example, in terms of person and organizational culture (i.e., person-organization fit) on outcomes such as organizational commitment (Ryu 2015). For assessing the congruence effect on a dependent variable, the method requires three major features of the hypothetical relationship: (1) the stationary point, (2) the principal axes of the surface (first principal axis and second principal axis), and (3) the slopes of the surface along lines of interest (Edwards and Parry 1993). However, in this study, the full features were not needed because the intent was not to test whether the first principal axis and second principal axis were placed on a congruence line and incongruence line, respectively. Rather, this study sought to determine a joint relationship between the transition activity and their strain level in a three-dimensional space.

For example, Hypotheses 1(a) and 1(b) stated that people who have an integrating transition of work-family roles are more likely to have lower strain levels, such as role overload and role conflict, than others. For this hypothesis to be upheld, first, the response surface from the between estimator needed to have a U-shaped surface along the congruence line (please see Figure 2). This hypothesis could be tested by the quantity of the sum of coefficients. The quantity of the sum of coefficients (i.e., coefficient JS² − coefficient of JS × FS + coefficient of FS²), where JS refers to job satisfaction and FS refers to family satisfaction, should be positive (see Edwards and Parry 1993; Ryu 2015).

Figure 2.

Hypothetical relationship between role transition activity and role strain.

Results

Table 1 presents the inter-correlations of the variables. Job satisfaction was highly correlated with life satisfaction $(r = . 413, p < . 01)$ and was negatively correlated with role conflict $(r = - . 463, p < . 01)$ and role overload $(r = - . 427, p < . 01)$ . Family satisfaction was also negatively related to role conflict $(r = - . 283, p < . 01)$ and role overload $(r = - . 255, p < . 01)$ . Finally, role conflict was positively associated with role overload $(r = . 684, p < . 01)$ .

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

	M	SD	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Sex(1) (women= ‘1’)	0.486	0.501	1
Age(2)	40.781	10.543	−.058	1
Job satisfaction (3)	3.726	1.021	.132**	.073	1
Family satisfaction (4)	4.177	0.747	.130**	.073	.413**	1
Role conflict (5)	2.793	0.829	−.2552**	−.242**	−.463**	−.283**	1
Role overload (6)	2.723	0.820	−.160**	−.126**	−.427**	−.255**	.684**	1

Note. N = 408.

p < .10. **p < .05 (two-tailed).

Before analyzing the model, the variables of job and family satisfaction, role conflict, and role overload at each wave were centered (i.e., means of those variables = 0), as recommended by Edwards, to decrease multicollinearity problems (Edwards 1994; Edwards and Lambert 2007; Edwards and Parry 1993). As a result, no serious problems in the models were found; the highest variance influence factor (VIF) value was 2.25. No outliers were detected by Cook’s distance.

Table 2 presents the results from the between estimator. In the linear models, as shown in Table 2, for the control variables, being a woman was negatively and consistently associated with role conflict and role overload (p < .01). In addition, being older was negatively related to role conflict (p < .01) but was not associated with role overload. Finally, compared to Whites (i.e., dummy base), Asians had significantly higher role conflict (p < .05), and Asians and Native Americans had higher role overload (p < .01).

Table 2.

Between-Estimator Results.

	Role conflict		role overload
	LinearModel 1	QuadraticModel 2	LinearModel 1	QuadraticModel 2
Constant	0.606	0.707	−0.024	0.057
Sex(women = 1)	−0.337***	−0.337***	−0.155*	−0.142*
Age	−0.013***	−0.012***	−0.006	−0.004
Hispanic	0.050	0.067	0.265	0.285
Black	−0.090	−0.150	0.012	−0.072
Natives	0.434	0.309	1.107***	1.071***
Asians	0.321**	0.269**	0.464***	0.413***
JS	−0.321***	−0.369***	−0.288***	−0.393***
FS	−0.084	−0.134*	−0.098	−0.108
JS²		−0.054		−0.102***
JS × FS		−0.168***		−0.083
FS²		−0.025		−0.040
R² (Between)	.314	.365	.257	.302
Total N (Individuals)	408	408	408	408
	$Model 2 - 1 : Δ F (3, 315) = 8.39$ , p < .01		$Model 2 - 1 : Δ F (3, 315) = 6.67$ , p < .01

JS = job satisfaction; FS = family satisfaction

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01 (two-tailed).

