Relationship Between Organizational Injustice and Work Interference with Family: The Role of Social Support

Abstract

This study investigates the moderating role of social support (i.e., supervisor, co-workers and the family) in the relationship between organizational injustice (i.e., distributive and procedural) and work interference with family (WIF; i.e., strain and behaviour based). Quantitative data were collected from employees working in public sector health-care organizations of Pakistan through survey questionnaires (N = 255). This study finds significant effects of distributive and procedural injustice in engendering the negative experiences of strain- and behaviour-based WIF, in the employees of health-care organizations. The moderating effect of co-worker and family support provided mixed results. The supervisory social support was not found as a moderator.

Findings of this study suggest that health-care organizations should pay serious attention to the ineffective work family policies and procedure to develop a family-friendly work environment. The supervisors should be given a role in work family policies and procedure development. The mitigating effect of co-workers’ support showed that the employees should be provided with proper knowledge on the policies and procedures of their organizations. The support of family members can also be either benign or harmful.

Keywords

Organizational justice work interference with family social support

Introduction

An individual performs two important roles in life, that is, work and family roles. Every organization wants their employees to perform their best in their work role but simultaneously an employee has to undertake family roles and responsibilities as well. In such a situation, if an employee is unable to meet the demands of both roles, then, such incompatibility in work and family roles is known as work family conflict (WFC; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The concept of WFC refers to “a form of role conflict in which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect that is participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family (work) role” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggest three forms of WFC, that is, time-based conflict (the inter-role conflict that occurs because an employee is unable to spare time for family (work) activities due to the time spent in work (family) activities), strain-based conflict (the inter-role conflict that occurs when an employee has the burden of work (home) activities, and after putting all efforts, he or she is unable to manage that burden which creates strain, that is, fatigue and tension, in the mind of an employee), and behaviour-based conflict (the inter-role conflict that occurs because the difference in the formal way of behaving at work is usually different from the informal style of behaving with family). Furthermore, Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) suggested that each of these three forms of WFCs has two directions, namely work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW).

This study investigates WIF rather than FIW because the focus of this research was to determine the inter-role conflict that originates at work and interferes with employee’s family life, due to the organizational injustice regarding work family policies perceived by employees within the organization.

Relationship Between Organizational Injustice and Work Interference with Family

There has been huge gap in the development and implementation of human resource management (HRM) practices in Pakistan and HRM practices are still at the stage of infancy (Khilji, 2013). Organizational work family policies and programmes have largely been studied as a core part of human resource practices (Baek, Kelly, & Jang, 2012). The roles of different work family policies, that is, workplace flexibility (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2012; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Poelmans, Chinchilla, & Cardona, 2003), leave arrangements (Allen et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Poelmans et al., 2003; Ruppanner, 2013), dependents on care facilities (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Giardini & Kabst, 2008; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Poelmans et al., 2003) and flexible scheduling (Campo, Cook, & Arthur, 2013; Giardini & Kabst, 2008), in managing WFC are studied rigorously. These studies have found the significant role of work family policies in managing the employees’ negative experiences of WIF, but there has been gap about how employees’ organizational injustice perceptions influence their WIF experiences. It is very important to understand here that in the context of the current study the concept of organizational injustice refers to the work stressor that creates perceptions of unfairness in organizational work family policies and programmes (distributive injustice) and unfairness of the procedures (procedural injustice) adopted in the development of these work family policies and programmes (Judge & Colquitt, 2004). However, Judge and Colquitt (2004) also studied two other types of injustices such as interpersonal injustice which refers to the extent to which the individual who has enacted work family policies has treated one with sincerity and respect and informational injustice which refers to the extent to which the individual who has enacted work family policies has explained adequately and honestly. Supervisors are required to implement organizational policies according to the purpose and intent of policies (Starrels, 1992). The supervisor can be the organizational agent through which employees can perceive interpersonal and informational justice in the workplace, and this research has incorporated supervisory support as the moderator in the current research (the discussion regarding the role of the supervisor as a moderator is presented later). Therefore, including employees’ perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice and supervisory support in the same study looks like investigating the variables taping the same concepts. Thus, interpersonal and informational justice are beyond the scope of this study.

Empirical evidence on the role of employees’ perceptions of the unfairness or fairness of work family policies and programmes, in engendering WIF, is scant except in studies by Judge and Colquitt (2004) and Lambert, Hogan, and Cheeseman (2013), respectively. Some researchers have argued that employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the organizational work family policies can significantly influence their WIF perceptions (Grandey, 2001; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Grandey (2001) argued that organizational policies create new procedures, distribute resources and develop norms which in turn create perceptions among employees on how well their organizations treat them, and organizational justice literature has much theory and research on how fairness is involved in the distribution, processes and norms (Grandey, 2001). She argued that, “the justice literature is particularly relevant to our understanding of how well family friendly policies work” (Grandey, 2001, p. 145). She argued that organizations with unfair policies and practices would probably be seen as contributing to the WIF life. Grandey (2001) has presented a very good case of testing organizational justice as a predictor of WIF. However, surprisingly, with exceptions of the works by Judge and Colquitt (2004) and Lambert et al. (2013), no empirical study was conducted to investigate the effect of organizational justice on employees’ perceptions of WIF. Further, prior empirical investigations have provided inconclusive results as Judge and Colquitt (2004) found empirical support for the significant relationships between two types of organizational justice, that is, procedural and interpersonal justice, and the general form of WFC, whereas the effect of other two types of justice, that is, distributive and informational, was insignificant. Lambert et al. (2013) also found empirical support for the significant relationships between the two types of justice, that is, procedural and distributive, and strain-based WIF. They also placed a call for future research on the relationship between types of organizational justice and various types of WIF, that is, time-, strain- and behaviour-based WIF. Therefore, further empirical investigations can enable us to understand the direct and indirect relationship between various types of organizational justice and employees’ WIF perceptions.

