Journal of Management 2011 Maertz 68 98

Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/
Work-Family Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under ''Levels'' and ''Episodes''

Approaches
Carl P. Maertz, Jr. and Scott L. Boyar
Journal of Management 2011 37: 68 originally published online 14 September 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0149206310382455
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/37/1/68
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/37/1/68.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 20, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 14, 2010
What is This?
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014
Journal of Management
Vol. 37 No. 1, January 2011 68-98
DOI: 10.1177/0149206310382455
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance

under Levels and Episodes Approaches
Carl P. Maertz, Jr.
Saint Louis University
Scott L. Boyar
University of Alabama at Birmingham
In this review, the authors differentiate workfamily (WF) research that conceptualizes and
measures conflict as a consolidated level versus as a conflict event or episode. They critique the
levels literature in the areas of conflict, enrichment, and balance. They next review the WF
episodes literature for the first time. They then introduce a framework that clarifies definitional inconsistencies and integrates the key constructs in the WF literature in a new way. This
framework proposes that an employees mental conceptualizations relevant to WF roles can be
discrepant with actual role enactment or with another mental conceptualization. These discrepancies form ones level of WF balance or imbalance. The authors recommend that researchers
adopt WF balance as the central levels construct, which changes primarily through the occurrence of WF conflict episodes and WF enrichment episodes. They finally discuss research and
practical implications of this framework.
Keywords: workfamily; episodes; conflict; enrichment; balance
Workfamily (WF) conflict is clearly an important issue for both managers and employees. It has been consistently related to negative outcomes such as low job and life satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, poor physical and psychological health, absenteeism, tardiness,
Acknowledgments: We wish to acknowledge and thank Liam Ryan for his important efforts in compiling the materials for this review.
Corresponding author: Carl P. Maertz, Jr., John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell
Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
E-mail address: maertzcp@slu.edu
68
Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 69
and turnover intentions (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1996; Boyar, Maertz, & Pearson, 2005;
Frone, 2000; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). These harmful effects demand that
researchers gain a clear and deep understanding of WF conflict. Yet we argue that there are
two general deficiencies that inhibit achieving a fuller understanding. First, there are recently
emerging research streams that are closely related to WF conflict, WF enrichment (e.g.,
Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and WF balance (e.g., Lyness & Judiesch, 2008). These concepts have been reviewed individually (e.g., Byron, 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006;
Kossek & Lambert, 2005) but have rarely been included together in a review (cf. Frone,
2003; Greenhaus & Allen, in press). No reviews focus on these three streams to systematically find various deficiencies, suggest directions to fill them, and propose theoretical integration of all these constructs. Second, there are two general approaches to conflict conceptualization
and measurement. Most studies focus on levels of conflict; others focus on discrete episodes
of conflict. No reviews currently distinguish these approaches or consider their implications. So before presenting our review, we first distinguish levels from episodes approaches.
Distinguishing Levels and Episodes Approaches

Casper, Bordeaux, Eby, Lockwood, and Lambert (2007) found that an overwhelming
majority of empirical studies in the area were survey based (85%) and correlational (89%),
focusing on peoples levels of work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering
with work (FIW) and relationships between these levels and other constructs. However, there
is a distinct episodes approach that defines WF conflict as an incident or occurrence. To our
knowledge, Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, and Wan (1991: 665) were the first to suggest
studying specific episodes of workfamily conflict. This approach can be partly traced to a
research focus on the impact of major life events on stress (e.g., Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, &
Lazarus, 1981). More recently, this focus has expanded to include more normal day-to-day
events and, in particular, how incidents of stress in the work domain affect families (e.g.,
Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005). See Table 1 for a summary of each approach.
The predominant levels approach has several notable advantages over an episodes
approach. First, WIF and FIW levels can be measured at any time and analyzed using common linear statistics, facilitating easy data collection and analysis (Greenhaus & Allen, in
press). This leads to collecting larger, more representative samples that allow more powerful
statistical tests and greater generalizability. Episode-related research methods can be more
difficult, invasive, and time-consuming. The levels approach allows for efficient testing of
predictors and moderators of these relationships. Such levels research is also the best evidence to support organization-level interventions to reduce WIF and FIW.
Advantages of an Episodes Approach

Despite these advantages, the levels approach is not conducive to studying WF conflict
phenomenology and causal relationships over time (also see Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006) for
a number of reasons. First, interrole incompatibilities begin at a specific time and place and
70 Journal of Management / January 2011
Table 1
Summary of Distinctions between the Levels and Episodes
Approaches to WorkFamily Conflict Research
Dimension
Levels Approach
Episodes Approach
Basic psychological model

Theoretical definition
Attitude
Level of work interfering with family
(WIF) and family interfering with
work (FIW) carried around in memory
or consolidated at time of measure
Events theory
A discrete workfamily role
incompatibility and how the
employee reacts to it emotionally,
cognitively, and behaviorally
Basic theoretical
assumption
Actual conflicts can be reliably

aggregated into a level, that has
reliable meaning across individuals
Conflict is experienced as discrete

episodes, the results of which are
stored in memory as episodes rather
than as a level
Theoretical assumptions
regarding time and
change in conflict
Level changes occur relatively

infrequently and levels can be studied
at any time
Episodes and related changes occur at

variable frequency and are best
studied near their occurrence
Operational definition
Extent to which one agrees, at time of

measure, that work and family role
responsibilities interfere
Contingent on focus of study (e.g.,

daily emotional spillover, resolution
attempt?)
Typical design and

measures
Between-person design
Likert-type scales assessing FIW and
WIF levels
Within-person design
Qualitative or quantitative assessment
of a specific episode(s)
often must be addressed in the short term. In terms of phenomenology, conflict levels are
imprecise psychological consolidations of past conflict episodes from memory (Williams &
Alliger, 1994). To the employee, these conflict events would typically be viewed and stored
in memory as discrete episodes (e.g., Siedlecki, 2007).
Second, the current dominant approach implicitly assumes that there is always a discernable
direction for conflict (i.e., WIF and FIW). In contrast, WF conflict theory suggests that it can
be experienced without immediately recognizing a direction of cause (Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985). Assuming that either work or family is the cause is also unnecessarily limiting
and imprecise. An episodes approach allows for studying precise attributions of cause.
Third, the conceptualization and measurement of WF conflict as a level confounds inprocess conflicts with memories of past conflicts. It is unclear from a level whether a conflict is being processed currently or is a memory from the past, with recall prompted by the
measurement itself. Moreover, a conflict level conceals different patterns of WF conflicts
over time. Modeling episodes leads to a clear temporal distinction between current and past
conflicts.
Fourth, a levels approach conceals the effects of attempts to cope with or resolve WF
conflicts. A person may have had many incompatibilities occur, but with little or no stressful
negative effects, because he or she effectively resolved them as they arose. Modeling episodes decouples the incompatibility perception itself from resolution attempts, providing a
more precise picture of how a conflict is processed.
In terms of design, the levels approach uses between-subjects designs. An episodes

