Understanding the role of self-efficacy in moderating work-family interface and emotional exhaustion

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Over the years, an overwhelming amount of studies demonstrate that Work-family conflict is a major source of employees’ stress that may have obvious implications for organizational members.

OBJECTIVE:

This article investigates the effect of the work-family interface among service sector employees’ emotional exhaustion and the moderating role played by self-efficacy (SE).

METHOD:

Based on the responses of 202 telecom service employees, the authors examine proposed hypotheses through multiple moderated regression analyses.

RESULTS:

The results indicate that work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC) were positively related to emotional exhaustion and negatively related to the work-family facilitation (WFF) and family-work facilitation (FWF). Additionally, we identify the potential moderating effect of SE on the relationship between facilitation and exhaustion but find no support for conflict and exhaustion.

CONCLUSION:

Our study findings lend support for one sub-principle of conservation of resource theory, that “gain begets further gain spiral” and enhances wellbeing. Implications for theory and practice regarding service employee management are discussed.

Keywords

Work-family interface exhaustion self-efficacy personal resource service employees

Dr. Ghulam Murtaza is Post-Doc fellow at KEDGE Business School, France. He holds his PhD from IAE- Aix Marseille University France. His research is mainly focused on Organizational Behavior, Applied Psychology and HRM practices. His research work has been published in several international journals such as Journal of Business Ethics.

Dr. Mohamed Mousa is an Associate Editor in the Journal of Management Development, an Associate Professor of Management at WSB University, Dabrowie Gornicza (Poland), a former Assistant Professor of HRM at Rabat Business School (Morocco), a former Post Doctorate researcher at Oulu Business School (Finland), a former Post Doctorate Research Fellow at Cardiff Metropolitan university (UK) and a former Senior Research Associate at the Estonian Business School (Estonia).

Dr. Olivier Roques is an Associate Professor and Director of HRM & Relation Management Program at IAE-Aix Marseille University France. His research is mainly focused on Organizational Behavior, Stress at work, and HRM practices. His research work has been published in several international journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics and Group and Organization Management.

The nature of the relationship between work and the home sphere has changed tremendously over the past few decades. Both work and family domains are currently more integrated, but more diverse, separated by time, space, and commitments [1]. Also, the business landscape has become more competitive, which requires managing complex interactions between work and non-work domains. These changes have resulted in researchers and policymakers paying increased attention to how employees manage the demands of the work and family spheres [2]. In other words, researchers have acknowledged that conflict between the work and family domains is a growing source of stress and has proved dysfunctional for organizational members [3]. Nowadays, “Work Stress” title has become a dominant catchphrase in discussions about navigating the work and family domains, perhaps becoming a cause of consternation for those who perceive themselves as unable, hard as they may try, to successfully manage their work-life interface. Despite existing research has documented the negative effects of work-family conflict (WFC) on a variety of work outcomes [4], yet their results report variabilities in effects based on region and samples [5]. Notwithstanding these variabilities, a few situations have been studied in terms of their cultural context [6, 7] and, thus, more research is needed to examine the WF interface by considering cultural elements [8].

Previous research has focused mainly on the negative effects of work and family domains on work outcomes [9, 10], and there has been limited understanding about their positive (i.e., work-family facilitation [WFF]) impacts [11, 12]. Also, researchers have called for the need for a balanced emphasis on the WF interface by investigating the positive aspects of work and family domains on work related outcomes [13, 14]. Thus, we intend to examine both negative (conflict) and positive (facilitation) aspects of WF domains and their impact on employees’ emotional exhaustion, which is referred to as a primary component of burnout and a significant problem that impedes the health and workability of employees [15]. For this reason, the authors contend that emotional exhaustion is a potential outcome of the WF interface.

Additionally, several researchers have highlighted the significant role of individual differences in shaping WFC [16, 17]. Thus, self-efficacy (SE)—an individual’s self-belief—has been considered to be a key construct in examining the WF interface.

The aim of this study is to fill the aforementioned gaps in the work-family research. Specifically, we expect to add (see Fig. 1) to the scarce research that has called for examining the positive aspect of the WF interface, namely, work-family facilitation (WFF) and family-work-facilitation (FWF) [18], in conjunction with WFC and FWC.

Fig. 1

Proposed conceptual model.

Second, based on resource theories (conservation of resources [19]; work-home resources [20]), we argue that personal resources such as SE may enable employed adults with families to balancing work-home demands and benefit from the use of contextual resources. Thus, we expect that SE offers a viable explanation of how individuals deal with work stressors (e.g., WFC or FWC) and, thus, can be a possible moderator in the WF interface and emotional exhaustion.

Finally, it is important to consider that the majority of research on the WF interface has been conducted using European and Anglo-Saxon society samples [21], with a few exceptions from Eastern societies (representing Confucian values or Hindu values). Because religion, social systems, and morality may influence the thinking and behavior of those system followers, it may be relevant to the experience of WFC. Moreover, given the limited resources and greater number of dual-earner couples, WFC and FWC are more likely to occur in the context of developing countries. However, there has been limited research on the presumably positive effects of WFF or FWF observed in collectivist cultures with comparatively low economic development. Thus, our research intends to address this significant gap and investigate such hypotheses using a sample of Pakistani professionals.

