Exploring the moderating effect of susceptibility to emotional contagion in the crossover of work–family conflict in supervisor–subordinate dyads in India
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0139 |
Published date | 02 August 2019 |
Date | 02 August 2019 |
Pages | 1336-1356 |
Author | Rupashree Baral,Pavithra Sampath |
Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
Exploring the moderating effect of
susceptibility to emotional
contagion in the crossover of
work–family conflict in supervisor–
subordinate dyads in India
Rupashree Baral and Pavithra Sampath
Department of Management Studies, IIT Madras,
Chennai, India
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to study the applicability of a crossover model of work–family
conflict (WFC) in the work setting among supervisor–subordinate dyads. It examines the positive association
between supervisor’s WFC and subordinate’s WFC and analyses the moderating effect of subordinate’s
susceptibility to emotional contagion (SEC).
Design/methodology/approach –Data were gathered usinga questionnaire survey method and tested in
193 matched supervisor–subordinatedyads from select organisationsrepresenting the servicessector in India.
Findings –The authors found a significant direct crossover path from the supervisor to his/her
subordinate’s WFC. The effect of supervisor reported WFC on subordinate reported WFC was found to be
strong when the subordinate displayed higher SEC with his/her supervisor.
Research limitations/implications –Examining the crossover of WFC contributes to theory by
broadening crossover research to include transmission of negative experiences in the work context. This
study significantly adds to emotional contagion theory by substantiating the existence of WFC contagion in
supervisor–subordinate dyads. Given the constraints of cross-sectional research design, future research
should replicate these findings using a larger sample in other cultural contexts as well to generalise the
results. Future research should consider using longitudinal data and including information from both the
supervisor and the subordinates collected at different points in time. Crossover of positive work–family
experiences (e.g. work–family enrichment) and the role of other individual difference variables such as the
personality of the subordinates, empathy, etc., could also be considered.
Practical implications –Supervisors should be advised of the potential adverse effects of their WFC and
organisations should be made cognizance of the impact that the WFC of employees can have on their job
outcomes. Organisations should provide the required formal and informal support to their employees to deal
with their WFC efficiently.
Originality/value –This study has attempted to examine the crossover of WFC in supervisor–subordinate
dyads and the potential effect of one of the individual difference variables namely SEC. To the best of the
authors knowledge, it has rarely been examined earlier.
Keywords Work–family conflict, Work-life balance, Emotional contagion, Supervisor–subordinate dyad
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Maintaining a healthy balance between work and non-work life has become a matter of
strategic concern to employers as well as employees. Need to maintain the balance has
been fuelled by several factors. Some of these are: 24/7 business hours and associated
workload, economic situation that requires most families to strengthen their financial
power by working extensively, technological advancements and related downsides,
changing demographics and social landscape with increased number of women in the
workforce and dual-earner families, etc. (Adisa et al., 2017; Bianchi and Milkie, 2010;
Fu and Schaffer, 2001). Research on the work–family interface and its outcomes especially
work–family conflict (WFC) has gained significant attention from researchers across the
world because of its profound impact on the individuals, families as well as organisations.
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 5, 2019
pp. 1336-1356
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0139
Received 4 May 2017
Revised 25 December 2017
6 May 2018
23 November 2018
Accepted 19 February 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1336
PR
48,5
Employees who experience heightened WFC report higher stress, health complaints,
burnout, fatigue, depression, lowered job satisfaction, organisational commitment and
marital quality (Allen et al., 2000; Amstad et al., 2011; Bianchi and Milkie, 2010; Rabenu
et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2012).
Studies on WFC are aplenty that addresses several research questions regarding its
antecedents, consequences and mechanisms through which it affects employee work
outcomes (Allen et al., 2000; Amstad et al., 2011; Bianchi and Milkie, 2010; Eby et al., 2005; Fu
and Schaffer, 2001). Scholars in the work–family domain rely on models such as
segmentation, compensation and spillover, to characterise the process by which work and
family are linked (cf. Westman, 2001). While examining the process of transference of
emotional states from one domain (e.g. work) to the other (e.g. family) and one person to the
other, scholars, primarily have used spillover and crossover models, respectively (Bakker
et al., 2009; Steiner and Krings, 2016, Westman, 2001, 2002). Spillover is a within-person
across domains transmission of strain from one area of life to another whereas crossover
involves transfer across individuals, where the demands and their consequent strain
crossover between closely related persons (e.g. from one partner to another partner in a
dyad) (Westman, 2001). Using the crossover model, a majority of studies have examined the
crossover of stress, strain, burnout and engagement ( for a review, see Bakker et al., 2009;
Steiner and Krings, 2016; Westman, 2001). Spillover and crossover of WFC within married
couples also has received substantial attention from scholars (Steiner and Krings, 2016;
Abeysekera and Gahan, 2017; Cinamon et al., 2007; Hammer et al., 1997; Ho et al., 2013; Liu
and Cheung, 2015; Lu et al., 2016; Westman and Etzion, 2005; Zhang et al., 2013). People are
part of the social system, and each member is linked to other members. Presumably, change
in one will bring change in the other and crossover is likely in workplaces where job
incumbents work in close cooperation (Bakker et al., 2009). Accordingly, researchers
have investigated the crossover phenomenon in the workplaces and found a significant
crossover of job stress, strain, burnout and engagement among members working in an
organisational context (Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2016; Westman
and Bakker, 2008; Westman and Etzion, 1999). A handful of research has examined the
crossover of work–family experiences from one member to another in a work context
(e.g. Carlson et al., 2011; Pavithra and Baral, 2017; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2010;
van Emmerik and Peeters, 2009; Westman and Etzion, 1999). Examination of crossover
of WFC in the context of workplace precisely between supervisors and subordinates
and it is consequences needs more attention from researchers given the rise of jobs
involving teamwork (Carlson et al., 2011; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2010; van Emmerik
and Peeters, 2009).
Collectivist cultures such as India, China and Sri Lanka observe a typical
supervisor–subordinate relationship at the workplace (Kailasapathy et al., 2014; Lu et al.,
2016) compared to the western countries such as the USA and Australia (Hofstede, 1997 ).
In individualistic cultures, individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their
immediatefamilies. In collectivistcultures, peopleprefer for a tightly knit frameworkin society
in whichindividuals can expecttheir relatives or membersof a particular in-groupto look after
them in exchange for theirloyalty (Hofstede, 1997).Indian professionalshave great associative
and nurturingneeds (Hui et al., 2004) and they look for a supportive work environment (Varma
et al., 2005) although they respect hierarchy because of high-power distance. Superior in a
collectivist culture like India acts as a guru (teacher), father or mother, who takes care of the
work-related issues and tries to resolve the related non-work problems of the subordinates
(Baral and Bhargava, 2010; Krishnan, 2011; Varma et al., 2005). In high-power distanceculture
like India, having a supportive leader who provides support, flexibility and resources for
managing work–family demands of subordinates is highly critical (Kailasapathy et al., 2014).
Therefore, in such contexts, leaders take extra efforts to support, nurture, guide and care for
1337
WFC in
supervisor–
subordinate
dyads
To continue reading
Request your trial