Role of Social Support in the Relationship Between Organizational Injustice and Work Interference with Family

The conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) discusses that social support can be used to preserve resources so that these resources can be utilized at the time when employees perceive stress but the issue with social support is that it can be either benign or harmful. Riley and Eckenrode (1986) found that social support is beneficial in the situations where social interaction is possible and it was not found to be beneficial in the situations where social interaction does not add to already-experienced stress. Considering the collectivist cultural context of the current study (Hofstede, 2018; Khilji, 2013), employees selected in the current study are likely to interact with each other and therefore, social support can be beneficial for the employees but we do not completely outline the harmful effect of social support. Furthermore, Casper, Allen, and Poelmans (2014) argued that 75 per cent of the studies on WFC were conducted in the US context and cultural differences may have a significant influence on work family issues. Poelmans, Greenhaus, and Maestro (2013) also pointed out that assuming the individualistic Western world’s results as universal will not only hurt the receiving countries but it will also prevent the Western world from learning new models of WFC. As the results of Hofstede’s (2018) study on cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism show, that USA is high on individualism while Pakistan is high on collectivism. In our collectivist context, we may argue that employees are likely to support each other and such support may play a significant role in the relationship between employees’ perceptions of the fairness of work family policies and programmes and WIF.

The concept of social support refers to the “information leading the subject to believe that he is cared for and loved for, that he is esteemed and valued, that he belongs to a network of communication and mutual obligations” (Cobb, 1976, p. 300). Usually, the support from work sources refers to the support from supervisors and co-workers while non-work-related support refers to support from friends and family (Wadsworth & Owens, 2007). Thus, based on COR (Hobfoll, 1989) and considering the collectivist context of this study, it can be very beneficial to consider the role of social support. We argue that the support an employee receives from supervisors, co-workers and family may buffer the effect of injustice on employees’ WIF perceptions. Due to the moderating effect of social support provided to employees, the negative experiences of WIF, developed due to injustice perceptions, can reduce.

This research has focused on the nursing employees of the health-care sector in Pakistan. The situation of nursing in Pakistan is quite alarming. According to the Populations Association of Pakistan, the “nurse patient ratio” in Pakistan is 1:3732 (Faizunnisa & Ikram, 2002), which shows how direly nurses are needed in this part of world. Traditionally, females are the dominant workforce in nursing such as in the USA, only around 9.6 per cent of nurses are men (Landivar, 2013); women play a dual role of a housewife as well. Thus, this research has postulated that in these circumstances if health-care organizations do not develop proper work family policies and programmes for nurses, it is likely to lead towards injustice perceptions among nurses which would ultimately lead towards the creation of strain- and behaviour-based WIF among nurses. However, considering the collectivist cultural context of this study, social support can play a significant role in reducing the negative experiences of WIF that will develop due to the distributive and procedural injustice perceptions.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Conservation of Resources Model

COR is a model of stress presented that was by Hobfoll (1989). The core premise of COR is that, “people strive to retain, protect and build resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources” (p. 516).

According to COR, “psychological stress is defined as a reaction to the environment in which there is (a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain, following the investment of resources” (p. 516). Environmental circumstances are often the threat or actual cause of resources loss. COR proposes that when individuals are under stress, they try to make sure of a minimum loss of resources. When individuals are not under stress, they try to make sure the surplus use of resources, which can be an offset against a future loss of resources. In order to offset the loss or gain of resources, individuals employ what they have (i.e., time, effort) or utilize resources from the environment. COR proposes certain kinds of resources such as objectives, conditions, personal characteristics and energies. Further, the model proposed that social support is the resource to the extent that it helps in conserving valued resources, but it can also diminish the worth or value of resources. Therefore, social support can either be beneficial or harmful. COR describes loss or the potential loss of resources as the major concern for either stress or all psychological stressors. COR proposes that although the loss of resources concerns stress, individuals may apply other resources to offset a net loss of resources. The employment of resources can itself be the source of stress because resource employment depletes resources such as when favours are used up. If resource employment exceeds benefits received then it is likely to have negative consequences, for example, the people who were supposed to provide support at a time when they themselves required support experienced psychological distress (Hobfoll & London, 1986; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986). Resources are not distributed equally and individuals with a lack of resources are likely to be more vulnerable to additional losses (Dohrenwend, 1985). Further, COR postulates that appraisal of resources—how resources are evaluated and what constitutes losses and guides individuals in assessing the environment and themselves. Further, in this regard, COR proposes that individuals may conserve resources by considering threat as the challenge and thinking of gaining from challenge rather than losing from it. Further, individuals may lower the effect of loss by re-evaluating the value of resources such as the less you give value, the less you perceive the threat of loss. Finally, the model proposed that individuals invest in resources with the expectation of gaining more resources in return, which can result in a net gain of resources. If the investment does not provide the expected return, people will experience loss. Schonpflug (1985) suggested that the investment of resources is added to negative outcomes or subtracted from positive outcomes, to predict individuals’ stress reactions. COR was also suggested to identify the robustness of resources; Hobfoll and London (1986) found self-esteem as the robust resource whereas Riley and Eckenrode (1986) found social support beneficial in the situations in which social interaction is possible, and they were not found beneficial in situations where social interaction does not add to the already experienced stress. Therefore, the COR model was suggested to test the fit of resources with situational demands. It is important to test how certain demands are met by specific resources and when a specific resource adds or does not add to stress resistance.

Relationship Between Organizational Injustice and Work Interference with Family (Strain and Behaviour Based)

In the context of WFC, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) argued that certain work stressors or family stressors can produce strain that creates fatigue, tension and so on in the mind of an employee that ultimately leads to strain-based conflict. Francis and Barling (2005) argued that stress is an internal response to stressors and strain describes the consequences of long-term exposure to stress. As described earlier, Judge and Colquitt (2004) empirically tested the types of organizational injustice as work stressors which lead to the WFC. Thus, considering organizational injustice as internal responses or perceptions of employees to work stressors, the relationship between the two types of organizational injustice and strain-based WIF is developed.

According to Robbins and Coulter (2007) the concept of behaviour refers to “the actions of people at work” (p. 342). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) discussed that the in-role behaviour of an employee has its own specific work pattern which may be incompatible with the behaviour of an employee in other roles, and such role conflicts lead towards the creation of behaviour-based WFC. It was researched intensively that the perceived fairness of organizational justice has a significant effect on negative behavioural outcomes such as absenteeism (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002) and counterproductive work behaviour (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). We argue that perceptions of injustice regarding work family policies may affect the in-role behaviour of an employee adversely. It may become difficult for the employee to display an effective in-role behaviour and in such a situation it may become difficult for an employee to display the warmth and openness required in his/her family role. Thus, the incompatibility between the formal and informal roles may become further incompatible and the employee is likely to experience behaviour-based WIF.