1 Theory and hypothesis

1.1 Work-family interface and emotional exhaustion

WFC is a form of conflict in which the demands of work and family roles are incompatible, so engaging with one role makes it more complex to engage in the other, thus causing heightened feelings of stress [22]. Recent meta-analyses revealed that WFC is highly correlated to work-related factors (e.g., long working hours, increased levels of job stress, high job involvement, inadequate work support) and FWC is highly correlated to negative family-related factors (e.g., increased levels of family stress, inadequate family support, more time spent not working when needed [23]. Reichl [24] indicates that both work and non-work conflicts are highly correlated with emotional exhaustion. However, the relationship between the WF interface and employees’ behaviors and attitudes remains unclear and requires further research [25, 26]. Additionally, researchers argue that the societal or national culture has an important role in shaping the WF interface [27]. In our case for example, there is a general trend of a single earner and many people are dependent on him for food, education, health, shelter, etc., as the families with a large number of persons can also be seen in Pakistan. Therefore, we argue that in countries with a collectivist culture, such as Pakistan, individuals, who are at a higher level of family engagement at home suffer a higher level of negative WF interaction compared to those in individualistic cultures, who have a lower level of family engagement. Indeed, different family situations may cause different results when considered in a cultural context [28]. Wong [29] views the family as a social system to be analyzed in terms of its structure and functional processes. Accordingly, researchers considering the dynamics of family life found that in dual-earner families one partner might propose an idea to accomplish a task more efficiently resulting in more productive time at work [30]. Likewise, it can be posited that there is less WFC when there is clear role division in the family (breadwinner versus caretaker) because each partner can specialize in a role and count on the other to fulfill his/her role. Such perspectives on work and family reflect social and personal expectations and beliefs internalized through role-related self-conceptions [31, 32]. In this case, family-related self-conceptions and work-related self-conceptions not only moderate the relationship between demand and conflict but also have a direct impact on demand within that specific domain [33]. WF domains affect how individuals perceive and behave as a result of their cultural orientation and offer useful frameworks for understanding behavior from a cross-cultural perspective [34]. Translated into the Pakistani context, it would be interesting from a cross-cultural perspective to examine the role and behavior of men assuming the single-earner role through their self-conceptions and societal pressures in a developing economy.

Pakistan is considered a developing country and is the sixth most populous (212,8242,631 people) country in the world [35] with a per capita income of $14,797.30 in 2018–19 [36]. A 2015–16 survey of Pakistan reported the number of members per household is 6.31 (male = 3.12 and female 3.19), and men can have two or more wives—a family system that is very different from that in the US or other Western countries [37].

In Pakistan, traditional gender roles position men as the single breadwinner and women as caregivers in an extended family that may include more than one generation and/or more than one wife and children. Pakistan suffers a low literacy rate (62.3%; [38]), and resources for daily life logistics are not fully upgraded with the technology to facilitate general public and commercial services, such as online payment of utility bills, e-ticketing, shopping, and so on. Although such facilities may be available on a limited scale in big cities, the majority of remote areas do not have access to them. Also, because of societal roles, women are not allowed to go out to perform routine tasks, which leaves men solely responsible to attend both work and home assignments. To accomplish these tasks, men have to travel for many hours, which can be time-consuming and difficult, and this may impede them from performing their job assignments. Thus, it can be argued that home assignments may play a major role in creating WFC in a collectivist society, specifically in Pakistani context.

Similarly, the organizational culture of Pakistan is unique in its framework but, surprisingly, has been ignored in the management literature. The unemployment rate in Pakistan is 6% [39] and the situation in the labor market is also more difficult in Pakistan than in developed countries. For example, employees report long working hours and poor working conditions, less salary, and a lack of health insurance and provision of similar benefits as the usual situation in a number of workplaces [40]. A number of workplaces also have occupational safety and health hazards, for example, workers suffering from serious health problems in private industries and workers’ salaries being far below the cost of living or even less. Further, contrary to developed countries, flexible work hours and childcare/daycare facilities are not common features in Pakistani organizations. Based on these socioeconomic factors, Pakistani workers might have more chances of experiencing a higher level of stress [41].

In addition to these socioeconomic factors, severe competition facing the business sector to cope with the needs and wants of customers, coupled with attempts to expand globally, pressure employees to place more emphasis on work over their personal life [65]. Interferences in the WF domains have led to employees’ deteriorating health as seen through their exhaustion, psychological distress, and dissatisfaction in both the work and home domains [26]. According to conservation of resources (COR) theory, individuals tend to generate, increase, preserve, and protect their amount and quality of resources [19]. Resources can take many forms, such as objects, personal characteristics, or energies (e.g., effort, time, knowledge) and serve to maintain or attain a certain state. Hobfoll [19, p. 307] defines resources as “those entities that are either centrally valued in their right (i.e., self-esteem, optimism, health, etc.) or act as a means to obtain centrally valued ends (e.g., close relationships, extrinsic inducements, support, etc.).” Based on the logic of COR theory, it can be argued that conflict between WF demands is likely to drain the psychological resources of individuals leading to greater exhaustion. When people have to choose between work and family, they will pick one but will feel bad for neglecting the other. This bad feeling arising from the inability to cope with the demands of both work and family is likely to drain people emotionally, resulting in high levels of exhaustion. Particularly, as we discussed previously, home assignments may have a major part in creating WF conflict in collectivist societies. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Family-work conflict will have a stronger impact on emotional exhaustion than work-family conflict in a Pakistani sample.

