The effect of family interrupting work behavior on burnout: the buffering role of family supportive supervisor behavior

The effect of family interrupting work behavior on burnout: the buffering role of family supportive supervisor behavior

Master’s thesis

Sanne van Andel

885707

Master’s thesis Human Resource Studies Dr. Marloes van Engen Work-life styles, wellbeing and performance January – August 2015 Tilburg University Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences Human Resource Management

Abstract This research investigated the effect of family interrupting work behavior (FIWB) on burnout of employees, with family supportive supervisor behavior (FSSB) as a possible moderation effect. In order to answer the research question, a longitudinal research was conducted in which 86 employees filled in a questionnaire twice about work-related matters. Results showed that FIWB does not lead to higher levels of burnout of employees. On the other hand, FSSB does appear to lead to lower burnout of employees. However, the results are twofold. Only at time 2 it has been proven that FSSB lead to lower burnout of employees. The moderation effect cannot be proven which means that FSSB does not decrease the effect between FIWB and burnout. There are several explanations for the lack of evidence of the moderation. Because of the small sample it was difficult to find significant results. Another possible explanation concerns the way in which FSSB was measured. The four dimensions of FSSB were measured with one scale, which could have influenced the results. Furthermore, the longitudinal design of this research may not have been appropriate because of the big time lag between the measurement moments. Future research is needed to investigate under which circumstances FSSB can decrease the effect between FIWB and burnout. Diary studies may be the appropriate way in which data is captured from participants as how they deal with and live through certain experiences.

Key words: family interrupting work behavior, family supportive supervisor behavior, burnout

2

1. Introduction. Over the last few years, the Netherlands is confronted with high absenteeism rates caused by burnout (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2014). Between the years 2008 and 2014, over 8 percent of absenteeism is caused by employees who feel exhausted by their work. This percentage is much higher than other causes, such as working conditions (4-6 percent) and victimization (5-6 percent). In many countries, burnout has become a social problem (Maslach, 2003). For this research, it is of interest to look into burnout caused at the workplace and therefore the focus will be on the so-called job burnout. According to Maslach (2003), job burnout can be described as a psychological syndrome that involves a long-term response to stressors in the workplace. Although burnout takes place at the workplace, the causes of workplace burnout exceed the boundaries of the workplace. In today’s global economy, the pressures people face come from both the work domain as well as private life. The importance of burnout as a practical interest is clarified by its association with negative organizational outcomes and various types of personal dysfunction (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Kahill (1988) classified the consequences of burnout into different categories: emotional, attitudinal and behavioral. Impairment of mental health (emotional) is characterized by lower feelings of selfesteem, depression, and anxiety (Jackson & Maslach, 1982; Kahill, 1988). Attitudinal consequences involve the development of negative attitudes towards the job, the organization, or oneself (Kahill, 1988). These include dissatisfaction and lower levels of organizational commitment (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Behavioral consequences of burnout involve work and organization related behaviors. Organizational outcomes include turnover (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986) and absenteeism (Firth & Britton, 1989). Because of these severe possible consequences and possible losses, it is important to understand antecedents of burnout and possible interventions to prevent employees from burnout. Previous research indicated a direct link between employees experiencing family related interruptions at work, phone calls from home for example, and burnout. Overall findings illustrate that family interfering with work is negatively related to work performance and attitudes, including burnout (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). The focus of this research is on family interrupting work behavior (FIWB), which refers to the extent to which employees take care of family needs during work. Burnout may be less likely when employees experience a supportive supervisor. There is strong evidence that a lack of social support, a type of job resource, leads to burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Social support in the workplace is provided by supervisors and coworkers (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). This research will focus on the supervisor, and in particular on the family supportive supervisor behavior (FSSB). FSSB refers to the perception of an employee regarding the supervisor’s sensitivity towards non-work related matters (Baral & Bhargava, 2010). There is already evidence that burnout occurs in the presence of job demands and the absence of job resources (Maslach et al., 2001). However, it is not clear whether particular behavior of 3

employees in relation to their family-work domains leads to burnout. It is possible that when employees have a large workload and are confronted with high levels of FIWB this will lead to burnout. FIWB is not examined as being a specific behavior. Previous research mainly focused on family-to-work conflict (Haar, 2006; Lingard & Francis, 2006), which is mostly about experienced demands of the family interfering with work, and not about behavior. It is possible that behavior of employees regarding their family-work domains plays a role in the occurrence of burnout. Therefore, more attention should be paid to specific behavior in relation to burnout. Previous research indicated that people have different behaviors to cope with stressors or strain (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987). This means that different coping behaviors with regards to FIWB result in different levels of burnout. Furthermore, work-family research had identified supervisor’s support as an important resource that can reduce negative effects of work and family stressors (O'Driscoll, Poelmans, Spector, Kalliath, Allen, Cooper, & Sanchez, 2003; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). However, most research focusses on FSSB as an independent variable or a mediator (Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011; Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Greene-Shortridge, 2012). This raises the question how FSSB could moderate the relationship between FIWB and burnout. Previous research cannot give a clear answer to this question (Maslach et al., 2001). Finally, because of the cross-sectional research designs of most previous research, it is difficult to determine causal relationships between FIWB and burnout, and for this reason a longitudinal research is conducted. Therefore, the following research question is formulated to test for a possible moderation effect of FSSB: “Does FIWB relate to burnout of employees and to what extent is this relationship moderated through FSSB?”

Answering this question will be relevant for two reasons. First, most of the work-family research focused on conflict between work and family or vice versa. It is not clear how actual behavior of employees, in this case FIWB, leads to burnout. This research also contributes to the existing literature, because it examines FSSB as a possible moderator. This means that FSSB could be a possible buffer for the relationship between FIWB and burnout. According to the social support literature, social support moderates the relationship between job stressors and burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). FIWB can be seen as a job stressor in this research. Job stressors are stressful events, which is something a person experiences (Cohen & Wills, 1985). In this case, FIWB is acknowledged as a stressful event because it put demands on the person. Since previous research resulted in mixed outcomes, there is no clear answer if FSSB can moderate this relationship (Maslach et al., 2001; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). This research should result in a more evident answer to this question. Furthermore, this research has a longitudinal research design. Most research about FIWB and burnout have a cross-sectional research design (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Longitudinal research design is essential to determine causal relationships. In studying employees over a longer time, it can be established 4

whether indeed FIWB is an antecedent to burnout, or whether employees who feel more burned out actually display more FIWB. Second, and related, there is a practical relevance. This practical relevance is twofold. First, by conducting this research more insight about individual behavior will be gained. If indeed FIWB leads to burnout, individuals may try to deal with this differently, for instance by not taking personal phone calls at work. Second, more knowledge about the effect of the supervisor’s support will be gained. Especially in relationship to burnout it is important to know if supervisors’ add specific value in reducing burnout. If the results of this research indicate that there is a moderation effect, this will suggest that when a supervisor is supportive with regards to FIWB, the level of burnout will be reduced. This knowledge will add value to organizations about how to prevent or reduce burnout. This, in turn, will lead to lower rates of absenteeism and associated costs. The theoretical framework will first explain the direct relationship between FIWB and burnout. This will illustrate in what situations burnout can occur and why FIWB may lead to burnout. Second, the moderating role of FSSB on the relationship between FIWB and burnout will be described, including the reason for this possible moderation. In this way, it will be clear how the direct relationship is influenced by the moderating variable FSSB. Furthermore, definitions of the different variables will be given in order to make clear what is being investigated.