In the linear models, job satisfaction was negatively associated with role conflict and role overload (p < .01). Family satisfaction was not significantly or consistently associated with role strain measurements such as role conflict and role overload. F-test results showed that the quadratic model was better than the linear model for all strain measurements— $Δ F (3, 315) = 8.39$ , p < .01 for role conflict, and $Δ F (3, 315) = 6.67$ , p < .01 for role overload—supporting the employment of the response surface method. Hypothesis 1 posited that people who have work-family role integration would have lower strain levels than others. As noted previously, this hypothesis can be tested by a linear combination along the congruence line. That is, in the quadratic models, the sum of coefficient JS² − coefficient of JS × FS + coefficient of FS² should be positive, while the null hypothesis = $β_{1} \times {JS}^{2} - β_{2} \times JS \times FS + β_{3} \times {FS}^{2} \leq 0$ . As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected ( $sum of β s$ = 0.088, p > .10 for role conflict, $sum of β s$ = −0.060, p > .10 for role overload); the confidence intervals of the linear combination tests at the 95 percent level ranged from −0.123 to 0.291 for role conflict and from −0.270 to 0.151 for role overload. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not accepted, which meant no support or U-shapes in the relations. The results imply that people who have work-family role integration in the transition activity do not necessarily have lower levels of role strain than others.

As noted above, Figure 2 depicts the hypothetical shape of the response surface method, showing the relationship between role integration and the levels of role strain, as measured by role conflict and role overload. In the three-dimensional figure of RSM, x = job satisfaction, y = family satisfaction, and z = role overload and role conflict. As noted above, Hypothesis 1 stated that people who have an integrating transition of work-family roles are more likely to have lower strain levels, such as role overload and role conflict, than others. To support the research hypothesis, RSM should show reverse U-shapes because people who have work-family role integration show the lowest levels of role conflict and role overload.

The right-hand side of Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between role integration and role overloads. Obviously, the figure does not have a U-shape relationship among the three variables. Those individuals who had role integration showed the lowest level of role overload. People with lower job satisfaction and lower family satisfaction also had high levels of role overload. However, those individuals in the middle on the congruence line showed the highest level of role overload. Interestingly, however, those individuals who had role segmentation toward job satisfaction also showed a relatively lower level of role overload. Instead, role segmentation toward family satisfaction showed the highest level of role overload. As expected, however, people with higher job satisfaction and higher family satisfaction showed the lowest levels of role overload.

Figure 3.

Response surface results.

The current research expected that role segmentation would increase role strain. The results found two contrasting findings: role segmentation exacerbates role conflict, whereas it weakens role overload. The result implies that although the compensators decrease their role involved in the dissatisfying domain and increase the role involved in the satisfying domain, they feel a high level of role overload. People who have a compensating pattern of the transition activity tend to decrease role involvement in a dissatisfying domain (e.g., work domain); instead, they increase the role involvement in a satisfying domain (e.g., family domain; Ashforth et al. 2000). The result implies that having higher job satisfaction may be more effective in reducing role overload (i.e., buffering effect) than having higher family satisfaction as managing the work role boundary is relatively easier than managing the family role boundary.

In summary, polynomial regression revealed that people who have work-family role integration in the transition activity do not necessarily have lower levels of role strain than others. As shown in the contour plot, people who were particularly in the middle showed relatively higher levels of role conflict and role overload than others, which leads to a rejection of the research hypothesis. Consequently, the research hypotheses were not supported by either the statistical tests or the response surface analysis.

Discussion

This research explored the relationship between transition activities (i.e., role integration vs. role segmentation) and their strain levels (as measured by role conflict and overload) using a between-individual framework (constructed specifically for this study). Drawing upon work-family role boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000), the research hypothesis stated that those who have higher role integration in the role transition may show lower levels of role strain since they easily manage their role boundaries by use of flexibility and permeability. However, results revealed that people who have work-family role integration in the transition activity do not show significantly lower levels of role strain than others. Conversely, people who have work-family role segmentation do not show relatively significantly higher levels of role strain than others.