Although researchers have recognized the importance of the positive side of the WF interface, the concept of WFF has often been given less attention compared to WFC [42, 43]. Greenhaus and Powell [44] defined facilitation as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role.” However, Frone [13] conceptualized facilitation as a bi-dimensional concept involving WFF (whereby work assists money-wise with resources that enable individuals to support their family and solve family issues) and FWF (whereby support and assistance from family help in handling issues arising from work). Also, research has shown that enhanced skills not only cause a positive interaction between work and family but also add resources, improving the frame of mind/mood and overall psychological health of individuals with both work and family roles [45, 46]. Sieber [47] stated that in WF domains, resources, skills, rewards, psychological benefits, and so on, which individuals acquire from one domain (work or family), facilitate their participation in the other domain (work or family). These positive uses of resources give rise to positive emotions, energy, gratification [48], and reduce exposure to exhaustion. Few studies have examined the direct link between the positive WF interface and related outcomes. For example, WFF is positively related to performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and mental health, whereas it is negatively related to turnover intention [9 , 12]. Moreover, researchers argue that WFF remains conceptually and empirically underdeveloped, and distinguishing it from conflict remains unclear [49]. In fact, the authors of this study are unaware of any research that investigates the relationship between both positive and negative work-family interactions in the unique South Asian setting and particularly Pakistan; hence, this phenomenon clearly requires warranted attention.

In a collectivist society such as Pakistan, the culture that prevails in organizations is similar to a family culture [50]. In this type of culture, the boss treats the employees as a father figure, and colleagues also play the role of family members. This kind of cordial relationship gives employees breathing space and helps them in different ways. When individuals feel that they are being supported in their workplace and are being provided with skills and pleasurable experiences, they feel relieved, happy, and use those good experiences in fulfilling their family roles. As a result, employees will be less likely to experience emotional exhaustion. Indeed, strong social interaction is the main indicator of a collectivist society, whereby people often rely on group cooperation in both work and family domains. Thus, it can be argued that individuals who are at a higher level of family facilitation will report a greater level of positive WF interaction.

Contrary to conflict, few studies have reported the relationship between WFF and related outcomes. For example, Voydanoff [51] found a relationship among WFF, job stress, and marital risks, and Chen, Powell, and Cui [52] made efforts to establish a link among the dynamics of WF resource gain and loss, enrichment, and conflict. In the same vein, Cooklin et al. [53] studied WF enrichment and parenting using an Australian sample. Indeed, a facilitative work environment that helps telecom employees to accomplish their work and home assignments and enables them to experience positive effects in the workplace increases their work engagement [54, 65] and ultimately decreases negative emotional exhaustion. However, when being involved in the family role enriches an employee’s performance, then that employee’s attitudes and behavior may improve, and stress may be decreased. In sum, facilitation arising from work or family resources is likely to enhance one’s psychological resources, which come in handy to counter stress and exhaustion. Thus, we suggest our next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation will be negatively related to emotional exhaustion.

Bandura [55] defined self-efficacy as the extent to which a person believes he/she can perform a behavior to produce a particular desired outcome. This includes a belief in the capability of handling stressful situations and to achieve required goals [75]. Past research has focused on an individual’s number and level of resources (high versus low), but few studies have examined the role of “spiral gain or loss” and the functionality of this concept [52, 56]. Thus, more research is needed to investigate this important feature (spiral gain or loss) of the COR theory. In terms of spiral loss and gain, SE can be seen as a resource playing a role between work-family relations and stress outcomes such that it reduces the bad effects of work and family conflict (i.e., less exhaustion). It also provides an additional psychological resource to cope with conflicting demands of work and family. This functions in line with the COR [57, 58] theory, which suggests that resources act in so-called caravans, namely, existing resources create further resources resulting in a gain process. Further, Halbesleben and Wheeler [59] demonstrate that individuals’ changing perceptions about resources (personal or environmental) received from a facilitative environment (WF facilitation) enhance future investment and further resource gains. For example, when employees receive facilitation from a supervisor, their optimism is enhanced, and as a result, they are more likely to show work engagement and be more productive [60].

Xanthopoulou et al. [60] studied the important role of personal resources (i.e., self-efficacy, self-esteem, and optimism) and job resources (i.e., job autonomy, supervisory coaching, performance feedback, and opportunities for professional development) in explicating employees’ work engagement. In fact, results of longitudinal research exhibited that not only resources and work engagement but also—as in a previous study—personal and job resources were mutually related [60]. Interestingly, both causal and reversed causal effects were equally strong. These results are quite aligned with the ideas of COR theory in which various types of resources and well-being evolve into a cycle that determines employees’ successful adaptation to their work environments.

Based on the preceding discussion and considering the perspective of COR theory resource caravans, in which existing resources bring more resources, it can be posited that SE strengthens (accumulates) the expected positive relationship between the WF domain and facilitation and decreases emotional exhaustion, therefore, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3a, b: Self–efficacy will attenuate the positive relationship between WFC/FWC and emotional exhaustion.

Hypothesis 4a, b: Self-efficacy will strengthen the negative relationship between WFF/FWF and emotional exhaustion.

2 Method

2.1 Sample and data

Data were collected through onsite administration of a paper-and-pencil-based questionnaire given to employees working in the telecom sector in the twin cities (Rawalpindi and Islamabad) of Pakistan. To avoid issues related to self-reporting in a cross-sectional study, data were collected in two waves, separating independent and dependent variables temporally. The four work and family interface variables were tapped at time 1 and efficacy and exhaustion variables at time 2, which was at least four weeks after time 1. Time 1’s unique IDs were assigned to track the same respondents in T2. The questionnaire contained a letter explaining the purpose of the study and the participants were assured that their responses would be used only for academic research purposes and kept entirely confidential.

In the first wave, 381 questionnaires were distributed among telecom sector employees at time 1 and 276 were received back, resulting in a response rate of 72%. The exclusion of eight incomplete questionnaires left an effective sample of 268. In the second wave, 268 questionnaires were distributed, and usable responses were received from 202 employees, resulting in a response rate of 75%, which is common in an Asian context [79].

