1 s2.0 S0001879117300350 Main

Journal of Vocational Behavior 101 (2017) 1–20
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Cross-cultural work and family research: A review of the literature

T
⁎
Kristen M. Shockleya, , Jill Douekb, Christine R. Smithb, Peter P. Yub,
Soner Dumanic,1, Kimberly A. Frenchd,1
a
University of Georgia, United States
b
The Graduate Center and Baruch College, City University of New York, United States
c
University of South Florida/American Institutes for Research, United States
d
University of South Florida, United States
A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT
Keywords: Research aimed at understanding the intersection of employees' work and family lives has
Cross-cultural blossomed over the past few years, and, in more recent times, has begun to have an increasingly
Work-family global focus. Conducting research in diverse cultural settings is important given that work and
Global family dynamics are entrenched in larger societal contexts, such as gender role norms, national
Collectivism
policies, and cultural values. However, the literature has not developed in a programmatic way,
Gender egalitarianism
making it difficult to build upon the current knowledge base. The goal of this study is to review
extant cross-cultural work and family published research in an effort to synthesize and assess the
current state of the literature, with a focus on theoretical logic and methodology. We do this by
reporting descriptive statistics regarding which global regions have received the most attention,
the way culture is considered analytically and theoretically, and information about measurement.
Through this review we aim to provide scholars with a more complete understanding of the state
of cross-cultural work-family knowledge and offer recommendations for future research that will
facilitate theoretical advancement.
Over the past three decades, academic, organizational, and popular press interest in understanding the intersection of employees' work
and family lives has flourished (Allen, 2012). Early research in the area was mostly conducted in the U.S., but more recently there has been an
increase in studies conducted in other countries and those that include samples from multiple nations (Casper, Allen, & Poelmans, 2014).
Given that work and family dynamics are entrenched in larger societal contexts, such as gender role norms, national policies, economic
stability, and cultural values, this expansion is merited (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016; Poelmans et al., 2003). Further, understanding cross-cultural
variations of work-family (WF) interactions has important implications for human resource practices in this era of increasing globalization.
Despite a growing literature on global and cross-cultural WF research, there have been few attempts in the literature to integrate
findings. The few narrative reviews that do exist (Aycan, 2008; Ollier-Malaterre, 2016; Poelmans, O'Driscoll, & Beham, 2005; Shaffer,
Joplin, & Hsu, 2011) have not been comprehensive in including all available studies, nor have they comprehensively assessed the
theoretical rationale used to expect cultural differences in WF constructs or the methodological rigor of studies. Instead, they have
aimed to synthesize results, which is rather challenging given that the expansion of research in this area has generally not been
programmatic in nature. Furthermore, one quantitative review also exists (Allen, French, Dumani, & Shockley, 2015), which syn-
thesized findings related to mean differences in one construct, WF conflict (both work-to-family and family-to-work directions), but
also neglects to provide a systematic review of extant theory or methodology.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kshock@uga.edu (K.M. Shockley).
1
These authors contributed equally. Authorship is alphabetical.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.001
Received 1 February 2017; Received in revised form 11 April 2017; Accepted 13 April 2017
Available online 17 April 2017
0001-8791/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
K.M. Shockley et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 101 (2017) 1–20
With this in mind, the goal of this paper is to provide the first known comprehensive review of all extant cross-cultural WF
research with a focus on a) the prevalence of research in different regions across the globe, b) the content and theoretical focus of
studies, and c) the methodologies employed. We define cross-cultural as studies that include at least two distinct cultures, and we use
the term culture broadly to refer to “the shared way of life of a group of people” (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002, p. 2).
Components of this shared way of life include many facets, such as shared values, language, institutional factors, and economic
conditions (Taras, Rowney, & Steel, 2009). Following previous researchers (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003), we largely rely on nation as a
proxy for delineating distinct cultures, though we acknowledge that it is an imperfect proxy given cases of large within-country
variation in these factors as well as cases where countries are quite similar (e.g., U.S. and Canada).
Our review has clear and important theoretical implications. We identify not only the theoretical perspectives that have been
promulgated by researchers in terms of their predictions but also the “why” behind each of these perspectives. This gives a rich sense
of the theoretical state of the literature, uncovers contradictions, and provides future researchers with a single place to easily identify
current theoretical perspectives, rather than having to comb through a disjointed literature. In addition, our review gauges the level
of scientific rigor on which our current understanding rests and identifies theoretical and methodological weak points that can be
developed in future research. Such improvements are critical for building firm footing for cross-national work-family inferences.
Moreover, we offer additional suggestions of cultural values that have so far been neglected but have potential to advance the field.
Apart from extending theory, we also give researchers direction in terms of specific study ideas, as we highlight empirical gaps and
inconsistent findings in the extant literature.
Beyond the theoretical importance of such a review, there are also important applied implications. In its current state, the
literature gives practitioners no clear recommendations about the best WF practices and policies that cater to employees from a
diverse array of cultures. With the parallel increase in globalization and use of expatriates by many organizations, this is an important
oversight. Without a full understanding of how WF practices vary across cultures, companies may be misinformed about best
practices. This could have grave implications for expatriate well-being and early return rates, given the critical role of WF issues in
adequate adjustment of these employees (Lazarova, Westman, & Shaffer, 2010).
1. Method
1.1. Literature search and inclusion criteria
Articles for the review were identified via three methods. First, English-language articles published from before May 2016 were
identified via database searches (PsycINFO, Web of Science) using the search terms “work-family,” “work-life,” and “work-nonwork”
along with “cultur*,” “cross-cultur*,”and “nation*.” Next, we perused the reference section of chapters and articles focused on cross-
cultural WF issues and WF issues in a particular region (i.e., Aycan, 2008; Bardoel, De Cieri, & Santos, 2008; Ollier-Malaterre, 2016;
Poelmans et al., 2005; Shaffer et al., 2011) to locate any previously unidentified cross-cultural WF studies.
Studies were included in the review if they included at least two samples from different countries or distinct cultural groups within a
country (or if they provided data from one sample and made explicit quantitative comparisons to previous research based on another sample,
e.g., Anderson, Coffey, Liu, & Zhao, 2008; Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Hassan, Dollard, & Winefield, 2010) and quantitatively assessed a
construct that involved interaction between work and family domains (i.e., WF conflict, enrichment, facilitation, fit, positive spillover,
negative spillover, pressure, balance). This decision was made to create clear boundaries for the review, as many topics could be considered
within the realm of WF studies, such as national fertility, workplace flexibility, or percentage of women in the labor force. Furthermore, we
eliminated studies that included participants from multiple cultures but collapsed across cultures for analyses involving WF constructs
(k = 13). We also excluded studies of expatriates (k = 4).2 This resulted in the inclusion of 73 published articles, which represented data
from 58 independent datasets. The studies came from a variety of disciplines including psychology, sociology, family studies, human re-
sources, public health, and medicine. The full list of studies is available in Supplemental materials.
1.2. Overview of the coding process
Each primary study in the review was coded by one of this study's six authors. The coding training process entailed a detailed
discussion of the coding spreadsheet, which included the variables described below. All coders then worked through a single article,
coding it together. Next, the coders separately coded three identical articles and subsequently met to review. Any discrepancies were
reviewed to confirm mutual understanding of the coding process. This step was repeated with three more articles. At this point,
consensus was deemed sufficiently high (> 90%) to proceed with one coder per article.
1.2.1. National origin of sample(s)

We recorded the national origin of the sample(s), including distinct cultural groups within a single nation (e.g., Arab and Jewish
Israelis). Nations were further combined into regional clusters based on the grouping from the GLOBE project (e.g., Confucian Asia,
Latin Europe, Latin America; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). GLOBE is a wide-scale study of cultural values in
management across 62 societies. GLOBE authors collected data in each society and used this information to identify nine dimensions
of culture, rank the included societies on each dimension, and create empirically-driven regional groupings (i.e., countries that are
2
A list of the excluded studies is available from the first author upon request.
2
more similar to one another than other sets of countries). When cultures were not included in Project GLOBE, we grouped them
according to geographical location, as this is noted to be the single largest factor explaining cultural variations (Hofstede, 1980). For
example, Norway is absent from Project GLOBE but was categorized as a Nordic country.
1.2.2. Type of cross-cultural hypothesis

In their review of cross-cultural research methodologies, Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, and Janssens (1995) propose a two-part typology
of cross-cultural hypotheses. Type I studies are those that focus on mean differences in a construct across cultures, and Type II studies are
those that consider culture as a moderator of the relationship between variables. We used this typology as a basis but extended it for our
coding. We recorded whether a study's analytical focus was Type I, a) determining differences in the prevalence of a WF construct across
cultures, but broke the Type II distinction into several distinct categories. These included b) whether country was treated as a moderator
between antecedents and a WF construct, c) whether country was treated as a moderator between a WF construct and outcomes, d) whether
an imputed value relevant to culture (e.g., cultural values, national policies, labor force statistics) or individually-measured cultural value
(e.g., idiocentrism, individualism) was tested as a moderator between antecedents and a WF construct, e) whether an imputed or individually-
measured value relevant to culture was tested as a moderator between a WF construct and outcomes, f) whether imputed or individually-
measured cultural values were tested as a predictor of WF constructs, and g) whether a model with multiple variables was tested for across
cultures. Categories were not mutually exclusive, as some studies tested mean differences as well as moderating effects, for example. For
category f) where cultural values were actually tested, we also coded for which specific values were tested in order to give a richer sense of
the variables researchers have empirically tested as underlying differences.
In order to gain a sense of which specific constructs were studied, we coded whether the study included a) WF conflict (overall or
work-to-family or family-to-work conflict) or similar constructs involving negative interference such as work-nonwork conflict or WF
negative spillover, b) WF enrichment (overall or work-to-family or family-to-work enrichment) or similar constructs involving po-
sitive interactions between domains such as WF facilitation, enhancement, or positive spillover, c) WF balance, work-life balance, or
satisfaction with WF balance, and d) other WF constructs that involved the interaction of work and family roles but did not clearly fit
into the other three categories (e.g., WF fit and WF pressure).
1.2.3. Reference to cultural context

We reviewed the introduction sections of each paper to determine if and how the cultural context was addressed during hypothesis
development. We coded whether the cultural context was a) not addressed beyond mere mention that the samples represented more than one
culture, b) briefly mentioned but not explicitly incorporated into the hypothesis or research question development (e.g., stating that WF issues
are a major concern in Germany and Switzerland as impetus for the study but not referencing this fact in hypothesis building), or c) explicitly
discussed as part of the arguments for the hypotheses or research questions (e.g., the relationship between work demands and WF conflict is
weaker in China than the U.S. due to the collectivistic nature of China).
1.2.4. Content analysis of reference to cultural context

To further gain a sense of the current state of the literature in terms of the way researchers discuss culture to formulate hy-
potheses, we recorded the specific theoretical arguments for cultural references for all studies that fell into category c) above. In
addition to the 73 empirical studies included in the review, we also searched for and content coded relevant theoretical papers. This
resulted in the inclusion of five additional papers. We content coded the mechanisms discussed in the theoretical rationale for
hypotheses (e.g., collectivists should experience less WF conflict because they have more family support than individualists).
1.2.5. WF construct measurement information