According to Greenberg (1993), distributive justice refers to “the perceived fairness of outcome distributions” (p. 1). Judge and Colquitt (2004) modified the concept of rewards in terms of organizational work family policies. They argued that employees compare whether the work family assistance provided to them is according to the contributions made by them or not. Perceived unfairness of work family policies leads towards the creation of WFC. This research argued that if a person perceives that the decisions and policies made by his/her organization are not according to his/her work family demands, then these are likely to be perceived as unfair and these will produce strain- and behaviour-based conflict, and this strain- and behaviour-based conflict may have spill-over effects at home as well. Regarding empirical evidence, one study by Lambert et al. (2013) found that the perceptions of distributive justice are negatively associated with strain-based WIF while empirical evidence for behaviour-based WIF is scant. Thus, based on these theoretical and empirical evidences, we hypothesize the following.

Hypothesis 1a: The more injustice (distributive) employees experience concerning the work family policies of the organization, the more strain and behaviour-based WIF employees’ experience.

According to Greenberg (1993), procedural justice refers to “the fairness of procedures used to determine outcome distributions” (p. 1). Judge and Colquitt (2004) discussed that in the context of WIF procedural justice refers to the extent to which employees are involved in decisions regarding work family policies. They argued that organizations which consider views and feedback from their employees in the development of employees’ work family policies are less likely to experience work family issues. Lambert et al. (2013) argued that the perceived fairness of procedures used by organizations in the decision-making process creates positive feelings about the organization in the mind of an employee but if procedures are perceived as unfair then that perception of procedural injustice can cause strain in the employee and that employee is likely to take that strain home which may lead to the strain-based WIF. Lambert et al. (2013) also empirically tested the effect of procedural fairness on strain-based WIF and found significant negative effects of procedural justice on strain-based WIF. However, regarding behaviour-based WIF, direct empirical evidence for the effect of procedural injustice on behaviour-based WIF is rare but some researchers have found that if procedures adopted by organizations in outcomes or decisions are perceived as unfair then these procedures give birth to certain negative reactions such as absenteeism (Lam et al., 2002), counterproductive work behaviour and conflict (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Fox et al., 2001). Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) argued that procedures describe the way the organizations adopt them in allocating resources for employees and when these adopted procedures are perceived as unfair by the employees, then their reactions are directed towards the organization. Thus, we may derive that if the procedures of an organization are ineffective, then even the proper policies and decisions might be perceived as ineffective, and these may lead towards the creation of strain and behaviour-based WIF among employees.

Hypothesis 1b: The more injustice (procedural) employees experience concerning the procedures adopted in the development of work family policies of the organization, the more strain and behaviour-based WIF employees’ experience.

Interaction Effect of Social Support

Cobb (1976) initially discussed social support as the moderator of life stressors. He discussed that social support received can be very helpful to reduce the stress on an individual. COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) discussed that social support can be used to preserve resources so that these resources can be utilized at a time when employees perceive stress. Thus, according to the COR theory, social support helps in preserving valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989). In WIF relationships social support is used as a moderator by some researchers as well (Ahmad, 1997; Haar, 2004; Hofstede, 2018; Yildirim & Aycan, 2008). Another stimulus to add social support as the moderator is the prevalence of collectivist culture in this part of world (Hofstede, 2018; Khilji, 2013). In a collectivist culture employees are likely to support each other which may influence the relationship between organizational injustices and both forms of WIF. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion we add social supports as moderators in the main model. Previous research on social support has typically looked at each form of social support, that is, supervisory (Baker, Israel, & Schurman, 1996; Frese, 1999; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999; Yildirim & Aycan, 2008), co-workers (Baker et al., 1996; Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; Mabe, 2010; Rousseau, Salek, Aubé, & Morin, 2009; Viswesvaran et al., 1999) and family support (Frese, 1999; Macewen & Barling, 1988; Overstreet & Dempsey, 1999; Viswesvaran et al., 1999), either separately to determine their distinct contribution or a combination of all forms of social support into a single construct rather than specifying the source of social support (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Lim, 1996). The studies of Viswesvaran et al. (1999) and Wadsworth and Owens (2007) empirically investigated all three forms of social support. We do believe that each form of social support has its own unique contribution. Studies have revealed that two sources of social support in the workplace are perceived differently by the subordinates in the workplace (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). The supervisor is considered as an organizational agent (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Zhen, Anne, & Jiing-Lih, 2002) and co-workers’ support is governed by the equality matching principle (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Further, family support is non-work-related support (Wadsworth & Owens, 2007). Therefore, each source of social support is likely to provide unique contributions. The support for the buffering effect of each form of social support is discussed below.

Supervisors are required to implement organizational policies according to the purpose and intent of polices (Starrels, 1992). Yildirim and Aycan (2008) also argued that flexibility provided by the supervisors to meet work demands is very helpful for employees to balance their WIF. Thus, the interaction of supervisors in the implementation of policies regarding the work family assistance becomes crucial. In empirical studies, supervisory support has been used by some researchers as a moderator in stressors and strain relationships and overall they have found supervisory support as a significant moderator, the low level of which has made the relationship between work stressors and strain stronger (Frese, 1999; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Allen et al. (2013) argued that supportive supervisors act as moderators in the relationship between the leave policies of an organization and strain-based WIF. As discussed earlier the COR theory also argued that resources preserved through social support (i.e., supervisory) can be utilized to reduce the level of strain created among employees.

Regarding behaviour-based WIF, it is hard to find any study which tests the role of supervisory support as a moderator in the relationship between organizational injustice dimensions and behaviour-based WIF, but based on the empirical evidence on the role of supervisory support as a moderator in the relationship between stressors and some behavioural outcomes such as burnout (Salahian, Oreizi, Abedi, & Soltani, 2012), anxiety and depression (Frese, 1999), we argue that the interaction of supervisory support with organizational injustice dimensions can be very helpful to predict behaviour-based WIF. The purpose of showing here supervisory support as a moderator in the relationship between stressors and workplace behaviour is to derive the indirect support for our proposition of supervisory support as the moderator between organizational injustice dimensions and WIF. Consider organizational injustice as the workplace stressor and WIF as one type of employees’ behaviour, supervisory support is proposed as the moderator. Thus, we argue that the effect of unfair perceptions of work family policies regarding work family stressors and demands on the strain and behaviour-based WIF can be lowered with the interaction of supervisory support.

Hypothesis 2a: Supervisory support moderates the relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice (distributive, procedural) and WIF (i.e., strain- and behaviour-based WIF) in such a way that the positive relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice and WIF (strain- and behaviour-based WIF) will be stronger when supervisory support is low as compared to when supervisory support is high.