Sample characteristics are reflective of the Pakistani context and are in line with past research. Of the respondents 80% were male (M = 29 years, SD = 6.4), 78% were married, 51% had completed a bachelor’s degree, and 24% had graduate-level university education. The mean organizational tenure of the respondents was 7 years (SD = 5.2).

3 Measures

All variables were measured using 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.1 Four measures of the FW interface

For the measurement of WFC, FWC, WFF, and FWF, a 16-item scale, developed by Grzywacz and Marks [30], was used wherein each dimension is reflected by four items. A sample item for WFC included “Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home,” and alpha reliability was 0.91. Sample items for FWC included “Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job,” and its reliability was 0.89. The alpha reliability for WFF was 0.80, and a sample item was “The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home.” Finally, FWF had a reliability of 0.81, and a sample item included “Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for next day’s work.”

3.2 Exhaustion

For the measurement of exhaustion, eight items were adapted from the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [61]. A sample item was “During my work, I often feel emotionally drained.” The alpha reliability of this measure was 0.92.

3.3 Self-efficacy

We use the 10-item generalized WF scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem [62]. An example item is “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.” The reliability of this measure was 0.95.

3.4 Control variables

These included age, education, marital status, organizational tenure, position in the organization, and gender and number of children living at home as control variables in order to rule out effects of these variables on exhaustion [63].

4 Study results

Table 1 exhibits the descriptive statistics, zero-order bivariate correlations, and alpha reliabilities for all measures. Before moving on to hypotheses testing, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS to ascertain the discriminant validity of variables in the study. We evaluated our measurement model based on four means of global fit indices [64]. Overall, CFA results achieved a good model fit (χ² = 319.08, DF = 309, [GFI] = 0.902, [CFI] = 0.997, [NFI] = 0.931, [SRMR] = 0.032, and [RMSEA] = 0.013). Thus, our CFA results indicate that this model was a good representation of the data.

Table 1
Means, standard deviation, and correlations

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

1. Gender 1.2 0.40

2. Age 29.4 6.3

3. Marital status 1.2 0.41 –0.12^*

4. No. of Children 2.8 1.9 0.15^* –0.10

5. Education 14.0 1.3 0.04 0.09 –0.25^

6. W/B collar 1.7 0.47 0.03 0.46^ –0.05 –0.03

7. Job experience 6.9 5.1 –0.07 –0.38^ –0.06 –0.25^ –0.21^

8. WFC (T- 1) 4.2 1.1 –0.10 0.85^ –0.03 0.06 0.42^ –0.34^ (0.91)

9. FWC (T-1) 4.0 1.2 –0.17^ 0.01 0.09 –0.01 –0.07 0.05 –04 0.18^ (0.89)

10. WFF (T-1) 1.9 0.91 0.01 –0.12^* 0.00 0.02 –0.07 0.06 –0.11 –0.13^* –0.10 (0.80)

11. FWF (T-1) 2.1 1.0 –0.02 –0.05 –0.02 –0.12^* 0.02 –0.01 0.01 0.05 –0.14^* 0.21^ (0.81)

12. Exhaustion (T-2) 4.0 0.87 –0.07 0.19^ –0.07 0.00 0.08 –0.25^ 0.18^ 0.29^ 0.32^ –0.31^ –0.35^ (0.92)

13. Self-efficacy (T-2) 3.3 1.3 0.10 –0.13^* 0.13^* 0.02 –0.02 0.14^* –0.11 –0.15^* –0.13^* 0.15^* 0.18^ –0.29^ (0.95)

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Gender	1.2	0.40	__
2. Age	29.4	6.3	__
3. Marital status	1.2	0.41	–0.12^*	__
4. No. of Children	2.8	1.9	0.15^*	–0.10	__
5. Education	14.0	1.3	0.04	0.09	–0.25^**	__
6. W/B collar	1.7	0.47	0.03	0.46^**	–0.05	–0.03	__
7. Job experience	6.9	5.1	–0.07	–0.38^**	–0.06	–0.25^**	–0.21^**	__
8. WFC (T- 1)	4.2	1.1	–0.10	0.85^**	–0.03	0.06	0.42^**	–0.34^**	__	(0.91)
9. FWC (T-1)	4.0	1.2	–0.17^**	0.01	0.09	–0.01	–0.07	0.05	–04	0.18^**	(0.89)
10. WFF (T-1)	1.9	0.91	0.01	–0.12^*	0.00	0.02	–0.07	0.06	–0.11	–0.13^*	–0.10	(0.80)
11. FWF (T-1)	2.1	1.0	–0.02	–0.05	–0.02	–0.12^*	0.02	–0.01	0.01	0.05	–0.14^*	0.21^**	(0.81)
12. Exhaustion (T-2)	4.0	0.87	–0.07	0.19^**	–0.07	0.00	0.08	–0.25^**	0.18^**	0.29^**	0.32^**	–0.31^**	–0.35^**	(0.92)
13. Self-efficacy (T-2)	3.3	1.3	0.10	–0.13^*	0.13^*	0.02	–0.02	0.14^*	–0.11	–0.15^*	–0.13^*	0.15^*	0.18^**	–0.29^**	(0.95)

Note: N = 202, WFC = work-family conflict, FWC = family-work conflict, WFF = work-family facilitation, FWF = family-work facilitation; exhaustion and self-efficacy was measured on a 5-point scale. ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

4.1 Common method variance

As, we collected data from a single source therefore we used the Harman’s single-factor method approach, which is well known for evaluating CMV [77]. The unrotated principal axis factoring analysis indicated that a single factor did not explain the majority of the variance (27%) in our data. In addition, the values of average variance extracted (AVE) ranged between 0.67 and 0.75 (>0.5), and maximum shared variance (MSV) of each construct was found between 0.07 to 0.14. We found MSV < AVE values in each construct, thus supporting discriminant validity [66].