approach uses within-subject longitudinal designs and experience sampling techniques.
This design and method has been touted as helping avoid biased self-serving attributions,
memory error, and measurement error (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Robinson &
Clore, 2002; Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Hackett, Bycio, and Guion (1989:
450) noted, The benefits of the idiographic-longitudinal approach probably come not in
the average amount of variance explained, but from the increased understanding of individual behavior it offers.
In sum, an episodes approach provides a more accurate theoretical reflection and better
empirical strategy for understanding how employees psychologically perceive and process
WF conflicts. A levels approach is more efficient at discovering basic constructs and relationships in the nomological net and supporting interventions to address the average persons WF conflict.
Current Review
Based on these levels and episodes approaches, we present two corresponding major sections followed by a final integrative section. The levels section addresses WF conflict, WF
enrichment, and WF balance research. For this predominant levels approach, our purpose is
to summarize trends and critique recent research, not to exhaustively review studies in these
areas. We focused our search for articles on four databases: Academic Search Elite, Business
Source Premier, ABI-INFORM, and PsycLIT. We searched using the following keywords:
work and family, work and non-work, work and balance, worklife, and workfamily. We
also used these keywords to search titles and abstracts in the following journals: Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Human Relations, Human Resource Management,
Human Resource Management Review, Industrial Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational and Organi
zational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Organization Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel
Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, and Research in Organizational
Behavior.
Under the emerging episodes approach, there are no reviews and far fewer studies, so in
the second main section we reviewed all studies we could find in the refereed management
and psychology literatures after 1985. These sections are followed by a final section where
we introduce a new framework that integrates the levels and episodes approaches while
clarifying disparate and overlapping constructs proliferating within the WF area.
WF Levels-Based Research
To illustrate recent progress and problems within the levels research, we provide summaries of trends and conclusions in the areas of WF conflict, enrichment, and balance.
WF Conflict
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) identified three forms of incompatibility that can arise
between role responsibilities: time based, strain based, and behavior based. Recent metaanalyses support that WIF and FIW are distinct constructs (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran,
2005). Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) developed a six-scale measure of WF conflict
that captured two directions of the time, strain, and behavior conflict reflecting the predominant measurement model of the levels approach. Work domain variables relate more
strongly to WIF whereas family domain variables relate more strongly to FIW (Byron, 2005;
Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Significant cross-domain effects have
been found, but these tend to be weaker (Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes,
2009; Ng & Feldman, 2008). In another meta-analysis, Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, and Cooper
(2008) found that WF conflict related negatively to self-rated performance but not to supervisor performance ratings. Kelly et al. (2008) found strong support for the relationship
between individual factors (e.g., supervisor support, WF culture) and both WF conflict and
WF facilitation, but neither WF construct was strongly related to any business outcomes
(e.g., ROI, revenue). Other traditionally fruitful streams of research have continued, such as
investigating WIF or FIW as mediating constructs (e.g., Hoobler, Wayne, & Lemmon, 2009;
Taylor, DelCampo, & Blancero, 2009) for various relationships. One stream that has become
more prominent recently involves investigating moderators relating to WF roles for relationships involving WF conflict (Bagger, Li, & Gutek, 2008; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carr,
Boyar, & Gregory, 2008). The truth confirmed in this stream of research is that the perception of WF conflict is dependent on individual differences such as the traits one possesses
and ones specific WF role definitions.
Conclusions for the WF conflict levels research. Researchers should first expand WF
models to include family role dimensions (Duxbury, Lyons, & Higgins, 2007) and role configurations or profiles (Fournier, Lachance, & Bujold, 2009; Livingston & Judge, 2008).
This means researchers should focus explicitly on the contingent nature of WF conflict and
its relationships. Overall though, our assessment is that the recent WF conflict levels research
has been decidedly incremental. Few if any new types of studies or findings have emerged
recently. There has been little new theoretical insight in the past two decades (Byron, 2005).
Moreover, surprising findings have emerged that seem to challenge the levels concept itself.
For example, Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt, and Pulkkinen (2008) used a cross-lagged longitudinal design to discover that WIF and FIW levels were stable over 1 and 6 years, a seemingly unlikely and unexpected outcome given that conflict levels purportedly change over
time. They explained that respondents may have reported, a general level without attaching
it to any specific time period or episode at work or within family (Rantanen et al., 2008: 47).
Also, using levels measures, researchers have reported very small correlations between WF
conflict and WF facilitation (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Voydanoff, 2004), but in a
within-subject experience sampling study, Butler et al. (2005) found a moderate correlation
of .29. These disparate findings may suggest that researchers should look to break out of
comfortable routines of using levels scales in between-subjects designs, particularly when
the main phenomenon of WF conflict and its immediate effects occur within subject. Given
the huge number of studies (e.g., Casper et al., 2007), the many meta-analyses already conducted, and the limitations of the predominant methodology, we tentatively conclude that
there are few value-added contributions left to be made using the current levels approach to
WF conflict.
WF Enrichment
Most WF research has implicitly assumed depletion of finite resources through increasing
role commitments, based on assumptions of limited resources (Rothbard, 2001). Assuming
that resources can expand, the enrichment perspective argues that engaging in more role commitment can provide more net benefit than less (e.g., Kirchmeyer, 1992; Reitzes & Mutran,
1994). Greenhaus and Powell (2006: 73) proposed a theoretical model of WF enrichment
that goes beyond simple buffering against conflict, although this is subsumed. They define
enrichment broadly as the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of
life in the other role. WF enrichment occurs where resources (i.e., psychological, physiological, KSAs [knowledge, skills, and abilities] developed, social capital, flexibility, and
material resources) generated in one role actually improve performance in the other role.
They propose both instrumental and affective mechanisms for this. The instrumental mechanism involves a direct transfer of resources from Role A that improves performance in Role
B. The affective mechanism involves positive feelings generated in Role A positively influencing performance in Role B by increasing energy, outward focus, and helping behavior
(e.g., Rothbard, 2001). Greenhaus and Powell also proposed that the personal fit with Role B
and role salience of Role B will strengthen these affective and instrumental transfers.
Based on Greenhaus and Powells (2006) definition, Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and
Grzywacz (2006) developed a multidimensional measure of WF enrichment for both directions, work-to-family enrichment (WFE) and family-to-work enrichment (FWE), and each
consists of three dimensions. WFE includes development (personal development), affect
(mood and attitude gains), and capital (psychosocial resources); FWE includes development,
affect, and efficiency (resource gains of time and efficiency).
Despite Greenhaus and Powells (2006) prominent theoretical integration of constructs
representing the positive, expansion of resources view under the construct of enrichment,
other very similar constructs persist in this literature that need to be better defined with respect
to enrichment: support (Adams et al., 1996), positive spillover (Crouter, 1984; Grzywacz &
Marks, 2000), enhancement (Sieber, 1974), and facilitation (Frone, 2003). Some researchers
suggest positive spillover, enhancement, and facilitation are identical (Frone, 2003; Greenhaus
& Powell, 2006), whereas others suggest they are distinct (Carlson et al., 2006; Grzywacz,
Carlson, Kacmar, & Wayne, 2007; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007). Nevertheless,
having a single clear definition is necessary to determine how these enrichment-related concepts relate to WF conflict and WF balance, a necessary goal for the WF research overall.
Conclusions for the WF enrichment levels research. It is undeniable that there is tremendous
functional commonality and conceptual overlap among support, facilitation, positive spillover,
and enhancement. All have at their core that more rather than less role participation can net
a person gains across roles (Warner & Hausdorf, 2009). However, facilitation has been defined
as a group-level construct to differentiate it (i.e., Wayne et al., 2007). Greenhaus and Powells
(2006) model encompasses or integrates support, enhancement, and positive spillover. They
propose positive emotional spillover and instrumental resources spillover as the two processes
by which a higher level of enrichment or enhancement is attained. For these reasons, enrichment
seems to be the broadest, most theoretically developed organizing construct at the individual
level. Thus, we recommend ending the proliferation of positive WF interface constructs by
adopting enrichment as the central construct.
If one considers all the findings under topics of facilitation, enhancement, and positive
spillover as relating to enrichment, the primary conclusion is that there are many significant
and important correlations with key outcomes (e.g., Carlson et al., 2006; Wayne, Randel, &
Stevens, 2006). However, some weak or null findings have also emerged for enrichment
measures (e.g., Carlson, Witt, Zivnuska, Kacmar, & Grzywacz, 2008). Yet a key theoretical
issue to resolve is the seeming discrepancy between support for both the expansion view and
the depletion view. It seems that both of these views on the WF interface are sometimes true
but in need of reconciliation through deeper integration of enrichment and conflict (e.g.,
Kirchmeyer, 1992).
WF enrichment researchers should also consider that people may completely underestimate or not recognize their ability to expand their resources through WF role enactment for
any number of reasons (e.g., low self-efficacy, past punishments for dual engagement, clinical
depression, etc.). If an individual truly refuses to believe that his or her personal resources
can expand through greater WF role enactment, it would be exceedingly unlikely that such an
individual would experience WF enrichment (Andreassi & Thompson, 2007; van Steenbergen,
Ellemers, Haslam, & Urlings, 2008). If this is true, a key empirical question is, how many
in the workforce actually experience enrichment, apart from responses prompted by WFE
measures?
Assuming that WF enrichment experiences are prevalent and important, the key question
for the area becomes, how do these experiences causally influence outcomes over time? Also,
how do they interact or combine with WF conflict (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006a)? Ultimately
though, the same underlying questions arise about meaning and measurement as arose for
WF conflict levels. Namely, does everyone have a theoretical WFE and FWE level that they
carry around ready to be reported on surveys? Greenhaus and Powell (2006) do mention
enrichment episodes, perhaps pointing to the most fruitful path forward for the enrichment
research.
WF Balance
WF balance has become a very popular research topic recently (Finegold, Mohrman, &
Spreitzer, 2002; Kossek & Lambert, 2005; Sturges, 2008). Despite the prominent interest, as
with enrichment, there is some serious ambiguity about the definition of WF balance that
must be resolved before research can progress theoretically (Greenhaus & Allen, in press).
With enrichment, the problem was construct overlap; the problem with balance is that there
are multiple definitions for a supposedly unitary construct.
In their recent review, Greenhaus and Allen (in press) summarized most definitions as
being related to high involvement across roles, high satisfaction or effectiveness across roles,
and the absence of WF conflict. They seem to agree that all of these are part of WF balance.
They also suggest that definitions that require some equal allocation of time or effort in each
role are too limiting and do not adequately account for different WF role definitions and
priorities.
In contrast, Grzywacz and Carlson (2007: 458) define WF balance as accomplishment
of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or
her role-related partners in the work and family domains, suggesting the need to define WF
balance as a social construct. Defining a balance-type construct at the group level, such as
facilitation is to enrichment, is fine, but the individual level is our focus here.
Finally, there are a number of definitions that take a decidedly broader, more complex view
on the concept than other definitions. Lobel (1991) proposed that when identities for work
and family roles are similarly central, integration will lead to balance. Alternatively, when
individuals work and family roles are dissimilar and identities differentially central, segregation should lead to balance. Clark (2000) posited that balance depends on a matching
heuristic between the work and family domains including the boundaries between them.
Organizations and individuals, known as border crossers, can alter the domain or the border in creating balance. Shepherd and Haynie (2009) suggested that balance can involve
joint WF identities. Greenhaus and Allen state (in press: 17), Viewing balance from a fit
perspective implies that the distribution of involvement or outcomes in work and family
roles has different consequences for feelings of WF balance depending on individuals priorities or values, defining WF balance as an overall appraisal of the extent to which individuals effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are consistent with their life
values at a given point in time.
Conclusions for the WF balance levels research. These latter balance definitions strongly
suggest a complex, contingent fit perspective where the individuals perceived fit among
role identities (responsibilities and boundaries), personal values, and environmental inputs
or demands. This definition implies that there are multiple relevant aspects of fit or discrepancy. This means one must consider different configurations from full integration up to
extremely segmented roles and their fit with preferences. Finally, Greenhaus and Allen (in
press) explain that WF balance requires knowledge of the core values and priorities within
the self-concept rather than simply relying on imposed social norms such as gender-role
stereotypes for relative WF role importance. Here, we adopt this latter complex, contingent
fit definition of balance as a starting point for our integrative efforts in the final section.
WF Episode-Based Research
In research on stress management, events-based models and approaches have become
well established (e.g., Palmer, 2001), leading to a conceptualization of stressors as episodic.
Studies reviewed here focus on episodes either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., a crossover
effect within a day implies that some interpersonal crossover episode happened that day,
doing something specific to manage conflict implies a response to a specific episode). We

organize studies into sections on (a) mood or affect spillover and crossover effects, (b) methods
for managing conflict episodes and/or achieving balance, and (c) episode-related methodology,
in addition to a final section on our conclusions for the episodes research.
Mood or Affect Spillover and Crossover Effects