Co-workers’ support has not been tested directly as a moderator in the relationship between the organizational injustice dimension and WIF (i.e., strain- and behaviour-based WIF) but some empirical evidence is available to support the role of co-workers’ support as a moderator in predicting the strain and behavioural outcomes. Co-workers’ support is used by some researchers as a moderator in the stressors’ strain relationships (Beehr et al., 2000; Frese, 1999; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Mabe (2010) found that co-workers’ support significantly moderates the relationship among certain work stressors such as role conflict, overload and strain. Viswesvaran et al. (1999) argued that social support (co-workers) interacts with stressors to affect strain and this relationship becomes stronger for those employees who are low on co-workers’ support. Moreover, as discussed earlier according to the COR theory, resources preserved through social support (co-workers) can be utilized to reduce the level of strain.

Co-workers’ support has not been tested directly as a moderator in the relationship between the organizational injustice dimension and behaviour based WIF but some empirical evidence is available to support the role of co-workers’ support as a moderator in predicting negative behavioural outcomes. Rousseau et al. (2009) investigated co-workers’ support as a moderator in the relationship between organizational justice dimensions and distress. They found that co-workers’ support significantly moderates the relationship among distributive justice, procedural justice and distress. Frese (1999) also tested co-workers’ support as a moderator in the relationship between work stressors and behavioural outcomes such as anxiety and depression. Thus, on the basis of these empirical evidences and COR theory, this research postulated that the effect of perceived injustice regarding work family policies, procedures and the interactions on strain- and behaviour-based WIF can be lowered with the high level of co-worker support.

Hypothesis 2b: Co-workers’ support moderates the relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice (distributive, procedural) and WIF (strain- and behaviour-based WIF) in such a way that the positive relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice and WIF (strain- and behaviour-based WIF) will be stronger when co-workers’ support is low as compared to when co-workers’ support is high.

It is hard to find family support as the moderator in the relationship between organizational injustice dimensions and WIF (strain- and behaviour-based WIF) but there is some empirical evidence to consider family support as a moderator. Family support has been studied as a moderator in the stressor–strain relationships (Frese, 1999; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). It has also been studied as a moderator in the strain and WIF relationship (Seiger & Wiese, 2009). Viswesvaran et al. (1999) found family support as a significant moderator in the stressor and strain relationship. Frese (1999) also found that family support (spouse) significantly moderates the relationship between work stressors and strain. As discussed earlier, COR theory also postulated that social support (family support) aids in preserving the resources and these resources can be utilized at the time when an employee experiences strain.

Regarding behavioural outcomes, Macewen and Barling (1988) argued that the family support received by employees moderates inter-role conflict relationships. They found that the relationship between inter-role conflicts and changes in marital adjustments are moderated by family support. Overstreet and Dempsey (1999) found that the presence of family support makes the relationship weaker between violence exposure and depressive symptoms, and the absence of family support makes this relationship stronger. Frese (1999) also tested family support (spouse support) as a moderator in the relationship between work stressors and behavioural outcomes such as anxiety and depression. Thus, based on these empirical evidences, we hypothesize that the effect of organizational injustice perceptions on strain- and behaviour-based WFC will be weaker when family support is high as compared to when family support is low.

Hypothesis 2c: Family support moderates the relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice (distributive, procedural) and WIF (i.e., strain- and behaviour-based WIF) in such a way that the positive relationship between two dimensions of the organizational injustice and WIF (strain- and behaviour-based WIF) will be stronger when family support is low as compared to when family support is high.

Method

Data and Sample

The primary data were collected from nurses, health workers and health visitors working in health-care public organizations, that is, hospitals and public health projects, through questionnaires. Convenient sampling method was used for data collection. (Figure 1)

Figure 1.

Source: Proposed Model.

Initially around 350 questionnaires were distributed out of which 255 properly filled questionnaires were selected for this study. Thus, overall the response rate was around 73 per cent. The total sample comprised 96 per cent of females and 4 per cent of males. Regarding the job title of the respondents, 78 per cent were nurses, 12 per cent were lady health visitors and 10 per cent were lady health workers. The mean age of the respondents was 25 years. The education of 4 per cent of the respondents was 16 years and above, 18 per cent had 14 years of education, 43 per cent had 12 years of education and 35 per cent had 10 years of education. The mean experience of these respondents was 5 years. The mean number of dependent family members was 2.

Measures

All the measures were measured through the 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to to a great extent (5). Organizational injustice measures were adopted from studies by Colquitt (2001) and Judge and Colquitt (2004). Items were reverse coded to measure injustice perceptions. Distributive injustice was measured with a four-item scale. Procedural injustice was measured with a seven-item scale. In the context of the current study, distributive injustice measures the perceptions of the unfairness of organizational work family policies and programmes and procedural injustice measures the unfairness of the procedures adopted in the development of these work family policies and programmes (Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Strain-based WIF and behaviour-based WIF were measured with a three-item scale for each, adopted from Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000). Social supports (i.e., supervisory and co-workers) were measured with a five-item scale for each adopted from Allen, Amason, and Holmes (1998). Family social support was measured with a three-item scale adopted from Wadsworth and Owens (2007). All the original measures were in English and we used English in our questionnaire. Our participant can understand English very well as our sample was well educated. Further, researchers personally visited all respondents and explained each question to them before seeking their response.

Previous empirical studies suggested that some demographic variables such as gender, age, education, experience and the number of dependent family members have significant associations with the WIF (Hsu, Chen, Wang, & Lin, 2010; Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan, 2012; Liao, 2011). So, based on previous empirical studies, five demographic variables were included as control variables. Environmental activities, a three-item scale adopted from Lee, Park, and Lee (2012), were added as marker variables in order to check the common method variance (CMV) issue. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) a marker variable is a variable which is not related to the variables included in the study. It is merely included to check the CMV. The sample item of the environmental activities scale is “Our organization makes an all-out efforts to maintain and preserve the environment”.