4.2 Testing of hypotheses

We performed multiple moderated regression (MMR) analyses to test all hypotheses. We mean-centered all predictors for the moderator analyses. Controls were entered in the first step followed by independent variables in the second. We entered the main effects of SE in the third step and interaction terms comprising independent variables and moderators in the third. Table 2 presents the results of the MMR analyses; step 2 shows the main effects of the four dimensions of the WF interface, step 3 shows the main effects of SE, and step 4 shows the interaction effects.

Table 2
Moderating effect of self-efficacy on regression analysis

Exhaustion

Variables β Total R² Δ R²

Step 1

Gender 0.09

Age –0.15^*

Marital status 0.11

Children at home 0.02 0.03^* 0.00

Step 2

WFC 0.20^

FWC 0.26^*

WFF –0.22^*

FWF –0.27^* 0.32^* 0.29^*

Step 3

Self-efficacy –0.17^ 0.34^* 0.02^**

Step 4

WFC×Self-efficacy 0.02

FWC×Self-efficacy 0.07

WFF×Self-efficacy –0.15^

FWF×Self-efficacy –0.18^* 0.37^* 0.03^

	Exhaustion
Step 1
Gender	0.09
Age	–0.15^*
Marital status	0.11
Children at home	0.02	0.03^*	0.00
Step 2
WFC	0.20^**
FWC	0.26^***
WFF	–0.22^***
FWF	–0.27^***	0.32^***	0.29^***
Step 3
Self-efficacy	–0.17^**	0.34^***	0.02^**
Step 4
WFC×Self-efficacy	0.02
FWC×Self-efficacy	0.07
WFF×Self-efficacy	–0.15^**
FWF×Self-efficacy	–0.18^***	0.37^***	0.03^**

Note: All tests are two tailed N = 202. ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

Table 2 reveals the results in step 2 in which WFC (β= 0.20, p < 0.001) and FWC (β= 0.26, p < 0.001) are positively related to exhaustion. Similarly, WFF (β= –0.22, p < 0.01) and FWF (β= –0.27, p < 0.001) are both negatively related to exhaustion.

These results render support for hypotheses 1 and 2. Also, though not hypothesized, SE (β= –0.17, p < 0.01) had a negatively significant relationship with exhaustion. Results for moderator analyses in step 4 of Table 2 show that interaction terms of SE with WFC (β= 0.02, n.s) and FWC (β= –0.07, n.s) are not significant for exhaustion. Hence, hypotheses 3a and 3b are not supported. However, the interaction terms of SE with FWF (β= –0.15, p < 0.01) and WFF (β= –0.18, p < 0.001) are significant for exhaustion.

In line with the suggestion of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken [67], we plotted the significant interactions using the±1 SD rule. These interaction plots are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 2

Interactive effects of SE and WFF on employees’ exhaustion.

Fig. 3

Interactive effects of SE and FWF on employees’ exhaustion.

Figure 2 reveals that WFF-exhaustion relationship is significantly negative when SE is high (b = –0.27, p < 0.001); however, this relationship is insignificant when SE is low (b = –0.02, n.s). Similarly, we plotted the significant interaction with FWF and SE. Again, Fig. 3 shows that FWF exhaustion is also negatively related to exhaustion when SE is high (b = –0.47, p < 0.01), but the relationship is insignificant when SE is low (b = –0.01, n.s). These results support hypotheses 4a and 4b.

5 Discussion

Using a time-lagged (four weeks) design, our analysis revealed three significant contributions. First, we found that WFF and FWF are negatively related to exhaustion. In particular, we highlighted the higher impact of FWF in positive WF interfaces, which is in line with hypothesis 2. Our results also revealed a comparatively greater impact of FWC (H1) and FWF on exhaustion in the Pakistani sample. These results show the leading role of the family is a characteristic of the Pakistani culture in which affection, love, confidence, and family support enable individuals to manage their job responsibilities and handle their stress levels.

Previous research has been conducted mainly in developed/individualistic societies with a major focus on the negative side of work and family domains. We take a step toward filling this gap and strive to understand both positive and negative work-family domains in a unique Pakistani culture. Our findings suggest that in collectivist societies, individuals share a long-term commitment to member groups such as immediate family, extended family, extended relationships, and so on. Family bonding is very strong in that type of culture [68]. People want to balance the relationships they share in every domain, especially in the family and work domains. In the process of balancing their relationships, people face specific challenges in coping with the demands of both domains. Far from being anecdotal, we presume that these specificities may deeply affect the appraisal processes of situations and lead to unexpected results. The cultural differences in the perceived importance of the family and work facets may result in different hierarchies of contribution while trying to ameliorate stress situations.

Second, our study extends the current understanding of the role of SE and how individuals’ efficacy beliefs help them to deal with the WF interface. Specifically, our results suggest that SE helps to strengthen the negative relationship between resources (WF facilitation) and exhaustion (hypotheses 4a and 4b). Generally, our study supports the research of Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova [69], who state that task resources predict work engagement through efficacy. Our results also support one sub-principal (resource gain spiral) of COR theory that has rarely been examined. Our study shows that the gain from personal (SE) and environmental (facilitation) shows a resource caravan, whereby one resource enhances other resources in a process caravan passageway [58]. These results are in line with the findings of Halbesleben and Wheeler [59]. Surprisingly, and contrary to the findings of Glaser and Hecht [70], the same effect is insignificant for both WFC and FWC. Perhaps the reason behind the insignificant moderating effects of SE for both WFC and FWC is the coexisting but independent position of both constructs: conflict and facilitation [46].