Much of the episodic research concerns the relationships among conflict, affect, and other
outcomes using daily diaries or surveys. Most of these studies deal with work family and
family work mood or affect or satisfaction spillover across domains, whereas others deal
with interpersonal crossover effects or the mechanisms behind these implicitly episodic
phenomena. Several early studies laid the groundwork for this stream. Stone (1987) found
that negative work events (i.e., pressure, conflict with coworkers) were most related to sameday negative daily mood, whereas positive family leisure events were most related to positive mood. Repetti (1987) found that negative affect experienced at work during the day
negatively influenced the nature and quality of interactions with family at night. Hackett et al.
(1989) found that daily events related to family (i.e., illness, social function, chores at home)
were the most frequently mentioned reasons for being absent from work (26% and 24% in
two samples). MacEwen and Barling (1994) found significant within-day and across-day
variance in WIF and FIW levels.
In more recent experience-sampling studies, Cropley and Purvis (2003) found that teachers experiencing high strain during the work day took longer to unwind, reported less personal
control over what they were doing in the evening, and ruminated more about work-related
issues than those experiencing low strain. Ilies, Wilson, and Wagner (2009) showed that job
satisfaction affected later employee home and martial satisfaction. Furthermore, WF spillover moderated the links between job satisfaction and both positive and negative affect at
home. Poppleton, Briner, and Kiefer (2008) found that some WF interactions were related
to the competing demands of two psychologically involving domains, in which intrusive
thoughts from one domain made it difficult to concentrate on tasks in the other (i.e., called
conflict). Yet, mood carryover (similar to strain-based conflict in Greenhaus & Beutell,
1985) emerged as the more important problem, called spillover. Also, work family impact
events were significantly more prevalent than family work events in both white-collar and
blue-collar samples. Song, Foo, and Uy (2008) found significant daily bidirectional mood
spillover effects, both positive and negative, with negative spillover to home being more
likely in those high on work orientation.
Together, these studies demonstrate that daily events cause mood or affect spillover
influencing attitudes and role behaviors across domains (cf. Van Hooff, Geurtz, Kompier,
& Taris, 2006). The pattern seems to be that negative affect spillover from work home
is the most likely form of the spillover phenomenon, particularly for those who have a high
work role orientation and who experience negative events at work that day. If family
work spillover occurs, it is more likely to be positive than negative, especially for older
employees (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002). If negative though, family work
spillover is more likely to occur in working mothers (Williams & Alliger, 1994) and in
those with high family orientation (Judge et al., 2006). We now address some further subtopics within this stream.
Role juggling and job demand effects. There were two early studies on the daily influence
of role juggling, defined as engaging in activities or demands of work and family simultaneously. Role juggling is also assumed to be a role performance interruption. Williams et al.
(1991) found that task enjoyment was lower and negative mood carryover was elevated by
interrole juggling versus no juggling. Contrary to hypotheses, low negative affectivity (NA)
and extraverts were more negatively reactive in terms of affect after role juggling than their
high NA or introverted counterparts. Williams and Alliger (1994) found that distress ratings
were significantly higher and calmness ratings lower during WF role juggling than during
all other WF events. Interestingly, Williams (1991: 672) et al. also found that the negative
effects of role juggling are made salient by the absence of such conflicts on the preceding
days. This means that consistent interruption episodes may actually produce less intense
affect than intermittent occurrences, and this finding generally points out that timing and
sequencing help determine the effects of interruption episodes.
Researchers have studied other, more generalized stressors such as increased job demands
on WF conflict. Based on the demands-control model (Karasek, 1979), Butler et al. (2005)
focused on daily WIF and work family facilitation (WFF) experiences and found that
both varied from day to day. WIF varied positively with job demands and negatively with
perceived control at work. Contrary to demands-control theory though, the demandsWIF
link was stronger when control was high rather than low. Furthermore, demand negatively
related to WFF, whereas job skill level related positively to WFF. Ilies et al. (2007) found
that employees who reported high amounts of WIF on particular days were less likely to
interact socially with their families on those days, even controlling for hours spent at home.
Specific emotions. Beyond general negative mood, a few studies have focused on particular negative emotions. For example, Judge et al. (2006) found that FIW related to guilt
at work and hostility at work but not to job satisfaction, whereas WIF related to hostility at
home and marital satisfaction but not to guilt at home. Furthermore, the relationships
between WIF and hostility at home and between FIW and hostility at work were strengthened by trait guilt. The relationship between WIF and hostility at home was strengthened by
trait hostility. Livingston and Judge (2008) found that traditional role orientation strengthened the FIWguilt link and weakened the WIFguilt link. The positive FIWguilt link was
also stronger for trait traditional men than egalitarian women. These studies expand the
understanding of emotional content related to WF conflict episodes beyond the focus on
general mood, fatigue, and frustration (e.g., Williams et al., 1991) and confirm that traits do
moderate daily cognitionemotion relationships.
Mechanisms of spillover. A positive development in this area is that some research has
focused on the causal mechanisms by which spillover episodes occur. In this vein, Repetti,
Wang, and Saxbe (2009) recently proposed that spillover effects include mood or affect,
cognition, and physiology. First, mood or emotion carryover across time has been the primary
vehicle discussed. As Judge et al. (2006: 802) state, Emotions serve as mediators between
environmental changes (events) and attitudinal reactions. In support, Heller and Watson
(2005) found that positive affect mediated the relationship between job satisfaction and marital
satisfaction. Studies have also supported that negative mood carried through time mediates
the relationships between workload and home negative affect for employee (Ilies et al., 2007)
and spouse (Story & Repetti, 2006).
Second, according to stress researchers ruminative thoughts are a cognitive mechanism
of spillover from stressful events (Cropley & Purvis, 2003; Palmer, 2001). Ruminations may
be future oriented or retrospective (e.g., Cropley & Purvis, 2003). These thoughts can interrupt when one wants to focus on other concerns and thereby may carry across settings
(Williams et al., 1991), particularly when one is alone at home (Cropley & Purvis, 2003).
Another cognitive spillover mechanism might be that people learn behavioral techniques or
strategies for success that can be applied successfully (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) or that
fail (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) in the other domain. Finally, stressful events in one domain
can cause reduced cognitive control striving, which can carry across domains and reduce
role performance (Poulin & Heckhausen, 2007).
Third, Repetti et al. (2009) reported that elevated cortisol after stressful events could act
as a physiological spillover mechanism across domains. Besides elevated cortisol, Poppleton
et al. (2008) included depletion in one domain causing fatigue wherein one lacks the minimum physical energy needed to participate in activities in the other domain.
Finally, in a sample of Indian men with eighth-grade children, Larson, Verma, and Dworkin
(2001) found that there was little emotional or strain spillover across domains, unlike men
in most U.S. samples (cf. McDonald & Almeida, 2004). This perhaps indicates that spillover
findings and/or mechanisms may be hard to generalize across cultures. Researchers should
study whether the extent or salience of these three types of spillover mechanisms varies across
cultures.
Spillover overnight or across days. Another key spillover issue is the nature of spillover
across days, after a nights sleep. Williams et al. (1991) and Williams and Alliger (1994) did
not find negative spillover of affect across days. Yet Heller and Watson (2005) found marital satisfaction at night predicted next day job satisfaction in the afternoon, mediated by
positive mood but not by negative mood. Likewise, Ilies et al. (2007) found that positive
affect spillover over days was stronger than negative. These studies generally indicate that
although most moods do not carry over across days, positive mood is more likely to do so
than negative. Obviously, this conclusion needs to be confirmed, taking into account key
individual difference moderators. Two other mechanisms to investigate as possible drivers
of overnight spillover are the use of evening recovery experiences and sleep quality (Sonnentag,
Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008).
Crossover effects. A crossover effect is defined as a bi-directional transmission of positive and negative emotions, mood, and dispositions between intimately connected individuals such as spouses or organizational team members (Westman, Brough, & Kalliath, 2009:
589). The phenomenon of interpersonal crossover effects evidently requires close relationships, such as marriage, because one partner has the likely capacity to readily influence affect,
cognition, and behavior of the other (Westman et al., 2009). But how does this happen?
First, social or emotional contagion, whereby an individual catches the affect of another
person, is one explanation (Westman, 2001; Westman & Etzion, 2005). Emotional contagion
occurs when observation of another persons facial, postural, or vocal expressions elicits
congruent feelings within the observer (e.g., Barsade, 2002). Processes of unconscious imitation or social or emotional contagion play a key role in mood crossover effects (e.g., Bakker
& Xanthopoulou, 2009; Lazarova, Westman, & Shaffer, 2010). Song et al. (2008) found
significant positive and negative mood crossover effects for spouses, but only when the
spouses were physically together and effects dissipated quickly, within 10 minutes after they
parted. This suggests that even among those who are close, mood crossover effects may be
fleeting.
Second, in a more indirect cognitive-behavioral mechanism, Bakker, Demerouti, and
Dollard (2008) supported a between-subjects fully mediated model that proposes: The employee
who experiences the WIF is likely to engage in social undermining behavior toward
Person B. In turn, this raises Person Bs home demands and, thereby, FIW and exhaustion.
Other between-subjects studies also support bidirectional crossover effects between significant others (Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Matthews, Del Priore, Acitelli, & Janet,
2006; Westman & Etzion, 2005). Bakker, Westman, and Van Emmerik (2009) further suggested that crossover research should incorporate role theory in assessing effects on other
role constituents besides just significant others, emphasizing reciprocal crossover effects. In
this vein, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2009) examined positive crossover effects within the
work domain based on work engagement. They found that an engagement subdimension of
vigor crossed over within day to the work partner, especially when communication between
partners was high. In contrast, other results indicate that reduced social interaction or responsiveness can itself act as a behavioral mechanism for crossover effects (e.g., Ilies et al., 2007;
Story & Repetti, 2006), depending on how this behavior is interpreted by the other person
(e.g., Mom is ignoring me vs. Mom is really busy and needs to be left alone). Whether
distancing from others is a mechanism for or an inhibitor of crossover is an empirical question worthy of future study. We suspect that distancing would apply only as a crossover
mechanism where a close relationship already exists or where the other person otherwise
expects regular communication.
Finally, Bakker et al. (2009) specifically argued for episodic models in conceptualizing
and studying crossover effects. This implies that episodic declarative memory (e.g., Tulving,
1983) is activated after a crossover episode. Thus, future studies should also focus on the
role of episodic memory storage and recall of each person involved as a key mediating
mechanism through which crossover episodes exert influence on outcomes over time.
Methods for Managing Conflict Episodes and/or Achieving Balance