In addition, the RSM revealed that individuals in the middle on the plane of family and job satisfaction showed relatively higher levels of role conflict than expected, which implies that role integration activity may not reduce role conflict. Similarly, those in the middle on the plane showed the highest levels of role overload. These results ultimately led to the rejection of the research hypotheses. Consequently, the research does not support the boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000), which argues that the primary objective of individuals in choosing work and family role integration is to minimize role strain that results from barely meeting both home and work role demands. Thus, the research has contributed to finding the limitation of work-family role boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000), which argues that people who actively integrate work-family roles ameliorate their role strains.

Prior research has argued that people who employ the pattern of segmentation may have lower strain levels than others. For example, greater role segmentation may buffer employees against the spillover effect of negative emotions and experiences from one domain to the other (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Hall and Richer 1988; Linville 1987). Moreover, greater segmentation reduces role conflict, allowing people to focus more exclusively on the salient role (Ashforth et al. 2000; Rothbard 2001). Employees may want to segment home and work to cope with differing expectations or norms of behavior in the two domains (Hewlin 2003). Nonetheless, these current results do not support prior findings because segmentors show higher levels of role conflict and overload.

Why do people in the middle on the plane show relatively higher levels of role conflict and overload? Two hypotheses can be suggested. First, the concept of work-family role blurring, defined as integrated behaviors and thoughts of work and family roles (Glavin and Schieman 2012), can somewhat explain the unexpected result. Work-family role boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000) maintains that individuals may experience role blurring when the flexibility and permeability of their own role boundaries occur (Glavin and Schieman 2012). That is, the people in the middle may experience work-family role blurring, which leads to higher levels of role strain. Second, the transitional model of stress developed by Lazarus and Folkman (Folkman et al. 1986; Lazarus 1991) can explain why people in the middle on the plane show relatively higher levels of role conflict and overload. The theory fundamentally assumes that people actively cope with their role strain or stress. Based on the transaction model of stress, people in the middle in Figure 3 may be in the cognitive appraisal process and fail to find appropriate resources to cope with their stress, which results in higher levels of role strain.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

There have consistently been two contrasting theories to predict role strain in work and family role involvements. Role boundary theorists (Ashforth et al. 2000) have argued that people who integrate work and family roles effectively have lower levels of strain than others because greater role integration provides the flexibility of role boundary, which leads to easily coping with multiple role involvements. In contrast, another theory proposes that individuals employ segmentation patterns in work-family roles to decrease strain levels when they have higher work and family role involvements (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Hall and Richer 1988; Linville 1987). The current research does not support those two contrasting theories because none of the people who had role integration or role segmentation showed the lowest levels of role strain. Rather, the middle zone of the people showed the highest levels of work-family role strain, which may be theoretically and closely related to individuals’ coping behaviors. For future research, the researcher strongly suggests that researchers explore how to perceive and how to cope with work-family role strains.

In terms of practical implication, this finding may indicate that organizations should provide employees with work-family policies that help them to better integrate work and family roles. For example, flexible working hours can help ameliorate role strain for people who employ segregation patterns of work-family roles, as well as for compensators (Rothbard et al. 2005). In addition, many empirical studies have supported the effects of spousal support on role strain. For example, supportive spouses decrease role strain caused by high levels of work-family conflict (Holahan and Gilbert 1979), and a husband with pro-feminist attitudes (and presumably supportive behaviors) buffers his wife’s role strain from work and family role conflict (Beutell and Greenhaus 1983). Thus, organizations should provide employees with educational programs to help them cope with their occupational stress and to encourage supportive behaviors of spouses at home.

Strengths and Limitations of the Research

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, although this study found that role integration and segmentation at the transition activity are partially related to levels of role strain, the causal relationship is not clear since the data were collected from a self-reported survey, which is susceptible to measurement error (Bryman 2008). Therefore, an experimental design is suggested to address the causal relationship in a future study. In future research, the Solomon-four group design is particularly recommended to find the causality between the transition activity (integrating vs. segmenting group) and role strain and to take into account threats of internal validity, such as maturity and pretest experience (Bryman 2008). Furthermore, a future study should consider employing interview methods to help clarify how people perceive their role strain, how they find resources to resolve their role conflict in cognitive appraisal process, and how they cope with the role strain.