Data Analysis

The results of descriptive statistics and correlation are given in Table 1. The correlation among study variables was moderate.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Gender	NA	—
2	Education	NA	—	0.00
3	Experience	05	04	0.09	0.06
4	Age	25	07	0.11	0.04	0.82
5	NODFM	02	02	–0.06	–0.05	0.57^**	0.55^**
6	Distributive injustice	3.45	0.75	0.17^**	0.06	0.11	0.15^*	0.00	0.86
7	Procedural injustice	3.87	0.76	0.16^**	0.06	0.21^**	0.22^**	0.10	0.41^**	0.92
8	Supervisory support	2.66	0.72	–0.07	–0.06	–0.07	–0.08	–0.07	–0.22^**	–0.31^**	0.91
9	Co-workers’ support	2.81	0.68	–0.19^**	–0.07	–0.09	–0.11	–0.01	–0.36^**	–0.44^**	0.66^**	0.86
10	Family support	3.08	0.91	–0.10	–0.19^**	–0.27^**	–0.29^**	–0.12	–0.32^**	–0.51^**	0.56^**	0.72^**	0.91
11	Stain-based WIF	3.41	0.99	0.05	0.06	0.24^**	0.17^**	0.12^*	0.42^**	0.47^**	–0.33^**	–0.36^**	–0.42^**	0.87
12	Behaviour-based WIF	3.48	0.94	0.09	0.13^*	0.13^*	0.15^*	0.06	0.47^**	0.47^**	–0.31^**	–0.43^**	–0.48^**	0.22^**	0.86

Source: Proposed Model.

Note: N = 255, and diagonally composite reliabilities are given.

^** indicates p < 0.01, ^* indicates p < 0.05, NA = not applicable, WIF = work interference with family and NODFM = number of dependent family members.

In order to check the validity of measures in our research context, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed through Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). All the measures were put together and the following fit indices were used to assess model adequacy (Byrne, 2013; Hameed, Roques, & Arain, 2013). The fit indices included were Minimum Discrepancy/Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/df), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and RMSEA scores below 0.08 represent a good model fit (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). AIC is used for the purpose of comparing two or more models, where a smaller value represents a better fit of the proposed model (Byrne, 2013). We performed second-order CFA for social support factors by dividing social support into three factors, namely supervisory support, co-workers’ support and family support. In the CFA model the fit indices resulted which suggested an appropriate model fit (CMIN/df = 1.7, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94 and RMSEA = 0.05). Further, the AIC value of our proposed model (i.e., 823.97) was also smaller than the independence (i.e., 5542.08) or the saturated (i.e., 930.00) models. The CFA model is given in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Source: Proposed Model.

Two alternative measurement models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) were also analysed to assess the suitability of our proposed measurement model. In the first alternative model, all the items were loaded on a single factor which showed very poor fit to data (CMIN/df = 6.84, CFI = 0.53, TLI = 0.49 and RMSEA = 0.15). In the second alternative measurement model we performed first-order CFA for social support in which all the indicators of social supports were combined together. The model fit indices were almost similar to the second-order CFA (CMIN/df = 1.7, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94 and RMSEA = 0.05). The second-order CFA model also confirmed the three-factor model of social support which supported our individual propositions for each factor of social support. Thus, overall our second-order CFA model showed excellent fit to the data.

We checked the composite (overall internal consistency) reliability of measurement scales as well as the discriminant and convergent validity of the measurement scales, following the procedure recommended by Hair et al. (2010). According to this procedure a measure is said to have convergent validity when its average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.5 or above. A construct is said to have the reliability when its composite reliability (CR) is 0.7 or above, while a construct is said to have discriminant validity when maximum shared squared variance (MSV) and average shared squared variance (ASV) are less than the AVE. Our measures fulfilled these criteria. The results are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Reliability and Validity

Variable	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV
Distributive injustice	0.86	0.61	0.22	0.14
Procedural injustice	0.92	0.61	0.26	0.20
Supervisory support	0.91	0.68	0.44	0.18
Co-workers’ support	0.86	0.55	0.52	0.27
Family support	0.91	0.77	0.52	0.27
Strain-based WIF	0.87	0.70	0.22	0.15
Behaviour-based WIF	0.86	0.68	0.23	0.17

Source: Proposed Model.

Note: CR = Composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, MSV = maximum shared squared variance, ASV = average shared squared variance and WIF = work interference with family.

In order to check the issue of CMV, two statistical remedies were taken. First, the common latent factor test was conducted and further, the marker variable technique was applied (Hameed et al., 2013; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of the common latest factor test exhibited 5 per cent of shared variance among all variables and there was no further improvement in the model fit. Further, the marker variable was added with the common latent factor. The results of the marker variable added with the common latent variable explained around 21 per cent of variance and with the addition of the marker variable, the model fit also reduced a bit (CMIN/df = 1.8, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.92 and RMSEA = 0.06 ). Thus, the results of both techniques suggested that there was no issue regarding CMV in our data set.

Results

Organizational Injustice and Work Interference with Family (Strain and Behaviour Based)

The first-step hierarchical regression is for the strain-based WIF dependent variable and showed that control variables explained around 6 per cent of variance. The results of the next step explained around 29 per cent of additional variance (p < 0.01). The beta coefficients of distributive injustice (β = 0.25, p < 0.01) and procedural injustice (β = 0.25, p > 0.01) were positively associated with strain-based WIF. The hierarchical regression results for behaviour-based WIF dependent variable showed that control variables explained around 4 per cent of variance (p < 0.05). The results of the next step explained around 34 per cent of additional variance (p < 0.01). The beta coefficient of distributive injustice (β = 0.28, p < 0.01) and procedural injustice (β = 0.21, p > 0.01) were positively associated with behaviour-based WIF. Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. The results are given in Table 3.

Table 3:

Hierarchical Regressions for Checking the Main and Interaction Effects of Organizational Injustices (Distributive and Procedural) and Social Support (Supervisory, Co-workers and Family) on Strain- and Behaviour-based Work Interference with Family

Variable and Step	Strain-based WIF β			∆R2	Behaviour-based WIF β
Variable and Step	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Step 1: Controls (Demographics)
Education					0.13^*	0.05	0.06
Experience	0.29^**	0.25^**	0.25^**		0.03	0.01	–0.00
Age	–0.06	–0.19^*	–0.18†		0.12	–0.02	0.00	0.04^*
NODFM	–0.00	0.03	0.02	0.06^**
Step 2: Main Effect
Distributive injustice		0.25^**	0.21^**			0.28^**	0.24^**
Procedural injustice		0.25^**	0.19^**			0.21^**	0.16^*
Supervisory support		–0.13†	–.11			–0.00	0.00
Co-workers support		0.03	0.04			–0.08	–0.03
Family support		–0.15†	–0.19^*	0.29^**		–0.21^*	–0.27^**	0.34^**
Step 3: Interactive effect
DIP X SUPS			–0.05				–0.11
PIJ X SUPS			0.14				0.12
DIJ X COWS			0.18†				0.19†
PIJ X COWS			–0.08				–0.02
DIJ X FAMS			–0.22^**				–0.00
PIJ X FAMS			0.19^*	0.05^**			–0.01	0.02

Source: Proposed Model.