2. Theoretical framework. The relationship between family interrupting work behavior and burnout. Most previous research focused on family-to-work or work-to-family conflict, which means that either the family domain or the work domain puts demands on the other domain. In other words, there is a conflict between the different domains. An important issue within this conflict is that it occurs while the employee cannot do anything to prevent this conflict. FIWB differ from conflict in a way that it is about behavior more than experienced conflicts between competing demands. There may be different reasons for this behavior and besides these reasons it is possible that employees are not aware of their behavior. It is important to know if this behavior leads to possible negative outcomes, because it can be prevented. It is part of the employees’ own responsibility to monitor his behavior. FIWB can be seen as both cross-role interruption behaviors, which refer to the degree to which individuals allow interruptions from one role to another (non-work interrupting work behaviors and work interrupting non-work behaviors) (Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012), and inter-role conflict, which refers to the extent to which a person experiences pressures within one role that are incompatible with the pressures that arise within another role (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). Especially the definition of Kossek et al., (2012) is important because they stated that an individual allows interruptions from one role to another. Important to notice is that employees may not be aware that they let one role interrupt another role. Interruptions occur frequently in organizations, in

5

different forms, and they negatively influences individual effectiveness (Jett & George, 2003). For example, other people (colleagues e.g.) may not be aware that employees do not want to be disturbed. This research will focus on the non-work interrupting work behaviors and will be referred to as FIWB. According to boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996a, 2008; Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000), individual employees construct their own boundaries between work and non-work roles, which means that they are the active participants in the construction of boundaries (Ashforth et al., 2000). Role integration and segmentation lies on a continuum, ranging from high segmentation to high integration (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). High role integration occurs when “no distinction exists between what belongs to ‘home’ or ‘work’ and when and where they are engaged” (NippertEng, 1996a, p. 567). For example, responding to private emails at work. On the other hand, high role segmentation occurs when the domains of work and non-work are treated as separated (Nippert-Eng, 1996a). With regards to FIWB, employees need to manage their boundaries between both roles. When there are no boundaries between the different roles, more interrupting work behavior can occur. The same holds true for role integration. Employees will experience higher levels of FIWB in case of role integration. Therefore it is important that employees keep the different roles in mind. The Conservation of Resources (COR) model can also be used to explain the relationship between FIWB and burnout. The COR model includes multiple stress theories (Hobfoll, 1989) and proposes that individuals seek to acquire and maintain resources (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). It suggests that individuals try to create a balance between demands and resources (Hobfoll, 2001). The model acknowledges four types of resources. One of these resources are energies, which allows one to acquire other resources. The loss and gain of these resources results in stress and/or well-being. More specifically, stress will occur when resources are threatened, the actual loss of resources, or a lack of resource gain after investing resources (Hobfoll, 1989). The COR model suggest that inter-role (FIWB) conflict leads to stress, which in turn can lead to burnout (Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Inter-role conflict leads to stress because of the loss of resources in the process of struggling with work and family roles. These losses of resources lead to a negative state of being, including dissatisfaction, depression and physiological tension. When individuals do not take action in order to protect themselves from these states, resources may be depleted and burnout will be the result. Another theory which explains a relationship between FIWB and burnout is role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Role theory suggests that multiple roles can lead to personal conflict, because it is more difficult to perform each role in a successful way. This conflict is caused by conflicting time demands, lack of energy, or incompatible behaviors among different roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964). This inter-role conflict can lead to strain on the individual. More specifically, the different expectations associated with work and family roles can lead to strain in two ways. Role expectation can lead to role overload within the two domains work and family. Expectations about either of these roles can raise pressures that dominate the time of an individual and conflict with expectations associated with the performance of the other role (Shaffer, 6

Joplin, & Hsu, 2011). The COR concerns both behavior and experience. An important issue within this theory is the creation of a balance between demands and resources, which is an example of behavior. In order to do so, these demands and resources need to be identified, which is more about experience. This is also the case within role theory. The multiple roles people perform can lead to personal conflict which is caused both by (incompatible) behavior and experiences, lack of energy for example. The theories which are described above all explain the relationship between FIWB and burnout. Job burnout can be described as a psychological syndrome that involves a prolonged response to stressors in the workplace (Maslach, 2003). Job burnout is defined by three dimensions; overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job, and feelings of inefficacy and a lack of accomplishment (Maslach et al., 2001). Exhaustion is the central quality of burnout and the most obvious manifestation of this syndrome. Most people refer to exhaustion when they describe feelings of burnout. The exhaustion component describes the basic individual stress dimension of burnout and refers to feelings of being overweighed and exhaustion of

peoples’

emotional and physical resources. The cynicism component describes the interpersonal context dimension of burnout. It refers to a negative, harsh, or exceedingly detached response to different aspects of the job. The component of reduced efficacy or accomplishment describes the self-evaluation dimension of burnout. It refers to feelings of inability and a lack of achievement and productivity at work (Maslach et al., 2001). In this research, only the emotional exhaustion component will be measured. Evidence from previous research suggests that inter-role conflict is related to outcomes such as job burnout (Burke, 1988; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus, 1988; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). Furthermore, Bruck, Allen and Spector (2002) found that behavior-based family interfering with work added unique variance to the prediction of global and composite job satisfaction and over and above strain- and time-based conflict (Eby et al., 2005). These findings suggest that FIWB is positively related to burnout. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated. H1: “Family interrupting work behavior is positively associated to burnout of employees”. The moderating role of family supportive supervisor behavior on the relationship between family interrupting work behavior and burnout. According to the social support literature, social support should moderate the relationship between job stressors and burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). “FSSB is one type of social support and can be defined as those behaviors exhibited by supervisors that are supportive of families” (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009, p.389). Within this definition there are four dimensions of FSSB; emotional support, instrumental support, role modeling behaviors and creative work-family management. These four dimensions are hierarchically arranged within the broader dimension of

7

family supportive supervision (Hammer, Kossek, Zimmerman, & Daniels, 2007). Edwards (2001) developed a hierarchical model representing the FSSBs construct. The first construct or dimension is emotional support, which refers to perceptions that one is being cared for and that individuals are feeling comfortable asking for support when needed (Hammer et al., 2009). Emotional support includes for the supervisor talking to employees and being aware of their family and personal life commitments (Hammer et al., 2009). Furthermore, it involves the extent to which supervisors make employees feel comfortable talking about family related issues and show respect, understanding and sympathy with regards to family responsibilities (Hammer et al., 2009). The second construct is instrumental support, which refers to the functional aspects of giving employees the freedom to manage their work-family demands in a flexible way (Hammer et al., 2009). It includes day-to-day resources provided by the supervisor to assist employees to manage their responsibilities in work and family roles successfully (Hammer et al., 2009). The third construct is role modeling behavior, which refers to supervisors showing how to integrate work and family through modeling behaviors on the job (Hammer et al., 2009). This includes examples of strategies and behaviors that will lead to preferred work-life outcomes. For example, giving employees advice about helpful strategies to manage work and family demands in a successful way or sharing ideas about these strategies (Hammer et al., 2009). The fourth and final construct is creative work-family management. It can be defined as “managerialinitiated actions to restructure work to facilitate employee effectiveness on and off the job” (Hammer et al., 2009, p. 839). The purpose of this construct is that the fulfillment of organizational goals will not conflict with the work-family balance of employees (Hammer et al., 2009). Thus, FSSB can help with an employee’s desire to seek balance between work and family responsibilities (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). In this research, all four components of FSSB will be measured. The job demands-resources (JD-R) model explains how FSSB can help employees to seek for this balance. In this model, job characteristics can be divided into two categories; job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Job resources refer to “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). The JD-R model states that interactions between job demands and job resources are important. Resources such as social support can reduce negative psychological effects of stress (Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). Individuals with more social support receive additional job psychological resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In case of FIWB, supervisory support can be seen as a job resource, which reduces the job demands like the interrupting behavior and reduce the level of burnout. Within the social support theory, there is a so-called buffering hypothesis which suggests that support is related to wellbeing, only for anyone who is under stress. It 8

is called the buffering hypothesis because it states that support buffers persons from the infected influence of stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). The buffering hypothesis states that social support should be a moderator in the relationship between job stressors and burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). In other words, the relationship will be strong when there is a lack of support and weak when support is high (Maslach et al., 2001). Previous research indicated that there is strong evidence that a lack of social support is linked to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). This means that supervisor’s support is very important in order to reduce burnout. Lizano, Hsiao, Mor Barak, and Casper (2014) found that supervisor’s support was negatively related to burnout. In other words, higher levels of supervisor’s support resulted in lower levels of burnout. Furthermore, DiRenzo, Greenhaus, and Weer (2011) found that family-supportive supervision is negatively related to work-family conflict. This conflict has been associated with high rates of burnout, turnover intentions, absenteeism, health problems, and psychological strain (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011). Therefore, the following hypotheses can be formulated. H2: “Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior is negatively associated to burnout of employees”. H3: “The effect of family interrupting work behavior on burnout of employees decreases with increasing Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior”.