Jennings and McDougald (2007) recently characterized the WF interface research as
dealing either with WF experiences or with strategies for managing these experiences. The
latter topic has received far less research attention. Yet as Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep
(2009: 705) put it, Clearly, individuals play a crucial role in affecting workhome outcomes;
they are not mere automatons reacting helplessly to the pressures around them. The need
for recovery in achieving health and well-being has also been emphasized in a number of
models (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Poulin & Heckhausen, 2007). With
the importance of active stress management in mind, we attempt to summarize and organize
the many different methods of coping with WF conflict and achieving WF balance.
Frameworks of responses to WF conflict. More generally in the stress research, Folkman
and Lazarus (1980) identified problem-focused coping, attempting to modify the stressful
situation directly. In contrast, emotion-focused coping consists of attempts to control the
emotional response to the problem and lessen distress. Both have been negatively related to
WF conflict in the levels-based research (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Rotondo, Carlson, &
Kincaid, 2002). Wiersma (1994) catalogued behavioral strategies for resolving WF conflict:
hire outside help, divide chores, set priorities, cognitive reappraisal, sharing friends and
activities, plan recreational time, plan time to be alone with family, plan time to be apart
from family, negotiated deals on role cycling or job mobility plans, avoidance, mutual
sharing, and discussing new norms with others. Jennings and McDougald (2007) included
segmentation, compensation, accommodation (limiting ones involvement in one domain to
meet responsibilities in the other), structural role definition (i.e., others), personal role definition (revising ones own role), and purely reactive role behavior. Kreiner et al.s (2009)
emergent behavioral tactics included using other people, leveraging technology, invoking
triage (choosing one domain in an emergency), and allowing differential permeability (e.g.,
emotional boundary from work, but letting work correspondence through). Their temporal
tactics include controlling work time, finding respite, managing physical boundaries, setting
role expectations, and confronting violators.
Despite these laudable frameworks, all leave out at least one construct expressed in another
model. Also, because some constructs overlap within and across frameworks and because
many represent different levels of specificity, they cannot be easily collapsed and synthesized. Most important, some categories represent multiple distinct effects. For example, with
compensation, in response to a conflict the person retreats to and directs more effort to his
or her more central domain. There is potentially a dual effect to this tactic. First is the escape
or distraction that comes with emersion in one role. Second is the affirmation and reappraisal
possible (i.e., at least I do an exceptional job in this one role, even if I neglect the other)
as a way to protect and maintain integrity in the self-concept (Reitzes & Mutran, 1994). Thus,
compensation and some other categories in the framework confound multiple conflict response
types. For these reasons, we formed our own synthesis to provide clarity and parsimony.
Choosing one role over the other or compromise. In some time-based WF conflict episodes one can choose one role responsibility over another or choose to partially meet both
responsibilities. In either case, at least one role responsibility goes at least partially unfulfilled. Greenhaus and Powell (2003) asked MBAs to choose between a fictitious overtime
team work session and a family birthday party, neither of which could be rescheduled.
Differential situational role sender pressure typically led to the high pressure and high
salience role being chosen. When work role salience was low, the family role was chosen no
matter what the family role salience, and to a lesser extent, family was chosen when a manager was unsupportive of the family role.
Cognitive affirmation and reappraisal. Furthermore, leaving one responsibility unfulfilled

may produce guilt (Judge et al., 2006) that must be alleviated somehow. Affirmation is a
likely as a counter measure to reduce such guilt (Steele, 1988). Cognitive reappraisal (e.g.,
Wiersma, 1994) minimizing the importance of the incompatibility may also be used. Future
research should test whether affirmation and/or reappraisal is used in concert with the previous category.
Enlist support. Powell and Greenhaus (2006b) cite several types of support as relevant:
(a) emotional or affective support that enhances self-esteem and brightens appraisal of life
events, (b) informational support about available resources or options, (c) companionship
support that meets needs for affiliation, and (d) social comparison support. Seiger and Wiese
(2009) found that support was a negative antecedent of WIF and FIW. Burchielli, Bartram,
and Thanacoody (2008) concluded that individuals utilize both personal resources and available social support to accomplish work and family demands. A key conceptual issue though
is where the help comes from and its estimated cost to the focal person. Calling a cab or
hiring a nanny has financial costs but no residual role costs or expectations. In contrast,
enlisting help from important others with whom one has interdependent relations may create
role expectations of reciprocity from the person approached (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989), a less
tangible type of cost. Thus, in the latter case, we consider the response to be a form of
changing anothers role in the short term, rather than enlisting support.
Changing others roles. Changing anothers role or role sending may be undertaken for
the short term (e.g., one episode) or permanently (Jennings & McDougald, 2007; Wiersma,
1994). It may range from a command to a request to an open negotiation. For a more permanent change in roles, Shepherd and Haynie (2009) emphasized the importance of negotiating
responsibilities. As we mentioned, any success in changing anothers role may awaken some
anxiety about a reduced capacity to role send to that person in the future and/or a requirement to change ones own role going forward.
Changing ones own role responsibilities. An employee can use different methods to
change aspects of his or her role responsibilities in one or both domains, in anticipation of
or in response to WF conflict. This change can be perpetrated in ones own mind or, more
importantly, in the minds of others. Rescheduling a responsibility is one obvious example of
this, although Powell and Greenhaus (2006b) would categorize it as enlisting support. They
found that when both activities were important, rescheduling was chosen by a majority of
respondents. Rescheduling of the family activity was also more likely when family support
was high.
Role boundary management. Nippert-Eng (1996) described changing boundaries through
segmentation or integration attempts (e.g., maintaining two home work calendars vs. one
integrated calendar) as boundary work. Research has also confirmed that employees have
preferences for more or less segmentation (e.g., Michel & Hargis, 2008; Rothbard, Phillips,
& Dumas, 2005). Based on role boundary theory (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000),
boundaries delimit a given domain in ones mind along a continuum from thinweak to
thickstrong. Thinweak boundaries are permeable and promote or result from integration,
whereas thickstrong boundaries are impermeable and promote or result from segmentation (Kreiner et al., 2009). Hecht and Allen (2009: 840-841) defined permeability as the extent
to which an individual might be psychologically and/or behaviorally engaged in one domain,
while physically located in another, or at times that are traditionally devoted to the other.
In a qualitative study, Pratt and Rosa (2003) found support for transforming WF conflict
into higher levels of commitment and motivation by utilizing policies that integrate family
and work by encouraging employees to focus on ones desire to do better at work for the
benefit of family. In their interview study, Golden and Geisler (2007) identified four distinct
interpretive repertoires of boundary management. Containing work and protecting the private are highly segmented. Integrating life is obviously reflecting a preference for integration. Transitioning work is having a permeable boundary where work flows across a
traditional work boundary. Kreiner et al. (2009: 710) assessed the boundary congruence of
preferred and actual workhome boundaries for Episcopal priests using qualitative methodologies and inductively developed a model that asserts that
(1) individual preferences for workhome segmentation or integration combine with environmental influences (such as work and home climates and other individual preferences) to create
multiple dimensions of boundary (in)congruence; (2) workhome boundary incongruence leads
to boundary violations (episodes of breaching the preferred workhome boundary) and work
home conflict; (3) boundary violations also lead to workhome conflict; and (4) individuals
invoke boundary work tactics to reduce and manage incongruence, violations, and conflict.
Kreiner et al. (2009) along with Thompson and Bunderson (2001) proposed that the fit of
personal preference for integration versus segmentation with the environment is key to
avoiding or alleviating WF conflicts (Chen, Powell, & Greenhaus, 2009; Kreiner, Hollensbe,
& Sheep, 2006).
From these studies we learn that neither integration nor segmentation is a panacea for
preventing or coping with WF conflict episodes. In fact, it seems that excessive segmentation and excessive integration have both been related positively to WF conflict (Poppleton
et al., 2008; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009; Voydanoff, 2005). Recognizing that it is the fit
between actual and preferred boundary arrangements that is important represents a major
insight. Nevertheless, a key challenge remains for empirical research. Boundary preferences
can be for a complex mix of work and home responsibilities that are more or less segmented
or integrated based on the situation and can even change regularly (Hecht & Allen, 2009).
For example, a certain aspect of work (e.g., research writing) may be fully integrated with
home life whereas others (e.g., classes, committee meetings) are completely segmented from
home; this mix may change during the summer or even over the weekend. Models and measures must account for such complex preferences to validly test boundary work and the
main fit hypothesis.
Psychological or physical avoidance or withdrawal. A final category of individual response
involves psychologically or physically avoiding or withdrawing from one or both domains.
This may take many forms, from planning time to be apart from family (Wiersma, 1994) to
choosing distractions and disengagement from a goal (Martin & Tesser, 1989), social withdrawal from others (Repetti et al., 2009; Story & Repetti, 2006) or from certain roles, and
relaxation and leisure-time mastery experiences (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Psychologically,
this could mean denying the conflict (e.g., getting lost in work, refusing to think about it).
Behaviorally, the person may engage in dysfunctional alcohol or drug use or reflexively
avoiding the setting where current demands are greatest, up to and including job turnover
and divorce.
Dyadic or group-level approaches. Perlow (1998) found that employees and spouses
used combinations of tactics as employee acceptors/resistors paired with either spouse
acceptors or resistors. Kellas and Trees (2006) showed that stress reduction often involves
family sense-making narratives or conversations. Jennings and McDougald (2007) summarized dyadic strategies as traditional (i.e., one-income household), one-job/one-career,
or, when both want careers, postponing children. Future research should continue investigating whether systematic combinations of responsibilities and boundaries predict dual-domain
satisfaction (Golden, 2009).
Three approaches as an organizing framework. In reviewing these method categories, we
came up with an organizing framework based on three dimensions. First, some individual
methods are preventative of WF conflict episodes, whereas others are in-the-moment
responses. Second, Individuals and couples often develop routines in advance for how they
will respond to workfamily conflict that arises on an everyday basis (Powell & Greenhaus,
2006b: 1180). These conflict incidents typically represent easier choices and would more
likely be handled by preestablished routines or automatic scripted processing (e.g., Beach &
Mitchell, 1996). Finally, some methods (i.e., role changes, boundary management) imply at
least some dyadic communication. In our framework, the methods that rely on anothers
consent cannot be considered truly scripted, automatic information processing; thus, these
cases are denoted as NA (see Table 2). Hopefully future researchers can use this framework to help study all aspects of WF conflict episode responses and their relative effectiveness in various environments and for various subgroups (e.g., different WF role priorities).
Episode-Related Methodology
Although commonalities exist across episode-related studies, there are still many variations in methodology employed. Next, we briefly discuss these methods and their use.
Measures. Williams and Alliger (1994) identified three levels of analysis in measuring
the quality of episodic experiences. These are (Level 1) immediate experience (reactions at
that specific time), (Level 2) primary consolidation (end of day consolidation), and (Level 3)
secondary consolidation (global assessment, focusing across many days). Level 1 is superior
to Levels 2 and 3 because these latter levels rely on retrospective recollection, they tend
to miss the subtle, often idiosyncratic, and sometimes even contradictory dimensions of
immediate experience (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989: 815). Nevertheless, some studies
reviewed used Level 3 measures (e.g., Grzywacz et al., 2002) or adapted Level 3 measures
Table 2
Examples of Three Temporal or Psychological Approaches to
Reduce WorkFamily (WF) Conflicts
Preemption of WF
Conflict
Reactive Controlled
Responses
Reactive Automatic
Responses
Choosing one role