Note: N = 255; ^**p < 0.01, ^*p < 0.05 and †p < 0.10; standardized beta is represented.

WIF = Work interference with family, DIJ = distributive injustice, PIJ = procedural injustice, SUPS = supervisory support, COWS = co-workers support and FAMS = family support.

Interaction Effect of Social Support

The third-step hierarchical regression results for the strain-based WIF dependent variable showed that the interaction effects explained around 5 per cent of significant variance. However, the interaction effects for behaviour-based WIF explained insignificant variance of around 2 per cent. The results for the interactive effect of distributive injustice and procedural injustice with supervisory support on strain- and behaviour-based WIF were insignificant.

The results for the interactive effect of distributive injustice and co-workers’ support on strain-based WIF showed that the beta coefficient (β = 0.18, p < 0.10) of the interactive term was significant while the interactive effect of distributive injustice and co-workers’ support on behaviour-based WIF showed that the beta coefficient (β = 0.19, p < 0.10) of the interactive term was also significant. However, the results were supported at p < 0.10, as the level of significance, but in social support (i.e., supervisory and co-workers) research, p < 0.10, as the level of significance was included in a study by Frese (1999). The results for the interactive effect of procedural injustice and co-workers’ support on strain- and behaviour-based WIF were insignificant.

The results for the interactive effect of distributive injustice and family social support on strain-based WIF showed that the beta coefficient (β = −0.22, p < 0.01) of the interactive term was significant while the results for the interactive effect of distributive injustice and family support on behaviour-based WIF were insignificant.

The results for the interactive effect of procedural injustice and family support on strain-based WIF showed that the beta coefficient (β = 0.19, p < 0.05) of the interactive term was significant while the results for the interactive effect of procedural injustice and family support on behaviour-based WIF were insignificant. The results are given in Table 3.

After confirmation of significant moderations, we plotted the slopes to check the effects of moderators on the relationship between organizational injustice dimensions and WIF (strain based and behaviour based) at different levels of moderators. We found four significant interaction effects. Thus, four interaction graphs were plotted.

The slope for the relationship between distributive injustice and both forms of WIF (i.e., strain- and behaviour-based WIF) moderated by co-workers’ support showed that the relationship became stronger when co-workers’ support was high as compared to when it was low. The slopes are given in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

Figure 3:

Source: Proposed Model.

Figure 4:

Source: Proposed Model.

The slope for the relationship between distributive injustice and strain-based WIF moderated by family support showed that the relationship became stronger when family support was low as compared to when it was high as hypothesized. The slope is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5:

Source: Proposed Model.

The slope for the relationship between procedural injustice and strain-based WIF moderated by family support showed that the relationship became stronger when family support was high as compared to when it was low. The slope is given in Figure 6.

Figure 6:

Source: Proposed Model.

Thus, Hypotheses 2b and 2c were partially supported to the extent that there were four significant interactions but the directions of slopes at different levels of moderators revealed the mitigated results and the existence of the reverse buffering effects of social support; Hypothesis 2a was not supported at all.

Discussion

Regarding the positive association between organizational injustices, that is, distributive and procedural injustice, and WIF, that is, strain- and behaviour-based WIF, the results showed that distributive injustice and procedural injustice were positively associated with strain-based WIF. These results suggested that health-care employees’ perceptions regarding the injustice in work family policies and the injustice in the procedures adopted in the development of work family policies create strain-based inter-role conflict among them. If health employees are not given proper access to the resources available according to their efforts in the organization, then it is likely that it will create strain among health-care employees. These results are also consistent with the findings of Lambert et al. (2013) regarding the relationship among the distributive, procedural justice and strain-based WIF. The results for the positive association between organizational injustice dimensions and behaviour-based WIF showed that the distributive injustice and procedural injustice were positively associated with behaviour-based WIF. These results suggested that health employees’ perceptions regarding the injustice in work family policies and injustice in the procedures adopted in the development of work family policies create inter-role conflict in the behaviour of health employees. If health employees are not given the policies according to their work family demands then these create perceptions of injustice among them which adversely affect the behaviour of employees, and that change in behaviour also affects their behaviour at home.

The moderating role of social supports in the relationship between the dimensions of organizational injustices and two forms of WIF provides mixed results. Out of total 12 interaction terms, 4 interaction terms were significant while 8 were insignificant. This is not surprising keeping in mind past research on the role of social support as moderators. There are some studies in which moderating effects of social supports were either insignificant or provided mixed results (Beehr et al., 2000; Frese, 1999; Seiger & Wiese, 2009; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). In the context of current research, supervisory support was not found as a moderator because supervisors (i.e., head nurses or health supervisors) apparently do not have any specific roles in either the development of work family policies (distributive injustice) or the procedures adopted in the development of work family polices (procedural injustice) of health-care public organizations, that is, hospitals and public health projects.

For the interaction effect of two other forms of social supports, that is, co-workers and family support, with distributive and procedural justice, some of the interaction terms were significant while some were insignificant. In order to find out the buffering effect of significant interactions, we plotted the interaction graphs. The interaction graphs for co-workers’ support as a moderator in the relationship between distributive injustice and both forms of WIF (i.e., strain- and behaviour-based WIF) showed that co-workers’ support had the reverse buffering effect. As the level of distributive injustice perceptions increased, the strain-based and behaviour-based WIF also increased when co-workers’ support was high as compared to when it was low. These results are inconsistent with our hypotheses but the reverse buffering effects of social support dimensions are consistent with the COR model (Hobfoll, 1989) as studied by some other researchers (Kickul, 2001; Seiger & Wiese, 2009; Steinberg & Gottlieb, 1994). The COR model postulates that social support can either be beneficial or harmful and such reverse effects of co-workers’ support show the harmful side of social support. We may derive in the context of our research for the reverse buffering effect of co-workers’ support that the support provided by co-workers works like adding fuel to the fire and such harmful effect of coworkers’ support is increasing the strain- and behaviour-based WIF, rather than decreasing it. However, the effect of co-workers’ support as a moderator in the relationship between procedural injustice and both forms of WIF, that is, strain- and behaviour-based WIF, was insignificant. As co-workers do not have any role in the procedures adopted in the development of work family policies, they were unable to influence the procedural injustice relationship with strain- and behaviour-based WIF.