Second, this study relied on self-reported measures of value congruence and affective commitment, which are susceptible to common method biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Measurements from a common method such as a survey may inflate correlations among variables. Because of this concern, data collection from multiple sources is strongly recommended in future research. However, researchers should keep in mind that Spector (1987) found that common method bias is less serious than our expectations.

Third, work environments or contexts, role boundary controllability, and role identity will theoretically have moderating or mediating effects on the relationship, and thus those factors should be controlled in future research. For example, job characteristics such as job pressures, decision-making latitude, and work schedule controllability have moderating effects on the relationship between work-family role blurring and work-family role conflict (Glavin and Schieman 2012). Furthermore, higher levels of self-efficacy for boundary control weakens the relationship between involuntary working at home and work-family conflict (Lapierre et al. 2016), and boundary controllability also mediates the relationship between unexpected working at home and exhaustion experience (Piszczek 2017). Moreover, work-family role identity may affect the relationship because it shapes work-family preferences and priorities, resulting in experiences of work-family conflict and enrichment (Leslie, King, and Clair 2019).

The limitations of this study are countered by some important strengths. Using a between-individual framework to identify compensators addressed the spurious relationship between family and job satisfaction at the individual level (Edwards and Rothbard 2000). Second, response surface analysis was employed to statistically test the relationship between transition activity and their role strain.

This research provides insight into how people can ameliorate the stressful situation if they experience higher levels of work-family role strain. The current research suggests that experiencing high job and family satisfaction (i.e., positive spillover effect) may mitigate higher levels of role strain. Accordingly, individuals have to find a positive spillover mechanism when juggling work-family roles.

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

Author Biography

Geunpil Ryu, PhD, is an assistant professor of Department of Public Administration at Chonnam National University, South Korea. He earned his PhD degree in public administration at the State University of New York at Albany. His research focuses on public employees’ well-being, leadership development, and work motivation of public employees.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

Fugate

2000. “All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.” Academy of Management Review 25(3):472–91.

Barnett

R. C.

1994. “Home-to Spillover Revisited: A Study of Full-time Employed Women in Dual-earner Couples.” Journal of Marriage and Family 56(3):647–56.

Beutell

N. J.

Greenhaus

J. H.

1983. “Integration of Home and Nonhome Roles: Women’s Conflict and Coping Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 68(1): 43–48.

Brown

1965. Social Psychology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bryman

2008. Social Research Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

Klesh

1983. “Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions of Organizational Members.” Pp. 71–138. In Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices, edited by Seashore

New York: Wiley.

Caplan

R. D.

Cobb

French

J. R. P.

Van Harrison

Pinneau

S. R.

1975. Job Demands and Worker Health. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Clark

S. C.

2000. “Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance.” Human Relations 53(6):747–70.

Cooke

R. A.

Rousseau

D. M.

1984. “Stress and Strain from Family Roles and Work-role Expectations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69(2):252–60.

10.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

1991. “Gender Differences in Work-family Conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76(1):60–73.

11.

Edwards

J. R.

1994. “The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58:51–100.

12.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

2007. “Methods for Integrating Moderation and Mediation: A General Analytical Framework using Moderated Path Analysis.” Psychological Methods 12(1): 1–22.

13.

Edwards

J. R.

Parry

M. E.

1993. “On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations as an Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research.” Academy of Management Journal 36:1577–613.

14.

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(1):178–99.

15.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

Dunkel-Schetter

DeLongis

Gruen

R. J.

1986. “Dynamics of a Stressful Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(5):992–1003.

16.

Glavin

Schieman

2012. “Work–family Role Blurring and Work–family Conflict: The Moderating Influence of Job Resources and Job Demands.” Work and Occupations 39(1):71–98.

17.

Goode

W. J.

1960. “A Theory of Role Strain.” American Sociological Review 25(4):483–96.

18.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

1985. “Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles.” Academy of Management Review 10(1):76–88.

19.

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.

20.

Hall

D. T.

Richer

1988. “Balancing Work Life and Home Life: What can Organizations do to Help.” Academy of Management Executive 2: 212–223.

21.

Heller

Watson

2005. “The Dynamic Spillover of Satisfaction between Work and Marriage: The Role of Time and Mood.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6): 1273–79.

22.