A simplified model of the relationships between the variables can be found in Figure 1.

Family supportive supervisor behavior

Family interrupting work behavior

(H2)

(H3)

Burnout of employees

+

(H1)

Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the relationship between the independent (FIWB), dependent (burnout) and moderating (FSSB) variables.

9

3. Method. Research design. This research was part of a larger longitudinal research focusing on work-life styles, wellbeing and performance. Data from multiple time sets was used. The first data wave was from 2013 and 2014. The data were collected during the course Research in HRS of the premaster HRS and represented time 1. Data collected in 2015 represented time 2. Within longitudinal research the influence of the distorting factors was reduced, because the same respondent filled in the questionnaire two times. There was examined if FIWB measured at time 1 would result in burnout at time 2. A cross-lagged design studied the direction of the causality between work interrupting family behaviors and burnout. Sample. Because of the longitudinal research design of this research, the same respondents from 2013 or 2014 needed to participate. The focus of this research were Dutch employees from different positions (no management position) and sectors. These sectors included private sector, public sector, and non-profit sector. Based on the data sets of 2013 and 2014 and the verification forms, the sample originally consisted of 335 employees. After contacting these employees through email and phone, 102 respondents filled in the questionnaire, which indicates a response rate of 30.4 percent in time 2 of the sample in 2013/2014. Due to matching problems, presumably because of wrong verification codes, eventually 86 respondents could be used. This indicates a response rate of 25.7 percent. The average age of the employed people was 45.09 years old at time 1 and 46.99 years old at time 2. More women (51.2 percent) than men (41.8 percent) participated in the research at time 1. At time 2, also more women (52.3 percent) than men (47.7 percent) participated in the research. Most of the respondents worked in the healthcare sector (33.7 percent). Another large part of the respondents worked for the government (17.4 percent). Overall, more respondents worked in the non-profit sector (58 percent) than in the profit sector (42 percent). The average working hours among the respondents was 35.77 hours per week at time 1 and 35.15 hours per week at time 2. Procedure. Different steps were taken in order to conduct this research. First of all, the respondents of 2013 and 2014 were contacted in order to ask them if they wanted to participate again through email, phone or both. Only those respondents of time 1 were approached that had indicated they were willing to participate in a follow-up study (N=599 in the original Dutch sample). Second, a modified questionnaire was developed before data collection started. Each student of the thesis circle collected their own scales and those scales were combined in one questionnaire. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. For this research, an online questionnaire was used. Qualtrics was used for creating the online questionnaire. This program had the advantage that respondents could start and interrupt the 10

questionnaire at any given time and return to the question they had last answered. In the previous years, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was used. Third, data collection started. In order to collect the data, a letter was written to inform the respondents about the process. This letter was sent by email to the respondents including the link to the online questionnaire. After two weeks a reminder was send to the respondents and after three weeks phone calls were made to all the respondents in order to receive enough data. Data was collected in a way anonymity was guaranteed. After retrieving the data, two data sets were made, one for time 1 (2013/ 2014) 1 and one for 2015 (time 2). Both data sets were refined and finally merged into one dataset to start the analysis only with data which was considered relevant for answering the research question. Measures. Family interrupting work behavior. FIWB was measured with the scale of Kossek et al., (2012). Originally, this scale measures two directions of interrupting behavior; FIWB and work interrupting family behavior. For this research only the items measuring FIWB were taken into account, which were five items. FIWB was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. An example of these items was: “I take care of personal and family needs during work”. The number of factors selected for FIWB was one, based on the criteria of eigenvalue >1. At time 1, the eigenvalue was 1.910, and at time 2 the eigenvalue was 2.347. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .62 at time 1 and .83 at time 2. Especially for time 1, this was not sufficient and therefore two items were deleted. These items were: “I do not think about my family, friends or personal interests while working so I can focus” and “When I work from home, I handle personal or family responsibilities during work”. After deleting these items, the Cronbach’s alpha was .71 at time 1 and .86 at time 2, which means that the reliability of the scale was satisfactory both times.

Family supportive supervisor behavior. FSSB was measured with the shortened scale by Hammer et al., (2007), consisting of 12 items. FSSB was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. An example of these items was: “My supervisor takes time to learn about my personal needs”. FSSB has four dimensions, emotional support, role modeling behaviors, instrumental support and creative work-family management The number of factors selected for FSSB was two, based on the criteria of eigenvalue >1. At time 1, the eigenvalue of factor 1 was 5.236 and of factor 2 1.069. At time 2, the eigenvalue of factor 1 was 6.128 and of factor 2 1.039. Although the scree plots of both times showed that the first factors captured the most of the variance compared to the other factors, two factors were selected. According to the factor analysis, only the creative work-family management dimension was measured with the second factor. When looking at the content of the items, this made sense because this dimension was very different from the other dimensions. 11

Therefore, two factors were selected, one measuring emotional support, role modeling behaviors and instrumental support and the other one measuring creative work-family management. These two factors were measured within the same scale; one scale was created to measure FSSB as a whole, which was possible due to the high reliability of the scale. According to the factor analysis, one item was deleted because it created an extra factor for only that item. This item was: “I can rely on my supervisor to make sure my work responsibilities are handled when I have unanticipated non-work demands”. Deleting this item had little consequence for the Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha was .89 at time 1 and .92 at time 2, which means that the scale was reliable to use for both times. Burnout. Burnout was measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale by Maslach and Jackson (1981). Originally, this scale consisted of four dimensions. For this research, only the emotional exhaustion dimension was taken into account because most people refer to the exhaustion dimension when describing feelings of burnout. This exhaustion dimension has eight items. For this research only the four strongest items were included. These strongest items were determined through the use of a factor analysis on the data of 2013 and 2014 separately. An example of these items was: “I feel frustrated by my job”. The number of factors selected for burnout was one, based on the criteria of eigenvalue >1. At time 1, the eigenvalue was 2.812 and at time 2 the eigenvalue was 2.736. The Cronbach’s alpha was .86 at time 1 and .85 at time 2, which means that the scale was reliable to use for both times. All factor loadings for the different scales and items can be found in Appendix 2. Control variables. Several control variables were included in the questionnaire; age, gender, working hours, nationality, marital state, job tenure, function and number and age of children taking care of. Of those variables age, gender, number and age of children and working hours were included as control variables in this research. The reason for this is that age can relate to both FIWB and burnout, as people of different ages may be in different life stages. This could mean that people of a certain age have (little) children and have more trouble to combine work and family. This could lead to more FIWB. Furthermore there are mixed results with regards to the relationship between age and burnout (Jackson, 1993; Dillon & Tanner, 1995; Friedman & Farber, 1992). Previous research indicated that age was differentially related to burnout in separate age groups of men and women. Among women, the association between age and burnout was negative in the early work years and positive in the late work years. In between, burnout did not exist. On the other hand, among men, the association was positive in middle age and non-existing in other cases (Ahola, Honkonen, Virtanen, Aromaa, & Lönnqvist, 2008). Therefore, gender was taken into account as a control variable in this research. Age and number of children was included as a control variable because this affects the FIWB. When a person has children, they need to take care of them. This in turn, can interrupt work behavior. For

12

example, when a child is sick and the parents get a phone call at work, they are interrupted at work. Finally, previous research has shown a significant interaction effect between gender and working hours in relation to burnout (Norlund, Reuterwall, Höög, Lindahl, Janlert, & Birgander, 2010). This means that only women reported higher levels of burnout caused by the number of working hours. Furthermore, gender was divided into two categories (men and women). Age, measured in years, and number of children was divided into five categories (children under 3, children in the age of 3-5 years, children in the age of 6-12 years, children in the age of 13-18 years and children older than 18 years). Working hours was measured in hours per week. Statistical analysis. In order to answer the research question, the model was analyzed using SPSS. FIWB was the independent variable, burnout the dependent variable and FSSB the moderating variable. Because of multicollinearity between the two independent variables and the interaction variable, the independent variables were transformed into centered variables. This means that of the two independent variables the mean was calculated and that this mean was deducted from the scores of each participant. Next, the hypotheses were tested, through the use of a multiple regression analysis. The regression analysis consisted of three blocks. The first block included the control variables marital state and industry type. The second block consisted of the independent variables FIWB and FSSB and the dependent variable burnout. The third block consisted of the interaction variable FIWB – FSSB. Burnout was the dependent variable. The interaction was measured at time 1 and 2, and between time 1 and 2. This indicated a cross-lagged analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether FIWB measured at time 1, led to burnout measured at time 2. Although this cross-lagged analysis was of main interest, the interaction was measured for both times separately as well in order to test for a possible relationship. Because the interaction was not significant, the second block is presented in the results section. Although the interaction was not significant, it can influence the relationship between the other variables, therefore the second block was interpreted.