or compromise +
affirmation or
reappraisal
Choose activity based on

negotiated plan; Ill
choose the other
domain next time
Ive got to work now, but

will go to the next
game; I am really doing
well at work though
Engage script: When this

happens, I alternate
nights in choices of work
or family
Enlist support
Hire a full-time nanny or

personal assistant
Rent apartment near the
train station
Hire cab to provide family

transportation
Hire a secretarial service
Engage script: When this

happens, I tell my
assistant to handle the
problem at home
Changing relevant
others role(s)
Ask for a bigger or

renegotiate a new role
for others
Ask a coworker, friend, or

family member to cover
for you
NA
Changing ones own

role
Renegotiate a more
flexible role with others
in one or both domains
Reschedule an activity in
advance
Make up an excuse at the

last minute
Initiate impromptu role
negotiation with
coworkers, friends, or
family
NA
Role boundary
management
Integration
Segmentation
Negotiate boundaries
Change permeability of a
boundary
Erect new temporary
boundary
NA
Psychological or
physical avoidance
or withdrawal
Turnover
Divorce
Psychological withdrawal
Engage script: When I

get this fed up, I go to
Moes bar
Method Type
(traditional levels measures) to be Level 2 measures by adding the word today (e.g., Butler
et al., 2005; Judge et al., 2006). Some have focused on capturing estimated event frequency
(Maybery, Neale, Arentz, & Jones-Ellis, 2007). Very few use Level 1 measurement. Most
either induce or assume WF conflict (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Williams et al., 1991)
or qualitatively capture episodes (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009). Only two quantitative studies to
our knowledge directly examine naturally occurring WF conflict episodes (i.e., Poppleton et al.,
2008; Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b). These weaknesses can be partially mitigated through better
data collection.
Data collection. Notably, Song et al. (2008) used cell phones with data collection software.
This represents the future of data collection in within-subject experience sampling, allowing
focus on specific episodes and use of Level 1 measures. The pervasiveness of cell phones
combined with wireless connectivity to powerful computers greatly expands the potential
depth and breadth of empirical studies, making these typically small-sample within-subject
techniques (N = 20-50 in most studies reviewed here) possible for thousands of respondents,
each giving dozens of responses over short and long periods. It seems that the key data collection challenge will be designing incentives to elicit this many reliable responses. In most
studies, respondents are all paid (e.g., $50), an expensive proposition for a large sample.
However, if large-scale online recruitment could be used, less expensive inducements such
as prize drawings could potentially be effective.
Design and analyses. Designs consistent with the episode approach have included lab
studies (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003), random or scheduled experience sampling checklists
or diaries (e.g., Poppleton et al., 2008; Williams & Alliger, 1994), the critical incident technique (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b; Wiersma, 1994), and qualitative interviews (Kreiner
et al., 2009). Most daily studies have used hierarchical multilevel modeling to analyze data
from these quantitative designs (e.g., Heller & Watson, 2005; Van Hooff et al., 2006), but
some have relied on pooled time series analyses (e.g., Williams & Alliger, 1994), repeated
measures ANOVA (Cropley & Purvis, 2003), or Cox regression to predict probability of
whether a certain enrichment or conflict episode will happen (e.g., Budig, 2006). Haviland,
Nagin, Rosenbaum, and Tremblay (2008) also recently touted trajectory-group modeling to
look at the impact of episodes on developmental trajectories.
Conclusions
From this episode-related research we conclude that although utilizing varied and effective methodologies, existing studies have not yet taken full advantage of the episode approach.
We offer several suggestions to do this better. First and foremost, researchers should focus on
the actual conflict episode and utilize Level 1 measurement (Williams & Alliger, 1994)
rather than inferring that conflict occurs (e.g., Williams et al., 1991) or capturing consolidated conflict levels based on traditional measures (e.g., Ilies et al., 2007). Researchers
should ideally prompt people to report about WF episodes as they occur during the day. A
researcher could survey by phone or do daily follow-up interviews about what event caused
the incompatibility to be realized, the nature of the conflict, the type and intensity of affect
associated with it, and its direction, if any.
Second, on this point, most all traditional survey measures of WF conflict are bidirectional measures (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000; Carlson et al., 2006; Netemeyer et al., 1996).
These scales assume through item wording, not only that causal attribution has taken place,
but also that its result is obvious to the focal person, such that WIF and FIW levels can both
be quickly consolidated and reliably reported on demand. They further assume that this
attribution has been made to a general domain such as work rather than any other more
specific cause. To what people attribute WF conflicts and how they make such attributions must
be studied rather than assumed. Current studies suggest some hypotheses. Greenhaus and
Beutell (1985) proposed that selection of a work activity results in WIF, whereas selection
of a family activity results in FIW, implying that attribution must occur after choice of coping method. We ask whether the attributed cause may actually precede and help determine
the choice of coping method (i.e., addressing the perceived cause of the conflict). Others
suggest that the domain blamed would be where one is not when a trigger event occurs
(Judge et al., 2006), where one is when a trigger event occurs (Butler et al., 2005), the
domain to which the trigger event relates most closely (e.g., Stone, 1987), or the domain that
is least central and/or most permeable (e.g., Powell & Greenhaus, 2006b). To test which of
these explanations is most valid or under which circumstances each may apply, episode studies should measure the cues used and thought processes behind such attributions as well as
the attributions themselves. Researchers must also confirm that people assign direction or
blame for a WF conflict episode without the typical prompting of WF conflict levels scales.
Third, researchers could attempt to confirm and expand the framework of methods in our
Table 2. How a response category or individual response to a WF conflict episode is chosen
and the relative success of different methods for different groups is a major blind spot in the
area of WF conflict that demands future research. Based on Powell and Greenhaus (2006b),
we would predict that role salience or centrality to self-concept, salience of the responsibility to the role, role-sender cues on importance or urgency, support available in the domain,
and specific activity cues (e.g., Can it be rescheduled or held without me?) can all have a
part in choosing methods to cope with conflict. Future research should test these determinants of method choice as well as their relative effectiveness. Researchers should then
attempt to predict such choices.
Fourth, although under a levels conceptualization, there have been proposals of how
enrichment and conflict relate (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006a). Enrichment episodes have been
recognized though (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), and we contend that they are key to theoretical integration of these concepts. However, episodes-based research to date has neglected
enrichment. In fact, we found no empirical studies on WF enrichment episodes per se.
Researchers need to try to confirm the existence of enrichment episodes and then investigate
the characteristics and relationships within and across such episodes. We expect that some
people are likely to experience significant enrichment episodes, whereas others are very
unlikely to experience them or their benefits because they simply do not believe that such
episodes are a possibility. This is important to test. Future research should determine how
many employees actually experience WF enrichment episodes, the determinants of these
episodes, and how such episodes interact with WF conflict episodes.
Fifth, there are several areas of conceptual confusion that have been revealed by focusing
on individual WF episodes. For example, there is conceptual overlap between Greenhaus and
Beutells broad conceptualization of conflict and negative daily spillover events (see Poppleton
et al., 2008). Similarly, the prevailing notion of balance as a state or outcome must be reconciled with definitions of balancing as a personal action or strategy (e.g., Kreiner et al., 2009;
Nippert-Eng, 1996). With respect to balance, key theoretical questions remain to be answered.
What does balance mean under an episodes conceptualization? Are conflicts resolved in favor
of family in one episode and work in the next? What ratio of enrichment and conflict episodes
would define balance? And how does this definition of balance relate to segmentation and
integration? Future research requires that many interrelated concepts in the area be fully distinguished and clarified, given that WF conflict and enrichment are manifested as episodes.
Finally, although there are useful general heuristics related to WF conflict episodes (e.g.,
Kreiner et al., 2009; Repetti et al., 2009; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009), there is no model of how
an episode unfolds, how its results may carry forward to subsequent episodes, or how these
accumulate over time to influence role performance and satisfaction. As Heller and Watson
(2005: 1278) said, It is important that future research examines comprehensive models that
include events both at work and not at work, mood, and attitudes. Thus, a most pressing need
in the WF episodes research may be for such an overarching theoretical framework.
Implications and New Directions for the WF Area