We reviewed the measures section of each study and recorded each measure used to assess a WF construct. Because studies sometimes
included measures of multiple WF constructs, each of these constructs (rather than each study) was coded (k = 80). We recorded information
about whether a) the measure came directly from a previously validated measure, b) was adapted from a previously validated measure, c)
was a measure used within a large scale study (e.g., European Social Survey, 2002-2014), or d) was newly created for that particular study.
We also examined the measure translation processes. These categories included no mention of translation process, single translation, back
translation, or no translation necessary (i.e., if the scale was administered in the same language it was developed in and this was the language
used for all countries in the study). Back translation occurs when scale is translated into another language and then translated back by an
independent translator into the original language as a consistency check (Brislin, 1970), whereas single translation involves only translating it
from the original language to the other. For studies using large archival databases (e.g., European Social Survey, 2002-2014), we reviewed
online study materials to ascertain the translation procedure. Lastly, we coded whether the authors reported testing for measurement in-
variance across samples, which demonstrates statistically whether items from a measure display similar psychometric properties to their
latent variables across different samples (Little, 1997).
2. Results
2.1. Representation of countries and frequencies of cross-cultural comparisons
Table 1 provides information regarding the frequency of countries and regions included in cross-cultural WF research. The region
with the highest representation was the Anglo cluster (22.3% of all countries involved in cross-cultural WF research), followed by
Eastern Europe (16%) and Nordic Europe (13.6%). The Southern Asia (4.2%), Middle East (1.1%) Add a comma after (1.1%) and Sub-
3
Table 1
Regions and countries included in cross-cultural work-family research.
Anglo Australia (16); Canada (15); Ireland (8), United Kingdom (23); Great Britain (6); New Zealand (15); South Africa (3); United States (35)
k = 121(22.3%)
Eastern Europe Bulgariaa (9); Croatiaa (2); Czech Republica (11); Estoniaa (4); Georgia (1); Greece (8); Hungary (11); Latviaa (2); Lithuaniaa (1) Poland
k = 87 (16%) (11); Romaniaa (4); Russia (4); Slovakiaa (7); Slovenia (10); Ukrainea (2)
Nordic Europe Denmark (15); Finland (24); Icelanda (2); Norwaya (14); Sweden (19)
k = 74 (13.6%)
Germanic Europe Austria (6); Belgiuma (11); Germany (19); Luxembourga (4); The Netherlands (23); Switzerland (6)
k = 69 (12.7%)
Latin Europe France (18); Israel (5); Italy (10); Maltaa (1); Portugal (14); Spain (16)
k = 64 (11.8%)
Confucian Asia China (14); Hong Kong (9); Japan (12); Singapore (4); South Korea (12); Taiwan (9)
k = 60 (11%)
Latin America Argentina (5); Bolivia (3); Brazil (5); Chilea (2); Colombia (2); Dominican Republica (1); Ecuador (2); Mexico (5); Paraguaya (1); Perua
k = 38 (7%) (5); Puerto Ricoa (3); Uruguaya (2); Venezuela (2)
Southern Asia India (8); Indonesia (3); Iran (1); Malaysia (4); The Philippines (4); Thailand (3)
k = 23 (4.2%)
Middle East Egypt (1); Cyprusa (2); Pakistana (1); Turkey (2)
k = 6 (1.1%)
Subsaharan Africa Kenyaa (1)
k = 1 (0.2%)
This does not include countries from Hill, Hawkins, Martinson, and Ferris (2003) because they do not list all individual countries - their stated list
includes US, Canada, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Asia, and Australia.
a
Countries that are not included in Project GLOBE regional groupings.
Saharan Africa (0.2%) regions have received far less research attention. Table 2 provides information regarding the frequency of
possible comparisons of different regional clusters. This table was created by counting the maximum number of comparisons across
clusters that could be made within a given study. For example, Netemeyer, Brashear-Alejandro, and Boles (2004) included U.S.,
Romania, and Puerto Rico and would thus count as one Anglo-Eastern European comparison, one Anglo-Latin American comparison,
and one Eastern Europe-Latin American comparison. Anglo countries were most frequently involved in comparisons, followed by
Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe, and Latin Europe.
2.2. Content, analytical focus, and measurement
Table 3 provides descriptive information about the studies, including types of cross-cultural comparisons made within studies, the
WF constructs assessed, and measurement information. In terms of the type of cross-cultural hypotheses/analyses, about half (49.3%)
of the studies included an analysis of differences in the prevalence of WF constructs across cultures.
The next most common analysis involved testing country as a moderator between antecedents and a WF construct. Cultural/institutional
values were imputed in a small amount of studies. In terms of specific imputed values, collectivism and family-related welfare by the state
were the most common (4 studies each), followed by gender egalitarianism (3 studies), welfare regime (2 studies), and a mix of economic and
gender-related variables (2 studies). Regarding the construct focus, the cross-cultural literature mimics the broader WF literature (Casper, Eby,
Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007), with a large focus on WF conflict (87.7% of studies).
In terms of measurement, there was a relatively even split between researchers who used WF measures from previous research
and those that used measures within a widely available database (e.g., European Social Survey, 2002-2014). A few researchers
Table 2
Count of which countries were explicitly compared across studies.
CA NE LE EE LA SA ARA GE AF Total
ANG 24 25 18 13 11 7 4 20 0 122
CA 6 7 6 8 6 1 4 1 63
NE 18 19 4 6 4 24 0 106
LE 15 5 5 6 19 0 93
EE 6 4 5 17 0 85
LA 4 1 3 0 42
SA 1 3 1 37
ME 5 0 27
GE 0 95
AF 2
Note. Studies are only included in the table if they included studies in different clusters and compared across all clusters (versus just focusing on one
country in reference to others). Total k = 67.
ANG = Anglo; CA = Confucian Asia; NE = Nordic Europe, LE = Latin Europe; EE = Eastern Europe; LA = Latin American; SA = Southern Asia;
ME = Middle East; GE = Germanic Europe; AF = Sub-Saharan Africa.
4
Table 3
Frequencies of coded variables across studies.
k
Cross-cultural focus of study

Differences in prevalence of WF construct across cultures 36 (49.3%)
Country as a moderator between antecedents and a WF construct 31 (42.5%)
Country as a moderator between WF construct and outcomes 12 (16.4%)
Imputed or measured cultural value as moderator between antecedent and WF construct 5 (6.8%)
Imputed or measured cultural value as moderator of WF construct and outcome 4 (5.5%)
Imputed or measured cultural value as predictor of WF construct 8 (11%)
Model linking several variables tested across countries 11 (15.1%)
WF constructs assessed
WF conflict 64 (87.7%)
WF enrichment 3 (4.1%)
WF balance 10 (13.7%)
Other (e.g., WF pressure, fit) 5 (6.8%)
Consideration of culture
Not mentioned 8 (11%)
Context mentioned but not integrated into specific hypotheses about cultural differences 22 (30.1%)
Context discussed as part of hypothesis development 43 (58.9%)
Measurement information
Measure used in previous research 33 (41.3%)
Measure adapted from a scale used in previous research 5 (6.3%)
Measure used within a large scale study 32 (40%)
Measure created for study 10 (12.5%)
Measurement equivalence testing conducted 23 (28.8%)
Translation information
No mention of translation process 17 (23.3%)
Single translation 17 (23.3%)
Back translation 31 (42.5%)
Translation not necessary 8 (11%)
Note. The denominator used in calculating percentages is the total number of studies (k = 73) with the exception of the
measurement and translation information category where the denominator was the number of total WF constructs mea-
sured across studies (k = 80).
developed their own items outside of the context of a widely available dataset. In 28.8% of studies, there was explicit mention of
measurement equivalence testing. Overall, translation procedures were varied, with 11% not needing translation, 42.5% employing
back translation, and 23.3% relying on single translation. Almost one-fourth of studies did not provide any information about the
translation process.
2.3. Reference to cultural context
As illustrated in Table 3, most studies (58.9%) included an explicit integration of the cultural context into at least one of their
hypotheses. About one-fourth of studies mentioned culture but did so in a way that was not specific enough to make hypotheses
regarding the nature of differences, and 11% did not mention the cultural context at all in their introduction section.
As listed in Table 4, the content coding of cultural context revealed the existence of 16 unique cultural, institutional, or economic
factors. These included five values from GLOBE (House et al., 2004): collectivism (degree that cultures value collective distribution of
resources, collective action, and cohesiveness with one's organization and family), gender egalitarianism (degree that cultures
minimize gender inequality), humane orientation (degree that cultures value and reward helping others), power distance (degree that
cultures expect power to be unequally distributed), and uncertainty avoidance (degree that cultures rely on rules, policies, and social
norms to reduce the unpredictability of future events). Other characteristics included family-related welfare provided by the state
(offering of state funded policies such as parental leave, childcare subsidies and/or regulations involving part-time work and work
hours), specificity (degree to which nonwork and business agendas are kept separated; Trompenaars, 1993), Confucianism (degree
that cultures value interpersonal harmony and strong family bonds; Yum, 1988), rate of change in developing economies, welfare
regime (the amount of involvement of the government in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its
citizens; commonly considered in terms of liberal, conservative, and social democratic; Esping-Andersen, 1990), market economics
(type of economy in a country such as capitalist vs. socialist), modernization (changing of country in terms of progressive techno-
logical, economical, and social advances), and unemployment rate. Collectivism, gender egalitarianism, and family-related welfare
provided by the state were the most commonly invoked theoretical explanations for cultural differences. The pattern of results is
further interpreted in the Discussion section.
5
Table 4
Summary of theory used in cross-cultural work-family research.
Cultural value (number of unique studies) MAIN EFFECTS
Collectivism (11) - aCollectivism (vs. individualism) is negatively related to WF conflict because:

o In collectivistic cultures, work is viewed as a means to enhance family well-being and thus work and family
are seen as complementary instead of in conflict, leading to lower perceptions of WF conflict (Billing et al.,
2014b; Cinamon, 2009: Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010; Yang, 2005).
o In individualistic cultures, people are more achievement oriented and competitive which can lead to
spending more time at work and having more work demands and consequently more WF conflict (Aycan,
2008; Billing et al., 2014b).
o Families tend to provide more support in collectivistic cultures, which should help reduce WF conflict
(Anderson et al., 2008; Billing et al., 2014a, 2014b; Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010).
o Family demands are seen as the norm in collectivistic cultures rather than a burden, making tension between
work and family seem typical and not perceived as conflict (Aycan, 2008).
- aCollectivism (vs. individualism) is positively related to WF conflict because:
o Collectivists have greater family demands due to their focus on extended family, which increases the
likelihood of conflict (Oishi et al., 2015).
- bCollectivism (vs. individualism) is negatively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o Collectivists place greater emphasis on maintaining social institutions, including hierarchical structures that
are the source of organizational demands. As such, they are expected to be more tolerant of and less reactive
to work demands, translating into less interpretation of work interfering with family (Jin et al., 2013).
b
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) is positively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o In collectivistic cultures, family care is left to the responsibility of families so organizational supports for
work and family are not well developed, translating to greater work-to-family conflict (Mortazavi et al.,
2009).
o Collectivists value family more and should thus be more concerned about the effect of work hours on family
(Wharton & Blair-Loy, 2006).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) is positively related to family-to-work conflict because:
o In collectivistic cultures, family care is left to the responsibility of family, organizational supports for work
and family are not well developed, translating to greater family-to-work conflict (Mortazavi et al., 2009).
o In collectivistic cultures, family is a central part of people's identities, making them more likely to allow
family-related demands to interrupt work (Jin et al., 2013).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) is negatively related to WF balance because:
o Interpersonal relationships and trust at work are critical in collectivistic cultures. Earning this trust often
requires attending frequently-occurring after-hour events with customers or business partners. This can
increase work demands and threaten WF balance (Aycan, 2008).
Family-related welfare provided by state - Level of support as provided by the government is negatively related to WF conflict because:
(8) o Such policies make work and family in less competition (Annink et al., 2016; Korabik et al., 2003; Notten
et al., 2016; Ruppanner, 2013; Strandh & Nordenmark, 2006; van der Lippe et al., 2006).
- Level of support as provided by the government is negatively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o Such policies make work and family in less competition (Strandh & Nordenmark, 2006).
- Level of support provided by the government is positively related to WF balance because:
o Such policies make work and family in less competition (Abendroth & den Dulk, 2011: Sanseau & Smith,
2012)
Gender egalitarianism (3) - Gender egalitarianism is positively related to WF conflict because:
o In more egalitarian cultures both men and women are expected to take on dual roles rather than dividing
labor along traditional lines, which increases demands for both men and women and leads to conflict (van
der Lippe et al., 2006).
- aGender egalitarianism is positively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o In more egalitarian cultures women have better career opportunities, more labor force attachment, and
higher incomes which may make women and their families more vulnerable to work-to-family conflict as
couples have additional work demands (Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014).
- aGender egalitarianism is negatively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o In more egalitarian cultures there are likely to be more women in government, and more women in
government increases the likelihood of family-friendly legislation being passed which should help reduce
conflicts between work and family (Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014).
o In more egalitarian cultures women make more money, which affords the family greater economic
opportunity to outsource domestic labor, thereby reducing work-to-family conflict for the couple
(Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014).
- Gender egalitarianism is negatively related to family-to-work conflict because:
o In more egalitarian cultures there are likely to be more women in government, and more women in
government increases the likelihood of family-friendly legislation being passed which should help reduce
conflicts between family and work (Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014).
o In more egalitarian cultures women make more money, which affords the family greater economic
opportunity to outsource domestic labor, thereby reducing family-to-work conflict (Ruppanner & Huffman,
2014).
- Gender egalitarianism is positively related to WF balance because:
o In more egalitarian cultures there are likely to be a greater proportion of females in the workforce and
stronger societal pressures that contribute to organizations offering more WF supports, which in turn relate
to greater WF balance (Lyness & Kropf, 2005).
(continued on next page)
6
Table 4 (continued)
Humane orientation (1) - Humane orientation is negatively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o Social support is higher in more humane oriented cultures than lower humane oriented cultures, which
contributes to less work-to-family conflict (Powell et al., 2009).
- Humane orientation is negatively related to family-to-work conflict because:
o Social support is higher in more humane oriented cultures than lower humane oriented cultures, which
contributes to less family-to-work conflict (Powell et al., 2009).
Market economics (2) - Liberal market economics (vs. coordinated) are positively related to WF conflict because:
o By virtue of different strategies to gain competitive advantage (i.e., Coordinated: seek to improve
competitive position through an upgrading of workforce skills, while preserving good quality employment
conditions and a high level of employee workplace control; Liberal: combine an expansion of higher level
skills with a low skilled workforce that is subject to an intensification of work through tighter managerial
control over the work process), different work pressures are produced and should be highest in liberal
market economies. This then leads to greater WF conflict (Gallie & Russell, 2009).
- aHolding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience more WF conflict because:
o There is a structural misalignment such that people in the aforementioned cultures will not as quickly adapt
to the new structures that come with a changing economy and government and this lack of adaptation will
make them ill-equipped to deal with WF issues (Trefalt et al., 2013).
o People in transitioning economies will be more likely to engage in upward social comparisons to their
parents of past selves when conditions were more favorable for achieving positive WF outcomes (Trefalt
et al., 2013).
o People in transitioning economies will have more extensive choices than previously, which increases
demands on one's time and can result in additional stress when choice-making abilities are underdeveloped
(Trefalt et al., 2013).
o The nature of the new jobs that are produced are more challenging and time-demanding (Trefalt et al.,
2013).
- bHolding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience less WF balance because:
o There is a structural misalignment such that people in such cultures will not as quickly adapt to the new
structures that come with a changing economy and government and this lack of adaptation will make them
ill-equipped to deal with WF issues (Trefalt et al., 2013).
parents of past selves when conditions were more favorable for achieving positive WF outcomes (Trefalt
et al., 2013).
o The nature of the new jobs that are produced are more challenging and time-demanding (Trefalt et al.,
2013).
- cHolding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience less WF enrichment because:
o There is a structural misalignment such that people in such cultures will not as quickly adapt to the new
structures that come with a changing economy and government and this lack of adaptation will make them
ill-equipped to deal with WF issues (Trefalt et al., 2013).
parents or past selves when conditions were more favorable for achieving positive WF outcomes (Trefalt
et al., 2013).
o The nature of the new jobs that are produced are more challenging, time-demanding, pay more, and allow
family responsibilities to be outsourced (Trefalt et al., 2013)
- aHolding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience less WF conflict because:
o The nature of the new jobs that are produced pay more and allow family responsibilities to be outsourced
- bHolding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience more WF balance because:
c
- Holding welfare support constant, people in cultures transitioning from socialistic to capitalist cultures
(vs. traditionally capitalistic) will experience more WF enrichment because:
Performance orientation (1) - Performance orientation is negatively related to WF balance because:
o High performance oriented cultures tend to be competitive, value materialism, and to emphasize
achievement at work, all which require more time spent at work whereas low performance orientated
cultures put more of an emphasis on quality of life and relationships, which are more conducive to balance
(Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
7
Table 4 (continued)
Power distance (1) - Power distance is negatively related to WF conflict because:

o In lower power distance cultures, employees experience greater empowerment and responsibility compared
to high power distance cultures. This leads to higher job demands and internalized work pressures, which in
turn leads to greater WF conflict (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016).
- Power distance is negatively related to WF enrichment because:
o In lower power distance cultures, employees experience greater empowerment and responsibility compared
to high power distance cultures. This leads to higher job demands and internalized work pressures, which in
turn leads to more rewarding jobs which facilitates WF enrichment (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016).
Rate of change in developing economy (1) - Rates of change in macro-variables (i.e., economic, technological, social, legal) are positively associated
with WF conflict because:
o Such changes add additional pressures for productivity in the workplace which contributes to demands at
work and thus WF conflict (Joplin et al., 2003).
Specificity/diffusion (1) - Specificity (vs. diffusion) is negatively related to work-to-family conflict because:
o Cultures with that are more specific are more likely to view work and family as more separate, they are more
likely to experience conflict (Powell et al., 2009).
- Specificity (vs. diffusion) is negatively related to family-to-work conflict because:
o Cultures with that are more specific are more likely to view work and family as more separate, they are more
likely to experience conflict (Powell et al., 2009).
Uncertainty avoidance (1) - Uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to WF conflict because:
o In higher uncertainty avoidance cultures people engage in more transitions between role rituals and form
less-rigid boundaries around roles. This leads to less permeability and flexibility of roles, which in turn leads
to less WF conflict (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016).
- Uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to WF enrichment because:
o In higher uncertainty avoidance cultures people engage in more transition between role rituals and form
less-rigid boundaries around roles. The lesser permeability and flexibility of roles in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures leads to less opportunity for roles to enrich each other (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016).
Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF ANTECEDENT TO WF CONSTRUCT
Work demands
Collectivism (7) - Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work demands and WF conflict such
that the relationship is stronger in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Collectivists see work as part of family so work demands should have a greater impact on well-being (Yang
et al., 2000).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work demands and work-to-family
conflict such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o In collectivistic cultures work is viewed as a means to enhance family well-being and therefore work
demands are not likely to be interpreted in a way that leads to work-to-family conflict (Aycan, 2008; Lu
et al., 2006; Spector et al., 2004; Spector et al., 2007; Syed et al., 2015).
o The large amount of family support available in collectivistic cultures serves as a buffer so that work
demands have less of an impact on work-to-family conflict (Jin et al., 2013; Spector et al., 2007).
o There is a greater availability of paid domestic labor in collectivistic cultures due to income discrepancies
between managers and domestic workers. This support helps buffer the impact of work demands on work-to-
family conflict relationship (Spector et al., 2007).
o Collectivists place more value on persistence and maintenance of hierarchical structures and therefore
should be more tolerant and less reactive to work demands, which translates into demands having less of an
effect on work-to-family conflict (Jin et al., 2013).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work demands and work-to-family
enrichment such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o The large amount of family support available in collectivistic cultures serves as a buffer so that work
demands have less of a detrimental impact on work-to-family enrichment (Jin et al., 2013).
o Collectivists place more value on persistence and maintenance of hierarchical structures and therefore
should be more tolerant and less reactive to work demands, which translates into demands having less of an
effect on work-to-family enrichment (Jin et al., 2013).
Family-related welfare provided by state - Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between work demands and WF
(1) balance satisfaction such that the relationship is weaker when support is higher because:
o This support acts as a buffer, making work demands less detrimental to WF balance satisfaction (Abendroth
& den Dulk, 2011).
Family demands
8
Table 4 (continued)
Collectivism (3) - Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family demands and WF conflict
such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Collectivists see work as part of family, so family demands should have less of an impact on well-being in
collectivistic cultures (Yang et al., 2000).
a
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family demands and family-to-work
o In collectivistic cultures work is viewed as a means to enhance family well-being and therefore family
demands are not likely to be interpreted in a way that leads to family-to-work conflict (Lu et al., 2006).
- aCollectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family demands and family-to-work
conflict such that the relationship is stronger in more collectivistic cultures because:
o In collectivistic cultures family is a central part of people's identities, making the link between family-related
demands and family-to-work conflict stronger (Jin et al., 2013).
Family-related welfare provided by state - Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between family demands and WF
(2) balance satisfaction such that the relationship is weaker when support is higher because:
o This support acts as a buffer, making family demands less detrimental to WF balance satisfaction (Abendroth
& den Dulk, 2011)
- Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between couples' division of labor
strategy and WF conflict, such that in welfare regimes that are more socially generous and gender
egalitarianism is promoted, couples who evenly divide labor report the lowest WF conflict. Those who
are in cultures with less support but have a traditional division of labor will also report low WF conflict
because:
o There is a greater fit between the couples strategy and the society in which they are embedded, alleviating
feelings of conflict (Wierda-Boer, Gerris, Vermulst, Malinen, & Anderson, 2009)
Demographics
Family-related welfare provided by state - Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between professional status and
(4) WF conflict, such that the relationship is weaker when level of support is high because:
o When the state offers support there is less of a need for organizations to offer support and there is less
variability within organizations in the support that is given to those with professional vs. non-professional
jobs (Beham, Drobnič, & Präg, 2014).
- Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between professional status and
satisfaction with WF balance, such that the relationship is weaker when level of support is high
because:
o When the state offers support there is less of a need for organizations to offer support and there is less
variability within organizations in the support that is given to those with professional vs. non-professional
jobs (Beham et al., 2014).
- Level of support provided by the government moderates the relationship between gender and WF conflict, such
that women's WF conflict is reduced more than men's because:
o When support is high women tend to work more part-time hours. This can lead to men experiencing more
conflict because they work more hours comparatively in places with more governmental support (Cousins &
Tang, 2004; Gallie & Russell, 2009).
o Such policies tend to benefit women more than men so they should reduce women's WF conflict more so than
men's (Notten et al., 2016).
Gender egalitarianism (4) - Gender egalitarianism impacts gender differences in family-to-work conflict, such that gender differences
are smaller in more egalitarian cultures because:
o Men experience more family-to-work conflict because they have more accountability for family labor, which
should increase their family-to-work conflict and make it more on par with women's (Ruppanner & Huffman,
2014)
o Gender roles are less pronounced and family demands are more similar for men and women, contributing to
similar levels of family-to-work conflict (Powell et al., 2009).
- Gender egalitarianism impacts gender differences in work-to-family conflict, such that gender differences
are smaller in more egalitarian cultures because:
o Women's work roles are more similar to men's in more egalitarian contexts, which should make their
experiences of work-to-family conflict more convergent (Powell et al., 2009; Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014)
- Gender egalitarianism impacts gender differences in WF balance, such that the gender differences are
smaller in more egalitarian cultures because:
o Men and women have more similar roles in more egalitarian cultures so their experiences of WF balance
should be more similar (Lyness & Judiesch, 2014).
- The gender egalitarianism of a culture moderates the relationship between cohabitation and work-to-family
conflict, such that the relationship is stronger in more egalitarian cultures because:
o People are more likely to divide housework more evenly in these cultures, lessening the work-to-family
conflict burden for all (Kasearu, 2009).
Modernization (1) - Modernization moderates the relationship between demographic variables and WF conflict, such that
the relationship is stronger in cultures at a lower level of modernization because:
o When cultures become more modernized and there is more economic opportunity, demographic factors
determined by birth have less of an impact on individuals' behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions, including
WF conflict (Gaspar, 2013).
Work resources
9
Table 4 (continued)
Collectivism (4) - Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work support and WF conflict such
that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o The large amount of family support available in collectivistic cultures means there is less need for workplace
supports, weakening the relationship between work support and WF conflict (Billing et al., 2014a).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work support and work-to-family
o The large amount of family support available in collectivistic cultures means there is less need for workplace
supports, weakening the relationship between work support and work-to-family conflict (Jin et al., 2013).
o Collectivists do not think of work as taking away from family but rather contributing to it, so they will not
see support (specifically in the form of flexible work arrangements) as valuable to the same extent that those
in individualistic cultures do, making the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-to-
family conflict weaker in collectivist compared to individualistic cultures (Masuda et al., 2012).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work support and work-to-family
enrichment such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o The large amount of family support available means there is less need for workplace support, making
support serve as less of a source of enrichment (Jin et al., 2013).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between organizational embeddedness and
work-to-family conflict, such that the relationship is weaker for those who are more collectivistic
because:
o People in individualistic cultures feel they can act out of their own interests and decide how to use their
personal time. They are less constrained by group norms so other variables, such as organizational
embeddedness should have more of an impact on their behaviors and are less constrained by group norms
(Ng & Feldman, 2012).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between organizational embeddedness and
family-to-work conflict, such that the relationship is weaker for those who are more collectivistic
because:
(Ng & Feldman, 2012).
Power distance (1) - Power distance moderates the relationship between supervisor support and WF conflict such that it is
stronger in cultures with a larger power distance because:
o Those in low power distance cultures generally receive less support, making it more impactful when it is
received (Lu et al., 2010).
Family/community resources
Collectivism (3) - Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family support and family-to-work
conflict such that the relationship is stronger in more collectivistic cultures because:
o As collectivists have expectations for high levels of family social support and high family role salience, they
may react more strongly to support provided by family members for their work, with family support being
more instrumental to functioning in the work domain and more likely to decrease the extent to which family
interferes with work (Jin et al., 2013).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family support and family-to-work
enrichment such that the relationship is stronger in more collectivistic cultures because:
o As collectivists have expectations for high levels of family social support and high family role salience, they
may react more strongly to support provided by family members for their work, with family support being
more instrumental to functioning in the work domain and more likely to increase enrichment (Jin et al.,
2013).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationships between community embeddedness and both
work-to-family and family-to-work conflict, such that the relationships are weaker in more
collectivistic cultures because:
(Ng & Feldman, 2012, 2014).
Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF WF CONSTRUCTS TO OUTCOMES
Work outcomes
Collectivism (8) - Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and work
outcomes such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Collectivists tend to form more long-term relationships with their employers and focus on the in-group rather
than the self; therefore, work-to-family conflict is more weakly related to turnover intentions (Posthuma
et al., 2005).
o Individualists are more focused on their own needs and are thus more likely to respond negatively when a job
interferes with those needs (i.e., work-to-family conflict) in the form of turnover intentions and reduced job
satisfaction (Spector et al., 2007).
o Work is viewed as contributing to family in collectivistic cultures, so there is greater tolerance of spillover
between the two, leading to a weaker relationship between work-to-family conflict and turnover intentions in
10
Table 4 (continued)
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures (Wang et al., 2004). This may extend to other outcomes, such as
work role effectiveness and absenteeism (Yang, 2005) and job satisfaction (Jin et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2010).
o Collectivists are more likely to form long-term relationships with their employers due to the focus on social
groups and therefore will be less likely to perceive a breach of the psychological contract after experiencing
work-to-family conflict (Syed et al., 2015).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between WF balance and positive work outcomes
such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o WF balance is seen as more essential in individualistic cultures where work and family are viewed as more
distinct (Haar et al., 2014).
Confucianism (1) - Confucianism moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction such that
the relationship is weaker in Confucian compared to non-Confucian cultures because:
o The notion of yin yang in Confucianism involves tolerating conflicting values, which may make tolerating
work-to-family conflict more likely for people in Confucian cultures. This in turn relates to work-to-family
conflict being less predictive of outcomes in Confucian cultures than non-Confucian cultures (Jin et al., 2013).
- Confucianism moderates the relationship between work-to-family enrichment and job satisfaction such that
the relationship is weaker in Confucian compared to non-Confucian cultures because:
o The notion of yin yang in Confucianism involves tolerating conflicting values, which may lead to less
importance of work-to-family enrichment across roles. This in turn relates to work-to-family enrichment
being less predictive of outcomes in Confucian cultures than non-Confucian cultures (Jin et al., 2013).
Welfare regime (1) - The relationship between WF balance and performance is stronger in cultures with welfare regimes
where the government provides less support (liberal, Mediterranean vs socio-democratic, corporatist)
because:
o Individuals must figure out their own WF balance in socio-democratic and corporatist regimes and those skills
may be similar to the skills that translate into performance on the job (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
Unemployment rate (1) - Unemployment rate moderates the relationship between WF conflict and turnover intentions such that
the relationship is weaker in places where unemployment rate is higher because:
o WF conflict is likely to be more weakly related to turnover intentions in places where unemployment rate is
high versus low because employees do not have many other options (Billing et al., 2014b)
Family outcomes
Confucianism (1) - Confucianism moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and family satisfaction such
that the relationship is weaker in Confucian compared to non-Confucian cultures because:
o The notion of yin yang in Confucianism involves tolerating conflicting values, which may make tolerating
work-to-family conflict more likely for people in Confucian cultures. This in turn relates to work-to-family
conflict being less predictive of outcomes in Confucian cultures than non-Confucian cultures (Jin et al., 2013).
- Confucianism moderates the relationship between work-to-family enrichment and family satisfaction such
that the relationship is weaker in Confucian compared to non-Confucian cultures because:
o The notion of yin and yang in Confucianism involves tolerating conflicting values, which may lead to less
importance of work-to-family enrichment across roles. This in turn relates to work-to-family enrichment
being less predictive of outcomes in Confucian cultures than non-Confucian cultures (Jin et al., 2013).
Non-domain specific outcomes