4. Results Descriptive analysis. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities of the variables at time 1 and 2. There is a negative correlation between FSSB time 1 and burnout time 2 (r=-.23, p<.05), whereas there is a positive correlation between FSSB time 1 and FIWB time 1 (r=.22, p<.05) and time 2 (r=.25, p<.05). Furthermore, there is a marginally negative correlation between FSSB time 2 and burnout time 2 (r=-.20, p<.10). There is a marginally negative correlation between FIWB time 2 and burnout time 1 (r=-.19, p<.10). Concerning the control variables, marital state time 1 is positively correlated with FIWB time 1 (r=.26, p<.05). Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between banking and FSSB time 2 (r=.31, p<.01) and between banking and marital state time 1 (r=.22, p<.05). 13

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities time 1 and 2. N

M

SD

1.

1. Burnout¹

86

1.83

.69

(.86)

2. Burnout²

86

2.17

.69

.09

(.85)

3. FIWB¹

85

.00

.76

-.10

-.16

(.71)

4. FIWB²

86

.00

.84

-.19*

.05

.11

(.86)

5. FSSB¹

84

.00

.52

-.16

-.23**

.22**

.25**

(.89)

6. FSSB²

86

.00

.60

.05

-.20*

.07

.06

-.01

(.92)

7. Marital state¹

85

1.16

.43

.02

-.08

.26**

-.03

.07

.15

8. Marital state²

86

1.07

.73

.01

.04

.09

.08

.02

.16

.63***

9. Banking²

86

9.45

.26

-.01

-.13

.16

.09

.11

.31***

.22**

.08

10. Year participation

86

1.41

.49

.04

.09

-.36***

.11

-.28**

.08

-.21*

-.04

Note.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

.05

***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is marginally significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed) In between brackets: Cronbach’s alpha All variables were measured on a scale from 1 to 5, except for the variables marital state which was measured with three categories at time 1 (1= married/cohabiting 2= single 3= divorced/widowed) and five categories at time 2 (1= married /cohabiting 2= single 3= divorced 4= widowed 5= LAT relationship), the variable banking which was measured with two categories (1= working in banking sector 2= not working in banking sector and year of participation which was measured with two categories (1= 2013 2= 2014).

14

An independent-samples t-test was used to explore whether year of participation (2013 or 2014) was related to any of the study variables. FIWB time 1 and 2, FSSB time 1 and 2 and burnout time 1 and 2 were the dependent variables and year of participation was the independent variable. There was a significant difference in scores for people who participated in 2013 (M =.23, SD = .65) and 2014 (M = -.32, SD = .82); t (83) = 3.481, p<.001, two tailed) on FIWB time 1. Therefore, year of participation was included as control variable for all subsequent analyses. Results of the t-test are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, it was explored whether industry sector was related to any of the study variables. An ANOVA analysis with FIWB time 1 and 2, FSSB time 1 and 2 and burnout time 1 and 2 as dependent variables and industry type (industry, transport, banking, government and healthcare) as independent variable was conducted. Post-hoc contrast showed a marginally significant effect for FSSB time 2 (F (4) = 2.277, p<.07), but no effect on the other dependent variables and the interaction variable. Post-hoc contrasts revealed that banking differed from healthcare, industry, transport and government. The other industries did not differ from each other. Therefore, banking was included as a control variable in all subsequent analyses. Another ANOVA analysis was conducted to explore whether marital status at both times was related to any of the study variables. The same variables were added as dependent variables compared to the previous test. Marital status was added as independent variable. Post-hoc contrast showed a marginally significant effect for FIWB time 1 (F (2) = 3.054, p<.05), at marital status time 1, but no effect on the other dependent variables and the interaction variable. At marital status time 2, Post-hoc contrast showed a marginally significant effect for FIWB time 1 (F (4) = 2.533, p<.05), burnout time 2 (F (4) = 3.368, p<.01) and the interaction measured at time 1 (F (4) = 3.527, p<.01). Therefore, marital status was included as a control variable in all subsequent analyses. An independent-samples t-test was used to explore whether type of sector (profit/non-profit) was related to any of the study variables. FIWB time 1 and 2, FSSB time 1 and 2 and burnout time 1 and 2 were the dependent variables and type of sector was the independent variable. There was a significant difference in scores for people working in a profit organization (M =.29, SD = .75) and a non-profit organization (M = -.09, SD = .81); t (76) = 2.061, p < .04, two tailed). However, due to multicollinearity between industry type and sector type, only industry type was included as a control variable in all subsequent analyses. A paired-samples t-test was used to explore whether burnout time 1 and burnout time 2 differed significantly from each other. There was a statistically significant increase in burnout scores from time 1 (M =1.83, SD = .69) and time 2 (M = 2.17, SD = .69); t (85) = -3.418, p <.001 (two tailed). The mean increase in burnout scores was -3.343 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -.543 to -.143. The eta squared statistic (-.12) indicated a small effect size. Because of this difference between burnout time 1 and 2, burnout time 1 was included as a control variable in the cross-lagged analysis. The results are presented in Table 3. 15

A MANOVA test was conducted to explore whether gender was related to any of the study variables. This analysis showed no significant relationship between gender and any of the study variables, including the interaction variable. When combined with number and age of children, also no significant relationships were found. Therefore, gender and number and age of children were excluded as control variables in all subsequent analyses. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to explore whether age was related to any of the study variables. Analysis showed no significant relationship between age and any of the study variables or the interaction variable. Therefore, age was excluded as control variable in all subsequent analyses. Another Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to explore whether working hours was related to any of the study variables. Analysis showed no significant relationship between working hours and the other variables. Therefore, working hours was excluded as control variable in all subsequent analyses.

Table 2. Results of t-tests and Descriptive Statistics family interrupting work behavior time 1 by year of participation. Outcome

FIWB 1

Group Participants 2013 M SD .227

.647

95% CI for Mean Difference

N

Participants 2014 M SD

N

50

-.324

35

.816

-.354, .248

t

df

3.48*

83

* p < .05.

Table 3. Results of t-test and Descriptive Statistics for burnout time 1 and 2. Burnout 1 Outcome

95% CI for Mean Difference

Burnout 2

M

SD

M

SD

N

1.83

.69

2.17

.69

86

-.54, -.14

t

df

-3.418*

85

* p < .05.

Regression analysis. The first hypothesis stated that FIWB is positively associated to burnout of employees. This hypothesis can be rejected because the results showed that the relationship between FIWB and burnout of employees was not significant. At both time 1 and time 2 this relation was not significant. The results are presented in Table 4. The second hypothesis stated that FSSB is negatively associated to burnout of employees. This hypothesis can be partly supported because the results showed a significant relationship between FSSB and burnout of employees at time 2 (β=-.202, p<.10). At time 1, the results showed no significant relationship. The results are presented in Table 4. 16

Table 4. Summary of simple regression analyses for hypotheses 1 and 2 at time 1 and 2.