In summarizing many research findings and trends across the WF literature, we draw
three overall conclusions. First, there are two theoretically and empirically distinct research
approaches to the WF interface (levels vs. episodes). Neither approach is inherently superior,
but researchers must match their approach to their research objective. Ilies et al. (2007)
illustrated through differential spillover effects how using a between-subjects levels
approach to investigate a within-individual phenomenon can lead to inaccurate estimates and
conclusions. To explain or predict variance across subjects and to design organization-wide
interventions to avoid or mitigate WF conflict, the levels approach is probably most appropriate. To understand the causal processes and phenomenology of WF conflict and enrichment over time, the episodes approach is superior. Future WF researchers should specify
which approach they are adopting and why.
Second, there is clearly construct proliferation with several highly conceptually overlapping constructs around enrichment (e.g., enhancement), whereas balance has varying meanings and measurements under a purportedly single construct. Both problems create theoretical
ambiguity in the area. For example, what exactly does high or good WF balance mean
across employees who have very different family roles (e.g., sole breadwinner, primary
caregiver) and work roles, and perhaps very different priorities in these roles. Thus, a complex multifaceted definition such as Greenhaus and Allens (in press) balance model must
be embraced. More generally, the nomological net around the WF interface must be clarified
through precise construct definitions with valid measures and no further construct proliferation.
Third, it seems that levels and episodes conceptualizations must be reconciled and integrated in some systematic way and not simply accepted as completely independent ways of
looking at conflict, enrichment, and balance. Researchers should be studying both psychological states related to the WF interface along with episodes (Kreiner et al., 2009), hopefully leading to a fuller, more coherent understanding in the area across approaches.
A New Direction for the WF Interface Research

Based on these conclusions, we offer an adjustment in direction for WF research. We
began our efforts at integration with the premise that most empirical WF research has been
implicitly or explicitly measuring some form of perceived discrepancy and the associated
negative feelings and/or some form of WF-related positive evaluations and feelings. It is also
implied in this literature that the latter positive feelings are either caused by or allowed by
the absence of such discrepancy. In this way, most levels research related to WF balance,
conflict, and enrichment has as a central theme or precondition freedom from perceived
discrepancy or lack of fit between aspects of work and family domains at that time. An
employees mental conceptualizations regarding work and family roles and their interrelationships are very complex, and all combinations of potential WF discrepancies have not
been systematically considered under WF conflict. This failure is largely a function of not
recognizing that the fit, both within the focal person and with behaviors in the environment,
is contingent on the individuals personal WF role values and priorities. In this vein, we
support the claim of other researchers that WF balance defined in this broader way is the key
construct describing well-being concerning WF roles and domains (Greenhaus & Allen, in
press; Thompson & Bunderson, 2001). We recommend that WF balance should be the main
focus for levels-based research rather than WF conflict and enrichment, which are appropriately studied using an episodes approach.
Because there are different types of discrepancy that can infringe on and reduce ones
assessment of balance level, we propose a formative construct where a state of full balance
is defined by the lack of any such discrepancies when one consciously considers the WF
domains. Ones level of balance could be measured as a snapshot global assessment of fit
and discrepancy within WF domains using perfect to very bad fit as possible scale anchors.
Alternatively, balance could be measured as a snapshot of multiple discrepancy dimensions,
where the low end of each scale is anchored by no current discernable discrepancy.
Balance level would then be a summation of these dimension scales.
This definition and measurement strategy suggests that WF balance has a logical ceiling
effect. Becoming more and more balanced beyond the point of no discernable discrepancy
has dubious linguistic, theoretical, and practical meaning (see Greenhaus & Allen, in press).
Yet having excellent fit and no discrepancies with none of the associated ill feelings should
in itself produce considerable satisfaction and perceptions of role effectiveness. Moreover,
recognizing this ceiling does not mean that employees cannot acquire additional positive
emotional experiences that promote greater satisfaction or acquire additional skills and
resources that promote WF role effectiveness. Such increases can occur because of enrichment, mediated through positive affective and instrumental spillover (Greenhaus & Powell,
2006), but not mediated through increased WF balance. Before introducing the discrepancy
dimensions of imbalance, we propose a broader representation regarding WF roles and their
priority in the self-concept.
WF role conceptualizations. In Figure 1 there are three distinct but interrelated mental
conceptualizations related to (a) the focal persons own WF roles (i.e., Venn diagram),
(b) the focal persons conceptions about others normative WF role expectations for him or
her (i.e., left box), and (c) the focal persons expectations regarding salient others WF roles
(i.e., right box). Thus, Figure 1 may be thought of as a representation of a focal persons WF
role cognitions at a given point in time. These three mental pictures can potentially be discrepant with each other or discrepant with the focal persons perception of actual behavior
in the situation. We next discuss parts of Figure 1 in more detail.
Figure 1
Representation of an Individuals Work and
Family Mental Role Conceptualizations
Mental Conceptualization
Segmentation/Integration
(reflected as overlap)
Work Role Content

- Task Responsibilities
- OCBs Responsibilities
- Social Responsibilities
Depends Partly on Permeability

(reflected as thickness of circle)
- Co-Location
- Tech Links
- Integrated
Task Activities
Family/Home Role
Content
- Financial Responsibilities
- Caregiving Responsibilities
- Leisure Responsibilities
WF Identity?
Role Centrality (as overlap)

Others Expectations in Work Role X
Motivation to comply w/Person
Responsibilities or Boundaries
Others Expectations in Family Role X
Motivation to comply w/Person
Core Values
In the Self-concept
Focal Persons Expectations of Others

at Work X Closeness of Relationship
Focal Persons Expectations of Others
at Home X Closeness of Relationship
Venn diagram. This diagram represents how the focal persons work role and family roles
are defined in terms of responsibilities and boundaries. Each roles definition includes different types of responsibilities (e.g., family breadwinning and caregiving duties). The total
absolute level of these responsibilities in each role is represented by the size or circumference
of the circle for that role. Within any absolute level, there still may be many small scattered
responsibilities, a few regular time-consuming responsibilities, or any combination.
Each role definition also contains some idea of boundaries, marking where these role
responsibilities or obligations end, indicating what domain responsibilities are not in their
role. In the employees mind, boundaries manifest themselves as how easily and clearly he
or she can distinguish work and home responsibilities and activities. Also, other thoughts
about the WF domains provide context for responsibilities (e.g., when certain responsibilities are relevant). These boundaries in WF roles jointly determine whether we describe work
and family roles as being more segmented or more integrated.
Segmentation or integration of roles is portrayed in Figure 1 by the amount of overlap
between the two large circles, and secondarily, by the thickness (i.e., permeability) of the
circles and the domain boundary lines. Segmentation would be shown as little or no overlap
between domain circles and thick boundaries, manifested as doing work only in one location
and family activities only in another, and in the extreme, as having completely separate home
and work roles and identities. More integration is shown as more overlap and/or thin
boundaries and manifested through colocated WF role enactment or technology links allowing both roles to be enacted in all locations. In extreme cases, people may engage in integrated role enactment where WF responsibilities are both fulfilled though common tasks and
a joint WF role identity could be formed (Ashforth et al., 2000; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009).
This would be represented by no internal boundary lines or completely overlapping circles.
Practically, this is most likely to happen for proprietors of family businesses or for those
doing all work and family activities at home.
Finally in the Venn diagram the focal persons relative WF role centrality is portrayed as
the relative (work vs. family or home) overlap of the role domains with the lower smaller
circle representing core values. However, it is possible that neither the work nor family role
is highly central to the persons overall self-concept, shown as very little overlap with either
role circle. This is the configuration that is actually depicted in Figure 1.
The smaller boxes. The two smaller boxes in Figure 1 represent socially based conceptualizations regarding WF roles. The current literature has generally failed to explicitly recognize their potential to produce WF discrepancy. In the left box, we represent that the focal
employee knows that other people in each domain have role expectations in mind (i.e.,
responsibilities and boundaries) for him or her. These conceptions of what others expect
from him or her may be clear or vague. As we indicate by the interaction, it is unlikely that
these expectations would be salient or produce meaningful discrepancies if these other
people are not valued by the focal person because there would be little motivation to comply
(Ajzen, 1991).
In the right box, we depict that the focal employee has role expectations or definitions in
mind for others in their work and family domains. This is what responsibilities the focal
person believes that a coworker or family member should be doing in his or her work or
family role. Again, if the focal person does not have close relationship with these people,
then it is unlikely that the conceptualization would be very clear in the focal persons mind
or salient enough to create noticeable discrepancy.
Types of discrepancies. Considering these three mental conceptualizations in Figure 1,
along with perceptions of enacted role behavior in the current situation, allows researchers to
specify the many individual types of discrepancies that can occur within a focal persons cognition relevant to WF roles. It is quite probable that within-domain responsibilities conflict
with each other, also contributing to stressful imbalance, although intrarole conflict is not our
focus here. Here, we distilled six generic types of discrepancies that contribute to ones WF
interrole balance or imbalance level at a given point in time. These are detailed in Table 3.
With this new vision of the central multifaceted levels construct of WF balance, we had
to integrate episodes. The first three discrepancies are between enacted behaviors and the
role conceptualizations. By definition these occur surrounding a behavior that occurs at a
particular point in time. This suggests discrete WF conflict episodes likely responded to near
the time of occurrence. The last three discrepancy types involve inconsistencies between two
mental role conceptualizations. They are not as bound to a time and place, although they
Table 3
Summary of Discrepancy Types Constituting WorkFamily (WF) Imbalance
Discrepancy Type
Description and Example
1.Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal

persons conceptualization of his or her
WF roles
1a.Enacted behaviorEnacted behavior

persons conceptualization of others
expectations of his or her WF roles
persons expectations of others WF roles
4.Focal persons conceptualization of his
or her WF rolesFocal persons
conceptualization of his or her WF roles
conceptualization of others expectations
of his or her WF roles
expectations of others WF roles
Not acting consistently with ones own identity and

understanding of ones WF role (e.g., behavior-based
conflict; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)Letting oneself down
A special case of the first type of internal dissonance, when
enacting one role behavior literally prevents another role
behavior from being enacted in a classic time-based conflict
Not acting consistently with others expectations, which may
be the same or different from ones own expectations
Letting others down
Perception that others are not acting consistently with their WF
rolesI am upset that _______ isnt fulfilling his role!
A discrepancy between the focal persons WF role
conceptualizations; problem of integration, segmentation, or
role definitionMy work/family and family/work roles as I
see them just dont work or fit together.
A discrepancy between the focal person and others views on
the focal persons work roles; this is a problem of integration
vs. segmentation or role definitionI just dont agree with
your definition of my role.
A discrepancy between what the focal person expects from
himself or herself and what he or she expects from others;
problem of integration vs. segmentation or role definition
There is some serious imbalance between our roles; I
expect a lot from myself, but so little is expected of you.
What is wrong here?
certainly originate in some episode. These discrepancies may be carried in memory and
accessed as a structural discrepancy for a long time after the last episode occurs. Thus, the
latter three types of discrepancy are more likely to be reflected in WF balance level measures
(and traditional WF conflict levels measures) collected when no WF conflict episodes have
occurred recently.
Changes in balance level over time. We propose that ones level of balance or imbalance
changes over time and that WF conflict and WF enrichment episodes are the primary causes
of these changes. We further propose that ones level of balance is relatively stable over
time, until changed by conflict or enrichment episodes. See an illustration of the proposed
change process in Figure 2. We recognize that recently past WF conflict and enrichment
episode(s) or persistent structural discrepancies determine ones level of balance at Time 1.
The discrepancy brought on by a conflict episode is then processed and some coping or
resolution method attempted. Alternatively, an enrichment episode can cause positive affective and/or instrumental spillover. Depending on the outputs of the episode, a new level of
WF balance is created at Time 2.
Future research under this framework. For empirical researchers to follow the implications of our integrative framework, they must first address the considerable measurement
Figure 2
Representation of How Balance Level Changes over Time
Outputs of Past WF
Conflict or
Enrichment Episode
Level of WF Balance
(Snapshot Measure at
Time 1)
Life Event Triggers