Hewlin

P. F.

2003. “And the Award for Best Actor Goes to...: Facades of Conformity in Organizational Settings.” Academy of Management Review 28(4): 633–642.

23.

Holahan

C. K.

Gilbert

L. A.

1979. “Conflict Between Major Life Roles: Women and Men in Dual Career Couples.” Human Relations 32(6): 451–467.

24.

Ilies

Wilson

K. S.

Wagner

D. T.

2009. “The Spillover of Daily Job Satisfaction onto Employee’s Family Lives: The Facilitating Role of Work-family Integration.” Academy of Management Journal 52(1):87–102.

25.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

Kluger

A. N.

1998. “Dispositional Effect on Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Core Evaluations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83(1):17–34.

26.

Judge

T. A.

Watanabe

1994. “Individual Differences in the Nature of the Relationship between Job and Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67:101–107.

27.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

1964. Organizational Stress. New York: Wiley.

28.

Lambert

1990. “Processes Linking Work and Family: A Critical Review and Research Agenda.” Human Relations 43:239–57.

29.

Lapierre

van Steenbergen

E. F.

Peeters

M. C. W.

Kluwer

E. S.

2016. “Juggling Work and Family Responsibilities When Involuntarily Working More from Home: A Multiwave Study of Financial Sales Professionals.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(6):804–22.

30.

Lazarus

R. S.

1991. “Progress on a Cognitive-motivational Theory of Emotion.” American Psychologist 46(8):819–34.

31.

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(1):72–98.

32.

Linville

P. W.

1987. “Self-complexity as a Cognitive Buffer against Stress-related Illness and Depression.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 663–676.

33.

Liou

K.-T.

Sylvia

R. D.

Brunk

1990. “Non-work Factors and Job Satisfaction Revisited.” Human Relations 43(1):77–86.

34.

Macmillan

Copher

2005. “Families in the Life Course: Interdependency of Roles, Role Configurations, and Pathways.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4):858–79.

35.

Marks

S. R.

MacDermid

S. M.

1996. “Multiple Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role Balance.” Journal of Marriage and Family 58(2):417–32.

36.

Meyerson

D. E.

Scully

M. A.

1995. “Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change.” Organization Science 6:585–600.

37.

Nippert-Eng

1996. “Calendars and Keys: The Classification of ‘home’ and ‘work.’”Sociological Forum 11(3): 563–582.

38.

Piotrkowski

C. S.

1979. Work and the Family System: A Naturalistic Study of Working-class and Lower Middle-class Families. New York: Free Press.

39.

Piszczek

2017. “Boundary Control and Controlled Boundaries: Organizational Expectations for Technology Use at the Work–family Interface.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(4):592–611.

40.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

Podsakoff

N. P.

2003. “Common Methods Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

41.

Rizzo

J. R.

House

R. J.

Lirtzman

S. I.

1970. “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 15(2):150–63.

42.

Rothbard

N. P.

2001. “Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles.” Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4): 655–684.

43.

Rothbard

N. P.

Phillips

K. W.

Dumas

T. L.

2005. “Managing Multiple Roles: Work-family Policies and Individuals’ Desires for Segmentation.” Organization Science 16(3):243–58.

44.

Ryu

2015. “The Missing Link of Value Congruence and Its Consequences: The Mediating Role of Employees’ Acceptance of Organizational Vision.” Public Personnel Management 44(4):473–95.

45.

Spector

P. E.

1987. “Interactive Effects of Perceived Control and Job Stressors on Effective Reactions and Health Outcomes for Clerical Workers.” Work & Stress 1(2): 155–162.

46.

Staines

G. L.

1980. “Spillover versus Compensation: A Review of the Literature on the Relationship between Work and Nonwork.” Human Relations 33(2):111–29.

47.

Stanton

J. M.

2006. The Study Response open recruitment method. Technical report no. 13007. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies. www.studyresponse.com.

48.

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(4):653–63.

49.

Voydanoff

2002. “Linkages between the Work-family Interface and Work, Family, and Individual Outcomes: An Integrative Model.” Journal of Family Issues 23(1):138–64.

50.

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 64:108–30.

51.

Zedeck

Mosier

K. L.

1990. “Work in the Family and Employing Organization.” American Psychologist 45(2):240–51.