Variable

Burnout time 1 _____________ B SE B β

Burnout time 2 _____________ B SE B β

FIWB

-.082 .112 -.091

.045 .090 .055

FSSB

-.193 .155 -.147

-.232 .132 -.202*

R²

.024

.069

F

.508

1.182

The third hypothesis stated that the effect of FIWB on burnout of employees decreases with increasing FSSB. This hypothesis can be rejected because the results showed that the interaction effect between FIWB and FSSB on burnout of employees was not significant. This interaction effect showed no significant relationship at time 1 and 2, and between time 1 and 2. However, in the cross-lagged model, FSSB time 1 was negatively correlated with burnout time 2 (β=-.235, p<.05). The results are presented in tables 5, 6 and 7.

17

Table 5. Hierarchical regression results for testing the moderation of family supportive supervisor behavior on the relationship between family interrupting work behavior and burnout at time 1.

Variables

N

Step 1 ______________ β SE

Year of participation

86

.047

.160

-.025

.175

-.020

.174

Marital status 1

85

.037

.187

.049

.190

.031

.191

Banking

86

.024

.310

-.007

.314

-.004

.314

FIWB 1

85

-.091

.112

-.085

.112

FSSB 1

84

-.147

.155

-.124

.157

FIWB x FSSB 1

84

.137

.193

R² (Adj. R²) Sig ∆R² F

.003 (-.035) .079

Step 2 ______________ β SE

Step 3 _____________ β SE

.032 (-.031) .508

.050 (-.025) .664

18

Table 6. Hierarchical regression results for testing the moderation of family supportive supervisor behavior on the relationship between family interrupting work behavior and burnout at time 2.

Variables

N

Step 1 ______________ β SE

Year of participation

86

.099

.152

.108

.152

.103

.153

Marital status 2

86

.057

.103

.081

.103

.081

.104

Banking

86

.144

.294

.088

.306

.095

.309

FIWB 2

86

.055

.090

.034

.095

FSSB 2

86

-.202*

.132

-.196*

.133

FIWB x FSSB 2

86

.067

.165

R² (Adj. R²) Sig ∆R² F

.030 (-.005) .859

Step 2 ______________ β SE

Step 3 _____________ β SE

.069 (.011)

.073 (.002)

1.182

1.034

19

Table 7. Hierarchical regression results for testing the moderation of family supportive supervisor behavior on the relationship between family interrupting work behavior at time 1 and burnout at time 2, controlled for time 2.

Variables Year of participation Marital status 2 Banking Burnout 1 FIWB 1 FIWB 2 FSSB 1 FSSB 2 FIWB 1 x FSSB 1 FIWB 1 x FSSB 2 R² (Adj. R²) Sig ∆R² F

N 86 86 86

Step 1 ______________ β SE

Step 2 ______________ β SE

Step 3 _____________ β SE

Step 4 _____________ β SE

Step 5 _____________ β SE

.099

.154

.096

.155

.040

.169

-.009

.170

-.009

.173

.057

.104

.055

.104

.057

.105

.080

.103

.080

.104

.144

.298

.142

.299

.126

.305

.045

.310

.050

.323

.078

.111

.084

.114

.075

.111

.077

.114

-.130

.110

-.105

.107

-.105

.109

.085

.095

.148

.095

.148

.096

-.235**

.156

-.233*

.161

-.210*

.132

-.208*

.137

-.022

.198

.032

.174

86 85 86 84 86 84 85 .030 (-.006) .838

.037 (-.012) .750

.055 (-.019) .748

.137(.045)

.138(.020)

1.484

1.166

20

5. Conclusion and discussion This research explored whether FSSB decreases the effect of FIWB on burnout of employees. The following research question was proposed: “Does FIWB relate to burnout of employees and to what extent is this relationship moderated through FSSB?”. Based on previous research, it was expected that FIWB would lead to burnout. In other words, employees who experience high levels of family related interruptions at work are more likely to report burnout. This first hypothesis was rejected, which means that more FIWB does not lead to more burnout of employees. Based on the results, there are several reasons why this hypothesis could not be proven. First, FIWB was really about behavior instead of experience, which is more appropriate for work-family conflict. However, it is possible that employees first have to experience certain demands or stressful events before they will report burnout. Behavior does not necessarily lead to experience. Many employees are not aware of their behavior with regards to family interruptions at the workplace and therefore it might be the case that they do not experience this as a stressful event. Second, burnout was only measured on the emotional exhaustion dimension because this is the central quality of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). However, there are two other dimensions of burnout, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job and feeling of inefficacy and lack of accomplishment. For this research, feelings of inefficacy and lack of accomplishment may have been relevant because family related interruptions can cause employees to be unable to finish their work on time. In return, this will result in feelings of inefficacy. Third, FIWB might have been too narrow to investigate the relationship between interruptions and burnout. Obviously, there are different types of interruptions at the workplace. For example coworkers, but also interruptions from different work-roles. Fourth, this longitudinal design may not have been the appropriate way to measure FIWB. Diary studies may be more suitable to investigate behavior and how participants handle certain experiences. It was expected that FSSB was negatively related to burnout of employees. In other words, when FSSB increase, burnout should decrease. This second hypothesis was partly supported. Only at time 2, FSSB decreased burnout. No clear explanation exists for this result. Most of the participants worked under the same supervisor at both times and no difference in scores were found between the employees who worked under the same supervisor or a new supervisor at time 2. It is possible that the relationship at time 1 was not confirmed because of the lower level of burnout employees experienced. It could be the case that the more burnout employees experience, the more important FSSB becomes. Based on different theories such as the social support theory, it was expected that FSSB should decrease the effect between FIWB and burnout. This last hypothesis was rejected, which means that FSSB does not decrease the effect between FIWB and burnout. There are several explanations for this result. First, because of the small sample size it is difficult to find significant results. Second, the way in which FSSB was measured could have influenced the results. At both times, FSSB existed of two factors, one measuring emotional support, role modeling behaviors and instrumental support and the 21

other one measuring creative work-family management. Because of the high reliability of the scale, FSSB was measured with one scale existing of the two factors. Although results showed no significant results when FSSB was measured with two scales instead of one, the results changed from not significant at all to almost significant. The way in which FSSB was measured seems to be the most important reason why FSSB does not decrease the effect between FIWB and burnout. Limitations. According to the expectations from the literature and the results of this study there are a few limitations. The first limitation and probably the most important one is the sample size of this study. Because of the longitudinal research design there were some restrictions with regards to the sample. The same respondents who filled in the questionnaire before needed to participate again. This is already very different from a cross-sectional research design because in this case the sample is much bigger. It is clear that the smaller the sample, the more difficult it is to find statistical significant results. Another limitation with regards to the sample is the low number of respondents with children. Because of this low number it was difficult to control for effects of having children on FIWB and burnout. Based on the literature, it was expected that having children influences the relationship between FIWB and burnout. This may have resulted in the relationships not being significant. The second limitation concerns the way in which burnout was measured, as explained above. It is possible that the other dimensions feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job and feeling of inefficacy and lack of accomplishment would have given different results. Based on the focus of this research, the emotional exhaustion dimension is not enough to determine the relationships between FIWB, FSSB and burnout. Another limitation concerns the measurement of FSSB. This could be an important limitation because of the moderating role of FSSB. Despite existing of different factors and dimensions, FSSB was measured with one scale. Because of the high reliability of the scale it was expected that using one scale was sufficient. However, results showed no significant results. It is possible that two different scales would have given other results because it measured something different. The last limitation concerns a general one. Data was collected over a period of two years, 2013 until 2015. Several respondents filled in their first questionnaire two years ago. This could bias the results because of the long time between the two measurement times. It is possible that data gathered over a shorter period of time gives other results because respondents experience a certain (emotional) state for a specific period of time. Furthermore, the longitudinal research design may not be the best way to investigate behavior or experience, which is important in this research.