Collectivism (2) - aCollectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and well-
being such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Work is viewed as contributing to family in collectivistic cultures, there is greater tolerance of spillover
between the two, leading to a weaker relationship between work-to-family conflict and stress-related
disorders (Yang, 2005)
a
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and well-being
outcomes such that the relationship is stronger in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Family is seen as the most important domain in collectivistic cultures and, as such, when it is interfered with,
it should be particularly damaging to well-being (Aycan, 2008).
- Collectivism (vs. individualism) moderates the relationship between family-to-work conflict and well-being
outcomes such that the relationship is weaker in more collectivistic cultures because:
o Work is seen as the most important domain in individualistic cultures and, as such, when it is interfered with,
it should be particularly damaging to well-being (Aycan, 2008).
o Work is viewed as contributing to family in collectivistic cultures, there is greater tolerance of spillover
between the two, leading to a weaker relationship between family-to-work conflict and stress-related
disorders (Yang, 2005).
Confucianism (1) - Confucianism moderates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and life satisfaction such that
the relationship is weaker in more Confucian cultures because:
o In Confucian cultures, work may be viewed as a means of enhancing the family's well-being, whereas in other
cultures people work for a variety of reasons. As a result, work-to-family conflict may be more detrimental to
life satisfaction in individualistic cultures (Aryee et al., 1999).
- Confucianism moderates the relationship between family-to-work conflict and life satisfaction such that the
relationship is weaker in more Confucian cultures because:
o In Confucian cultures, work may be viewed as a means of enhancing the family's well-being, whereas in other
cultures people work for a variety of reasons. As a result family-to-work conflict may be more detrimental to
life satisfaction in individualistic cultures (Aryee et al., 1999).
Gender egalitarianism (1) - Gender egalitarianism moderates the relationships between WF balance and beneficial outcomes, such
that the relationships are stronger when gender egalitarianism is higher because:
11
Table 4 (continued)
o WF balance is not expected in less egalitarian cultures where roles are still very distinct and therefore will not
translate into benefits because achieving balance is inconsistent with traditional gender role expectations
(Haar et al., 2014).
Note. Statements with the same subscript within the same row are directly contradictory to each other.
"WF conflict" refers to both when the construct was hypothesized about globally (i.e., it was discussed as a general construct versus specific
directions).
3. Discussion
3.1. Frequencies of countries represented and country comparisons
In terms of regional representation of countries in cross-cultural WF research, we found that the Anglo cluster was the most
common. This may be because it provides a natural reference point for comparison, as most previous research has been conducted in
Anglo regions (Ollier-Malaterre, 2016). Other common regions are the European regions (Eastern, Nordic, and Germanic). We
speculate that this focus is in part due to the availability of existing data, as several studies used the European Social Survey or the
European Working Conditions Survey, 1990-2015 databases. Nonetheless, the inclusion of many countries in Eastern Europe is
informative, as this societal cluster is one of the most distinct from the most commonly studied Anglo region (as well as Nordic and
Germanic), according to GLOBE's country clusters analysis (Gupta & Hanges, 2004).
Although the two cultural values that seem to most strongly differentiate Eastern Europe from Anglo nations are collectivism (Eastern
Europe is more collectivistic than Anglo nations) and performance orientation (Eastern Europe has a lower performance orientation than
Anglo nations; Gupta & Hanges, 2004), very few researchers have invoked either variable as a theoretical reason to expect differences
between Anglo and Eastern European nations. A deeper dive into the studies listed in Table 4 suggests that in fact only in only two studies
(Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro, & Hammer, 2009; Spector et al., 2007) did the authors mention collectivism as rationale for differences in a
WF construct when comparing Eastern European and Anglo regions. Performance orientation has only been mentioned in theoretical work,
without reference to specific regional comparisons (Ollier-Malaterre, Sarkisian, Stawiski, & Hannum, 2013).
We advocate that future research continue to employ Eastern European samples, as focusing on cultures that are very distinct from oft-
studied regions maximizes the chances that any true population differences in WF constructs and relationships will be detected, particularly
when a main source of distinctiveness has clear relevance to WF issues (e.g., collectivism). We also suggest that researchers attempt to
understand how collectivism may function differently in Eastern Europe versus other highly collectivistic regions such as Confucian Asia or
Latin America. This is particularly important in light of meta-analytic findings that suggest significant mean differences in family-to-work
conflict when comparing Asian countries to Anglo countries, but no significant differences when comparing Latin countries to Anglo countries
(Allen et al., 2015). It would be interesting to also see where Eastern European countries fall as a third comparison. Speculatively, differences
may be attributable to the interaction between collectivism and other cultural constructs, such as performance orientation. Both Anglo and
Confucian Asian regions have high performance orientations, whereas Eastern Europe and Latin America fall in the low cluster for this
variable (Javidan, 2004). It may be that the theoretical reasons that cause collectivists to experience higher family-to-work conflict (e.g.
higher family demands, greater expectations for family versus organizational support, greater identity associated with family; Jin, Ford, &
Chen, 2013; Mortazavi et al., 2009; Oishi, Chan, Wang, & Kim, 2015) are effectually cancelled out by the impact of a low performance
orientation, which could decrease propensity to experience family-to-work conflict. When performance orientation is low versus high people
may not be as likely to perceive intrusions into the work domain, as they place less value on high achievement in the workplace and are thus
less sensitive to conflict in this direction (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). This would result in a canceling out effect on family-to-work conflict
for Latin American and Eastern European countries such that conflict levels are similar to that of Anglo regions. Given that there has been no
empirical attention paid to performance orientation nor the interaction between cultural values or profiles of cultural values on WF con-
structs, this is an area ripe for future research.
Moreover, the fact that Eastern Europe countries underwent rapid changes during the transition from socialism to capitalism
following the fall of the Soviet Union has important implications and differentiates this region from many others. Trefalt, Drnovsek,
Svetina-Nabergoj, and Adlesic (2013) argue that these rapid changes have implications for an individual's WF management. Spe-
cifically, they argue that many Eastern European states, when under socialist regimes, experienced high support and as a result had
high levels of female labor force participation (Brainerd, 2000), many dual-earner households (Pascal & Kwak, 2009), and state
subsidies for children (Ferrarini & Sjoberg, 2010). During the transition to a market-based economy, the childcare center subsidies
were reduced with no immediate replacement (Swain, 2011), creating new WF tensions, particularly for women. To our knowledge,
these changes have only been discussed theoretically (Trefalt et al., 2013) and have not been empirically examined. Additionally,
there is large variation within Eastern Europe in terms of state support and economic stability (Rys, 2001) (e.g., Romania vs.
Slovenia), making more fine-grained analyses of countries within this region important.
It is also important to point out that the three regions with by far the lowest representation overall and number of comparisons
(Southern Asia, Middle Eastern, and Sub-Saharan Africa) are also quite culturally and economically dissimilar from the most com-
monly studied Anglo, Germanic, and Nordic European regions. This is particularly the case for the Middle East (House et al., 2004).
Gender egalitarianism, a cultural value that our theoretical review suggested is quite meaningful to WF interactions, is very low in the
Middle East. In fact, it is the only region that falls in the low-score cluster according to GLOBE (House et al., 2004). The region also
12
ranks the lowest on the Global Gender Gap Index (World Economic Forum, 2016), which compares 135 countries on factors such as
economics, politics, education, and health as they relate to gender. Additionally, the average female labor force participation in the
Middle East is around 25%, which is about half of the global average (World Bank, 2015). Thus, women in some parts of the Middle
East who do work are likely to face additional barriers than women in more egalitarian regions. This may come in the form of
increased discrimination in the workplace (which is not legislated in many countries; OECD, 2017) or from lack of satisfying em-
ployment based on limited educational opportunities or even the ability to work beyond walking distance from one's home (e.g.,
women in Saudi Arabia are not permitted to drive). Relatedly, the meaning of WF conflict or balance itself may be qualitatively
different for women and men in places where culture and government are rather unaccepting of women taking on work roles and
likewise men engaging in family care. Conjecturally, women who do work may feel extreme guilt or, conversely, may feel that they
have fought so many barriers to remain in the workforce that it holds a different kind of importance. Men may simply not recognize
the intersection of work and family as an issue if they do not feel any pressure to engage in the family role.
Sub-Saharan Africa has many cultural and perhaps more notably economic differences than Western regions. This region faces the most
extreme poverty globally (World Bank, 2016). Kenya was the sole country in our review that is designated as a “low income” country
according to the OECD, and it was included in only one study (Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2011). Because average income ties closely with nature
of the work role, we might expect consideration of work and family issues to be unique in regions where GDP per capita is low and poverty is
extreme. However, economic considerations have both been neglected in the choice of countries involved in WF research as well as in
theoretical predictions, with the only mention of economic considerations involving rate of economic change (Joplin, Shaffer, Francesco, &
Lau, 2003) and unemployment rate (Billing et al., 2014b). We expect economic conditions could, for example, cause people to construe the
meaning of WF conflict differently. If jobs are hard to obtain and families are struggling for basic necessities, a job holder and his/her family
are unlikely to see the job as source of conflict. Indeed, Grzywacz et al. (2007) studied poor Latino immigrant workers in the U.S. and found
that despite working jobs that required long hours and exhausting manual labor, the reported levels of WF conflict were low. The authors
suggest this may be due to differences in how WF conflict is construed.
As a final point regarding frequencies, Nordic regions stand out as a common point of comparison, only second to Anglo countries.
Nordic countries are culturally similar to Anglo cultures (Gupta & Hanges, 2004), although they have clear differences in terms of
state support for WF management, with support being considerably more generous, particularly in comparison to the specific Anglo
countries of U.S., South Africa, and Australia (OECD Work-Life Balance Index; Work, Family, and Equity Index, Heyman, Earle, &
Hayes, 2007). This is reflected in the theoretical review as well, as several researchers highlighted the differences in policies offered
by the state such as publicly funded childcare, leave provisions, policies regarding flexible work practices, and work hour regulations
as reasons to expect both mean differences and moderating effects. In most cases, more generous family-related welfare policies were
theorized to have a favorable effect on WF constructs and relationships with other variables.
One notable challenge with family-related welfare is how to operationalize it. Some studies (e.g., Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013) use the
welfare regime categorization as a way to represent this idea, although welfare regime is broader as it also involves factors related to the
political economy (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Other researchers focus on specific policies, but there is inconsistency in the nuances of policies,
making them difficult to compare. For example, Israel, Turkey, New Zealand, and Switzerland offer nationally-mandated paid leave for
mothers but not for fathers, whereas South Korea offers the same amount of paid leave time to both parents (Livingston, 2016). France and
the Netherlands both offer 16 weeks of paid maternity leave; however, France offers an additional 26 weeks of “home care” leave to care for
children less than three years old (OECD Family Database, 2016). This makes empirically testing the role of state support as a reason for
country-level differences more challenging than other variables, such as GLOBE cultural values, where a clear metric has been established. In
order to improve theoretical knowledge in future research, it would be fruitful to assess policies in a variety of ways. One way may be length
of mandated leave for mothers and another may be to use an equation to get at the length of leave taking into account the amount of pay
during that time (e.g., 10 fully paid weeks would have a value of 10 whereas 10 weeks at 50% pay would have a value of 5). To align with
such analyses, researchers should also aim to create more specific hypotheses that focus on what it is about the characteristics of the policies
(e.g., length of leave, amount of pay, whether leave is shared with fathers) that drive impact.
In summary, Anglo cultures were most commonly compared to European regions, including Eastern, Nordic and Germanic Europe.
Eastern Europe is distinct from the Anglo cultures, particularly on collectivism, performance orientation, and economic changes, although
these have been largely neglected in the literature as theoretical reasons to expect differences between the regions. Nordic countries have also
been studied frequently, likely due to their status regarding generous family policies. Despite this previous attention, we still need additional
work that disentangles specific policies given the huge variety in how they are studied and offered. Lastly, very little research has been
conducted in Southern Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. These countries are quite distinct from more commonly studied
countries in terms of gender egalitarianism and income, which have clear ties to work-family interactions.
3.2. Cross-cultural hypotheses and theoretical rationale
Almost half of the studies in our review examined mean differences in a WF construct across cultures, and a large number of these
studies focused on WF conflict. Our review of how culture is implicated theoretically suggests that collectivism was the most often
discussed variable. Notably, it was also the variable with the most discrepant and diverse theoretical predictions (N = 10) about how
it should affect WF conflict. Not taking directionality into effect, the largest proportion of researchers argued that collectivism should
negatively relate to overall WF conflict (Anderson et al., 2008; Aycan, 2008; Billing et al., 2014a, 2014b; Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan
et al., 2010; Yang, 2005), although others argued for a positive relationship (Oishi et al., 2015). When directionality of conflict was
taken into account, predictions were also divergent, with some arguing that collectivism should negatively relate to work-to-family
conflict (Jin et al., 2013) and others arguing for a positive association (Mortazavi et al., 2009; Wharton & Blair-Loy, 2006). Empirical
13
meta-analytic results reflect these contradictions, as no association was found between collectivism and work-to-family conflict (Allen
et al., 2015). Interestingly, the only arguments put forth for family-to-work conflict are for a positive association with collectivism
(Jin et al., 2013; Mortazavi et al., 2009), which is what was found empirically in meta-analysis (Allen et al., 2015).
Moreover, a review of the content of rationale for a given prediction highlights a focus on the differential emphasis on family,
identity being more tied to family, the meaning of work as it relates to family well-being, and support from family in collectivistic
versus individualistic cultures. Further confusing the state of theory, the same concepts (e.g. higher family support in collectivistic
cultures) have been used by different researchers to make divergent claims (e.g., that this support should help reduce WF conflict
(Anderson et al., 2008; Billing et al., 2014a, 2014b; Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010) or that this support makes it so that
organizations are less likely to offer support which increases WF conflict (Mortazavi et al., 2009)). This all begs the question of how to
reconcile such discrepancies moving forward. We suggest that more nuanced empirical tests of these theoretical propositions are
necessary. Specifically, the behavioral and cognitive mediating mechanisms should be explicitly tested. Does collectivism actually
relate to more perceived family support and how does that support relate to WF conflict? How do people in collectivistic cultures
define work and family; do they see them as more integrated and how does this holistic view of life relate to perceptions of WF
conflict? Structural equation models could be used to test many of these mediating variables simultaneously to ascertain whether
multiple processes are indeed at play. In essence, the field would greatly benefit from more specific tests of theory so that we can
better understand the pattern of results that have been observed empirically.
The second most common theoretical concept invoked by researchers to understand mean differences is family-related welfare provided
by the state. Predictions are quite consistent, with all researchers in the review theorizing that such benefits are beneficial for overall WF
conflict, work-to-family conflict specifically, and WF balance. The underlying rationale is that institutional benefits are designed to facilitate
work and family management by allowing time out of the workforce to care for children, greater flexibility in the scheduling of work to
accommodate children, or greater access and/or affordability of childcare to allow for a meaningful non-work life. Although actually testing
the role of cultural/institutional variables through imputation is relatively rare in cross-cultural WF research (11% of studies), family-related
welfare is the most commonly imputed variable (Allen et al., 2014b; Annink, den Dulk, & Steijn, 2016; Notten, Grunow, & Verbakel, 2016;
Ruppanner, 2013). The empirical data suggest more generous state support does indeed relate to lower WF conflict. Thus, we contend that
family-related welfare from the state is a straightforward variable both theoretically and empirically, at least with regards to WF conflict. It is
worth noting that research on broader constructs with some relevance to work and family, such as gender occupational segregation and
gender pay gap, suggests that one type of family-related benefit, paid leave, may actually have negative implications. Societies with more
generous paid leave policies also tend to have higher gender pay gaps and more occupational segregation due to the fact that women
disproportionally use available leave policies (Galtry & Callister, 2005).
Gender egalitarianism is the third most commonly implicated variable to explain mean differences in WF constructs, although it suffers
from divergent predictions. Some researchers argue that WF conflict is exacerbated in highly egalitarian situations, as both men and women
are expected to take on dual roles rather than dividing labor along traditional lines, which increases demands for both and leads to conflict
(van der Lippe, Jager, & Kops, 2006). This mimics Becker's (1981) economic arguments regarding the efficacy of specialization in division of
labor. Researchers have also argued that because gender egalitarianism affords women better work roles, it contributes to increased
workforce attachment and longer working hours which in turn increases work-to-family conflict (Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014). On the other
hand, there are reasons to suspect that gender egalitarianism has a beneficial effect on WF experiences. Egalitarian societies are likely to have
more family-friendly policies, women have higher incomes, and families can afford to outsource domestic labor (House et al., 2004). These
factors reduce family demands and subsequent family-to-work conflict (Ruppanner & Huffman, 2014). In addition, gender egalitarian so-
cieties have a greater number of women in the workforce compared to less egalitarian societies, which increases societal pressures for
organizations to offer more work-family supports which in turn helps people obtain balance (Lyness & Kropf, 2005). Empirical support in the
form of meta-analysis partially supports the idea that gender egalitarianism is beneficial for family-to-work conflict, as Allen et al. (2015)
found that family-to-work conflict was lower in more egalitarian countries (as measured by the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index)
than in less egalitarian countries. No differences were observed when GLOBE gender egalitarian values were imputed or when work-to-family
conflict was assessed.
Additionally, several researchers contend that the impact of gender egalitarianism on WF constructs is contingent the gender of the
individual. This line of theorizing consistently argues that gender differences in WF constructs should be smaller in more egalitarian societies
due to more similar roles between men and women (Lyness & Judiesch, 2014; Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009; Ruppanner & Huffman,
2014). However, recent meta-analytic research on gender differences in both directions of WF conflict suggests that differences are negligible