WF Conflict Episode
by Drawing Attention
to or Creating One or
More Discrepancies/
or Event Triggers an
Enrichment Episode
Conflict or
Enrichment
Episode Processing
and Outputs
New Level of WF
Balance (Snapshot
Measure at Time 2)
challenges brought on by the increased complexity of the fit or discrepancy-based balance

construct and by reconciling levels and episodes approaches. First, elements in Figure 1 must
be measured, including multiple types of responsibilities within roles, integration or segmentation or boundary permeability, absolute and relative centrality of both WF roles to core
values in the self-concept, and the two social conceptualizations regarding WF roles. Second,
assessing balance requires either a new global WF fit or discrepancy measure or measures
of the six discrepancy dimensions. The first three discrepancy types involve a cognitivebehavioral discrepancy that may need to be measured based on frequency or intensity of
recent occurrences, whereas the latter three types can actually be measured as a true level of
discrepancy. Third, there are measurement challenges, discussed earlier, for the WF episodes
approach that must also be met.
If such measurement challenges can be successfully met though, the scope of empirical
research questions and studies possible in the WF area could expand tremendously. For
example, is a global or summative dimensional measure of balance better at predicting role
satisfaction and role performance over time? How does integration versus segmentation of
roles work along with WF role centrality to influence the nature and importance of the six
discrepancies? Which discrepancy dimension creates the strongest mood effect, most resists
resolution methods, most determines a persons balance level, or most determines the average balance level within different groups? How do different intrarole responsibility configurations and discrepancies affect overall balance level? How do intrarole discrepancies
compare to interrole discrepancies in their effect on balance level, satisfaction, and role
performance levels? Are there certain types of conflict or enrichment episodes that affect
balance level (or dimensions of discrepancy) more than other types of episodes? Are there
certain systematic sequences or combinations of conflict or enrichment episodes that produce particularly high or low balance levels? Are there methods of WF conflict episode
resolution or types of enrichment episodes that inoculate one against future conflict episodes
or make them less likely to occur?
Furthermore, there are many other research questions focused on uncovering more
detail about the content and processes of conflict or enrichment episodes generally.
Beyond this, researchers must systematically investigate the relationship between balance
level changes and the progression of conflict or enrichment episodes as a major new direction. Here, we cannot fully enumerate the scores of research implications of our integrated
framework. This is the major challenge we wish to pose to researchers wanting to innovate
in the WF area.
Practical Implications
As Judge et al. (2006: 807) state, If organizations turn a deaf ear to episodes of work
family conflict, they may unwittingly encourage employees to vent the ensuing negative
emotions toward undesired outlets. We agree and recommend three management strategies
to prevent this. First, managers can help employees prevent or avoid conflict episodes in the
first place, perhaps through providing several key forms of flexibility or support. Unfortunately,
given the weak or ambiguous findings on the effects of management interventions to mitigate WF conflict levels through policies (e.g., Burchielli et al., 2008; Kreiner et al., 2009),
this may be difficult. Policies and practices work for some people but do not help others at
all. Organizations wanting to expend resources to prevent WF conflict episodes should customize policies for their particular set of employees, instead of relying on a best-practices
approach (Golden, 2009; Ryan & Kossek, 2008). Second, managers can help employees
resolve conflict episodes that do arise more effectively. The key is for future WF research to
determine the relative efficacy of conflict resolution and prevention methods. In turn, these
methods could be counseled or trained (e.g., Ilies et al., 2009; Mickel & Dallimore, 2009).
Other potential management interventions such as hiring for KSAs related to avoiding or
resolving WF conflict may be possible, although legal implications must be carefully considered. Third, managers may be able to create the potential for enrichment episodes to occur
in the workplace. Nevertheless, such intervention awaits more research on the nature of
enrichment episodes and how these can be initiated beyond the use of typical family-friendly
policies (Rego & Cunha, 2009).
Conclusion
A central theme of this review is that, despite a plethora of findings, there are no easy
answers about how organizations or individuals should successfully manage the critical WF
interface to achieve balance, minimize conflict, and maximize enrichment. This is partly
because peoples mental conceptualizations of their own WF roles are multifaceted and complex and the research is just recently catching up. This article points to this depth and complexity by reviewing for the first time a whole stream of within-subject episodes research and
differentiating it from research that treats conflict and enrichment as a level. We also resolve
some problems in WF construct definitions through integrating the many concepts into a new
framework that we hope will guide WF research in fruitful new directions.
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: 411-420.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59:
179-211.
Andreassi, J., & Thompson, C. 2007. Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on workfamily conflict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 722-740.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 25: 472-491.
Bagger, J., Li, A., & Gutek, B. 2008. How much do you value your family and does it matter? The joint effects of
family identity salience, family-interference-with-work, and gender. Human Relations, 61: 187-211.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Dollard, M. F. 2008. How job demands affect partners experience of exhaustion:
Integrating workfamily conflict and crossover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 901-911.
Bakker, A., Westman, M., & Van Emmerik, I. 2009. Advancements in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24: 206-219.
Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. 2009. The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actorpartner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1562-1571.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47: 644-675.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. 1996. Image theory: The unifying perspective. In L. R. Beach (Ed.), Decisionmaking in the workplace: A unified perspective: 1-19. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., & Pearson, A. 2005. The effects of workfamily conflict and familywork conflict
on non-attendance behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 58: 919-925.
Budig, M. J. 2006. Intersections on the road to self-employment: Gender, family and occupational class. Social
Forces, 84(4): 2223-2239.
Burchielli, R., Bartram, T., & Thanacoody, R. 2008. Workfamily balance or greedy organizations? Relations
Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 63: 108-133.
Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. 2005. Extending the demands-control model: A daily
diary study of job characteristics, workfamily conflict and workfamily facilitation. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 78: 155-169.
Byron, K. 2005. A meta-analytic review of workfamily conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67: 169-198.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. 2000. Workfamily conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26: 1031-1054.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. 2006. Measuring the positive side of the work
family interface: Development and validation of a workfamily enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68: 131-164.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. 2000. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional
measure of workfamily conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56: 249-276.
Carlson, D., Witt, L., Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K., & Grzywacz, J. 2008. Supervisor appraisal as the link between
familywork balance and contextual performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 23: 37-49.
Carr, J., Boyar, S., & Gregory, B. 2008. The moderating effect of workfamily centrality on work-family conflict,
organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 34: 244-262.
Casper, W., Bordeaux, C., Eby, L., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. 2007. A review of research methods in IO/OB
workfamily research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 28-43.
Chen, Z., Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2009. Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A personenvironment fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74: 82-93.
Clark, S. C. 2000. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53: 747-770.
Cropley, M., & Purvis, L. J. M. 2003. Job strain and rumination about work issues during leisure time: A diary
study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12: 195-207.

Crouter, A. C. 1984. Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of workfamily interface. Human Relations,
37: 425-442.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. 1989. Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56: 815-822.
Duxbury, L., Lyons, S., & Higgins, C. 2007. Dual-income families in the new millennium: Reconceptualizing family type. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9: 472-486.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB:
Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124-197.
Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G. 2002. Age effects on the predictors of technical workers commitment
and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 655-674.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1980. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 21: 219-239.
Ford, M., Heinen, B., & Langkamer, K. 2007. Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of crossdomain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 57-80.
Fournier, G., Lachance, L., & Bujold, C. 2009. Nonstandard career paths and profiles of commitment to life roles:
A complex relation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74: 321-331.
Frone, M. R. 2000. Workfamily conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 888-895.
Frone, M. R. 2003. Workfamily balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health
psychology: 143-162. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. 2008. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderate effects. Personnel Psychology, 61: 227-271.
Golden, A. 2009. Employee families and organizations as mutually enacted environments: A sensemaking
approach to worklife interrelationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 22: 385-415.
Golden, A., & Geisler, C. 2007. Worklife boundary management and the personal digital assistant. Human Relations,
60: 519-551.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. in press. Workfamily balance: A review and extension of the literature. In J. C.
Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review, 10: 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2003. When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 90: 291-303.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of workfamily enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31: 72-91.
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. 2002. Workfamily spillover and daily reports of work and
family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51: 28-36.
Grzywacz, J., & Carlson, D. 2007. Conceptualizing workfamily balance: Implications for practice and research.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9: 455-471.
Grzywacz, J., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., & Wayne, J. 2007. A multi-level perspective on the synergies between work
and family. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 559-574.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. 2000. Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on
the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Guion, R. M. 1989. Absenteeism among hospital nurses: An idiographic-longitudinal
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 424-453.
Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T., & Grandey, A. 2003. Workfamily conflict and work-related withdrawal behaviors.
Journal of Business & Psychology, 17: 419-436.
Haviland, A., Nagin, D. S., Rosenbaum, P. R., & Tremblay, R. E. 2008. Combining group-based trajectory modeling and propensity score matching for causal inferences in nonexperimental longitudinal data. Developmental
Hecht, T., & Allen, N. 2009. A longitudinal examination of the worknonwork boundary strength construct.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 839-862.