22

Recommendations. Based on the results and limitations, some recommendations for future research can be suggested. First of all, a larger sample is recommended in order to create more opportunity to reach significant result. With a larger sample it is more argumentative to find such results. Second, it is recommended to add more participants with children to the sample in order to test for this control variable. Number and age of children should be controlled for with regards to the relationship between FIWB and burnout of employees. Furthermore, burnout should be measured on the other dimensions as well. With a research focused on interrupting work behavior it would be more likely that employees experience burnout on the dimension of feelings of inefficacy and lack of accomplishment. Therefore it is important that all dimensions of burnout are taken into account. The original Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale by Maslach and Jackson (1981) consist of all dimensions of burnout and should therefore be added to questionnaires used in future research. It is clear that feelings of inefficacy arises from a lack of resources needed to get the job done, for example insufficient time which can be a direct consequence of FIWB (Maslach, 2003). Also, FSSB should be measured with two scales, each measuring the right dimensions. Of course it is important to conduct a factor analysis before the scales are made, in order to examine which dimension belong to which factor. The last recommendation concerns the research design. For future research, it is recommended to gather data over a shorter period of time in order to obtain more consistent outcomes. As explained before, most people only experience a certain (emotional or psychical) state for a specific period of time. When the time lag between the different measurement moments is very big, it is more difficult to obtain consistent results because people can feel very different at both time sets. Furthermore, diary studies should give more information about how different employees behave with regards to family related interruptions and how they handle different stressful events. Another advantage of diary studies is that people become more aware of their own behavior, which can be very important in these types of research. Practical implications. This research helps to understand how individuals behave differently with regards to FIWB and how this relates to burnout. Although results showed different directions from FIWB to burnout, it is likely that FIWB leads to burnout and different work behaviors influences this relationship between FIWB and burnout. This study did not show a significant relationship between FSSB and burnout, however, previous research already showed the importance of FSSB for reducing burnout (Lizano, Hsiao, Mor Barak, and Casper, 2014). Therefore it is recommended to use forms of FSSB when employees experience burnout, whether this is caused by FIWB or something else. This could mean that the supervisor’s role has to change. For example more training could be provided about how to be a supportive supervisor. It is also important that there is enough transparency between the supervisor and the employee in order to help the employee in the best way possible.

23

6. References Ahola, K., Honkonen, T., Virtanen, M., Aromaa, A., & Lönnqvist, J. (2008). Burnout in relation to age in the adult working population. Journal of Occupational Health, 50(4), 362-365. Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on crossdomain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151-169. Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2010). Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 274-300. Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(3), 336-353. Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3(4), 287-302. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357. Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621-656. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands -resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. Dillon, J. F., & Tanner, G. R. (1995). Dimensions of career burnout among educators. Journal and Mass Communication Educator, 50(2), 4-13. DiRenzo, M. S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2011). Job level, demands, and resources as antecedents of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 305314. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980 24

–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124-197. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-192. Firth, H., & Britton, P. (1989). ‘Burnout’, absence and turnover amongst British nursing staff. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 55-59. Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 28-35. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work -family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78. Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350-370. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1987). A work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 37-60. Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). The intersection of work-family roles: Individual, interpersonal, and organizational issues. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3(4), 23-44. Haar, J. M. (2006). The downside of coping: Work–family conflict, employee burnout and the moderating effects of coping strategies. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(2), 146- 159. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel perspective. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Exploring the work and non-work interface: Research in Occupational Stress and Wellbeing (Vol. 6, pp. 165–204). Oxford, England: Elsevier JAI. Hammer, L., Kossek, E., Yragui, N., Bodner, T., Hanson, G. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of family- supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837–856. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134150.

25

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in the workplace: Conservation of resources. In T. Golombiewski (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 41– 61). New York: Marcel Dekker Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337–370. Jackson, S. E., & Maslach, C. (1982). After‐effects of job‐related stress: Families as victims. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 63-77. Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 630-640. Jackson, R. A. (1993). An analysis of burnout among School of Pharmacy faculty. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 57(1), 9-17. Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494-507. Kahill, S. (1988). Symptoms of professional burnout: A review of the empirical evidence. Canadian Psychology. 29(3): 284-297. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(2), 198-215. Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work– family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367. Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (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(2), 289-313. Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 112-128.

26

Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the relationship between work‐family conflict and burnout among construction professionals? Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 185-196. Lizano, E. L., Hsiao, H. Y., Mor Barak, M. E., & Casper, L. M. (2014). Support in the Workplace: Buffering the Deleterious Effects of Work–Family Conflict on Child Welfare Workers’ Well-Being and Job Burnout. Journal of Social Service Research, 40(2), 178-188. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99-113. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout new directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189-192. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of workto-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 215-232. Nippert-Eng, C. (1996, September). Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work”. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 563-582. Nippert-Eng, C. E. (2008). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago Press. Norlund, S., Reuterwall, C., Höög, J., Lindahl, B., Janlert, U., & Birgander, L. S. (2010). Burnout, working conditions and gender-results from the northern Sweden MONICA Study. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 326-334. Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Organizational work -family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process of workfamily conflict and enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 28-40. O'Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(4), 326-344. Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 432-445. 27

Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Lab. Rev., 103, 29-32. 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(2), 221-268. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6 Wright, T., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493. Ziekteverzuim volgens werknemers; arbeidsomstandigheden. (2014, december 16). Opgehaald van Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=82217NED&LA =NL

28

7. Appendices Appendix 1: Dutch employee questionnaire Afstemming thuis en werk Individuele stijlen en ondersteuning vanuit de organisatie. Tilburg, 1 juni 2015 Geachte heer/mevrouw, In 2013 heeft u meegewerkt aan het onderzoek ‘Afstemming Thuis en Werk’ van de Universiteit van Tilburg. U heeft destijds aangegeven deel te willen nemen aan een eventueel vervolgonderzoek, dit vervolgonderzoek vindt nu plaats. Mocht u na het lezen van deze brief nog vragen hebben dan kunt u contact opnemen met Sanne van Andel, Luuk Schartman en Marloes van Engen, de uitvoerders van het onderzoek (contactgegevens vindt u onderaan de brief). De onderzoeksvraag. Voor de meeste mensen geldt dat het combineren van betaald werk en de zorg voor (klein)kinderen en hulpbehoevende familieleden of kennissen een vanzelfsprekendheid geworden is. Het combineren van werk en thuis kan een bron van inspiratie zijn, maar ook een bron van stress. De Universiteit van Tilburg voert een onderzoek uit naar hoe medewerkers werk en thuis combineren, en hoe hen dit bevalt. In ons onderzoek zijn wij geïnteresseerd in welke aspecten van de werkomgeving belangrijk zijn voor een goede balans in het leven. Deze tweede meting is voor het onderzoek van groot belang. Door de gegevens van nu met deze van 2013 te vergelijken kunnen we beter vaststellen welke aspecten van het werk en thuis consequenties hebben voor het welbevinden van mensen op de lange termijn. Vertrouwelijkheid van de gegevens. De vragenlijsten worden verzameld voor wetenschappelijk onderwijs en onderzoek. Deelname aan het onderzoek is anoniem, de vragenlijsten worden vertrouwelijk behandeld. In de onderzoeksverslagen van de studenten worden geen namen van organisaties of personen genoemd. Procedure. U kunt op de volgende link klikken om naar de online vragenlijst te gaan. In de vragenlijst vindt u stellingen waarover u uw mening kunt geven. Daarnaast vindt u een paar algemene vragen over uw persoonlijke omstandigheden. Lees per onderdeel de bijbehorende instructie goed door. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 15 minuten. Onderzoeksrapport. Indien u geïnteresseerd bent in de onderzoeksresultaten kunt u contact opnemen met de uitvoerders van het onderzoek die u vervolgens een exemplaar van het rapport zullen opsturen. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor het invullen!

Sanne van Andel [email protected]

Luuk Schartman [email protected]

Dr. Marloes van Engen [email protected] Department Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University 29

Om te beginnen willen we u een aantal vragen stellen over uw huidige werksituatie. 1. Hoe lang bent u al in dienst van deze organisatie?

_____ jaar en_____ maanden

2. Voor hoeveel uur werk per week heeft u een contract?

_____ uur per week

3. Hoeveel uur werkt u feitelijk gemiddeld per week (inclusief betaalde en onbetaalde overuren)?

_____ uur per week

4. Bent u nog werkzaam in dezelfde organisatie als wanneer u deelnam aan het vorige onderzoek? Ja, ga verder naar vraag 7 Nee, ga verder naar vraag 5

5. Wat is de reden geweest voor het verlaten van de organisatie?

Einde contract Gestopt met werken vanwege: _____________________________ Ontslag vanwege: _____________________________

6. Bent u vaker dan 1 keer van werkgever gewisseld na deelname aan de vorige studie? Ja, ____ keer Nee

Landbouw en visserij Industrie Bouwnijverheid Handel Horeca Vervoer en communicatie Financiële instelling 7. In wat voor soort organisatie werkt u?