Klassen [71] discusses Bandura’s arguments about the unclear role of SE in a collectivist setting in that “efficacy beliefs have generalized functional value; how they are developed and structured, the ways in which they are exercised, and the purposes to which they are put vary cross-culturally” [55]. Our study suggests that the specific role of SE in the specific context of Pakistan, combining the effects of SE and facilitation, indicates that collectivist groups vary to a great extent and that individuals do, too [55]. The way people regulate their behavior greatly depends on the environment of the group, as we empirically found a greater influence of the conjunction of favorable environmental (WFF and FWF) and psychological resources (SE) than a buffering effect against stressors (WFC and FWC). Specifically, in collectivist context individuals perform at a higher level of personal efficacy when their personal values are aligned with a specific environment. Individuals in a facilitative environment (facilitation) gain resources, and when a psychological resource (SE) and environmental resources come together, the individual can function at a greater level. In other words, these cumulative resources (facilitation and SE) show a significant impact on exhaustion. Contrarily, when individuals perform in a stressful environment (conflict) where they need to invest a resource (SE) to cope with stressors and their personal values do not match with that particular environment (conflicting), their resource (SE) does not decrease exhaustion.

Following the logic of COR theory [72], we argue that individuals in a facilitative environment (WFF and FWF) are more confident in gaining resources. Individuals who gain resources due to WFF are less affected by stress because they are not very prone to exhaustion. Our findings reinforce one of the considerations of the third principle of the COR theory [73] that “gain cycles also build on themselves and as people make some resource gains, they experience more positive health and well-being.”

Additionally, our findings describe a major effect of the spiral of gains that is contrary to Gorgievski and Hobfoll’s [73] first principle, which contends “the primacy of resource loss,” yet their idea of a resource caravan helps to explain the strain reactions and increases the insights on cultural perspectives and settings. Possibly, the collectivist context of our research leads to a specific use of resources that encourages such gains. Thus, relationships can presume a stronger role to mitigate environmental resources and stressors when combining external (WFF and FWF) and internal (SE) resources. Supporting the primacy of resource gain, our results highlight the positive and significant role of environmental resources in a collectivist context.

Finally, the aging effect revealed significant variation between WF interface and exhaustion, and these results are similar to the previous research findings that feelings of being emotionally exhausted are not similar for all age groups [74] and that WFC decreases with age. Arguably, feelings of being emotionally exhausted and a lesser effect of WFC correlate with old age. Perhaps individuals begin their professional career and family life at an early age, so dealing with conflicting situations at this stage is more critical. Contrarily, elderly individuals may gain maturity and focus on their career when their children grow up, so they can take better care of themselves. Ultimately this peace of mind for elderly individuals teaches them how to better deal with conflicting situations.

5.1 Managerial implications

Our research offers several practical implications. For example, managers should be wary of the harmful implications of the work-family interface. They understand the problems being faced by their employees because of inter-role conflict in WF domains. Managers must identify ways for handling conflicting situations and enhancing WFF among telecom sector employees by establishing policies and practices. Previous research shows that a supportive organizational culture that provides employees with professional development opportunities enhances psychological well-being [78], which encourages employees to add significantly to both work and family domains [65, 80]. Thus, offering flexible working hours and providing psychological support may make telecom employees feel supported and cared for.

Our results clearly indicate that WFC/FWC and WFF/FWF have a significant impact on emotional exhaustion in the Pakistani sample. However, SE moderates only the relations between facilitation constructs and emotional exhaustion. These results showed the primacy of the resource gain cycle in the Pakistani sample. Thus, managers working in collectivist societies should emphasize that a facilitative environment may boost employees’ SE, which helps them to generate more resources for employees to invest in stressful situations. It would be prudent for organizations to highlight the positive side of the WF interaction and help employees realize how they can acquire, maintain, and protect their resources with the help of WFF and FWF to reduce their exhaustion levels. Organizations may also provide counseling to employees to heighten their SE levels so that they can cope with the challenges of both WF domains.

Researchers demonstrate that the mind is trainable [76]. Thus, managers are strongly encouraged to introduce mindfulness meditation at the workplace, because it can help employees to regulate their thinking from negativity to positivity and they may better deal with a conflicting situation. In particular, it may be beneficial for employees to mitigate the impact of the WF interface on their emotional exhaustion.

5.2 Limitations and future directions

Our study is not without potentially important limitations. By studying a sample from Pakistan, we attempted to test our hypotheses in an environment that differs from Western countries. However, we have not considered cultural dimensions as a control; future research may include the measurement of these dimensions when comparing Western and non-Western samples to examine the moderating role of cultural values.

To limit the common method variance, we followed the guidelines set forth by Podsakoff et al. [65] and collected our data in a four-week interval gap to eliminate the possibility of CMV bias. Therefore, the findings of this study show no or little effect of such bias. However, despite the fact that data collection occurred at two points in time, we cannot infer causality. Future research may be replicated using experiments or longitudinal designs and other data collection methods to investigate the hypothetical model.