Heller, D., & Watson, D. 2005. The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and marriage: The role of time
and mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1273-1279.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44:
513-524.
Hoobler, J., Wayne, S., & Lemmon, G. 2009. Bosses perceptions of familywork conflict and womens promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 939-957.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. 2007. When can employees
have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on workfamily conflict and social activities at
home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1368-1379.
Ilies, R., Wilson, K., & Wagner, D. 2009. The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees family lives: The
facilitating role of workfamily integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 87-102.
Jennings, J. E., & McDougald, M. S. 2007. Workfamily interface experiences and coping strategies: Implications
for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 32: 747-760.
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. 2006. Workfamily conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. 1981. Comparison of two modes of stress measurement:
Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4: 1-39.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-307.
Kellas, J. K., & Trees, A. R. 2006. Finding meaning in difficult family experiences: Sense-making and interaction
processes during joint family storytelling. Journal of Family Communication, 6: 49-76.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L. A., & Kaskubar, D.
2008. Getting there from here: Research on the effects of workfamily initiatives on workfamily conflict and
business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 305-349.
Kirchmeyer, C. 1992. Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal
resources. Human Relations, 45: 775-795.
Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (Eds.). 2005. Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. 2006. Where is the me among the we? Identity work and the search
for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1031-1057.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. 2009. Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the workhome interface
via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 704-730.
Lapierre, L., & Allen, T. 2006. Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for workfamily conflict and employee well-being. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 169-181.
Larson, R., Verma, S., & Dworkin, J. 2001. Mens work and family lives in India: The daily organization of time
and emotion. Journal of Family Psychology, 15: 206-224.
Lazarova, M., Westman, M., & Shaffer, M. A. 2010. Elucidating the positive side of the workfamily interface on
international assignments: A model of expatriate work and family performance. Academy of Management Review,
35: 93-117.
Livingston, B., & Judge, T. 2008. Emotional responses to workfamily conflict: An examination of gender role
orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 207-216.
Lobel, S. A. 1991. Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and implications for
research. Academy of Management Review, 16: 507-521.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. 2008. Can a manager have a life and career? International and multisource
perspectives on worklife balance and career advancement potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
789-805.
MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. 1994. Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference
with work. Work and Stress, 8: 244-254.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. 1989. Toward a motivational and structural theory of ruminative thought. In J. S. Uleman
& J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: 306-326. New York: Guilford.
Matthews, R., Del Priore, R., Acitelli, L., & Janet, L. B. 2006. Work-to-relationship conflict: Crossover effects in
dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 228-240.

Maybery, D. J., Neale, J., Arentz, A., & Jones-Ellis, J. 2007. The negative event scale: Measuring frequency and
intensity of adult hassles. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 20: 163-176.
McDonald, D. A., & Almeida, D. M. 2004. The interweave of fathers daily work experiences and fathering behaviors. Fathering, 2: 235-251.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. 1998. Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.),
Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2): 5-33. Hove, UK: Psychological Press.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. 2005. Convergence between measures of work-to-family and familyto-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 215-232.
Michel, J. S., & Hargis, M. B. 2008. Linking mechanisms of workfamily conflict and segmentation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73: 509-522.
Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. 2009. A comparative test of work
family conflict models and critical examination of workfamily linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74:
199-218.
Mickel, A., & Dallimore, E. 2009. Life-quality decisions: Tension-management strategies used by individuals when
making tradeoffs. Human Relations, 62: 627-668.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. 1996. Development and validation of workfamily conflict and
family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 400-410.
Ng, T., & Feldman, D. 2008. Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta-analysis data. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29: 853-880.
Nippert-Eng, C. E. 1996. Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Palmer, S. 2001. Stress managementa masterclass: An inaugural lecture. Counseling Psychology Review, 16:
18-27.
Perlow, L. A. 1998. Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 328-357.
Poppleton, S., Briner, R. B., & Kiefer, T. 2008. The roles of context and everyday experience in understanding
worknon-work relationships: A qualitative diary study of white- and blue-collar workers. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 481-502.
Poulin, M. J., & Heckhausen, J. 2007. Stressful events compromise control strivings during a major life transition.
Motivation and Emotion, 31: 300-311.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2006a. Is the opposite of positive negative? Untangling the complex relationship
between workfamily enrichment and conflict. Career Development International, 11: 650-659.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2006b. Managing incidents of workfamily conflict: A decision-making perspective. Human Relations, 59: 1179-1212.
Pratt, M. G., & Rosa, J. A. 2003. Transforming workfamily conflict into commitment in network marketing organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 395-418.
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Pulkkinen, L. 2008. Workfamily conflict and psychological well-being:
Stability and cross-lagged relations within one- and six-year follow-ups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73:
37-51.
Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. 2009. Do the opportunities for learning and personal development lead to happiness? It
depends on workfamily conciliation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14: 334-348.
Reitzes, D. C., & Mutran, E. J. 1994. Multiple roles and identities: Factors influencing self-esteem among middleaged working men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 313-325.
Repetti, R. L. 1987. Linkages between work and family roles. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 7: 98-127.
Repetti, R., Wang, S., & Saxbe, D. 2009. Bringing it all back home: How outside stressors shape families everyday
lives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18: 106-111.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. 2002. Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: Evidence for
two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198-215.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46: 655-684.
Rothbard, N., Phillips, K., & Dumas, T. 2005. Managing multiple roles: Workfamily policies and individuals
desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16: 243-258.
Rotondo, D., Carlson, D., & Kincaid, J. 2002. Coping with multiple dimensions of workfamily conflict. Personnel
Review, 32: 275-296.

Ryan, A., & Kossek, E. 2008. Worklife policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47: 295-310.
Seiger, C. P., & Wiese, B. S. 2009. Social support from work and family domains as an antecedent or moderator of
workfamily conflicts? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75: 26-37.
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. 2009. Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepreneurial process: A
process of resolving identity conflict. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33: 1245-1264.
Sieber, S. D. 1974. Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39: 567-578.
Siedlecki, K. L. 2007. Investigating the structure and age invariance of episodic memory across the adult lifespan.
Psychology and Aging, 22, 251-268.
Song, Z., Foo, M., & Uy, M. 2008. A mood spillover and crossover among dual-earner couples: A cell phone event
sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 443-452.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. 2008. Did you have a nice evening? A day-level study on recovery
experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 674-684.
Steele, C. M. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.)
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21): 261-302. New York: Academic Press.
Stone, A. 1987. Event content in a daily survey is differentially associated with concurrent mood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 56-58.
Story, L. B., & Repetti, R. L. (2006). Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology,
20: 690-700.
Sturges, J. 2008. All in a days work? Career self-management and the management of the boundary between work
and non-work. Human Resource Management Journal, 18: 118-134.
Taylor, B., DelCampo, R., & Blancero, D. 2009. Workfamily conflict/facilitation and the role of workplace supports for U.S. Hispanic professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 643-664.
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. 2000. A daily process approach to coping: Linking theory,
research and practice. American Psychologist, 55: 626-636.
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28: 571-586.
Tulving, E. 1983. Elements of episodic memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurtz, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. 2006. Workhome interference: How
does it manifest itself from day to day? Work and Stress, 20: 145-162.
van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., Haslam, S. A., & Urlings, F. 2008. There is nothing either good or bad but
thinking makes it so: Informational support and cognitive appraisal of the workfamily interface. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 349-367.
Voydanoff, P. 2004. Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and
facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 275-285.
Voydanoff, P. 2005. Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and
perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 491-503.
Warner, M., & Hausdorf, P. 2009. The positive interaction of work and family roles: Using need theory to further
understand the workfamily interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24: 372-385.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J., Carlson, D., & Kacmar, K. 2007. Workfamily facilitation: A theoretical explanation
and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 63-76.
Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. 2006. The role of identity and workfamily support in work-family
enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 445-461.
Westman, M. 2001. Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54: 717-751.
Westman, M., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. 2009. Expert commentary on worklife balance and crossover of emotions
and experiences: Theoretical and practice advancements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 587-595.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. 2005. The crossover of workfamily conflict from one spouse to the other. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 35: 1936-1957.
Wiersma, U. J. 1994. A taxonomy of behavioral strategies for coping with workhome role conflict. Human
Relations, 47: 211-221.
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. 1994. Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of workfamily conflict in
employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 837868.
Williams, K. J., Suls, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & Wan, C. K. 1991. Multiple role juggling and daily mood
states in working mothers: An experience sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 664-674.

Journal of Management 2011 Maertz 68 98

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Management 2011 Maertz 68 98

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Management

Work-Family Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under ''Levels'' and ''Episodes''

Southern Management Association

>> Version of Record - Dec 20, 2010

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 69

Distinguishing Levels and Episodes Approaches

Advantages of an Episodes Approach

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

70 Journal of Management / January 2011

Basic psychological model

Actual conflicts can be reliably

Conflict is experienced as discrete

Level changes occur relatively

Episodes and related changes occur at

Extent to which one agrees, at time of

Contingent on focus of study (e.g.,

Typical design and

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 71

In terms of design, the levels approach uses between-subjects designs. An episodes

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

72 Journal of Management / January 2011

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 73

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

74 Journal of Management / January 2011

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 75

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

76 Journal of Management / January 2011

doing something specific to manage conflict implies a response to a specific episode). We

Mood or Affect Spillover and Crossover Effects

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 77

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

78 Journal of Management / January 2011

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 79

Methods for Managing Conflict Episodes and/or Achieving Balance

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

80 Journal of Management / January 2011

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 81

Cognitive affirmation and reappraisal. Furthermore, leaving one responsibility unfulfilled

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

82 Journal of Management / January 2011

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

Maertz, Boyar / WorkFamily Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance 83

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com by Giulia - Stefana Atanasiu on November 11, 2014

84 Journal of Management / January 2011

Choosing one role

Choose activity based on

Ive got to work now, but

Engage script: When this

Hire a full-time nanny or

Hire cab to provide family

Engage script: When this

Ask for a bigger or

Ask a coworker, friend, or

Changing ones own

Make up an excuse at the

1.Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal

2.Focal persons enacted behaviorFocal