For family support as a moderator in the relationship between procedural injustice and strain-based WIF, the high level of family support increased the strain-based WIF that was experienced due to procedural injustice perceptions rather than decreasing it. However, the role of family support as a moderator in the relationship between the distributive injustice and strain-based WIF was in line with our proposition. The role of the family is supportive when the employee is experiences strain-based WIF due to distributive injustice perceptions, while it is reverse when it interacts with procedural injustice. These results showed the benign as well as harmful side of social support which is consistent with the COR model. It could be because distributive outcomes or decisions are apparent and easy to perceive for the family while for the family to perceive how procedures are adopted in the organizations, it is difficult; due to such ambiguous perceptions of the family regarding organizational procedures, the support provided by them might have affected negatively, and family support results in increasing the strain-based WIF rather than decreasing it. However, the effect of family support in the relationship between both forms of injustices, that is, distributive and procedural, and the behaviour-based WIF was insignificant. The family support was unable to influence either positively or negatively behaviour-based WIF arising due to injustice perceptions.

Thus, the overall results provided mixed support for the moderating effects of social support in the relationship between organizational injustice dimensions and both forms of WIF (i.e., strain-based and behaviour-based WIF).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

There is a huge gap in the development and implementation of HRM practices in Pakistan (Khilji, 2013). Organizations have a centralized structure in Pakistan. Usually policies are developed by higher authorities. Employees are usually given less autonomy. A communication gap is maintained between the superior and subordinate. Pakistani employees usually feel detached from their organizations. Due to political and economic instability, employees feel insecure in their organizations. The corporate sector is at its initial stage in adopting HRM practices in Pakistan. Due to an ineffective HRM system, employees do not trust in their organization and mostly look dissatisfied with their organizations. Because of such organizational structures people consider their organizations as out-groups and they usually form in-groups with families and co-workers (Khilji, 2013). On the basis of findings in this research, we may suggest organizations, specifically health-care organizations, to pay serious attention to work family issues to avoid injustices perceptions that can develop due to the lack of effective work family policies and procedures. Further, consistent with the COR model (Hobfoll, 1989), both effects of social support, that is, benign and harmful, were found in our study. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that social support can be beneficial or harmful for the employees to reduce the negative experiences of strain- and behaviour-based WIF, engendered due to employees’ perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice. Further, supervisors should be given a role in work family policy development and they should also participate in the procedural process adopted so that they are able to convince their subordinates when injustice perceptions develop. The mitigating effect of co-workers’ support showed that the employees should be provided proper knowledge on the policies and procedures of their organizations.

In the context of Pakistan, usually, the extended or joint family set-up model prevails (Alam, 2008; Bilal, Tariq, Aleem, Shabbir, & Parveen, 2013; Itrat, Taqui, Qazi, & Qidwai, 2007), and being a collectivist society, people love and care for each other. But family members must be careful while supporting an individual for work-related issues. Although the beneficial and harmful side of social support is consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), family members must think whether their support eases WFC rather than expanding it, as it can be difficult for family members to judge the work environment and the procedure adopted by the organizations in the development of work family policies while sitting at home. Therefore, family members may not provide proper support required for the employees to reduce their WIF experiences that develop due to the injustice perceptions. It is important for organizations to provide the employees an environment in which employees are able to interact with their supervisors and co-workers to gain the support which is according to their work family needs. Otherwise the support provided could result in reverse effect to increase the strain- and behaviour-based conflict rather than decreasing it. This study has some limitations such as the use of cross-sectional data. The data collected in one period of time may give birth to common method variance (CMV). The exclusion of some important antecedents might have provided under-represented results. The issue of WIF may vary from job to job. The results may vary in different job sectors. The current study can be extended with the addition of time-based WIF and FIW. The social support received also provided mitigated results. Further research may provide additional insights into it.

For more generalizable results, in future, it can be expanded to some other countries with different samples. The culture and the state of the economy of a country may have a significant moderating effect. The cross-sectional data used in current study cannot establish causality. Therefore, future research may use longitudinal data to check the same effects over a continuous period of time to establish causality. The effect of other types of justice, that is, interpersonal and informational injustice, with strain- and behaviour-based WIF may be tested.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Adams

G. A.

King

L. A.

King

D. W.

(1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81(4), 411.

Ahmad

(1997). Work–family conflict and social support: A study of female secretaries in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities , 5(2), 93–101.

Alam

(2008). Factors and consequences of nuclearization of family at Hayatabad Phase-II, Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture , 24(3), 55–59.

Allen

M. W.

Amason

Holmes

(1998). Social support, hispanic emotional acculturative stress and gender. Communication Studies , 49(2), 139–157. doi: 10.1080/10510979809368525

Allen

T. D.

Johnson

R. C.

Kiburz

K. M.

Shockley

K. M.

(2012). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology , 66(2), 345–376.

Allen

T. D.

Lapierre

L. M.

Spector

P. E.

Poelmans

S. A.

O’Driscoll

Sanchez

J. I.

… Brough

(2013). The link between national paid leave policy and work–family conflict among married working parents. Applied Psychology , 63(1), 5–28.

Baek

Kelly

E. L.

Jang

Y. S.

(2012). Work–family policies in Korean organizations: Human resources management and institutional explanations. Asian Business & Management , 11(5), 515–539.

Baker

Israel

Schurman

(1996). Role of control and support in occupational stress: An integrated model. Social Science & Medicine , 43(7), 1145–1159.

Batt

Valcour

P. M.

(2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society , 42(2), 189–220.

10.

Beehr

T. A.

Jex

S. M.

Stacy

B. A.

Murray

M. A.

(2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21(4), 391–405.

11.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin , 88(3), 588–606.

12.

Bilal

H. A.

Tariq

A. R.

Aleem

Shabbir

S. I.

Parveen

(2013). The effect of nuclear and joint family systems on academic achievements of students. Academic Research International , 4(5), 543.

13.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming . Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

14.

Campo

R. G. D.

Cook

Arthur

M. M.

(2013). Cultural differences in work–family policies and perceptions of organizational support. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal , 25(1), 23–39.

15.

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(2), 249–276. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

16.

Casper

W. J.

Allen

T. D.

Poelmans

S. A. Y.

(2014). International perspectives on work and family: An introduction to the special section. Applied Psychology , 63(1), 1–4. doi: 10.1111/apps.12020

17.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harrison

D. A.

(2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93(5), 1082.