Commerciële dienstverlening Overheid Zorg Onderwijs en wetenschap Cultuur en recreatie Overig, namelijk: ___________

30

8. De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij voelt. Geef aan hoe vaak iedere uitspraak op u van toepassing is door steeds het best passende cijfer (van 1 – 5) in te vullen. 1 2 3 4 5

= Nooit = Zelden = Soms = Vaak = Heel vaak

Nooit 1

2

3

Heel vaak 5

4

A Ik voel me gefrustreerd door mijn baan. B Ik voel me opgebrand door mijn werk. C Ik voel me uitgeput aan het einde van de dag. D Ik voel me emotioneel uitgeput door mijn werk.

9. Tevredenheid van uw werk en organisatie. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Ik denk er wel eens over om van werkgever te veranderen.

B Ik ben van plan om komend jaar werk bij een andere organisatie te zoeken.

C Ik verwacht dat ik binnenkort bij een ander bedrijf werk.

10. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen die de cultuur van uw organisatie vertegenwoordigen (let op, het gaat hier NIET om uw persoonlijke overtuigingen, maar om wat u denkt dat de filosofie is van uw organisatie). 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Medewerkers die zeer toegewijd zijn aan hun familieleven, kunnen niet zeer toegewijd zijn aan hun werk. B Medewerkers zouden hun familieproblemen thuis moeten laten.

31

C De manier om hogerop te komen in deze organisatie is om familiezaken buiten het werk te houden. D Personen die vrij nemen om zorg te dragen voor familiezaken zijn niet toegewijd aan hun werk. E Er wordt verondersteld dat de meest productieve medewerkers degenen zijn die hun werk boven hun familieleven stellen.

11. Lees elk van de volgende stellingen zorgvuldig en beslis vervolgens in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elke stelling. Denk bij het beantwoorden van de items aan uw directe manager/ leidinggevende aan wie u rapporteert. 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Mijn leidinggevende is bereid om te luisteren naar mijn problemen met het combineren van werk en het leven buiten het werk. B Mijn leidinggevende neemt de tijd om zich te verdiepen in mijn persoonlijke behoeften. C Mijn leidinggevende stelt me op mijn gemak als het gaat over mijn conflicten tussen werk en familie. D Mijn leidinggevende is een goed rolmodel in het balanceren van werk en familie. E Mijn leidinggevende laat zien hoe werk en familie/leven effectief te combineren. F Mijn leidinggevende laat zien hoe een persoon zowel op als buiten het werk succesvol kan zijn. G Ik kan rekenen op mijn leidinggevende als ik hulp nodig heb met conflicten met betrekking tot het rooster. H Ik kan erop rekenen dat mijn leidinggevende ervoor zorgt dat mijn verantwoordelijkheden op het werk worden nagekomen als ik onverwachte familie verplichtingen heb. I Mijn leidinggevende werkt effectief met medewerkers samen om een creatieve oplossing te vinden voor conflicten tussen werk en familie. J Mijn leidinggevende denkt na over hoe het werk op de afdeling kan worden georganiseerd, zodat het zowel de medewerkers als de organisatie ten goede komt. K Mijn leidinggevende vraagt om suggesties om het voor medewerkers gemakkelijker te maken om werk- en familieverantwoordelijkheden te combineren.

32

L Mijn leidinggevende is in staat om de hele afdeling als een team te leiden, zodat aan ieders behoeften wordt voldaan.

12. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

4

Zeer eens 5

4

Zeer eens 5

A De ideale leidinggevende is als een ouder B Leidinggevenden weten het best wat goed is voor hun ondergeschikten C Leidinggevenden zouden ouderlijk advies en richting moeten geven aan hun ondergeschikten. D Leidinggevenden moeten voor hun ondergeschikten zorgen zoals zij voor hun kinderen zouden doen. E De ervaring en wijsheid van leidinggevenden zijn de beste richtlijn voor ondergeschikten.

13. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. = Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens A De verantwoordelijkheden van mijn werk hebben een storende invloed op mijn familieleven. 1 2 3 4 5

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

B Door de hoeveelheid tijd die mijn werk in beslag neemt, is het moeilijk om familie verantwoordelijkheden na te komen. C Dingen die ik thuis wil doen krijg ik niet gedaan vanwege de verplichtingen van mijn werk. D Mijn werk veroorzaakt spanning, welke het moeilijk maakt om te voldoen aan familieverantwoordelijkheden. E Vanwege werkverantwoordelijkheden, moet ik wijzigingen aanbrengen in mijn plannen voor familie activiteiten. F De eisen van mijn familie of partner hebben een storende invloed op mijn werk. G Ik moet dingen op mijn werk uitstellen vanwege de verantwoordelijkheden thuis.

33

H Familie gerelateerde spanningen hebben effect op mijn vermogen om mijn werkverantwoordelijkheden na te komen.

14. De volgende stellingen gaan over de invloed die uw baan heeft op uw familie leven. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. = Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens A U kunt thuis beter uw verantwoordelijkheden nakomen, omdat u dat op uw werk ook leert. 1 2 3 4 5

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

B U heeft na een plezierige werkdag/week meer zin om met uw partner/familie/vrienden activiteiten te ondernemen. C U kunt thuis beter functioneren in de omgang met uw partner/ familie/vrienden door dingen die u op het werk leert. D U kunt zich thuis beter aan afspraken houden, omdat dat op het werk ook van u gevraagd wordt. E U gaat op uw werk efficiënter met uw tijd om, omdat u de tijd thuis ook goed moet indelen. F U houdt zich op het werk beter aan afspraken, omdat dat thuis ook van u gevraagd wordt. G U voert met meer zelfvertrouwen uw werk uit, omdat u alles thuis goed geregeld heeft. H U komt op uw werk beter uw verantwoordelijkheden na, omdat u dat thuis ook moet doen. I U gaat thuis efficiënter met uw tijd om door de manier waarop u uw werk uitvoert. J U heeft meer plezier in uw werk na een plezierig weekend met uw partner/familie/vrienden.

15. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Mensen beschouwen mij als zeer gefocust op mijn werk. B Ik investeer een groot deel van mijzelf in mijn werk. C Ik bepaal zelf of ik in staat ben om werk- en familieleven gescheiden te houden.

34

D Ik bepaal of ik een duidelijke grens trek tussen mijn werk- en familieleven. E Ik bepaal zelf of ik werk- en familieactiviteiten combineer gedurende de dag. F Mensen beschouwen mij als zeer gefocust op mijn familieleven.

G Ik investeer een groot deel van mijzelf in mijn familieleven.

16. Rekening houdende met uw huidige familie- en werksituatie, geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. 1 2 3 4 5

= Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Ik regel familiezaken tijdens het werk. B Als ik op mijn werk ben beantwoord ik ook communicatie over privézaken (bijv. e-mail en telefoon). C Ik denk niet aan mijn familie, vrienden of privéaangelegenheden tijdens het werk, zodat ik mij kan focussen. D Wanneer ik vanuit huis werk, handel ik ook privé en familieverantwoordelijkheden af tijdens het werk. E Ik bekijk ook communicatie over privézaken (bijv. e-mail en telefoon) tijdens het werk. F Ik neem regelmatig werk mee naar huis. G Ik reageer op werk gerelateerde communicatie (zoals email en telefoon) tijdens mijn vrije tijd. H Ik werk tijdens mijn vakanties. I Als ik tijd doorbreng met mijn familie laat ik het toe dat werk mij onderbreekt. J Wanneer ik deelneem aan familieactiviteiten neem ik werkbenodigdheden (bijv. laptop of telefoon) mee.

17. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. 1 = Zeer oneens 2 = Oneens 3 = Neutraal 4 = Eens 5 = Zeer eens

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

A Over het algemeen lijdt het familieleven er onder wanneer een vrouw meer dan drie dagen per week werkt. 35

B Het hebben van een baan is de beste manier voor een vrouw om onafhankelijk te zijn. C Zowel de man als de vrouw zouden moeten bijdragen aan het familie-inkomen. D De taak van een man is om geld te verdienen; de taak van een vrouw is om voor het huishouden en de familie te zorgen. E Mannen zouden een groter deel van het huishoudelijk werk moeten doen dan dat ze nu doen. F Mannen zouden een groter deel van de zorg voor kinderen op zich moeten nemen dan dat ze nu doen.

De volgende vragen gaan over de mate waarin familie, vrienden of anderen u ondersteunen bij het huishouden en of de zorg voor kinderen en of zij dit betaald of onbetaald doen. 18. Heeft u familie (of Nee derden) de u wekelijks Ja, mijn ouder(s) helpen mij ___ uren/week betaald/onbetaald. helpen met uw Ja, mijn broer(s)/zus(sen) helpen mij ___ uur/week betaald/onbetaald. huishouden? Zo ja, Ja, andere familieleden (namelijk: ________________) helpen mij ___ uur/week geef aan in welke mate betaald/onbetaald. zij u helpen, betaald of Ja, derden (namelijk: _______________) helpen mij ___ uur/week onbetaald. betaald/onbetaald.

19. Heeft u Nee, ik zorg zelf voor mijn kinderen. familieleden (of Nee, ik maak alleen gebruik van officiële kinderopvang. derden) die u helpen Ja, mijn ouders helpen mij ____ uur/week betaald/onbetaald. met de zorg voor uw Ja, mijn broer(s)/zus(sen) helpen mij ____ uur/week betaald/onbetaald. kinderen? Zo ja, geef Ja, andere familieleden (namelijk: _______________) helpen mij ____ uur/week aan in welke mate zij u betaald/onbetaald. helpen, betaald of Ja, derden (namelijk:_________________) helpen mij ____ uur/week betaald/onbetaald. onbetaald.

De volgende vraag gaat over het ondernemen van activiteiten met (potentiele) klanten buiten kantooruren.

20. Onderneemt u activiteiten (dineren, sporten, vermaak) met mogelijke en huidige klanten buiten vastgestelde kantooruren (m.a.w. in de avonden, weekenden)? Zo ja, hoeveel uur per week spendeert u hier aan?

Nee Ja, ik spendeer ___ uur/week (of ___ uur/maand) aan lunchen of dineren met klanten Ja, ik spendeer ___ uur/week (of ___ uur/maand) aan sporten (vb. golf, tennis) met klanten Ja, ik spendeer ___ uur/week (of ___ uur/maand) aan elk mogelijk vermaak (vb. voetbalwedstrijden, theater, karaoke) met klanten Ja, ik spendeer ___ uur/week (of ___ uur/maand) aan _____________________ met klanten

36

Beschrijf uw mening over deze activiteiten buiten kantoor tijden (vb. stressvol, leuk, inefficiënt, veeleisend, etc.) 21. Geef aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met elk van de volgende stellingen. = Zeer oneens = Oneens = Neutraal = Eens = Zeer eens A Over het algemeen voel ik mij gelukkig. 1 2 3 4 5

Zeer oneens 1

2

3

Zeer eens 5

4

B Ik ben tevreden over hoe ik ben.

C Ik vind dat het leven verrijkend is.

D Ik ben tevreden over mijn leven.

E Ik vind dat ik er aantrekkelijk uit zie.

F Ik kan de schoonheid van dingen in zien.

G Ik haal voldoening uit de dingen die ik doe in het leven.

H Ik voel mij mentaal alert

I Ik heb gelukkige herinneringen aan vroeger.

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op demografische factoren. 22. Geslacht

Man

Vrouw

23. Leeftijd

___________

24. Nationaliteit

_____________________________

25. In welke land woont u momenteel?

_____________________________

26. Burgerlijke staat

Getrouwd/samenwonend Alleenstaand Gescheiden Weduwe/Weduwnaar LAT relatie

37

Ja, fulltime Ja, part-time Nee Niet van toepassing

27. Als u getrouwd/ samenwonend bent, heeft uw partner een betaalde baan?

Ja Nee

28. Woon je bij je ouders?

29. Kunt u aangeven voor hoeveel personen u de zorgverantwoordelijkheden draagt in elk van de volgende categorieën: Aantal A Kinderen jonger dan 3 jaar B Kinderen in de leeftijd van 3-5 jaar C Kinderen in de leeftijd van 6-12 jaar D Kinderen in de leeftijd van 13-18 jaar E Kinderen ouder dan 18 jaar F Personen met een handicap of ziekte waar u de zorg voor draagt. G Ouders of schoonouders waar u de zorg voor draagt

30. Kunt u aangeven hoeveel uur per week u spendeert aan ouderlijke taken (voeden, wassen, aankleden, huiswerk begeleiden, spelen, en andere activiteiten)? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 31. Verificatiecode Eerste letter van uw moeders achternaam

_______

Uw geboortejaar

_______

Eerste letter van uw vaders voornaam

_______

Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek!

38

Appendix 2: Factor loadings scales and items Table 8. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of FIWB time 1. Component A – I take care of personal and family needs during work B – I respond to personal communication (e.g. emails and phone calls) during work E – I monitor personal-related communications (e.g. emails and phone calls) when I am working. Eigenvalue Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .647 .729 .649 1.910 63.677 3

Table 9. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of FIWB time 2. Component A – I take care of personal and family needs during work B – I respond to personal communication (e.g. emails and phone calls) during work E – I monitor personal-related communications (e.g. emails and phone calls) when I am working. Eigenvalue Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .764 .893 .807 2.347 78.236 3

Table 10. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of FSSB time 1. Component A – Supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and nonwork life B – My supervisor takes time to learn about my personal needs C – My supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him/her about my conflicts between work and nonwork. D – My supervisor is a good role model for work and nonwork balance E – My supervisor demonstrates effective behaviors in how to juggle work and nonwork balance F – My supervisor demonstrates how a person can jointly be successful on and off the job G – I can depend on my supervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts if I need it I – My supervisor works effectively with workers to creatively solve conflicts between work and nonwork J – My supervisor thinks about how the work in my department can be organized to jointly benefit associates and the company K – My supervisor asks for suggestions to make it easier for employees to balance work and nonwork demands L – My supervisor is able to manage the department as a whole team to enable everyone’s needs to be met Eigenvalues Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .593

2 .370

.455 .821

.422 .210

.566 .470

.193 .412

.443

.219

.596

.382

.477

.610

.385

.660

.174

.777

.279

.616

5.236 47.601 7

1.069 9.715 4

39

Table 11. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of FSSB time 2. Component A – Supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and nonwork life B – My supervisor takes time to learn about my personal needs C – My supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him/her about my conflicts between work and nonwork. D – My supervisor is a good role model for work and nonwork balance E – My supervisor demonstrates effective behaviors in how to juggle work and nonwork balance F – My supervisor demonstrates how a person can jointly be successful on and off the job G – I can depend on my supervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts if I need it I – My supervisor works effectively with workers to creatively solve conflicts between work and nonwork J – My supervisor thinks about how the work in my department can be organized to jointly benefit associates and the company K – My supervisor asks for suggestions to make it easier for employees to balance work and nonwork demands L – My supervisor is able to manage the department as a whole team to enable everyone’s needs to be met Eigenvalues Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .603

2 .360

.512 .796

.365 .235

.583 .491

.176 .391

.487

.175

.639

.339

.414

.673

.367

.678

.163

.788

.261

.634

6.128 55.706 7

1.039 9.445 4

Table 12. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of burnout time 1. Component C – I feel frustrated by my job D – I feel burn out from my job G – I feel used up at the end of the day H – I feel emotionally drained by my work Eigenvalue Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .701 .851 .721 .838 2.815 70.372 4

Table 13. Factor loadings for Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation of burnout time 2. Component C – I feel frustrated by my job D – I feel burn out from my job G – I feel used up at the end of the day H – I feel emotionally drained by my work Eigenvalue Percentage of total variance Number of test measures

1 .648 .853 .744 .798 2.736 68.408 4

Note. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface.

40