We did not find the moderating effect of SE between WFC and exhaustion and FWC and exhaustion. Although personal preferences and cultural orientations were involved, the complexities of context remain unexplored, particularly in circumstances when individuals perform with low SE. The context of the complexities needs to be explored in future research. Other dimensions of variables may be explored, including a wider variety of moderators or mediators, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, positive affectivity, and so on, which can be added to the present model to give it a new dimension in the future.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Ghulam Murtaza and Olivier Roques

METHODOLOGY: Ghulam Murtaza

DATA COLLECTION: Ghulam Murtaza

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Ghulam Murtaza

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Mohamed Mousa

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: Mohamed Mousa

SUPERVISION: Olivier Roques

References

Moen

, Lam

, Ammons

, Kelly

. Time work by overworked professionals: Strategies in response to the stress of higher status. Work and Occupations. 2013;40(2):79–114.

Laß

. Does casual employment reduce work-family conflict? 2019. Available from: https://www.rc06-isa.org/2019/08/30/does-casual-employment-reduce-work-family-conflict/

Ohu

, Spitzmueller

, Zhang

, Thomas

, Osezua

, Yu

. When work-family conflict hits home: Parental work-family conflict and child health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2018;24(5):590–601.

De Clercq

, Rahman

, Haq

. Explaining helping behavior in the workplace: The interactive effect of family-to-work conflict and Islamic work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;155(4):1167–77.

Fellows

, Chiu

H-Y

, Hill

, Hawkins

. Work-family conflict and couple relationship quality: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2016;37(4):509–18.

Allen

, French

, Dumani

, Shockley

. Meta-analysis of work-family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2015;90:90–100.

Casper

, Eby

, Bordeaux

, Lockwood

, Lambert

. A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(1):28–43.

Putnik

, Houkes

, Jansen

, Nijhuis

, Kant

. Work-home interface in a cross-cultural context: A framework for future research and practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018:1-18.

Bai

, Lin

, Wang

. Family incivility and counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and emotional regulation. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2016;94:11–19.

10.

Greenhaus

, Parasuraman

. Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In: Powell

, ed. Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1999. pp. 391–412.

11.

McNall

, Nicklin

, Masuda

. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;25(3):381–96.

12.

Kalliath

, Kalliath

, Chan

. Linking work-family enrichment to job satisfaction through job well-being and family support: A moderated mediation analysis of social workers across India. The British Journal of Social Work. 2019;49(1):234–55.

13.

Frone

. Work-family balance. In: Quick JC, Tetrick LE, eds. Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2003. pp. 143-162.

14.

Hanson

, Colton

, Hammer

. Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of work-family positive spillover. 18th Annual Meeting of SIOP, Orlando (FL); 2003:72-92.

15.

Kinnunen

, Puolakanaho

, Mäkikangas

, Tolvanen

, Lappalainen

. Does a mindfulness-, acceptance-, and value-based intervention for burnout have long-term effects on different levels of subjective well-being? International Journal of Stress Management. 2019;27(1):82–7.

16.

Carr

, Boyar

, Gregory

. The moderating effect of work-family centrality on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management. 2008;34(2):244–62.

17.

Shockley

, Allen

. Deciding between work and family: An episodic approach. Personnel Psychology. 2015;68(2):283–318.

18.

Crain

, Hammer

. Work-family enrichment: A systematic review of antecedents, outcomes, and mechanisms. Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology. 2013;1:303–28.

19.

Hobfoll

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

20.

ten Brummelhuis

, Bakker

. A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist. 2012;67(7):545–56.

21.

Casper

, Allen

, Poelmans

. International perspectives on work and family: An introduction to the special section. Applied Psychology. 2014;63(1):1–4.

22.

Greenhaus

, Beutell

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

23.

Amstad

, Meier

, Fasel

, Elfering

, Semmer

. A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2011;16(2):151–69.

24.

Reichl

, Leiter

, Spinath

. Work-nonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-analysis. Human Relations. 2014;67(8):979–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713509857

25.

Casper , Wendy

, Louis

. Buffardi. “Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: The role of anticipated organizational support.” Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2004;65(3):391–410.

26.

Kossek

, Ozeki

. Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998;83(2):139–49.

27.

Powell

, Francesco

, Ling

. Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2009;30(5):597–616.

28.

Siemieńska

. Gender, family, and work: The case of Poland in cross-national perspective. International Journal of Sociology. 2008;38(4):57–75.

29.

Wong

. Family structure and processes in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sociology. 1979;9(3):74–100.

30.

Grzywacz

, Marks

. Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2000;5(1):111–26.

31.

Wall

, Jose

. Managing work and care: A difficult challenge for immigrant families. Social Policy and Administration. 2004;38(6):591–621.

32.

Hassan

, Dollard

, Winefield

. Work-family conflict in East vs. Western countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 2010;17(1):30–49.

33.

Pillay

, Abhayawansa

. Work-family balance: Perspectives from higher education. Higher Education. 2014;68(5):669–90.

34.

Joplin

JRW

, Shaffer

, Francesco

, Lau

. The macro-environment and work-family conflict: Development of a cross cultural comparative framework. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management. 2003;3(3):305–28.

35.

Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Annual contraceptive performance report 2017-18. 2017. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/annual-contraceptive-performance-report-2017-18

36.

Economic Survey of the Pakistan. Monthly bulletin of statistics, Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/monthly-bulletin-statistics-august-2019

37.

Economic Survey of the Pakistan. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/household-integrated-economic-survey-hies-2015-16

38.

Economic Survey of the Pakistan. Available from: http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_18/Economic_Survey_2017_18.pdf

39.

Pakistan Labor Force Survey, Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files//Annual%20Report%20of%20LFS%202014-15.pdf

40.