(Shockley, Shen, Denunzio, Arvan, & Knudsen, 2014) and that effects sizes do not vary significantly by the level of gender egalitarianism
(measured in four different ways) within the country where the sample was obtained. Echoing our recommendations with collectivism, we
believe it would be useful for future researchers to test for specific mediating mechanisms to better disentangle the accuracy of competing
theoretical arguments regarding gender egalitarianism. Additionally, the fact that empirical findings are not consistent across different
operationalizations of gender egalitarianism is meaningful. Namely, the fact that differences have been observed with the Gender Gap Index,
which captures gender-based disparities in political, educational, economic, and health criteria (Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2012), and not
GLOBE values suggests that the mediating mechanisms may have more to do with structural policies versus strictly beliefs about the role of
men and women's roles in society.
Our review identified seven other theoretical variables used to justify main effects in cross-cultural WF research (humane or-
ientation, performance orientation, market economics, power distance, specificity/diffusion, rate of change in developing economy,
uncertainty avoidance). Despite theoretical rationale that is relevant to the work-family interface, none of these variables were used
for rationale by more than two studies. Therefore, we cannot draw inferences regarding their viability for predicting work-family
domain interactions at this time. Future cross-cultural researchers should continue to derive hypotheses from and test these
14
theoretical variables to establish the extent to which theoretical propositions outlined in Table 4 hold. In addition, theoretical
rationale for each could be expanded beyond implications for work-family conflict (for example, to work-family enrichment or
balance). As alluded to previously, studying regions that are starkly different on these national context variables (e.g., Sub-Saharan
Africa, Eastern Europe) would be a necessary next step.
Consideration of culture as a moderator of the relationship between an antecedent and a WF construct was the second most common
focus of cross-cultural WF research. Within this category, work demands and resources, such as work hours, workload, and workplace
support, were the most commonly studied type of antecedent. Mimicking the theoretical state of mean differences, collectivism was the
commonly used as rationale for differential strengths of relationships. For demands, most researchers argue that the link between work
demands and work-to-family conflict/enrichment is weaker when collectivism is higher. Many of the arguments used to predict mean
differences carry over to antecedents of conflict. That is, the fact that work and family are more integrated psychologically in collectivistic
cultures with work being seen as a means to enhance family (Aycan, 2008; Lu, Gilmour, Kao, & Huang, 2006; Spector et al., 2004; Spector
et al., 2007; Syed, Arain, Schalk, & Freese, 2015) and that more family support is available to serve as a buffer (Jin et al., 2013; Spector et al.,
2007) are used as explanations for why work demands will not have as strong of an impact on work-to-family conflict/enrichment in more
collectivistic contexts. Some unique ideas are mentioned as well, such as the greater availability of paid domestic labor in collectivistic
cultures which can help buffer the impact of work demands on work-to-family conflict relationship (Spector et al., 2007), and some divergent
predictions (i.e., that the work demands-WF conflict link is stronger in collectivistic societies because of the way work and family are
interdependently construed; Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000). Although some of the same rationale behind mean differences may justifiably
carry over to moderating effects, we noticed that in several cases, authors' arguments were not clear and tended to focus on reasons that
collectivism would alter mean levels of WF constructs but they did not clearly explain why this would serve as a boundary condition of
antecedents. This clearly tempers the theoretical progression in the area. Nonetheless, empirical results have generally supported the notion
that the work demands-WF constructs link is stronger in individualistic versus collectivistic countries (e.g., Jin et al., 2013 with work-family
conflict; Spector et al., 2004; Spector et al., 2007; Syed et al., 2015), although two studies found the opposite pattern (Jin et al., 2013 with
work-to-family enrichment; Yang et al., 2000).
In terms of work resources, collectivism has been posited as the main variable to explain differential relationships between
resources and WF constructs. Moreover, the rationale is quite consistent, with the idea that relationships should be weaker in more
collectivistic countries because people in these countries receive more family support and there is thus less need for workplace
supports, weakening their impact on WF constructs (Billing et al., 2014a; Jin et al., 2013) and because collectivists tend not to see
work and family as conflicting, they will not gain the same benefits from workplace support as individualists who tend to perceive
more conflict in the first place (Masuda et al., 2012). However, empirical results are inconsistent in support of these ideas. Ad-
ditionally, power distance has been mentioned as an important moderating variable, at least with regards to work resources in the
form of supervisor support. Specifically, Lu et al. (2010) argued and found empirical support consistent with the idea that supervisor
support may be more beneficial for reducing WF conflict in higher versus lower power distance cultures because people are not used
to receiving such support, making it more impactful.
Commonly studied and theorized about family-related predictors of WF constructs also include family demands and support and again
collectivism emerges as a main explanatory variable but with discrepant predictions. Specifically, some argue that the interdependence
between work and family in the mind of collectivists creates a psychological situation where family demands will not be perceived in a
negative light and will thus not lead to perceptions of conflict to a strong degree (Lu et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2000), whereas others argue that
because of the central role of family in identity, collectivists should be particularly reactive to family demands in the form of feeling family-to-
work conflict and enrichment (Jin et al., 2013). Jin et al. (2013) extended the same argument to predict that family support would have a
stronger association with family-to-work conflict and enrichment in collectivistic cultures. To echo the criticisms above, here too authors'
explanations are often unclear and seem to focus more on main effects despite predicting moderating effects, and very similar ideas are used
by different researchers in different ways. Empirical results tend to support the pattern that family demands/support have a weaker re-
lationship with WF constructs in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures (Jin et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2000). At this point,
a joint inductive-deductive approach should be taken, and future researchers should be guided both by what has been theorized before but
also by the empirical findings. Lastly, family-related welfare support has also been posited to play a buffering role; demands should have less
of an impact on WF balance satisfaction when support is more generous (Abendroth & den Dulk, 2011), an idea that aligns with the broader
Job-Demands Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Substantially fewer studies focus on culture as a moderator of WF constructs and outcomes, but there is more diversity in the type
of cultural or institutional variables that served as underlying rationale. Collectivism was noted in seven studies to serve a weakening
effect in the relationships between work-to-family conflict and work as well as non-domain specific outcomes. Several distinct forms
of rationale are provided, including the more long-term orientation toward employers, the meaning of work and family, and less of a
tendency to focus on own needs in collectivistic cultures (Aryee et al., 1999; Jin et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2010; Posthuma, Joplin, &
Maertz, 2005; Spector et al., 2007; Syed et al., 2015; Wang, Lawler, Walumbwa, & Shi, 2004; Yang, 2005). Others have made
arguments for a similar buffering effect of Confucian values (Jin et al., 2013). In terms of economic factors, unemployment rate in a
country is theoretically posited to moderate the relationship between WF conflict and turnover intentions, as people are less likely to
consider quitting when unemployment is high for fear of not being able to find another job (Billing et al., 2014a). Beyond conflict,
gender egalitarianism is predicted to moderate the relationship between WF balance and beneficial outcomes, such that relationships
are stronger when gender egalitarianism is higher because balance is more consistent with gender role expectations in these societies
than in those with low egalitarianism (Haar, Russo, Suñe, & Ollier-Malaterre, 2014). Welfare regime is also posited to moderate the
relationship between WF balance and job performance, such that the link is stronger in less generous regimes because individuals
must develop their own skills for WF management, which may carry over into providing beneficial effects for performance in general
15
(Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). These propositions have generally been supported empirically.
Eleven studies in our review focused on numerous relationships simultaneously, testing path or structural equation models and either
tested for model invariance across different countries or tested models separately in different regions and compared results. In some cases,
models were invariant across cultures (e.g., Brough et al., 2014; Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004; Lapierre et al., 2008), but on others cases
they were not (e.g., Aryee et al., 1999; Galovan et al., 2010; Netemeyer et al., 2004). In general, comparison of models makes it difficult to
understand the precise nature of differences observed. Also, many of these studies did not provide comprehensive theoretical rational for
expecting differences, likely due to the often large number of paths. It seems that such analyses may be a bit premature given the current state
of the literature, when the role of culture in individual paths has not yet been clearly established.
As a final point, in total, 16 unique cultural values emerged in our content coding, with 71 unique relationships predicted based on 85
unique rationales. On one hand, this variety reflects the complications of assessing culture. On the other hand, this variety may be con-
tributing to stunted progression of cross-cultural WF research, as it is difficult to synthesize results or to draw firm conclusions about the
impact of any given cultural dimension. Moreover, the exercise of content coding was in and of itself informative. In over one-third of studies
the cultural context was not mentioned at all, or it was mentioned in a way that was not specific enough to develop theoretically-driven
hypotheses, or the logic was simply difficult to understand. Additionally, both directions of WF conflict and were sometimes lumped together
rather than considered as unique constructs, as the broader WF literature clearly suggests they should be (Allen, 2012).
To summarize, in terms of both main effects and moderators, collectivism was the most common mentioned reason for expecting
cross-cultural differences, but the arguments for why collectivism should matter were quite discrepant. This suggests that we need
more specific models that actually test the mechanisms by which collectivism relates to the work-family interface. Family-related
welfare provided by the state was the next most common variable, with generally straightforward predictions that more generous
policies make it easier for people to manage dual roles. The third most commonly studied variable is gender egalitarian, which like
collectivism suffered from distinct rationale for why it should matter. This construct is also complicated in that it is may affect men
and women within certain cultures differently. Several other cultural variables were mentioned in just a few studies, illustrating the
complexity of understanding cultural differences.
3.3. Method-related findings
We examined several aspects of the methodology of the study, including the nature of the samples and measurement information.
The vast majority of studies compared employees in different organization across countries. The benefit of this approach is that it
removes the concern that organizational culture may overshadow the effects of national culture in the workplace, as could be the case
in large multi-national organizations (e.g., IBM). A potential drawback is that in many cases this results in comparisons across
different occupations and differences in sample characteristics (e.g., comparing doctors in Norway to IT workers in China) may
confound cultural or national differences (Lytle et al., 1995). Depending on the occupational group, cultural values measures within
an individual study may also appear distorted (Schwartz, 2014). For example, military samples may suggest an artificial inflation of
power distance or hierarchy. Consistently measuring and controlling for aspects of the jobs to better isolate the effects of country on
WF variables would help alleviate these concerns to some extent.
In terms of measurement, almost half of WF constructs were measured with pre-existing scales or adaptations of pre-existing
scales. This is considerably lower than the figure (69%) cited in Casper et al.'s (2007) methodological review of the broader WF
literature in IO/OB. Some of this discrepancy is likely due to the large number of publications that relied on large archival datasets
where the publically-sponsored large scale data collection often requires tradeoffs in terms of measurement. Nonetheless, without
clear knowledge of the validity of items used in such studies, it is difficult to interpret results as well as compare them across studies
that employ different measures. In terms of translation practices, although back translation was the most common method, almost
half of studies either only used single translation or did not describe their translation technique. This too calls into question the
validity of measures in diverse contexts and creates concerns regarding generalizability across cultural contexts.
A related issue is whether translation alone is the appropriate procedure for adapting measures into new contexts. While it is
important for constructs to have similar meanings across cultures in order to make cross-cultural comparisons, constructs also must
be meaningful within each specific cultural group (Berry, 1980). Previous research suggests that the latter is not always the case, as
the meaning of careers and family vary across cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Thomas & Inkson, 2007) as does the concept of WF conflict
(Grzywacz et al., 2007). Thus, the extent that the translated scales are construct valid in contexts other than the one in which they
were originally validated remains unknown. This too may be an issue when using scales in countries that speak the same language but
are culturally distinct (e.g., Singapore and U.S.).
Developing construct valid measures or ensuring that existing measures are construct valid in a new context can be achieved
through various means. Qualitative, emic research (research conducted from a within-group versus outside perspective) as a pre-
cursor to scale development is recommended (Rowan & Wulff, 2007; see Yang et al. (2000) for an example). Another method is to
quantitatively test for measurement invariance, or whether a scale has equivalent measurement properties across groups, typically
assessed via structural equation modeling or through item response theory (Hulin, 1987). Establishing this equivalence is important,
as “if one set of measures means one thing to one group and something different to another group, a group mean comparison may be
tantamount to comparing apples and spark plugs” (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000, p. 9). The state of the literature is such that < 30% of
studies reported such testing. This is troubling, as it makes it difficult to ascertain whether observed differences (or lack thereof) are
true or are attributable to measurement. We urge researchers to pay careful attention to the meaning of their measures and to provide
appropriate measurement testing so that results can be interpreted correctly.
16
3.4. Future research and conclusions
In addition to the ideas for future research mentioned above, our review highlights some additional ideas, particularly in terms of theory.
One area that is largely absent in the current literature is cultural values related to how a society views and deals with change. The
intersection of work and family as a meaningful area of study is largely the product of workforce, social, and policy changes that have come
about in the past few decades. Thus, it stands to reason that a society's ability to adapt to such changes should directly impact WF man-
agement. We found some mention of this in terms of economic change (Joplin et al., 2003; Trefalt et al., 2013) and uncertainty avoidance
(Ollier-Malaterre, 2016), but these ideas were brought up in theoretical articles and remain untested and an area ripe for future empirical
work. Additionally, other change concepts seem relevant. For example, orientation toward change, which includes a culture's tendency to
emphasize the status quo (Schwartz, 2004), and societal tightness-looseness (i.e., how tightly social norms are enforced such that tighter
cultures have more severe social penalties for norm violations than looser cultures; Pelto, 1968; Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006) could have
implications for WF relations. In both cases, societies that are less likely to emphasize current norms and rules (i.e., loose cultures or cultures
oriented toward change) might allow individuals more freedom in managing work-family responsibilities in novel and creative ways that are
best for their individual situation rather than emphasizing conformity to established norms.
Speculatively, the resistance/acceptance of change could manifest itself on multiple levels. On the micro-level, it could impact the
quickness of change in traditional divisions of labor in the household between couples; on the organizational level, companies in
cultures more open to change may be quicker to offer and actually support WF policies such as flexible work schedules and dependent
care supports (Peters & den Dulk, 2003); on the national level, societies more open to change may more readily adjust policies to
facilitate the changes that come with an increasing number of dual-earner families (e.g., leave policies, part-time work mandates,
publically funded childcare). In this sense, cultural-level change variables would act as a distal predictor of WF relations, mediated by
the aforementioned mechanisms, which could also interact at multiple levels. Relatedly, Rajadhyaksa as cited by Poelmans (2003)
brings up the concept of change imposed by government. She argues that non-democratic governments are likely to experience
abrupt changes in work policies as regimes come in and out of power with different priorities. The abruptness of these changes may
create additional stress for working individuals, as compared to democratic societies where changes are slower to occur. Thus, the
tendency for people in a society to accept change and the extent and frequency that a government forces change upon them may have
distinct implications for WF management.
Extending beyond the change concept, we propose two additional cultural values, universalism-particularism and polychronic
versus monochronic time orientation, that researchers should consider incorporating into WF studies. Universalism-particularism
(Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000; Trompenaars, 1993) refers to the value placed on rules and how evenly rules apply across
individuals. Universalistic cultures such as the U.S., the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Scandinavia tend to believe that rules should
be applied evenly whereas particularistic cultures such as Russia, China, and Latin American countries are more willing to change
rules based on the situation and/or who is involved. This cultural value has clear implications for organizational and supervisor
support for WF issues. In universalistic cultures, managers may feel that they have to offer the same benefits and work arrangements
to all employees. They may be hesitant to engage in the creative WF management behaviors identified by Hammer, Kossek, Yragui,
Bodner, and Hanson (2009) as a critical part of supervisor support, as doing so could be seen as differential rule enforcement.
Likewise, idiosyncratic deals (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008) may be less likely to occur in universalistic versus particularlistic
culture. Given the link between supervisor support (cf., Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011) as well as idiosyncratic deals on
WF conflict (Major & Lauzun, 2010), this cultural value holds relevance as an important distal predictor for WF management.
Hall (1959) introduced the concept of monochronicity-polychronicity, defining it as the extent that people in certain cultures
prefer to perform single tasks or more than one task at the same time. Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, and Martin (1999) added to this
definition that it is not only preference for engaging in multiple tasks but also the extent that people in a culture believe that their
preference is the best way to accomplish tasks. To our knowledge there has not been a widespread investigation about different
countries standing on this value, but Hall (1989) asserts that Latin, Eastern, and Mediterranean cultures tend to be more polychronic
whereas the U.S., Germany, and Scandinavian cultures are monochronic.
Theoretically, polychronicity values may have several impacts on WF management. First, because dealing with multiple roles may
necessitate multi-tasking, people operating in polychronic societies may be more naturally inclined to deal with the demands from multiple
roles at once. Qualitative research supports this idea, as women in Turkey, Israel, and India (all polychronic societies) reported that dealing
with work and family tasks gave them a sense of satisfaction with multitasking (Korabik, Lero, & Ayman, 2003). On the other hand, research
suggests that segmenting roles, rather than integrating as is done during multitasking, relates to less WF conflict (see Allen, Cho, & Meier,
2014a). Thus, while employees in polychronic societies may be more naturally inclined to deal with multiple roles at once, they may actually