18.

Cobb

(1976). Presidential Address-1976. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine , 38(5), 300–314.

19.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

P. E.

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 86(2), 278–321. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

20.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86(3), 386.

21.

Dohrenwend

B. S.

(1985). Social status and responsibility for stressful life events. Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 7(1–4), 105–127.

22.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

Sucharski

I. L.

Rhoades

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(3), 565.

23.

Faizunnisa

Ikram

(2002). Pakistan’s population: Statistical profile 2002 (pp. 1–31). Islamabad: Population Association of Pakistan.

24.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

Miles

(2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 59(3), 291–309.

25.

Francis

Barling

(2005). Organizational injustice and psychological strain. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement , 37(4), 250.

26.

Frese

(1999). Social support as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and psychological dysfunctioning: A longitudinal study with objective measures. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 4(3), 179.

27.

Giardini

Kabst

(2008). Effects of work–family human resource practices: A longitudinal perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 19(11), 2079–2094.

28.

Grandey

A. A.

(2001). Family friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Series in applied psychology. Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 145–173). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

29.

Grandey

A. A.

Cropanzano

(1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54(2), 350–370.

30.

Greenberg

(1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review , 10(1), 76–88.

32.

Gutek

Searle

Klepa

(1991). Rational versus gender role-explanations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology , 76(4), 560–568.

33.

Haar

J. M.

(2004). Work family conflict and turnover intentions: Exploring the moderating effects of work family support. New Zealand Journal of Psychology , 33(1), 35–39.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Hameed

Roques

Arain

G. A.

(2013). Nonlinear moderating effect of tenure on organizational identification (OID) and the subsequent role of OID in fostering readiness for change. Group & Organization Management , 38(1), 101–127.

36.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44(3), 513–524.

37.

Hobfoll

S. E.

London

(1986). The relationship of self-concept and social support to emotional distress among women during war. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 4(2), 189–203.

38.

Hofstede

(2018). Country comparison . Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/pakistan/

39.

Hsu

B. F.

Chen

W. Y.

Wang

M. L.

Lin

Y. Y.

(2010). Explaining supervisory support to work–family conflict: The perspectives of Guanxi, LMX, and emotional intelligence. Journal of Technology Management in China , 5(1), 40–45.

40.

Itrat

Taqui

A. M.

Qazi

Qidwai

(2007). Family systems: Perceptions of elderly patients and their attendents presenting at a university hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association , 57(2), 106.

41.

Judge

T. A.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89(3), 395–404. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.395

42.

Khilji

S. E.

(2013). Human resource management in Pakistan. In Budhwar

P. S.

Debrah

Y. A.

(Eds.), Human resource management in developing countries (pp. 102–120). London: Routledge.

43.

Kickul

J. P. M.

(2001). Supervisory emotional support and burnout: An explanation of reverse buffering effects. Journal of Managerial Issues , 13(3), 328–344.

44.

Lam

S. S. K.

Schaubroeck

Aryee

(2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23(1), 1–18.

45.

Lambert

E. G.

Kelley

Hogan

N. L.

(2012). Work–family conflict and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Crime and Justice , 1–20. doi: 10.1080/0735648x.2012.706402

46.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Cheeseman

(2013). Research note-strain-based work–family conflict and its relationship with perceptions of distributive and procedural justice among correctional staff. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 28(1), 35–47.

47.

Landivar

L. C.

(2013). Men in nursing occupations. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau.

48.

Lee

E. M.

Park

S.-Y.

Lee

H. J.

(2012). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research , 66(10), 1716–1724.

49.

Liao

P.-Y.

(2011). Linking work–family conflict to job attitudes: The mediating role of social exchange relationships. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22(14), 2965–2980. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.606117

50.

Lim

V. K.

(1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations , 49(2), 171–194.

51.

Mabe

K. D.

(2010). Social support as moderator of job-specific or generic stressors with strains . San José, CA: Psychology Department, San José State University.

52.

Macewen

K. E.

Barling

(1988). Interrole conflict, family support and marital adjustment of employed mothers: A short term, longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 9(3), 241–250.

53.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Viswesvaran

(2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research , 27(4), 555–574.

54.

Overstreet

Dempsey

(1999). Availability of family support as a moderator of exposure to community violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 28(2), 151–159.

55.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

56.

Poelmans

S. A.

Chinchilla

Cardona

(2003). The adoption of family-friendly HRM policies: Competing for scarce resources in the labour market. International Journal of Manpower , 24(2), 128–147.

57.

Poelmans

Greenhaus

Maestro

M. L. H.

(2013). Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A vision for the future . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

58.

Riley

Eckenrode

(1986). Social ties: Subgroup differences in costs and benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(4), 770.

59.

Robbins

S. P.

Coulter

M. K.

(2007). Management . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

60.

Rousseau

Salek

Aubé

Morin

E. M.

(2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 14(3), 305.

61.

Ruppanner

(2013). Conflict between work and family: An investigation of four policy measures. Social Indicators Research , 110(1), 327–347.

62.

Salahian

Oreizi

H. R.

Abedi

M. R.

Soltani

(2012). Co-workers/supervisor support and burnout. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business , 4(1), 141–148.

63.

Schonpflug

(1985). Goal-directed behavior as a source of stress: Psychological origins and consequences of inefficiency. In Frese

Sabini

(Eds.), The concept of action in psychology (pp. 172–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

64.

Seiger

C. P.

Wiese

B. S.

(2009). Social support from work and family domains as an antecedent or moderator of work–family conflicts? Journal of Vocational Behavior , 75(1), 26–37.

65.

Starrels

M. E.

(1992). The evolution of workplace family policy research. Journal of Family Issues , 13(3), 259–278.

66.

Steinberg

Gottlieb

B. H.

(1994). The appraisal of spousal support by women facing conflicts between work and family. In Burleson

B. R.

Albrecht

T. L.

Sarason

I. G.

(Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 152–172). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

67.

Viswesvaran

Sanchez

J. I.

Fisher

(1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54(2), 314–334.

68.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Owens

B. P.

(2007). The effects of social support on work–family enhancement and work–family conflict in the public sector. Public Administration Review , 67(1), 75–87.

69.

Yildirim

Aycan

(2008). Nurses’ work demands and work–family conflict: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 45(9), 1366–1378. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.10.010

70.

Zhen

X. C.

Anne

S. T.

Jiing-Lih

(2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 75(3), 339–356.