Ghayur

. Labour market issues in Pakistan: Unemployment, working conditions, and child labour. The Pakistan Development Review. 1996;35(4):789–803.

41.

Arif

, Akhtar

, Kashif

, Khan

. Impact of long working hours on family wellbeing of corporate family. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2014;16:1302–7.

42.

Halbesleben

JRB

, Harvey

, Bolino

. Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94(6):1452–65.

43.

Kempen

, Roewekaemper

, Hattrup

, Mueller

. Daily affective events and mood as antecedents of life domain conflict and enrichment: A weekly diary study. International Journal of Stress Management. 2019;26(2):107–19.

44.

Greenhaus

, Powell

. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review. 2006;31(1):72–92.

45.

Baum

. The new public health. 4th ed. Melbourne (Australia): Oxford University Press; 2016.

46.

Witt

, Carlson

. The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006;11(4):343–57.

47.

Sieber

. Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review. 1974;39(4):567–78.

48.

Rothbard

. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2001;46(4):655–84.

49.

Grzywacz

, Butler

. The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2005;10(2):97–109.

50.

Luthans

, Doh

, Hodgetts

. International management: Culture, strategy, and behavior. 8th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2012.

51.

Voydanoff

. Social integration, work-family conflict and facilitation, and job and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67(3):666–79.

52.

Chen

, Powell

, Cui

. Dynamics of the relationships among work and family resource gain and loss, enrichment, and conflict over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2014;84(3):293–302.

53.

Cooklin

, Giallo

, Strazdins

, Martin

, Leach

, Nicholson

. What matters for working fathers? Job characteristics, work-family conflict and enrichment, and fathers’ postpartum mental health in an Australian cohort. Social Science & Medicine. 2015;146:214–22.

54.

Dollard

, Bakker

. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2010;83(3):579–99.

55.

Bandura

. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork (NY): Macmillan; 1997.

56.

Weigl

, Hornung

, Parker

, Petru

, Glaser

, Angerer

. Work engagement accumulation of task, social, personal resources: A three-wave structural equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;77(1):140–53.

57.

Hobfoll

, Johnson

, Ennis

, Jackson

. Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84(3):632–43.

58.

Hobfoll

. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings: Conservation of resource caravans. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2011;84(1):116–22.

59.

Halbesleben

JRB

, Wheeler

. To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management. 2015;41(6):1628–50.

60.

Xanthopoulou

, Bakker

, Demerouti

, Schaufeli

. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009;74(3):235–44.

61.

Demerouti

, Bakker

, Vardakou

, Kantas

. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2003;19(1):12–23.

62.

Schwarzer

, Jerusalem

. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor (UK): NFER-NELSON; 1995. pp. 35-37.

63.

Grandey

, Cropanzano

. The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999;54:350–70.

64.

Kline

. The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. London (UK): Routledge; 1998.

65.

Chadam

, Turkyilmaz

. Managing employee engagement in the strategy implementation process: The case from the natural gas industry. Human Systems Management, (Preprint). 2020;1-9.

66.

Fornell

, Larcker

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

67.

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

, Aiken

. Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum; 2003.

68.

Hofstede

. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology & Culture. 2011;2(1).

69.

Llorens

, Schaufeli

, Bakker

, Salanova

. Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23(1):825–41.

70.

Glaser

, Hecht

. Work-family conflicts, threat-appraisal, self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2013;28(2):164–82.

71.

Klassen

. Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology. 2004;39(3):205–30.

72.

Hobfoll

. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology. 2002;6(4):307–24.

73.

Gorgievski

, Hobfoll

. Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In: Halbesleben JRB, ed. Handbook of stress and burnout in health care. Hauppauge (NY): Nova Science; 2008. pp. 7-22.

74.

Gordon

, Litchfield

, Whelan-Berry

. Women at midlife and beyond. Boston (MA): Boston College Center for Work and Family; 2003.

75.

Yalalova

, Zhang

, Dilawar

. Emotional intelligence could forge self-efficacy, work effort and career satisfaction. Human Systems Management. 2017;36(2):141–9.

76.

Cameron Laurie

. Your mind is trainable” with author Laurie J. Cameron. 2018. Available from: https://medium.com/thrive-global/your-mind-is-trainable-with-laurie-j-cameron-4241f29010bb

77.

Podsakoff

, MacKenzie

, Lee

J-Y

, Podsakoff

. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879.

78.

Koon

, Ho

. Authentic leadership and employee engagement: The role of employee well-being. Human Systems Management, (Preprint). 2020;1-12.

79.

Raja

, Gary

, Filotheos

. The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal. 2004;47(3):350–67.

80.

Drummond

, O’Driscoll

, Brough

, Kalliath

, Siu

O-L

, Timms

, Riley

, Sit

, Lo

. The relationship of social support with well-being outcomes via work-family conflict: Moderating effects of gender, dependents and nationality. Human Relations. 2017;70(5):544–65.

	Exhaustion
Variables	β	Total R²	Δ R²
Step 1
Gender	0.09
Age	–0.15^*
Marital status	0.11
Children at home	0.02	0.03^*	0.00
Step 2
WFC	0.20^**
FWC	0.26^***
WFF	–0.22^***
FWF	–0.27^***	0.32^***	0.29^***
Step 3
Self-efficacy	–0.17^**	0.34^***	0.02^**
Step 4
WFC×Self-efficacy	0.02
FWC×Self-efficacy	0.07
WFF×Self-efficacy	–0.15^**
FWF×Self-efficacy	–0.18^***	0.37^***	0.03^**