experience greater conflict if they are consistently integrating those roles. A final consideration is that monochronic cultures tend to value
timeliness and set schedules, whereas the opposite is true for polychronic societies. Given that children function better with set routines
(American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004) and childcare facilities often impose fines for late pick up, the lack of set time schedules could make
WF management more difficult. In summary, although the precise impact of polychronicity is unclear, it conceptually aligns with time-based
aspects of WF management and is an area worthy of explicit empirical consideration.
In terms of limitations, in this review we have identified the state of the current global WF literature in terms of regions studied,
constructs examined, and considerations of cultural context. Although we believe our review is comprehensive in terms of English-
language studies, we note that the exclusion of studies published in other languages is a limitation. Not including research written in
languages beyond English may have caused an underestimation regarding the frequency rates concerning the number of WF studies
conducted in particular nations, especially those where English is not a primary language of communication nor education. Another
limitation concerns our use of only published articles, which could also impact our estimates regarding the types of samples and types
17
of variables examined. Lastly, our review is largely focused on highlighting differences across samples within studies in terms of
culture; it is important to note that culture is just one way to differentiate samples – they may also differ (or be similar) on char-
acteristics such as job type, income, professional or familial status that can impact the specific theoretical lens and focus of a study.
We did not code for these additional sample details and thus are unable to disentangle these effects in our review.
To conclude, we emphasize that the popularity of WF research in diverse cultural contexts is encouraging for continued ad-
vancement of our field. In order to move the cross-cultural WF field forward, we must fill gaps where little-to-no empirical research
exists, improve theoretical and empirical precision by clearly delineating and measuring theoretical rationale, use rigorous metho-
dology (e.g., back translation, emic studies, measurement invariance), and advocate transparency in our data collection and meth-
odology to ensure inferences are sound and comparable across cultures. It is our hope that the rich information presented in this study
will be instrumental to guide the WF research agenda.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a Professional Staff Congress – City University of New York 2012 research award (#
65321-00 43).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.001.
References
Abendroth, A.-K., & den Dulk, L. (2011). Support for the work-life balance in Europe: The impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance
satisfaction. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011398892.
Allen, T. D. (2012). The work-family interface. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 1163–1198). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014a). Work–family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 99–121.
Allen, T. D., French, K. A., Dumani, S., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 90, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.006.
Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Poelmans, S. A. Y., O'Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., ... Woo, J.-M. (2014b). The link between national paid leave policy and
work-family conflict among married working parents: National policy and work-family conflict. Applied Psychology, 63, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.
12004.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2004). The importance of family routines. Retrieved from https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/
Pages/The-Importance-of-Family-Routines.aspx.
Anderson, S., Coffey, B., Liu, Y., & Zhao, S. (2008). Employees in Chinese enterprises: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance. The Chinese Economy, 41,
22–50.
Annink, A., den Dulk, L., & Steijn, B. (2016). Work–family conflict among employees and the self-employed across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126, 571–593.
Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491–511.
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural perspectives to work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, & D. Lero (Eds.). Handbook of work-family conflict (pp. 359–371). London:
Cambridge University Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands resources model: A state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02683940710733115.
Bardoel, E. A., De Cieri, H., & Santos, C. (2008). A review of work-life research in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46, 316–333.
Becker, G. S. (1981). Altruism in the family and selfishness in the market place. Economica, 48, 1–15.
Beham, B., Drobnič, S., & Präg, P. (2014). The work–family interface of service sector workers: A comparison of work resources and professional status across five
European countries. Applied Psychology, 63, 29–61.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 2. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Billing, T. K., Bhagat, R. S., Babakus, E., Krishnan, B., Ford, D. L., Srivastava, B. N., ... Nasurdin, A. M. (2014a). Work-family conflict and organisationally valued
outcomes: The moderating role of decision latitude in five national contexts: Work-family conflict and organisational values. Applied Psychology, 63, 62–95.
Billing, T. K., Bhagat, R., Babakus, E., Srivastava, B., Shin, M., & Brew, F. (2014b). Work-family conflict in four national contexts: A closer look at the role of
individualism-collectivism. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14, 139–159.
Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument
to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 205–230.
Brainerd, E. (2000). Women in transition: Changes in gender wage differentials in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
54, 138–882.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
Brough, P., Timms, C., O'Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.-L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia
and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2724–2744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262.
Casper, W. J., Allen, T. D., & Poelmans, S. A. (2014). International perspectives on work and family: An introduction to the special section. Applied Psychology, 63, 1–4.
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.28.
Cinamon, R. G. (2009). Role salience, social support, and work-family conflict among Jewish and Arab female teachers in Israel. Journal of Career Development, 36,
139–158.
Cousins, C. R., & Tang, N. (2004). Working time and work and family conflict in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 18, 531–549.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three political economies of the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology, 20, 92–123.
Social Survey, European (2002-2014). Data and documentation. Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/.
European Working Conditions Survey (1990-2015). Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys.
Ferrarini, T., & Sjoberg, O. (2010). Social policy and health: Transition countries in a comparative perspective. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19, S60–S88.
Gallie, D., & Russell, H. (2009). Work-family conflict and working conditions in Western Europe. Social Indicators Research, 93, 445–467.
Galovan, A. M., Fackrell, T., Buswell, L., Jones, B. L., Hill, E. J., & Carroll, S. J. (2010). The work–family interface in the United States and Singapore: Conflict across
cultures. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 646–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020832.
18
Galtry, J., & Callister, P. (2005). Assessing the optimal length of parental leave for child and parental well-being: How can research inform policy? Journal of Family
Issues, 26, 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04270344.
Gaspar, M. O. (2013). The modernisation process through the perceptions of work–family in Spain and Great Britain. European Societies, 15(5), 707–728.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225–1244. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225.
Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marín, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M. L., & Quandt, S. A. (2007). Work-family conflict: Experiences and health implications among
immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1119.
Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study. 62. Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study (pp. 178–218).
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across
seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1989). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. New York: Anchor Books.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of Family Supportive
Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837–856.
Hampden-Turner, C. M., & Trompenaars, A. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence. Chichester: John Wiley.
Hassan, Z., Dollard, M. F., & Winefield, A. H. (2010). Work-family conflict in East vs Western countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17, 30–49.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601011016899.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2012). The global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Heyman, J., Earle, A., & Hayes, J. (2007). The work, family, and equity index: How does the United States measure up? Retrieved from http://www.worldpolicycenter.
org/sites/default/files/Work%20Family%20and%20Equity%20Index-How%20does%20the%20US%20measure%20up-Jan%202007.pdf.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Martinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2003). Studying “working fathers”: Comparing fathers' and mothers' work-family conflict, fit, and adaptive
strategies in a global high-tech company. Fathering, 1, 239–261.
Hill, J. E., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
1300–1316.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 655–664.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Hulin, C. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 115–142.
Javidan, M. (2004). Performance Orientation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, Leadership, and OrganizationsSage.
Thousand Oaks, CA: The GLOBE study of 62 regions.
Jin, J. F., Ford, M. T., & Chen, C. C. (2013). Asymmetric differences in work–family spillover in North America and China: Results from two heterogeneous samples.
Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1289-3.
Joplin, J., Shaffer, M., Francesco, A., & Lau, T. (2003). The macro environment and work family conflict: Development of a cross cultural comparative framework.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 305–328.
Kasearu, K. (2009). The effect of union type on work-life conflict in five European countries. Social Indicators Research, 93, 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-
008-9432-3.
Korabik, K., Lero, D. S., & Ayman, R. (2003). A multi-level approach to cross cultural work-family research: A micro and macro perspective. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 3, 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003003003.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. (2011). Workplace social support and work family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and
work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–313.
Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C. L., O'Driscoll, M. P., ... Kinnunen, U. (2008). Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple
dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of model across five samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jvb.2008.02.001.
Lazarova, M., Westman, M., & Shaffer, M. A. (2010). Elucidating the positive side of the work-family interface on international assignments: A model of expatriate
work and family performance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 93–117.
van der Lippe, T., Jager, A., & Kops, Y. (2006). Combination pressure: The paid work-family balance of men and women in European countries. Acta Sociologica, 49,
303–319.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multilvariate Behavioral Research, 32(1),
53–76.
Livingston, G. (2016). Among 41 nations, U.S. is the outlier when it comes to paid parental leave. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/09/26/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Chang, T.-T., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., ... Spector, P. E. (2010). Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role
satisfaction: A Taiwanese-British comparison. Human Resource Management, 49, 67–85.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S. F., & Huang, M. T. (2006). A cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: The Taiwanese vs British.
Career Development International, 11, 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430610642354.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2014). Gender egalitarianism and work-life balance for managers: Multisource perspectives in 36 countries. Applied Psychology, 63,
96–129.
Lyness, K. S., & Kropf, M. B. (2005). The relationships of national gender equality and organizational support with work-family balance: A study of European managers.
Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 58, 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705050934.
Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H., & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 17, 167–214.
Major, D. A., & Lauzun, H. M. (2010). Equipping managers to assist employees in addressing work-family conflict: Applying the research literature toward innovative
practice. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13, 69–85.
Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., Spector, P. E., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., ... Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible work arrangements availability
and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison of three country clusters: Work-to-family conflict across
countries. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 61, 1–29.
Mortazavi, S., Pedhiwala, N., Shafiro, M., & Hammer, L. (2009). Work–family conflict related to culture and gender. Community, Work and Family, 12(2), 251–273.
Netemeyer, R. G., Brashear-Alejandro, T., & Boles, J. S. (2004). A cross-national model of job-related outcomes of work role and family role variables: A retail sales
context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 49–60.
Ng, T., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The effects of organizational and community embeddedness on work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 1233–1251.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Embeddedness and well-being in the United States and Singapore: The mediating effects of work-to-family and family-to-work
conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036922.
Notten, N., Grunow, D., & Verbakel, E. (2016). Social policies and families in stress: Gender and educational differences in work–family conflict from a European
perspective. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1344-z (Advance online publication).
19
Oishi, A. S., Chan, R. K. H., Wang, L. L.-R., & Kim, J.-H. (2015). Do part-time jobs mitigate workers' work–family conflict and enhance wellbeing? New evidence from
four East-Asian societies. Social Indicators Research, 121, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0624-8.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2016). Cross national work life research: A review at the individual level. In T. Allen, & L. T. Eby (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of work and family
(pp. 315–330). Oxford University Press.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Sarkisian, N., Stawiski, S., & Hannum, K. M. (2013). Work-life balance and performance across countries: Cultural and institutional approaches. In
D. A. Major, & R. Burke (Eds.). Handbook of work–life integration among professionals: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 357–380). Northampton, MA, US: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016). Family database. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_
systems.pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017). Social institutions and gender index. Retrieved from http://www.genderindex.org/data.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016). Work life balance index. Retrieved from http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/work-
life-balance/.
Pascal, G., & Kwak, A. (2009). Gender regimes in transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Pelto, P. (1968). The difference between ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ societies. Transactions, 5, 37–40.
Peters, P., & den Dulk, L. (2003). Cross cultural differences in managers' support for home-based telework: A theoretical elaboration. International Journal Of Cross
Cultural Management, 3, 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003003005.
Poelmans, S. (2003). Editorial: The multi-level ‘fit’ model of work and family. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 3, 267–274.
Poelmans, S. A. Y., O'Driscoll, M., & Beham, B. (2005). An overview of international research on the work-family interface. In S. Poelmans (Ed.). Work and family: An
international research perspective (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Allen, T. D., O'Driscoll, M., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). A cross-national comparative study of work/family demands and
resources. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 275–288.
Posthuma, R. A., Joplin, J. R. W., & Maertz, C. P. (2005). Comparing the validity of turnover predictors in the United States and Mexico. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 5, 165–180.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 597–616.
Rowan, N., & Wulff, D. (2007). Using qualitative methods to inform scale development. The Qualitative Report, 12, 450–466.
Ruppanner, L. (2013). Conflict between work and family: An investigation of four policy measures. Social Indicators Research, 110, 327–347.
Ruppanner, L., & Huffman, M. L. (2014). Blurred boundaries: Gender and work-family interference in cross-national context. Work and Occupations, 41, 210–236.
Rys, V. (2001). Transition countries of Central Europe entering the European Union: Some social protection issues. International Social Security Review, 54, 177–189.
Sanseau, P., & Smith, M. (2012). Regulatory change and work-life integration in France and the UK. Personnel Review, 41, 470–486.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research
Methods, 6, 169–215.
Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.). Comparing cultures, dimensions of
culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 5–13.
Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R., & Hsu, Y. S. (2011). Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 11, 221–268.
Shockley, K. M., Shen, W., Denunzio, M., Arvan, M., & Knudsen, E. (2014). Clarifying gender and work-family conflict: A meta-analytic approach (Chair) In M. J. Mills
(Ed.). Work-life interface meets employee gender: Challenge and opportunity.
Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., & O'Driscoll, et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60, 805–835.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O'Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., ... Yu, S. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors,
working hours, and well-being: China and Latin American versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.
Strandh, M., & Nordenmark, M. (2006). The interference of paid work with household demands in different social policy contexts: Perceived work-household conflict
in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. British Journal of Sociology, 57, 597–617.
Swain, N. (2011). A post-socialist capitalism. Europe-Asia Studies, 63, 1671–1695.
Syed, S., Arain, G. A., Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (2015). Balancing work and family obligations in Pakistan and the Netherlands: A comparative study. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 34, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21625.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Approaches, challenges, limitations, and suggestions based on the analysis of 121
instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15, 357–373.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2007). Careers across cultures. In H. P. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.). Handbook of career studies. SAGE Publications.
Trefalt, S., Drnovsek, M., Svetina-Nabergoj, A., & Adlesic, R. (2013). Impact of changes in national context on work–life conflict, enrichment and balance.
Structuration, social comparison and choice overload as explanatory mechanisms. European Management Journal, 31, 448–463.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for orga-
nizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2011). Implementing family-friendly employment practices in baking industry: Evidences from some African and Asian countries.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 493–517.
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Shi, K. (2004). Work-family conflict and job withdrawal intentions: The moderating effect of cultural differences.
International Journal of Stress Management, 4, 392–412.
Wharton, A. S., & Blair-Loy, M. (2006). Long work hours and family life: A cross-national study of employees' concerns. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 415–436.
Wierda-Boer, H. H., Gerris, J., Vermulst, A., Malinen, K., & Anderson, K. (2009). Combination strategies and work-family interface among dual-earner couples in
Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Community, Work and Family, 12, 233–249.
World Bank (2015). Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15 +) (modeled ILO estimate). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?page=4.
World Bank (2016). Poverty & equity data. Retrieved from http://povertydata.worldbank.org/.
World Economic Forum (2016). The global gender gap report. 2016. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/.
Yang, N. (2005). Individualism-collectivism and work-family interfaces: A Sino-U.S. comparison. In S. A. Y. Poelmans (Ed.). Work and family: An international research
perspective (pp. 287–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556390.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376178.
20

1 s2.0 S0001879117300350 Main

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

1 s2.0 S0001879117300350 Main

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Vocational Behavior 101 (2017) 1–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Cross-cultural work and family research: A review of the literature

1.1. Literature search and inclusion criteria

1.2. Overview of the coding process

1.2.1. National origin of sample(s)

1.2.2. Type of cross-cultural hypothesis

1.2.3. Reference to cultural context

1.2.4. Content analysis of reference to cultural context

1.2.5. WF construct measurement information

2.1. Representation of countries and frequencies of cross-cultural comparisons

2.2. Content, analytical focus, and measurement

Cross-cultural focus of study

2.3. Reference to cultural context

Collectivism (11) - aCollectivism (vs. individualism) is negatively related to WF conﬂict because:

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MAIN EFFECTS

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MAIN EFFECTS

Power distance (1) - Power distance is negatively related to WF conﬂict because:

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF ANTECEDENT TO WF CONSTRUCT

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF ANTECEDENT TO WF CONSTRUCT

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF ANTECEDENT TO WF CONSTRUCT

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF WF CONSTRUCTS TO OUTCOMES

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF WF CONSTRUCTS TO OUTCOMES

Non-domain speciﬁc outcomes

Cultural value (number of unique studies) MODERATING EFFECTS OF WF CONSTRUCTS TO OUTCOMES

3.1. Frequencies of countries represented and country comparisons

3.2. Cross-cultural hypotheses and theoretical rationale

3.3. Method-related ﬁndings

3.4. Future research and conclusions

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.001.

S-ar putea să vă placă și